No.
You would be mistaken.
No Bible.
No seven days.
No exegesis on: "A thousand years are as a day, and a day is as a thousand years to the Lord".
No, no, NO!
My baseline for creation is not Judaeo-Christian. It is, I believe, realistically grounded by common sense. A very sensible belief based on combined human reason and the intuitive feeling in the heart. It is certainly in accord to the PRINCIPLES outlined in the creation myth found in the Bible, but it is not bound only by Biblical context. Although you could say the Genesis account might be bound to the Sumerian/Babylonian creation myths that same way a son is bound to a father.
I came from Catholic-Christian stock. Early on, I sat at the feet of parents, priests, and educators. I learned the Bible stories by heart, listened to audio tapes, SUPER SCOPE Storytellers at their finest with sound effects galore; I watched the teacher place bible cutout figures on a green felt board, studied my little scripture verse on a curling strip of colored paper. Believe me, I knew the progression from chaos into order as I painted dried salt-dough tree ornaments for each day of creation.
I was also a homeschooler who grew up in the middle of the Texas Bible-belt. My best friend was a devout Primitive Baptist, well versed in Calvinism and the literal truth of the Holy Bible. We would roam home school book fairs where tables were heavy laden with books entitled, "The Case against Evolution", "In Defense of Creationism", "Why Darwin was Wrong". Trust me, I know about all sides of the Christian stand point.
Yet, I also had a strong love of archeology and ancient history. My parents loved National Geographic. We had stacks of the yellow bordered magazines stacked on the floor of closets. National Geographics had a strange, singular smell. An almost pungent, biting whiff of something strange imbued them with a mystery of lands of faraway, so reading was an experience in itself. Not to mention the occasional topless aborigine that my Mom had neglected to clothe in a black "sharpie" bikini.
Also, just as some Dads have stacks of hidden Playboys that boys discover on a quiet summer afternoon, my Dad ordered massive hard-back tomes of the history of man and archeology and Space. I'm sure they were some special centenary editions for National Geographic, and my Mom and Dad thought they would be nice on the coffee table. They were, the "Big Books". Yet, they had too many bare-breasted primitive women in them, so they lived in the bottom drawer of the large cabinet from Ethan Allen. With appropriate permission, I took them out and pored over lineage charts that started from crouched primates until way down the ruler at about 14 inches the spine uncurled into an upright homosapien. I traced the relationships between the earth and the moon, the solar system within the galaxy, the galaxy within the its local cluster, and so on. I saw that the world is unbound and to borrow Annie Dillard's phrase, the Universe is un-hinged. While truth lay between the leather bound pages worn smooth by reverent fingertips, the meaning of the world and the universe could not be contained textually. Dogma might clear its throat, but it lacked jurisdiction.
No atheist preached to me at the supper table. No earth-shattering disappointment hit me in the face. I was a kid raised not to believe in Santa Claus. I read and studied. Without a television, a child can read and study a lot. From bones and strata and artifacts, I formed my own conclusions.
First.
The Universe was here a SUPER long time. Millions, billions of years.
Second.
Life had existed on earth a very long time. Sure, not quite as long as the Universe (of course!), but it was certainly not the date derived from Archbishop Usher, which was somewhere in the neighborhood of six thousand years.
Third.
There was definitely some type of hierarchy within the twisted tree of life. I wasn't sure if my great ancient ancestor was an ape, but there was definitely some form of progressive hierarchy, as well as common traits.
I read Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species at age 14. It was interesting, a little dense, but I was impressed by it. The man was intelligent. I also sensed a disparity between the virulence of the well-spoken Christian men around me and the careful words of a thoughtful scientist.
Later on, I grew to love Science Fiction. From H.G. Wells to Ray Bradbury, Arthur C. Clark and Isaac Asimov, ideas percolated in a stew of fact, fiction, and fantasy. Science Fiction worked on my consciousness subtlety, and upon entrancing my defenses, sent swift arrows into my subconscious like smart missiles that ripped apart Iraqi bunkers. As I read their work, I danced to the music of their minds, and I saw their world in their perspective. I did not forsake my faith, but a conflict slowly churned within me.
In the days before deep-space exploring satellites, some astronomers postulated the red storm on Jupiter could be caused by a tall mountain on the giant planet, that the friction of wind against an obstruction could manifest as an atmospheric disturbance visible from space. I don't know if a mountain causes Jupiter's red spot, but I know the conflict between my faith and reason definitely caused a spot that festered within my soul. I saw the hard facts, I witnessed solid science make its substantial claim.
However, Krishnamurti says there cannot be conflict between two truths, or even just one truth and a falsehood. There is only conflict between two falsehoods. Once the truth is revealed, the conflict erodes suddenly into dust that is taken by the wind.
Later, I discovered a difference between Religion and the Spirit.
When I suffered hurt from Religion, I recognized similar sympathetic reactions.
After shredding my conditioning, I realized both parties were adversely arrayed and guilty of a paradoxical opposition.
I have now discovered, upon shedding my personal discrimination against non-Christians, that while anti-Christian and often anti-spiritual paradigms do seem to dominate the Academic community, there are many scientists who maintain spiritual beliefs, especially among the quantum physicists.
Just as I decry many organized religions, so also do I shake my head at the organized sciences and much academia.
I will spare you the details of this cycle that ensued for at least a decade, a tidal war of the soul and spirit.
I will explain my final and currently standing conclusions.
Here is how I see it:
There is incredible synchronism and cooperation within multiple systems in the universe, ranging from microscopic scale to the macroscopic. This inherent sympathetic similarity is holistic. While demonstrated by the material, it is evident in all quadrants of creation. Physical Life, Psychological, Spiritual, even Mechanical, there is a constant refrain that echoes from the smallest of cells to the greatest of galaxies. There is no way I can understand the origin of life different than myself, such as God or non-earthly entities, but I do see a definite intelligent designer (s) responsible for life on earth. It is a non-issue to me if my creator was a finite but more advanced creature. That would not deny the existence of an eternal and all powerful being. In fact, the structure of the galaxy and larger universe still needs an explanation. But as for myself and the earth system, there was intelligent design. I don't believe all of this could happen by chance- there are too many non-variables and interdependent systems such as pollination and complex eco-systems. Also, I believe that there is no spontaneous evolution. There can be the perception of spontaneous evolution, but it would have been a carefully planned event with a cascading geometric propagation logic. If there is a principle of Evolution that drives organisms to evolve into complexity, then I think it must be animate, intelligent. Darwin's original idea of survival of the fittest works practically the way Newton's does for planetary motion, but when you get into the details and the spaces between, there are holes in the logic. A bacteria or spore can survive a rugged environment better than a complex organism. Why complicate a system by multiplying points of failure? If survival is key, than a microbial broth would make the most sense. I believe we were intelligently designed. That is at least a starting point of common acknowledgement that must be accepted by all dual parties. The debate of our creator (s)' origin is a mystery. It is unproven, and untenable to state that we truly know the face of our creator (s). Yet, to look at this garden planet, our creator or creators were visionary artists, incredible architects without parallel who could design such a complex system. I only wish we could find them.
