Macroevolution as 4D movie manifestation

In the topic, “Giving up Darwin”, i brought up an idea which i would like some feedback on. It is a concept that, though seemingly “far out”, could possibly reconcile cosmology / macro-evolution theory and Creationism.

Suppose God “imagined/planned” each minute detail of the universe before creating any of it in 4 dimensional reality (or more dimensions if you like), as we experience it. So there would be a complete “track record” of the development of the “Universe Idea” available at the Beginning.

Then, as He created the phases of the various layers in the first 6 Days, He manifested the development process, the planning details, into the Creation itself. Thus, light would seem to have been traveling for millions or billions of years to reach earth, trees would have rings, rocks would have fossils (showing the development plan), etc.

Since God is all-powerful, He could easily manifest every minute modification of all aspects of the Great Concept within the acr of Creation. And thus, cosmologists and evolutionists (macro-, since micro- is stil observable) would be actually studying the “pre-Creation Planning Mind of God”, so to speak.

Why would He do so? Several reasons i can think of are: the beauty value of the resulting “artwork”, the great opportunity for mankind to eventually discover the Plan, and the choice we would have to make as to whether to believe His account in His Book, or to believe our senses which make the universe appear to be very, very old.

Our Creator would not be actually deceiving us, if this were true, since He is telling us the Truth in His Scriptures, while allowing us to reject that truth if we would rather trust our best guesses as to how the universe could have “evolved” that way without a Creator. If we are then deceived, it is by our own choice, not by His deceptiveness.

Since He wants us to “walk by faith”, He must provide an environment which enables complete lack of faith as well as growth in faith. And thus, from this point of view, the new Universe was “Very Good”, even though it would look like death had existed long before Adam and Eve could have been created.

Well, that’s a lot of verbiage – hope it gets across the major points in the concept. Anyone care to tackle its possibility, or impossibility"? If it is possible, doesn’t it allow a reconciliation between standard cosmology / macro-evolutionary theory and Genesis? Has someone else already proposed the idea?

Last thought : if a regular person (like little old me) can conceive of this reconciliation, in something like “a 4D mental-movie manifested”, why in the world (pun) couldn’t our Infinitely powerful and wise God have prepared billions and billions of years of appearance in less than nanoseconds? And then said, Let there be, and there was…

1 Like

When Jesus performed the miracle of the loaves and the fishes, He created fully mature fish - vertebrae, eyes, skin, scales, etc. and not only fully mature wheat, but baked into a loaf as well. This all happened instantaneously in the eyes of those He fed.
How would your theory tie into that?

1 Like

Thanks for responding, Roslyn. I don’t see any conflict, in the many miracles of Christ, with His infinite creativity in the Creation.

Do you see a problem i am missing?

Thanks again.

1 Like

Hi Dean

Sorry, I wasn’t trying to show a conflict here. I was just wondering how you would apply your theory to this situation. In the loaves and fishes, there wasn’t any passage of time for layers of development process.

I’m hoping that there is something like a Star Trek holo-deck in heaven - or when Jesus rules on earth - so we can learn the how’s of the creation - and a whole lot more.

1 Like

So, I have a couple of questions about this.

First, I would like to say that I see no problem with the idea that God could have spoke into existence a fully formed universe. There doesn’t appear to be any logical inconsistencies there.

If you are saying that God designed the entire universes evolution and then decided to create the universe in the 14,800,000,000th year of that time line. I suppose that could work. It would mean that, in a technical sense, evolution is true, the big bang is true, and creationism is true. Believing in any of that would not be a problem. Not believing in any of that might be a problem in that it denies the work of the creator. However, that would not be a salvation issue.

My question would be, why would God choose to create that way? What would be his motivation in starting start in that year and not “in the beginning” so to speak?

You mention that the resulting work would be one motivation. But, this doesn’t explain why God would do this one way or the other. He could have started in year 0 and created that way for the same reason. The resulting work would be marvelous.

The idea that God would want the universe to appear old in order to tempt us into not believing him does turn God into a deceiver. Especially due to the fact that he doesn’t tell us anywhere in the Bible that the universe is not old but young. He placed a tree in the Garden that turned out to be something with which humanity was tempted, but it made it explicitly clear that were not to go near it and if they did he made clear what would happen. I see no parallel warning given the age of the earth. “Thou shalt not believe the senses I have given you, nor the reason with which I have endowed you, to believe the earth is old, as I have designed it to look, for if you do you shall die.” That would be a paraphrase of something akin to the warning given in the Garden. It doesn’t sound like anything God has ever said to man.

Further, it would appear that God exults in our scientific discovery. We are uniquely positioned in the universe, and our galaxy, to make astonishing observations. Further, we have been endowed with marvelous reasoning, observation, and creative abilities in order to search out this plan. It appears that the universe is designed for us to discover it. In other words, in discovering it we are fulfilling something God would want us to do. Temptation away from God does not seem to be the appropriate prize at the bottom of the cereal box.

This idea seems to be quite convoluted. Why wouldn’t God be more straightforward, open, and honest about his creation than this method would allow? I do not take the Bible as a scientific text. I do not think this is what God was trying to reveal to us in the his Word. These are things he wanted us to figure out on our own.

Walking by faith means be able to walk by trust. If God created something to deceive me, I would have a hard time trusting him. This system would make it very difficult to walk by faith because my discovery of God would be to discover his attempt to trick me. I do not seem how that could then lead me to trust him. The tree in the garden allows for this in that we were tempted to not trust his warning and eat, or to trust his instruction and not eat. I am not sure why anything more would be needed to add to that. We are tempted in this way all the time. This leads to the question, why would he only tempt civilization at the point we have made all of these discoveries? Why “lay a trap” for the people who would com 19 centuries after the coming of the Messiah?

These are just a few of the questions I would have.

2 Likes

Yes, Roslyn, it will be nice to have the perfect “holo deck” to see the actual Creation process, with all the pre-creating planning details.

And thanks for the reminder that Christ’s miracles often showed a pre-manifestation planning that took no earthly time. Great example of what i am driving toward.

It seems amazing that mankind can create extremely realistic-looking movies of imaginary “big bangs” and “creatures evoving from chemicals”, but in general refuses to believe that the Source of all power, and of all existence, could plan a real “moving movie” and turn it into the “play-dough” of the universe, instantly (within a “one day at a time” framework, for our benefit, of course).

Their (/our) pride is so blinding, isn’t it.

Thanks for joining in, Joshua. To address your first issue, God not being deceptive:

2 Thes 2:9-11
“The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

And this “strong delusion” could well include the seeming evidence for creation from nothing / evolution from chemicals. Those who have “pleasure in unrighteousness” will look for any way they can find to minimize or eliminate the need for their Creator. I know, i was one of them, before He rescued me from myself.

As in the Garden, our Father offered the first couple a choice to trust Him or not, even so He now offers us the choice to believe His Word or our senses. Can He be blamed for our unwillingness to believe Him? He didn’t lie to us, just gave us freedom to make up our own minds to see His creative hand, or a random process that only appears to be divinely ordered.

“God sends them a strong delusion” doesn’t necessarily mean that He wants people deceived, but rather He wants their free ability to respond to His Spirit within them, instead of relying solely on their own abilities to perceive what only appears to be the reality. And Scripture is filled with such opportunities from Him, to trust Him.

Hi @DeanW, thank you for your response. A false sign is something which appears to be one way and is actually another. If the universe is intended to look old but is actually young, I agree, this would be a false sign. I just believe that false signs would not come from God. The deception in 2 Thessalonians, I believe it is referring to deception of the enemy, Satan, not deceptions from God himself.

Oh, I see - His “pre-manifestation planning” is independent of time. Of course it is, He created time!

Yes, then we will see clearly - that’s a promise given to us.

[Sorry Joshua, i added a couple of paragraphs to my previous posting after you sent your reply… Bad timing on my part.]

That’s a “bingo”, Roslyn! Before He created time in our “reality”, He already had an eternity (or nanoseconds would be enough) to “work out the details” of His New-Family-producing playground. In a certain sense, it is like our experience is just a “holo deck” compared to His ultimate realness.

Now, consider again, what if there is any truth in this 4D movie-manifested concept. Unbelievers will just write it off, probably, as closed-minded Christian nonsense (non-senses), while Believers can look intensely at the seeming evidence for no-Creator cosmology/evolution, and know they are looking at the perfect Plan, before manifestation.

I’d say that is a “win-win”, and the Spirit can then convict the “pagan scientist” that it is not so very foolish to believe the Genesis account, and also keep on looking for proof of the Planning process (which would become increasingly less random for the truly open-minded/open-hearted).

But the Bible does hint that there’s science outside our knowledge of science. Jesus walked on water, which breaks our scientific laws of buoyancy. After His resurrection, Jesus suddenly appeared among the disciples in the room they were in, which breaks our Pauli exclusion principle (no passing seamlessly through walls or roofs). The miracle of the loaves and fishes throws all the biology we know about how life comes to be - and gets cooked - out the window. Jesus’ ascension breaks the law of gravity.

Even our science breaks our science - there’s no explaining some aspects of quantum mechanics - just how is it that energy turns spontaneously into particles and vice versa? So it seems that in this God created something to bend our minds.

I would be a bit cautious saying that these events “break” a law. Airplanes do not “break” the law of gravity. They use the law of lift and thrust to overcome gravities effects. I happen to reject Hume’s definition of miracles. I agree that these events lie outside of our knowledge and I am not saying that we humans are meant to know everything. It is true that much of quantum mechanics is mind bending (although I do want to point out that mass and energy are the same thing which might explain the transition to some extent). Also, just because I am a stickler for these things, I would also like to point out that the Pauli exclusion principle says that no two electrons with the same spin can occupy the same orbital, it doesn’t have anything to do with not being able to pass through walls. Quantum mechanics actually does allow for particles to move through seemingly impenetrable walls.

None of this, however, has God creating these effects for the purposes of causing us to believe one thing when another is actually true in order to tempt us to not believe in him. I take issue with the idea that God designed the universe to deceive us.

Well if we walked through a wall, what are the chances that one of our electrons with an up spin would encounter one of the wall’s electrons with an up spin in the same time and place? So could it not be the Pauli exclusion principle that keeps us from walking through it?
Actually, this is commonly taught as a reason for being unable to walk through walls. I’m not being wildly speculative here. My degree is in engineering and physical sciences and I taught chemistry for many years.

I agree that God does not deceive us. I don’t know if the earth is old or young, nor have I thought about the theology of it. But I do know there is a possibility that our science could be wrong or incomplete. We’ve often been wrong: Arthur Eddington said Chandrasekhar’s proposal of a neutron stars and black holes was impossible. Ditto the response of the many scientists to De Broglie’s proposal that the electron - and all matter- has wave properties.

My understanding is that the idea that radioactive decay (used in dating the earth) is based on a primary rate equation - which shows that such decay is constant and independent of factors other than its rate constant. But what if we later discover that the equation is not true in all circumstances? For example we use tree ring data to calibrate carbon-14 dating because the concentration of atmospheric C-14 changes over time.

So I would say that according to known science, we would say that Earth is old. But I wouldn’t be adamant about it.

I think the scientific method itself, and the history of science, show that it is designed to continually prove itself wrong – inadequate as a final explanation. And, as i see it, scientific discoveries take us closer to understanding some of the mechanisms within our Creator’s maintenance of the universe, but do not quite ever satisfy fully.

When it comes to origins, and pre-history development, we have a clear choice given to us. We can try to eliminate God as a necessary initiator of the universe, and pretend it either came from nothing, or has always existed. The other choice is to consider a creation account clearly laid out in Scripture and accepted by the prophets, Jesus and His early followers.

Scientists themselves are raising serious questions about the current theories of evolution, and will no doubt continue to revise their proposals as more evidence becomes apparent. Yet, as i understand it, many theorists would rather attribute life on earth to “seeding” by an advanced extra-terrestrial race, than rely on a Creator.

All in a subconcious (or very conscious) attempt to eliminate God from the discussion. But such theories merely push back the need to explain another level, still leaving at issue where the aliens came from themselves.

What if the “end goal” of science, as God has inspired it through various cultures and times, is to lead us to Him? Then could we accuse Him of deceiving us, as our limited knowledge becomes more realistically aligned to His Planning/Manifesting Process?

I think not. He has given us a clear account of His ultimate creative work, in writing, and has built into the natural world such intricate complexities that we have ever-increasing probability that a Supreme Being had to have designed it in extreme detail.

Meanwhile, as we humans advance in holograms and virtual reality and 3D movies and mentally-controlled technology, we would be becoming more and more arrogant to think that a vastly superior Mind to ours could not possibly have built the pre-Creation design process into the Creation itself.

Again, it is not so much a matter of Him deceiving us, as it is Him giving us the opportunity, if we want it, to deceive ourselves. We must be free to listen to / see His promptings or shut them out of our awareness deliberately. Faith, like love, must be freely received and given to be eternal.

Romans 1:18
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.”

If both Genesis and cosmology / macroevolution (seeming) evidences are true, though they are pre-Manifestation, then suppression of the truth of Genesis cannot be blamed on our Father, but rather on our own desires to leave Him out of our lives and our hearts. And only His Spirit can verify the Truth He wants us to see, if we can become willing to see it / Him.

[Oh, OK, i’ll remove the smiley in my previous post. It was a little bit “snarky”, wasn’t it? I stand convicted.]

:slightly_smiling_face: I laughed at your smiley. I enjoy your “what if” thinking.

Thank you, Roslyn, that comforts my guilt at not being so serious all the time! I surely did want this concept to be seriously considered, and you have done that well also.

This morning i got an email from the local library about recommended reading for the coming year. Stephen Hawkings’, “A Brief History of Time”, was highly rated. And it occurred to me (hopefully by inspiration) that Genesis, Chapter 1, is actually just that, if we can only believe if.

Everything that seems, to modern observers, to be before Day 1 was merely materialized divine Forethought from eternity, rather than current physical time happenings.

Oh, i sure hope some scientistical (mispell or misspell?), statistical, atheistical, student of the universe, (like i once was), is reading this with an open “spirit”-mind, though they don’t believe there is any such a thing (as i didn’t).

Faith dawns…Let it be, in 4D.