And God said Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." Genesis 1: 20
The first thing we need to address is what is meant by the waters". Genesis tells us that at the end of the six days there was still no water on the Earth at least not water in liquid form because God had not caused it to rain upon the earth ..." Genesis 2: 5 So the waters" must be symbolic. In the first three days" Genesis uses the word waters" to describe the life-giving properties of matter during its various stages of transformation. Furthermore Day Three is clearly an account of the creation of primitive DNA structures that act as a blueprint for life that was to follow. As Philo says this primitive DNA reflected incorporeal ideas perceptible only by the intellect which have been appointed to be as seals of the perfected works perceptible by the outward senses."1 Nothing happened in Day Four that altered the basic structure of matter and energy as at the end of Day Three. So it would be entirely consistent with the use of the word waters" throughout Genesis Chapter 1 that the waters" in Day Five refer to the primitive DNA which had seeded" the matter making up the early Earth and its atmosphere. In other words the waters" refer to all the elements that had formed together into the mass of matter that was becoming the Earth as well as the primitive DNA structures that were created in whatever supernova was responsible for our galaxy. The next thing to note in this verse is how God is said to have initiated the process of creating the more advanced life. It says this: And God said LET THE WATERS BRING FORTH …" That wording is the same as Day Three except Day Three says Let the earth bring forth …" Genesis 1: 11. Day Six uses the same wording as Day Three And God said Let the earth bring forth …" Genesis 1: 24 This wording in which an instruction is given for something else (earth or waters) to take the next step in creation applies only when life in some form is said to be created (the exception being the creation of man"). That is different to the account of the creation of other things where God is not said to use something already existing as a medium for the next step in creation. When the creation of life is not involved we find the words And God said Let there be …" The distinction is clear. When the account relates to the transformation of the quantum laws to the Classical laws of physics the wording implies a direct intervention. In contrast when the account relates to a transformation of inanimate matter into life and primitive life into more advanced life the structure of matter itself is said to have done the heavy lifting. This distinct description of the creation of life is entirely consistent with new scientific understanding of the origin of life. In the Update to my article on Day Three I made reference to new research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The research is being done by the physicist Jeremy English and was reported in Quanta Magazine. Essentially English devised a mathematical formula" which he believes shows that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere) it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life." Although it should not distract us here the theory is based on the second law of thermodynamics. The reason I referred to this research in my Update to Day Three is that it is most relevant to the initial creation of DNA described in my article on Day Three. However it is also relevant to Day Five because the process of creating the initial basic structures of life also applies to the initial basic DNA restructuring itself into more advanced life. And as the reference makes clear the heat source" and the heat bath" that initiate and propagate the process dont have to be the Earth as we know it today. As long as the source" and the bath" are susceptible to the second law of thermodynamics operating then the process must be able to take place. And as we saw in the article on Day Three there is clear evidence that such processes take place right across the universe where the conditions are right. Although English claims the process is inevitable as a simple matter of probability" it may not be as simple as that. The reason that particles and atoms behave in a certain way is that they have the necessary properties to do so. That is they are programmed to behave in certain ways in certain environments. But more remarkably living structures in the form of DNA appear to know in advance what sort of environment they will encounter in the future. And we find evidence of that in research on the human genome. An article by Michael Hanlon in the Telegraph of London in 2012 reported that The Encode Project a multinational 5 year study to analyze the 98 of human DNA that does not constitute a protein-creating gene (classified previously as Junk DNA) has now discovered that this DNA is not junk at all … and … that as much as a fifth of it is instead made up of switches" bits of DNA that turn some genes on and others off."2 As Hanlon notes human beings are not much more well endowed genetically than a fruit fly or even a lump of yeast." However he goes on to say that … the more we learn about our genome the more complex it becomes. We have genes that tell our bodies to make proteins genes that affect other genes genes that are influenced by the environment segments of DNA that switch certain genes on and off as well as RNA the still-not-fully understood messenger molecule that conveys information from our DNA to protein factories in cells." And furthermore DNA also consists of pseudogenes non-functioning copies of active genes that form the raw material for evolution - sort of reserve genes waiting to be switched on. Although the Encode Project was looking at human DNA the same principles apply to animal DNA. This shows that DNA is somehow programmed to know what it will encounter in the future and prepares the mechanisms to respond to those eventualities. Whether the reserve genes are pre-programmed to develop certain characteristics as they encounter certain environments or whether DNA somehow knows how and with what those reserve genes need to be programmed when certain environments are encountered is not important. Either way DNA seems to know which switches to operate in order to activate (or program) the reserve genes necessary to respond to the different environments it appears to know it will encounter at some point in the future. That accords perfectly with what we noted about the words And God said …" in the article on Day Four. Those words have been consistently used to represent a manipulation of probabilities with the objective of creating a desired result. Day Five is telling us that the primitive DNA structures that had seeded" the early Earth underwent a modification that enabled them to respond to the future environment they were soon to encounter. And that environment would be planet Earth in a form more similar to the one we see today; a planet with liquid water and a life-supporting atmosphere. The primitive DNA was being programmed to respond to its intended future environment. Like the particles in the delayed-choice experiments we could say that its as though the primitive DNA had a premonition of the future Earth they would encounter farther downstream and were adjusting accordingly."3 Genesis is telling us that the primitive DNA knew what was coming and adapted itself accordingly. So the waters" have a kind of double meaning: they refer to the properties of primitive DNA that were being programmed to develop into more advanced life once they encountered liquid water; and it means that the first advanced life on Earth was destined (or programmed) to emerge from water which of course it did so far as we know. But even so we should always bear in mind that these chemical reactions which underlie the creation and functioning of DNA are a consequence of the principles that determine the behavior of fundamental particles. As Steven Weinberg says We believe that atoms behave the way they do in chemical reactions because the physical PRINCIPLES that govern the electrons and electric forces inside atoms leave NO FREEDOM for the atoms to behave in any other way."4 Martin Rees puts it this way: Mathematical laws underpin the fabric of our universe not just atoms but galaxies stars and people. The properties of atoms … determine the chemistry of our everyday world. … And everything takes place in the arena of an expanding universe whose properties were imprinted into it at the time of the initial Big Bang."5 The next verse follows the familiar sequence by introducing the second stage of what we could call the quantum effect as seen in the delayed-choice experiments the intended result as expressed in the instructions following the words And God said …" are implemented. In this verse God is said to do those things He previously said should be done.And God created great whales and every living creature that moveth which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." Genesis 1: 21
Following the usual pattern the words And God saw that it was good" lock in so to speak the programming that had taken place. But in the case of the creation of more advanced life we have a very significant addition to the normal sequence of events. God is now said to speak to what He had just created:And God blessed them SAYING Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas and let fowl multiply in the earth." Genesis 1:22 my emphasis on saying
This is a very significant verse in respect of the issue of evil and will become even more significant when we contrast it to the words God is said to have spoken to human beings in Day Six. That is why I have emphasized the word saying". The reason is that verse 21 refers to the physical composition of the creatures God is said to create whales and every living creature that moveth …"; whereas verse 22 clearly refers to the composition of the brain and how it is programmed. In verse 22 God is said to speak when He blesses the creatures He has just created. And speaking implies a neurological process or activity. But when God is said to bless the creatures He does not speak to them instead he blesses them SAYING …" By contrast when God is said to create the male and female" we find these words: And God blessed them and God SAID UNTO THEM …" That is an important distinction because there is a very big difference between simply saying" something and speaking to someone in particular. We experience this in every-day life. We often simply say something to no one in particular or even to ourselves. Most people with pets will speak to their pets. For example if we take food out for the dog we may say something like there you are eat that it will keep your fur shiny." Of course we dont expect that the dog understands what we are saying and we certainly do not expect to hold an intelligent conversation with the dog. Contrast that with what happens when we speak to our children. Even from an early age we speak to our children because we know that they have the capacity to come to understand what we are saying to them. We speak to our children in a very different way to the way we speak to our pets. And as the children acquire a capacity to understand and respond we hold intelligent conversations with them. In both cases however there is an element of reason going on. And that is clearly what Genesis is referring to. In the case of animals they are being programmed with a limited ability to reason. They learn that when we come out at certain times of the day they will eat. In the wild that limited ability to reason is applied to determine the most likely places to find food and the most effective way to hunt. So the use of the word saying" clearly refers to a programming of animals with a limited ability to reason. And we find that limitation in the next verse which is key to properly understanding the human condition:Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas and let fowl multiply in the earth." Genesis 1: 22
Animals are being programmed with primitive INSTINCTS - reproductive and survival instincts. In order to be fruitful and multiply" there must be some mechanism to attract one sex of the species to the other. And in order to sustain their existence they need to survive; and for that they need to eat. Furthermore for the species to multiply" they also have to ensure the survival of their offspring so they need a strong instinct to protect their young. So verse 22 refers to the programming of DNA so that animals have basic reproductive and survival instincts and a limited ability to reason; and the fact is that animals do have such instincts and they do have a limited ability to reason in order to work out how they can most effectively service those instincts. That is the meaning of Day Five and it just happens to be what Jeremy English believes his new theory demonstrates. As he says a great way of dissipating more energy is to make more copies of yourself."Conclusion
So Day Five sees the creation of DNA that will produce the initial animal life but only once the Earth had stabilized to an environment containing water and the right atmosphere. Further the act of God blessing and speaking to the life created symbolizes the programming of DNA with primitive instincts and a limited ability to reason. The limited ability to reason also implies a limited capacity to communicate. And our everyday experience of animals confirms that fact. As we shall see in the next article it is this interaction between reason and primitive instinct that forms the basis of what we call evil. In essence reason in the service of primitive instinct portends to evil. At this point I should briefly address what is known as Satan. It would be remiss of me not to. I make no judgment about the existence or otherwise of a malevolent being. The analysis I set out does not require such a being but neither does it preclude one. It does not require one because human beings on the analysis of Genesis are more than capable of inflicting unspeakable atrocities on each other when their reason is in service of their primitive instincts. And it doesnt preclude one because like unscrupulous hackers who make our technological lives hell if there is such a malevolent being he could easily tempt us to put our reason in the service of our primitive instincts with the promise of the pleasure or elimination of fear that would facilitate. In the next article we will deal with Day Six the culmination on the creation story; and the intended final cosmic product human beings. And more important it will fully explain the phenomenon good and evil. -------------------------------------------------------------- This series of articles is based on the book A Final Theory of God by Joseph BH McMillan. 