What we saw in Day Five was the start of the re-establishment of the principles of quantum physics which had been subsumed into the Classical laws in the previous Days.
That statement may require some clarification.
We should recall that the first three Days of Genesis explained how the laws of quantum physics
morphed" into the deterministic ordered and predictable world of Classical physics giving us the physical universe of inanimate objects we see all around us; a world of physical objects lacking the kind of freedom of choice inherent in the quantum laws of physics.
But when we get to Day Five we find that animals are said to be programmed with a limited ability to make choices. But that freedom is limited to applying reason to service their primitive instincts.
And now when we get to Day Six and human beings we see the freedom inherent in the quantum laws being fully reinstated.
But first Day Six deals with a continuation of the creation of animals that started in Day Five.
Verses 24 and 25 again have the three-stage creation. First there are the words
And God said Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."
Second comes the actual making of those things
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind and cattle after their kind and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: …"
And
third we have the words
and God saw that it was good." We have an
observation.
However there appears to be a major omission here; the words
And God blessed them saying …" do not appear. The reason for that omission is that the life which emerges from
the earth" is a continuation of the life that was created in Day Five. But by putting this element of the creation into the same
day" as the creation of human DNA clearly Genesis is telling us that some of the DNA that had been programmed in Day Five had in fact been programmed to manifest itself at a later stage closer to when the DNA that was to become the human genome was programmed to emerge.
In other words the programming of the DNA that was to become the land animals was actually done in Day Five but could only manifest itself in the form intended once it encountered the right kind of land environment. That is made clear by the words
And God created … every living creature that moveth …" in verse 21 of Day Five. That would have included what was to become the basic DNA of all animals.
So including the creation of
the beast of the earth after his kind and cattle after their kind and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind …" in Day Six demonstrates that those creatures would emerge shortly before human beings.
Then come human beings and we find these well known verses.
And God said Let us make man in our image after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Genesis 1: 26
So God created man in his own image in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Genesis 1: 27
The first obvious point to note is the words
Let us make man …" There is still the expression of an intended objective but these words are very different to the preceding creation. Days One and Two had the words
Let there be …" Those words signified a qualitative change in matter and energy which already existed. Day Three then has the words
Let the waters …
be gathered together …" and
Let the earth bring forth …" These words signify a manipulation of what had resulted from the qualitative change to matter and energy in Days One and Two. Day Four then reverts to the words
Let there be …" As we have seen Day Four is a sort of duplication of Day One but in the microcosm of our solar system.
Then Day Five and the first part of Day Six revert to the words found in Day Three
Let the waters …" and
Let the earth …" Again as we have seen these words signify a transformation of the pre-existing DNA so as to accommodate itself to the environment that would emerge on Earth.
But in the case of
man" the situation is very different. By creating man
in the image of God" it is clear that the accommodation in the first instance is not to the environment but to God Himself. In other words
man" was intended to have a purpose beyond simply an ability to
Be fruitful and multiply". When the author/s of Genesis described
man" as being created in
the image" of
their Creator clearly they intended to impart the idea that
man" would assume responsibility for those matters over which God Himself would otherwise have had power and that
man" would be endowed with the wisdom and knowledge to carry out those responsibilities which were being assigned to them if they chose to make use of that wisdom and knowledge for the purpose intended.
As we shall see the
image of God" in these verses thus clearly refers to
man" being programmed with a moral aptitude. But this is not some kind of flexible ability to adapt moral perceptions to new environments; it is a set of absolute moral principles which are being imprinted into the DNA which would determine the structure of the human brain or mind. Those moral principles as we shall see are humanitys moral compass which enables human beings to chart their moral destiny.
They act as a window into Gods Law and Gods will.
So lets dissect verse 26 into its various parts. First we need to consider the opening words
And God said Let us make man in our image after our likeness."
This is what Philo says about those words:
So then after all the other things as has been said before Moses says that man was made in the image and likeness of God. And he says well; for nothing that is born on the earth is more resembling God than man. And let no one think that he is able to judge of this likeness from the characters of the body: for neither is God a being with the form of a man nor is the human body like the form of God; but the resemblance is spoken of with reference to the most important part of the soul namely the mind: for the mind which exists in each individual has been created after the likeness of that one mind which is in the universe as its primitive model being in some sort the God of that body which carries it about and bears its image within it."
1
So according to Philo the
image of God" relates to the mind or we should better say today the brain. But Philo goes further. He asserts that this
image" imprinted in the brain or mind is a manifestation of the entire creation. This is what he says:
Accordingly he Moses when recording the creation of man in words which follow asserts expressly that he was made in the image of God--and if the image be a part of the image then manifestly so is the entire form namely the whole of this world perceptible by the external senses which is a greater imitation of the divine image than the human form is."
2
But we should be careful not to construe the brain (mind) as a whole as the
image of God" because as we shall see parts of the brain are also used for other purposes purposes moreover as far removed from anything resembling morality as we could get.
So we are really talking about some element of the make-up of the brain that reflects what the Creator wanted it to reflect. Its like a painter. First he or she sees an image of some feeling or thought they want to portray. They want to express part of something within themselves. So they first get all their materials ready and mixed prepare the canvas then they apply the brush strokes. The resulting image is an expression of something within themselves; expressed in the physical form of a painting. The physical painting is the likeness of the original image whereas the sentiment expressed in the painting is the image of the inner-most stirrings of the artist.
And we see something similar in Genesis. Each stage of creation starts with an expression of an intention
And God said …"
Then there follows the actual doing or carrying out of the intention
And there was light" …
And God made …" …
and it was so;" …
And the Earth brought forth …;" and so on.
And finally God
observes what has been created and gives it His seal of approval
And God saw that it was good."
It is this latter wording that brings the laws of physics and the laws of morality together. The final convergence of the various intentions makings and observations culminate in the reflection of the Creator who initiated the whole process. The entire creation was an unfolding of certain laws that would in their final incarnation reflect the expressed intention of God something that encompasses
good".
In other words the universe is an expression of Gods Will which reveals itself in the laws of physics or according to Genesis Gods laws. And the ultimate manifestation of that will and those laws is a human organism or in this case the DNA which would become the physical form of a human being. However the ultimate manifestation of Gods Will and Gods law is limited to that part of the human mind that is endowed with the laws of morality. The
image of God" is thus reflected in some physical structure within the human brain and it is that physical structure that reveals the
likeness" of God.
Many other verses of the Bible confirm the idea that Gods Law or Gods Kingdom is part of the human mind. Deuteronomy declares that the commandments which are written in the
book of the law" are not
hidden" from us nor are they
in heaven" nor
beyond the sea"; instead
the word is very nigh unto thee in thy mouth and in thy heart that thou mayest do it."
3
And Christ said:
Neither shall they say Lo here! or lo there! for behold the kingdom of God is WITHIN YOU."
4
Even the
Gentiles" are so programmed according to the apostle Paul:
For the Gentiles which have not the law do by nature the things contained in the law … which shows the work of the law written in their hearts their consciences also bear witness to the law."
5
But in the Genesis account of the creation of
man" in the
image of God" there is an even more powerful indication in these verses that the
image" refers to morality. And that is found in the remarkable way that Genesis introduces the plural when it comes to the creation of
man." The words are these:
Let US make man in OUR image after OUR likeness: and let THEM …"
That expression of intention is then put into effect with these words:
So God created man in HIS own image in the image of God created he HIM; MALE and FEMALE created he THEM."
So in the expression of intention we have reference to the plural when God says
Let US make man in OUR image after OUR likeness …" whereas when it comes to actually creating the
man" it reverts in the first instance to the singular
So God created man in HIS OWN image in the image of GOD created he HIM …"
Philo says this about those verses:
very beautifully after he had called the whole race man did he distinguish between the sexes saying that they were created male and female."
6
Male and female created HE THEM."
At the very heart of any notion of morality lies the relationship between two people a man and a woman and their joining together to create new life a new human being which is in their genetic image and likeness. Only an imbecile would claim that the act of creating and bringing into this world a new human life does not attach any obligations to the two people who by their
own voluntary act create new human life.
Even the Arch-Utilitarian John Stuart Mill said this about the creation of new human life:
It is not in the matter of education only that misplaced notions of liberty prevent moral obligations on the part of parents from being recognised and legal obligations from being imposed where there are the strongest grounds for the former always and in many cases for the latter also. The fact itself of causing the existence of a human being is one of the most responsible actions in the range of human life. To undertake this responsibility - to bestow a life which may be either a curse or a blessing - unless the being on whom it is bestowed will have at least the ordinary chances of a desirable existence is a crime against that being.
7
Now at first sight it may be tempting to link the words
male and female" to the words
Let us make …" and conclude that the latter words mean that God had a female partner or even that God Himself was male. But the words preceding
male and female" as we have seen revert to the singular when referring to God and indeed
man"
in the image of God created HE (God) HIM (man); …" Only then come the words
male and female created he (God) them (male and female)."
But this all begins to make sense when we recognize that the
image and likeness" of God refers to the manifestation of
Gods will in a universe governed by the
laws God put in place to determine how it functions. That has been the message of Genesis since the start.
So the distinction between the sexes when it comes to human beings must have a moral significance. Animals also reproduce in the main by male and female joining together but Genesis does not refer to animals being created male and female anywhere in Days Five or Six.
We also see that Christ said that the concept of
male and female" is something integral to the laws which constitute the universe itself. When tempted by the Pharisees about divorce Christ replied:
Have you not read that which he God made them AT THE BEGINNING made them male and female And said for this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh. What God hath joined together let not man put asunder. … Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but FROM THE BEGINNING it was not so."
8
So the Biblical interpretation even through the New Testament clearly links the words
male and female" to a fundamental moral principle which was established
from the beginning."
So what exactly does use of the plural mean in verse 26 because it is the only place that it is found in Genesis in respect of God creating anything?
The answer must lie in the various means God is said to employ in the creation.
As we have seen Genesis starts with
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Everything that was to be created thereafter was to come from these two things in scientific terminology matter and space.
But to transform the material that was there at the beginning God is said to have employed His spirit
And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
The third element comes in God speaking
And God said …" We should note that this wording is different from the first words of Genesis which simply say
God created …"
Psalm 33 puts it this way:
By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth."
9
So what we see is that when it comes to the creation of
man" ALL the methods God employed in the creation of the universe are brought to bear
God Himself the
spirit of God" and the
word of God" as reflected in the words
And God said …"
In the Christian tradition this is called the Holy Trinity God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.
Philo has a slightly different interpretation of the use of the plural in this verse. His argument is that since God can only create that which is
good" and since certain elements of human nature are not
good" God had to resort to others when it came to creating those elements of human nature. He says this:
It is on this account that Moses says at the creation of man alone that God said Let us make man which expression shows an assumption of other beings to himself as assistants in order that God the governor of all things might have all the blameless intentions and actions of man when he does right attributed to him; and that his other assistants might bear the imputation of his contrary actions. For it was fitting that the Father should in the eyes of his children be free from all imputation of evil; and vice and energy in accordance with vice are evil."
10
Philo does not say who he thinks Gods
other assistants" might be.
I do not consider Philos interpretation of these words to be correct because as we shall see what Philo considers are those elements of human nature that tend to evil or vice are not in themselves wrong. In fact they are essential for human survival: they are human
instinct and human
reason. It is only when
reason is applied to service those instincts in violation of the
moral law" that the actions become wrong or evil. And when it comes to programming human DNA with reason and instincts God is not said to have resorted to
other assistants" He does it Himself.
So we see that the final manifestation of all these elements of God being brought together in the final act of creation is not a physical man and a physical woman but the
image of God" as
male and female"
male and female" representing the moral nature of what human DNA was being endowed with. The
image and likeness" of God can only thus refer to a moral law being embedded into human DNA and
male and female" representing the very origin and heart of morality.
As we shall see the Ten Commandments speak to precisely such a foundation to the moral principles they enunciate. Man free of the authority or
bondage" of his fellow man subject only to the laws of God and the joining together of a man and a woman to create new human life as the foundation of all other moral principles.
The
male and female" as the foundation of all other moral principles is best put by Philo when he considers the Fifth Commandment
Honour thy father and thy mother."
11 He puts it this way:
The nature of ones parents appears to be something on the confines between immortal and mortal essences. Of mortal essence on account of their relationship to men and also to other animals and likewise of the perishable nature of the body. And of immortal essence by reason of the similarity of the act of generation to God the Father of the universe."
12
But then the question is whether science recognizes such a programming of human DNA and thus the human brain with any such moral precepts?
And the answer is yes although neuroscience is still in its infancy when it comes to this element of human DNA and the brain.
IVF pioneer Sir Robert Winston says that the human brain has
a sort of morality module … that is activated at an early age. Evidence from neuroscience would back this up to a degree."
13
But if the human brain has such a
morality module" then it is clear that it is an integral part of human DNA and human DNA is the product of the fundamental laws of physics which in turn are determined by the properties of fundamental particles which themselves are subject to the laws of quantum mechanics.
As we have seen Weinberg says this about DNA:
no one doubts that with a large enough computer we could in principle explain all the properties of DNA by solving the equations of quantum mechanics for electrons and the nuclei of a few common elements whose properties are explained in turn by the standard model."
14
The genetic makeup of human DNA is thus an image of the laws of physics and more particularly the properties of fundamental particles. And the properties of fundamental particles are determined by quantum mechanics
probability and
observation.
So if as Winston claims the human brain has embedded within it a
morality module" that module is an expression of those laws which determined the physical structure of the brain itself. But more remarkably it is an expression of those fundamental laws of physics or some core part of those laws not in terms of numbers and equations but in terms of moral principles that we can see in terms of words.
Genesis thus plots for us the process that established the universe we see around us as well as the process which enables us to see around us in the first place. But it also plots the process by which we are able to see within ourselves to see the moral foundation of the universe and the
moral law" in whose image we are created. And that
moral law" is embedded into the human brain as a
morality module"; a module that is the final manifestation of the fundamental laws which created it and which it is.
That is why
we can no more create the laws of morality than we create the laws of physics; we can only discover them. And the reason is that they are the same thing. An expression of Gods will in the form of fundamental principles and laws.
And even if we leave God out of the picture any
morality module" can only be the manifestation of the fundamental laws of physics which means that the final manifestation of those laws must be moral.
The argument that we invent moral principles to adapt to our social environment cant get around the problem because that must mean that human DNA must have known that it should prepare itself with a moral aptitude (and genes) to prepare to adapt to the social environment it may
encounter downstream". Humanitys relentless quest for
justice speaks to a moral stirring within human beings to express the moral law which is embedded within the brain.
So again the only difference between science and Genesis is whether human morality like the universe and life itself is some improbable cosmic aberration of no special significance or whether it is central to human existence as being a manifestation of the will and law of a Creator.
Although this moral dimension to the creation of
man" is of course central to the creation process it is not the whole story.
The second part of the intention expressed in verse 26 is this:
and let them humans have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
However when this stated intention is put into effect we have wording that we have not seen before. In the case of the creation of life in Day Five after the stated intention we have the actual making of what was intended:
And God created great whales etc …." Thereafter we have the words
And God Blessed them SAYING …" And we saw in the analysis of Day Five that such wording symbolized the programming of animal DNA with a limited capacity to reason and communicate and the basic instincts animals needed to survive and perpetuate.
In the case of humans there is a subtle but fundamental difference.
After
man" is created in Gods
image" and created
male and female" which as we have seen symbolizes human DNA being programmed with a
morality module" we have these words:
And God blessed them and God said unto them Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over every thing that moveth upon the earth."
15
The crucial words have been highlighted in bold.
First we should note the difference in how God is said to speak to animals and humans. In the case of animals Genesis uses the word
SAYING" whereas in the case of humans (
male and female") the words used are
UNTO THEM". The words
unto them" clearly imply a greater level of understanding between the one doing the speaking (God) and those He is speaking to (
male and female" humans).
So the first thing these words clearly symbolize is human DNA being programmed with a considerably higher ability to reason as well as a considerably higher degree of communication skills. Talking to someone is very different to simply saying something. As we saw in the example given in respect of Day Five one version is like saying something to your pet whereas the other is like talking to your children.
In the next verse we find God again speaking to what He had created:
And God said Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of the earth and every tree yielding seed; and to you it shall be for meat."
16
Here the words are even more explicit in that they depict a level of explanation and reasoning when God says
Behold I have given you …" It assumes that what is being communicated is being understood by those to whom it is being communicated and that requires an ability to reason so as to comprehend what is being said and an ability to receive that communication.
There can be no other explanation for the different use of words in respect of humans and animals.
Human DNA was being programmed with the ability to reason and to communicate. Whether that programming involved a specific gene or series of genes or whether it involved programming existing genes to know that these abilities would be required in the future and so to prepare reserve genes (or psuedogenes) is not really important. The fact is that human beings do have these abilities. And even if geneticists claim that it is a result of evolution then as the article on the Encode Project shows human DNA would have to have had the ability to know that it should prepare itself with reserve genes which could form the basis from which the DNA could evolve to accommodate the future environment it would encounter.
But even if human DNA only has this evolutionary knowledge that it should ready itself for some future environment which it can foresee and so knows what genes to make to respond to that environment that in itself would be quite a remarkable matter DNA that knows about the theory of evolution and how best to accommodate itself to it? And all without any programming?
Nevertheless that humans do have the capacity to reason and communicate or at least some of them is a fact. The only debate can be how that came about: or more specifically was there some
conscious outside observer" involved who did a little manipulating of
quantum probabilities before locking in the desired result with an
observation; or was it an impossibly improbable accident of the kind to be expected when we multiply the probabilities to an infinite degree even though the probabilities of the
wavefunction of each particle are themselves said to be infinite? And even then there is still that irritatingly persistent
observation problem!
Hopefully having thus settled the origins of reason and communication according to Genesis we should look to see what God was said to have been saying to
man" when He spoke to them and why.
So the next crucial words come after God is said to bless
man". In the first instance God is said to say to
man" exactly what He said to animals:
Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth …"
17 We should recall that in the case of animals the words were
Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters …"
18
It seems quite obvious that these words relate to
instinct; the
instinct to reproduce and the
instinct for survival.
So Genesis is telling us that humans and animals were programmed with the same instincts to reproduce and survive. And the survival instinct encompasses a number of subsidiary instincts such as eliminating any perceived threats to itself or its offspring and conversely the instinct to reproduce includes an instinct to protect what is reproduced so as to preserve that line of the species to preserve that which is the image of the parents.
Furthermore the instinct to reproduce must necessarily include some mechanism which attracts one gender of the species to the other so that the act of regeneration may take place. And that requires an additional instinct for each gender to portray itself in a manner which would attract the attentions of the opposite gender. That is the instinct to
vanity.
However according to Genesis when it came to humans God saw fit to endow humans with a number of additional instincts.
The first of these human-specific instincts are set out after the reproductive and survival instincts symbolized by the words
Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth". Here is verse 28 again:
And God blessed them and God said unto them Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over every thing that moveth upon the earth."
The key words said to have been spoken to
man" are
subdue it the earth and have dominion over everything else."
These words can only refer to
man" being programmed with the additional
instincts for
security and
invention symbolized by the instruction to
subdue the earth … and have dominion over the other creatures." These additional
instincts leave most human beings with a strong desire to impose their authority not just on their environment but on other human beings as a means of suppressing the
fear of insecurity that
fires the
instinct for security. That is because regrettably the instruction to the first human beings to
subdue" the earth did not include a prohibition against
subduing other human beings. This is what Nietzsche called the
will to power".
19 But as we shall see the omission was not some slip-up on Gods part. It was required in order to ensure that a fundamental element of Gods Law was preserved freedom.
Moreover the
instinct for
security requires an ability for
cunning so as to enable human beings to devise means of attempting to outsmart opponents so as to eliminate any perceived threat to their security. And cunning very quickly assumes the guise of deception and deceit. However to employ such instincts humans resort to their ability to reason and communicate.
So we see that our instincts for survival reproduction and security are not in themselves wrong or evil. It is only when we employ reason to service those instincts in such a way as to deprive others of their survival or security or we employ reason to deceive others such as a wife or husband and children so as to indulge our reproductive instinct that the action becomes wrong or evil.
However there is another dimension to these human instincts which make them vulnerable to manipulation by reason pleasure and pain. In order for instincts to serve their purpose there must be some mechanism which activates them. And that mechanism is the fear of pain and the appetite for pleasure. It is these elements of human instinct which being susceptible to the manipulation of reason are the source of all wrong and evil.
Reason in the service of our primitive instincts in pursuit of the allure of the pleasures to be had by indulging those instincts or fearful of the pain which may ensue if any such instincts are threatened leads to deception deceit fraud murder theft violence and every other wrong and evil that human beings can conceive to visit upon their fellow human beings.
Human activity shows that although these instincts are triggered by perceived expectations of pain or pleasure with the additional ability to reason any perceived threat of pain or expectation of pleasure as a result of an instinct being activated becomes an end in itself. Reason thus devises ways to limit any expectations of pain and to service the expectations of pleasure aroused by those primitive instincts.
As Philo said
For other animals pursue pleasure only in taste and in the acts of generation; but man aims at it by means of his other senses also devoting himself to whatever sights or sounds can impart pleasure to his eyes or ears."
20 The device human beings use to
aim at" pleasure and devote themselves to satisfying it is reason.
However Genesis does not end the programming of human DNA with instinct. The next verses reveal that human DNA was also programmed with an innate knowledge and understanding of how other life functions which in turn could be applied either to service our primitive instincts or in the service of morality.
Those verses are these:
And God said Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of the earth and every tree yielding seed; and to you it shall be for meat."
21
And to every beast of the earth and to every fowl of the air and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth wherein there is life I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."
22
The introductory words
And God said Behold I have given you …" refer to the human beings which God had created
male and female". But what is also clear is that those introductory words also apply to the next verse because the next verse is a continuation of the explanation God is said to be providing to humans. These two verses symbolize human DNA being programmed with an innate but latent knowledge and understanding of how plant and animal life functions and the interrelationship between them. And to know how life functions these verses also imply by extension an innate knowledge and understanding of what life is made of and the physical and chemical laws which make it all function.
And it is this programming that gave rise to Einsteins amazement at the human ability to understand the workings of the universe when he noted that
The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
23
Having thus programmed human DNA with morality reason instinct and an innate knowledge of the laws which make it all work Day Six ends again with an observation:
And God saw every thing that he had made and behold it was very good."
24
This final observation is not just
good" but
very good." It was exactly what God had intended to make and it was also His final observation.
The
day" then ends with the familiar
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."
25 As we shall see momentarily this would have been just before liquid water appeared of Earth. And according to Schroeder
Petrographical evidence indicates that liquid water appeared on Earth … approximately 4 billion years ago."
26
So at the end of Day Six Genesis tells us that human DNA had been programmed with three principal elements:
instinct morality and
reason and reason could act as a sort of adjudicator between
instinct and
morality if we elect to apply it to that purpose rather than the pursuit of the temptations of pleasure held out by satisfying our primitive instincts.
If reason in the service of primitive instinct were the whole story human existence would be a very miserable experience - an existence
more miserable than death."
27
Luckily God spared us that fate by creating us
in his own image."
28 He embedded in our minds a
morality module" which could ensure that …
man is not so completely an animal as to be indifferent to what morality says on its own account and to use reason merely as an instrument for the satisfaction of his wants as a sensual being."
29
Therefore all the evidence points to human DNA having been programmed with the necessary information to create the human species first in primitive form but with the ability to know what kind of environments it will encounter in the future so that it can program itself to respond to those environments and so create more sophisticated DNA structures.
However the crucial point to note is that this ability to know what environments it may encounter and prepare itself accordingly requires an
observation - a kind of instruction as to what the future holds. And that
observation or instruction could not come from human beings themselves because human DNA developed from earlier primitive DNA which in turn appears to have been created in the stars or supernovae. To acquire these remarkable capabilities DNA needed an
outside observer" to tend to the
fine tuning in order to create what resulted in a human being endowed with a moral aptitude.
Once DNA had finally realized its full potential as a moral being it was able to make moral choices and thus begin to shape its own destiny. The probabilities inherent in fundamental particles manifest themselves in the human ability to make choices as to what actions they will take and whether those actions will be in service of their primitive instincts or in response to the moral principles or
moral law" as Kant called it embedded in the brain.
It was at this point in cosmic history that the
outside observer" passed humanitys moral destiny to human beings themselves
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made."
30
In terms of science Michio Kaku puts it this way: …
in a quantum play the actors suddenly throw away the script and act on their own. The puppets cut their strings. Free will has been established."
31 However according to Genesis it is not the
puppets" that
cut their strings" but the
outside observer".
And so when we come to the end of the six days of creation we find that in the functioning of the universe and nature Gods Will is expressed through Gods Law which permeates everything; it is what we understand to a very limited degree as the laws of physics. However in respect of human beings Gods Will is expressed by Gods Law being embedded in the human brain as a
neurological moral network or
morality module". But humans are not governed by that law they must freely choose it. The decision to follow Gods Will is theirs. However as we shall see God does attempt to guide our choice and He has made valiant efforts to do so mostly in the face of arrogant and ignorant resistance.
And with that in mind we will next consider Chapters 2 and 3 of Genesis. And we will be introduced to the pre-fall descendants of Adam and Eve yes alive and well to this very day.
By Joseph BH McMillan
This article is an abridged extract of Chapter 6 of A Final Theory of God available from
Amazon.com
[email protected]
josephbhmcmillan.com
The remaining articles on Genesis Chapters 2 & 3 will be published on
josephbhmcmillan.com in the coming days.
Copyright © Joseph BH McMillan 2014 All Rights Reserved
Notes
1 Philo
On the Creation XXIII (69).
2 Philo
On the Creation VI (24).
3 Deuteronomy 30:10 - 14.
4 Luke 17; 21 my emphasis.
5 Romans 2: 14 & 15.
6 Philo
On the Creation XXIV (76).
7 Mill
On Liberty Chapter 5 v. 15 - emphasis mine.
8 Mathew 19: 4 8.
9 Psalm 33: 6.
10 Philo
On the Creation XXIV (74).
11 Exodus 20:12.
12 Philo
Decalogue XXII (106)
13 The Guardian 13 October 2005.
14 Weinberg page 32.
15 Genesis 1: 28.
16 Genesis 1: 29.
17 Genesis 1: 28.
18 Genesis 1: 22.
19 Nietzsche
Beyond Good and Evil para 36 page 48.
20 Philo.
On the Creation LVII(162)
21 Genesis 1: 29.
22 Genesis 1: 30.
23 Quoted by Rees pages 11 12.
24 Genesis 1: 31.
25 Genesis 1: 31.
26 Schroeder
The Science of God page 90.
27 Philo
On the Creation LVIII (164)
28 Genesis 1: 27
29 Kant
Critique of Practical Reason page 80 my adaptations in square brackets.
30 Genesis 2: 2.
31 Kaku page 149.
Copyright © Joseph BH McMillan 2014 All Rights Reserved
[email protected]
josephbhmcmillan.com
The remaining articles on Genesis Chapters 2 & 3 will be published on josephbhmcmillan.com in the coming days.
Copyright © Joseph BH McMillan 2014 All Rights Reserved
Notes
1 Philo On the Creation XXIII (69).
2 Philo On the Creation VI (24).
3 Deuteronomy 30:10 - 14.
4 Luke 17; 21 my emphasis.
5 Romans 2: 14 & 15.
6 Philo On the Creation XXIV (76).
7 Mill On Liberty Chapter 5 v. 15 - emphasis mine.
8 Mathew 19: 4 8.
9 Psalm 33: 6.
10 Philo On the Creation XXIV (74).
11 Exodus 20:12.
12 Philo Decalogue XXII (106)
13 The Guardian 13 October 2005.
14 Weinberg page 32.
15 Genesis 1: 28.
16 Genesis 1: 29.
17 Genesis 1: 28.
18 Genesis 1: 22.
19 Nietzsche Beyond Good and Evil para 36 page 48.
20 Philo. On the Creation LVII(162)
21 Genesis 1: 29.
22 Genesis 1: 30.
23 Quoted by Rees pages 11 12.
24 Genesis 1: 31.
25 Genesis 1: 31.
26 Schroeder The Science of God page 90.
27 Philo On the Creation LVIII (164)
28 Genesis 1: 27
29 Kant Critique of Practical Reason page 80 my adaptations in square brackets.
30 Genesis 2: 2.
31 Kaku page 149.
Copyright © Joseph BH McMillan 2014 All Rights Reserved