Η εφημερίδα Metro διανέμεται δωρεάν στους επιβάτες του Λονδρέζικου υπογείου σιδηροδρόμου (μετρό), καθώς και σε άλλες μεγάλες πόλεις της Αγγλίας. Το χθεσινό φύλλο, στη σελίδα 8 και στη στήλη “60 second interview”, δημοσιεύει μια ενδιαφέρουσα συνέντευξη με τον τίτλο: «Δρ Andrew Parker: Η Βίβλος έχει τα πάντα σωστά».
Ο Δρ. Andrew Parker, 41 ετών, είναι Βιολόγος και εργάζεται στο Πανεπιστήμιο της Οξφόρδης. Στο τελευταίο του βιβλίο, με τον τίτλο: «Το αίνιγμα της Γένεσης: Γιατί η Βίβλος είναι επιστημονικά ακριβής», υποστηρίζει την άποψη ότι η ιστορία του βιβλίου της Γένεσης παρουσιάζει με τέτοια ακρίβεια την ιστορία του σύμπαντος που δεν θα μπορούσε να γραφεί διαφορετικά παρά μόνο με θεϊκή έμπνευση.
Η συνέντευξή του έχει ως εξής:
Have you proved the existence of God?
I don’t think I’ve proved the existence of God. I’ve proved there is space in the universe where God might exist.
It would be quite a scoop.
Well, yes. But if I find evidence there isn’t a God then as a scientist that would satisfy me too.
Isn’t this another example of religion masquerading as science?
Absolutely not. I devoted most of my early career to science and leaned toward being an atheist. That’s changed during the writing of this book, which revealed surprising parallels between Genesis and the scientific history of the universe. Not only is the sequence of events in Genesis scientifically correct but some of the events themselves are really quite precise, which would have been impossible for a human to know at that time. You have to conclude that either the author made extremely lucky guesses or something strange was going on: divine inspiration.
That’s a massive leap, isn’t it?
To say there’s something mysterious going on is probably not too great a leap. What I reveal is something beyond human intelligence, beyond testing with scientific equipment.
In Genesis, God creates the earth in six days, makes man out of dust and there’s no mention of the Big Bang. If it was written with God’s help, why is so much wrong?
It’s the authors adding their artistic interpretation, shoehorning the facts into the type of story people would be able to understand.
You say the second ‘Let there be light…’ refers to the evolution of the eye but you edited out the rest of the line, which clearly refers to the Sun, Moon and stars. There’s no mention in Genesis of the evolution of the eye.
Um, OK. I’ll probably have a look at this in more detail again. The first page of the Bible doesn’t spell out the eye but it doesn’t spell out any of the science in detail.
Your argument seems full of holes.
I would say it’s the best guess with the best fit.
Is there any real evidence, or just speculation?
If you want to say it’s 100 per cent evidence for God, no. With this book, there might be indirect evidence – it’s the strongest evidence for the existence of God I’ve come across. I’m not sure how you would describe it.
Flawed.
Well, that’s an opinion and that’s something I’m interested in. I’m not trying to fool anyone. I’m just trying to get to the bottom of this.
Are science and religion irreconcilable?
The atheist movement argues that with science there’s no more room for religion. So you either have faith in religion with no rational backing whatsoever or you follow science – and science dictates there’s no room for God, which isn’t true. There are things beyond our realm we can’t solve with science.
You say creationism is harmful to both religion and science. Why?
Creationism is totally unfounded. It is as dangerous as fundamentalism in other religions.
Creationists say evolution and the Big Bang are just theories. What do you think?
The problem with calling them theories is that anything can be called a theory. It doesn’t suggest the probability of it being right. On probability, you have creationism at something like 0.0001 per cent and evolution at 99.9999 per cent so it’s not fair to put them in the same category.
You criticise atheism because you think it’s disturbing to believe there’s no God or heaven. Just because those things might be comforting doesn’t make them true, does it?
No. But what I’m saying is that if the evidence doesn’t necessarily point one way or another, perhaps we’re better off with religion.
