_|_ | C O P | N E T The Science and Religion Series How to reconcile religious beliefs and scientific endeavors? ( College Level Discussions ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ New discoveries in science in general, and in physics, cosmology and biology in particular, make the universe more explainable, as well as more amazing. Does this undermine our religious faith -- or reinforce it? The works of modern science, taken one by one, seem enough to dampen a person's hope for higher meanings. However, stepping back and looking at the big picture, we can observe a pattern that suggests that there is more to this universe than meets the eyes, something authentically divine about how it all fits together. Science says that the Human being is the result of a process called evolution, which took hundreds of thousands of years! It claims that the universe is the result of a "Big Bang" of matter/energy that occurred Millions of years ago.. The Bible, the word of God, says that God created the world in 7 days. How can we reconcile these two, seemingly, contradictory positions? The above is just an example of the kind of questions that might face us as we probe exciting fields of study, such as biology or astrophysics. Also, we might be faced with questions of this nature when we talk to your peers or colleagues. Christianity teaches us to be "prepared" to defend our beliefs, to be "ready" to explain our convictions. This document details some of the discussions that were conducted in the youth group meetings (Collegial Level) at several Coptic Orthodox Churches. These discussions have been transcribed by members of Copt-Net, who moderated these discussions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Is the Bible a "Scientific" book? The Bible is not intended to explain science. It is the word of God spoken by His Holy Spirit to His servants. Not only that, but it is the truth; Jesus said: "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." [John 17:17] Additionally, the word of God is revealed to all people, from all ages and until eternity; Jesus again says: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." [Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33]. As such, although it is the word of God revealed to the people of all ages and times, it is inconceivable for it to be all books for all people! If it were a scientific book (as we currently understand those terms), it would be incomprehensible to the average people who by and large outnumber scientists. However, since it is true, it bears in its words the scientific accuracy which, when simplified for our understanding, may not lend itself to today's sciences. When a scientist writes an article for publication in a scientific journal he/she has to use a scholarly language and terminology that would be simply incomprehensible for people outside his/her field. The same scientist, if asked to write about the same topic in a popular newspaper or magazine might use much simpler terms to explain the basic concepts. He/she might have to resort to the use of analogies and parallels from other domains of knowledge to make the concepts easier to understand, albeit the fact that they might not be completely accurate or scientifically sound. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself used the same technique to explain the difficult theological matters to his followers. He talked about the seed that must be buried in the ground in order for it to rise from an apparent death to prepare his disciples to accept his crucifixtion. When he talked to the public (for example during the sermon on the mount), he almost always used parables to bring closer to the mind of His audience the notions of His new covenant. Another good example is the revelation of St. John, in which he went through an experience that can be hardly described using any language known to humans! Obviously he had to use terms that we, humans, can understand. So when St. John says: "He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength." we know that he is trying his best to communicate with us a vision that our own language is not expressive enough to describe! So the Bible is not a scientific book, and more importantly, the Bible never claims to be a scientific book! It is important to remember that last sentence. In history, some Church leaders (especially from the Roman Catholic Church) interpreted the Bible as a scientific book. This led to several (now confirmed) mistakes in interpretation. For example, for a long time the Church refused to accept the spherical nature of the Earth, or the possibility that the Earth rotates around the Sun and not vice versa.. Well, we all know today that these positions were uncalled for and we have to be careful not to fall into the same trap again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Does the Bible possess scientific fallacies? No it does not! As Christians we believe that the Bible is a reliable document in every subject it treats. Nevertheless, there is a widespread misconception that the Bible is full of scientific fallacies and inaccuracies. The problem comes when scientists (or theologians for that matter) try to take the Bible out of its context and use it to either contradict (or explain) scientific findings and discoveries. Science is in a constant state of change. New discoveries are continually destroying old theories and adding new ones. If the Bible was a science textbook (written for scientists), it would have quickly been out of date. The central purpose of the Bible is to show humanity, who is separated from God by sin, how to be reconciled with God and thus achieve eternal life. Despite the fact that the Bible is not written for scientists, it is important to point out that it does not contain any scientific fact which is categorically false (e.g. the Earth is flat). Whenever the writers of Scripture touched on issues that are of interest to scientists, they did not state any fallacies. However, since their goal was not to write a scientific book, they did not (and should not have been expected to) provide scientific explanations of such issues. At this point, one should make an important distinction between what the Bible says and what those who read the Bible (or want to attack it) "make" it say! Unfortunately, there have been theologians in the past who have drawn scientific inferences from Scripture that were not warranted. For example, some theologians have claimed that the Bible teaches that the earth is the center of the universe. But the fact is, the Bible nowhere teaches any of these things. They are the products of sincere but misguided theologians (or non-Christian critics) inferring more from the Bible than what it teaches. The belief (or misconception) that the Bible is scientifically inaccurate often has its source in the fact that the Bible uses pre-scientific and "phenomenological" language. This means that it describes nature as it appears to be and uses the same language we use in every day speech. Afterall, the Bible is not a scientific book! For example, [Ecclesiastes 1:5] refers to the sun as "rising and setting." Also, [Isaiah 11:12] refers to "the four corners of the earth." Such statements are not scientific, but then neither are they scientific fallacies! They are just expressions of the way ordinary people have talked and will always talk. Because the Bible is not a scientific book, it does not speak "scientifically" any more than the weather forecaster on T.V. when he tells us what time the sun will "rise" and "set" the following day. The writers of the Bible were not scientists and did not communicate as scientists. The same way we do not accuse the weather person of being "unscientific", we ought not pass judgment on the Bible for speaking in the same manner. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Was the Bible influenced by the scientific knowledge of its writers? On the contrary, the Bible makes numerous scientific references that were far advanced for the science of its day. It contains none of the absurdities found in the sacred books of the East or in Greek mythology. For example, Greek mythology at the time of Job taught that the world rested on the shoulders of Atlas, one of the great Titans or Elder Gods. Yet [Job 26:7] says that God ``hangs the earth on nothing.'' Astronomers in antiquity counted the stars and estimated that they numbered 5,000. But the prophet Jeremiah, speaking God's wisdom, says in [Jeremiah 33:22] that "the host of heaven (stars) cannot be measured." Isaiah in [Isaiah 40:22] refers to the earth as a "vault" or "circle". The Hebrew word used here is hug, which allows for the concept that the earth is a sphere. This is particularly interesting because people at that time generally did believe that the earth was flat! The point is, such facts were recorded in the Bible centuries before modern science, and they are in stark contrast with the fallacious beliefs recorded by contemporaries of the writers of the Scriptures. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. How can we explain the seemingly unscientific accounts in the Bible? If we agree that the Bible is not meant to be a scientific book, then the answer to this question should be quite easy! Many of the accounts in the Bible, in particular concerning creation, can be thought of as simplifications of processes that are incomprehensible to humans -- or to say the least to the non-scientist. When the Bible speaks about "one day" in Genesis-1 it is merely trying to simplify the notion of an "epoch" that might span millions of years! The proof of that is simple. The "day" we know is determined by the "sunrise" and "sunset", which result from the rotation of the earth around its axis, and around the sun. In Genesis, however, the word "day" was used even before the creation of the sun (in day 4). It is therefore logical to say that the "day" spoken about in Genesis is not the same "24-hour day" we know today. There seems to be a persistent misconception among many that "because the big bang (for instance) was not mentioned in the Bible" then either the Bible is wrong or the Big Bang is wrong. The question that poses itself is simply: Why do we assume that it is either God or the Big Bang? Isn't God capable of creating the universe "through" the Big Bang? The Bible tells us that God created heaven and earth. It does not tell us "how" God managed to create our Universe -- afterall, if it did we would have not understood it anyway! The creation of the universe is not a theory that can be compared to other scientific theories for the very simple fact that no scientific theory can explain its own axioms; no scientific theory can validate itself. For the Big Bang theory to hold, many principles (like the principle of conservation of energy) and physical laws (like the law of gravity) must hold. The Big Bang does not account for such principles or physical laws; it simply uses them to give an explanation of what might have happened. Even if the Big Bang succeeds in explaining phenomena like "the expanding Universe" and others, it still relies on the existence of a "seed matter or energy" and on the existence of "governing principles and laws". Who brought this seed matter or energy? Who established these governing principles and laws? These are but two questions that the Big Bang cannot even hope to explain. It is questions like these that underscore the necessity of a creation that brings something (whether matter or axioms) from nothing. A good parallel that would help clarify this point can be borrowed from computers -- a technology that has been continually changing the face of the world for the last few decades. Computers operate through programs (software) that give detailed instructions to the computer circuits (hardware). By following these detailed instructions, computers can do wonders! But who should really get the credit for these wonders? Is it the hardware and software? or is it the "creative mind" that invented both the computer hardware and software program? It is definitely the latter. Any other conclusion would be completely unfair to the "intelligent being" who created the machine and invented the program, which when executed solved the problem. In this analogy, one can think of the "seed matter" as the computer hardware and the "governing principles and physical laws" as the computer software. Discoveries in evolutionary biology or astrophysical theories should never diminish our belief that God created the Universe because all these discoveries and theories (if true) represent nothing but an infinitesimal droplet of knowledge about the superb plan of the Pantocrator -- the architect of the universe. Rather than diminishing our belief that God created the universe, such theories and discoveries should bring us closer to God as we admire the beauty of His plan (or program if you want to stick to the computer analogy) for creation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5. Should we refrain from pursuing research which conflicts with the Bible? If God created in us the brain and intelligence to think and make discoveries and theories about the universe where we live, then it should not be wrong to think "scientifically". However, in doing so, one should be careful not to violate the spirit of Christianity (e.g., misuse of genetic engineering for abusive manipulation of hormones, misuse of nuclear energy for destructive purposes, misuse of astronomy for astrology, etc.) There is nothing wrong with studying evolutionary biology or conducting research in astrophysics as long as we are not doing so to prove (say) that God doesn't exist. On the contrary, when we approach such marvelous subjects, we should praise the Lord for the beauty of His creation and for the intelligence He created in us. God gifted us our mind and science, and expects us to use our God-given faculties without spiritual laziness, so that we might arrive at the true comprehension of His word. It is written in the Holy Scripture that God "hath given men science that He might be glorified in His marvellous works" (Wisdom of Sirach 38:6). God, the Creator of the universe, can never be against learning the laws of what he has created. Perhaps the best quote that comes to mind when trying to find an answer to such a question is St. Paul's: ``All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful; all things are lawful for me, but all things do not edify'' [1 Corinthians 10:23]. There is nothing particularly wrong in pursuing research in atomic physics or genetic engineering; it is lawful to do so. However, as Christians we should examine the research that we are conducting to see if it is appropriate or not. We should refrain from research that will lead to the destruction of nations through nuclear wars, or the disruption of the natural ecological equilibrium through genetic intrusions. God gifted us our mind and science, and expects us to use our God-given faculties without spiritual laziness, so that we might arrive at the true comprehension of His word. The Church Fathers say that at the end of time many truths which are sealed in Holy Scripture will become clear. This is true not only for the events prophesied for the end, but also for our understanding of the beginning of time and of man, as revealed in Genesis. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6. Does Christianity have or require us to believe in any dogmatic cosmology? While religion in general will produce a view, in Christianity the cosmology is not necessarily dogmatic. St Basil the Great in his Hexaemeron (Six Days) says we know very little; Moses left it to us to exercise our minds on it. It is not a matter of dogma vs. heresy, but what in Greek is called a theologoumenon. It is not a matter of salvation whether or not we believe evolution explains the creation of Man, so long as we believe God created Man. Therefore it is possible for the creation scenario in Genesis to lead one to varying material conclusions - none of which by themselves are of any real importance to the primary purpose of Christianity. Saint John Chrysostom says: "the ways of God are not like unto our ways." Here is the crux of all the conflict. We are scandalized because God is acting in a different way from that which we in our narrow understanding, think He should. Many things in Holy Scripture (such as the prophecies of the last days, Antichrist, and Christ's second coming) cannot be understood clearly until the prophecies begin to be realized and become fact. So also, understanding Genesis was not easy without a better understanding of nature itself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7. Does "creation" imply that "evolution" did not occur? The fact of evolution is one thing, theories explaining how evolution took place are quite another. Often people confuse the two and speak of both as if they were one. Life on earth climbed by steps from inferior creatures to superior ones. This is evolution, and this is fact. This Moses presents in Chapter 1 of Genesis. Now, the mechanism of this development in time is, for the most part, still a speculation of theories, and here many discussions and controversies may exist. While many have pointed to "survival of the fittest" as the way in which minor mutations are selected for, no one can explain the mechanism required for the multiple and concerted (often required in one generation - lest they be fatal) changes which must take place for *speciation* to occur. Genes are changing. New genes are created. God does not work like a potter: He has His own ways. Genesis does not attempt to explain the mechanism of evolution. Genesis is neither a manual on Astronomy nor a textbook on Zoology. Modern science uses different words to describe the same events which were described in Holy Scripture more than three thousand years ago: Life began in the ocean from the first "day" of creation. It developed in the oceans during the entirety of the long period which in scientific terms is called the Paleozoic era. Plants covered the land as soon as land appeared, in the third "day" of creation. Land remained for a long time covered with plants and woods, (with [invertebrate] insects which are not mentioned in Genesis, but) without reptiles, birds or mammals. In the fifth "day", lung fishes crept onto the shore and their descendants were the amphibious reptiles. Reptiles developed into great dimensions, the so-called dinosaurs, and also the flying reptiles which like fish had teeth. All these animals of the fifth "day" were inferior animals in many aspects, but especially from the point of view of intelligence and by the fact that they were unable to develop their offspring in their body. Animals which had this capacity were born on land only in the sixth "day" of creation, in the Cenozoic era. In the same era, reptiles and birds were developed further and became as we know them today. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8. Are there any hints in Genesis about "evolution"? Genesis teaches us that God gave to creation a development, in time, from the simple to the complex, from the inferior to the superior, that He did not create the world instantaneously but in six consecutive eras of perfecting, the most perfect being those he created the last day. The six "days" were not needed by God but were needed by creation itself. Time was a part of creation - its fourth dimension. Creation cannot be conceived without time and time needs movement and development. This, however, should not be taken as a limit on God's power. We have examples of God instantaneous creation (eyes for the born blind [John 9:1-41]) and instantaneous destruction (withered fig tree [Matthew 21:18-22]). In [Genesis 1:31] we read: "Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day." The above verse should not be taken to mean that "At the end of the sixth day, God saw everything to be very good", rather it should be taken as to mean that "When God saw everything to be very good, the sixth day (or epoch) was over." In other words, God allowed His creation to perfect, hence evolve! Moreover, in God's perfection, He gave all the creatures the ability to perfect themselves according to their environments. Isn't this perfection in its fullest? One very important fact which we usually do not consider sufficiently is the absolute kinship of all material creation - the intimate relation that exists throughout all living and inanimate creatures. This is a universal reality, as important as evolution itself, belonging to inanimate matter as well as to living creatures. Therefore, we should be open to the possibility that evolution is the process God, the Creator, may have used to bring life and mind into being. St. Basil writes: Our astonishment over supremely great phenomenon is not diminished when we have discovered the mechanism by which any of these marvelous things is brought to pass." It is written in Holy Scripture that God "hath given men science that He might be glorified in His marvelous works" Wisdom of [Sirach 38:6]. If one were asked to make an abridgement of all contemporary scientific knowledge concerning the history of creation, so that one page could contain it, could anything better the first page of Holy Scripture? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9. What is the significance of Adam being created in the "Image of God"? St. Seraphim of Sarov said 150 years ago, about Adam: "Many explain that when it says in the Bible, 'God breathed the breath of life into the face of Adam the first created, who was created by Him from the dust of the earth,' it must mean that until then there was neither human soul nor spirit in Adam, but only the flesh created from the dust of the earth. Adam was not created dead, but as an active being like all the other creatures of God living on earth [including other homo sapiens]. The point is that if the Lord God had not breathed afterwards into his face this breath of life (the grace of our Lord the Holy Spirit), Adam would have remained without having within him the Holy Spirit Who raised him to Godlike dignity... he would have been just like all the other creatures... but "Adam became a living soul" Gen 2:7, that is, completely and in every way like God, and like Him, forever immortal." Adam was not created as a clay statue without life, or as a body without a soul. The breath of God has no biological or psychological meaning, but is an uncreated energy given to him as a seal of connection with Him. This is the same "breath" given to orthodox christians in the sacraments of baptism and chrismation, with which each is free to accept and develop [or not] in holiness, a development of the operations of the Holy Spirit; to become saints. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10. Would a unified theory of physics help? An intriguing observation that has bubbled up from physics is that the universe seems calibrated for life's existence. If the force of gravity were pushed upward a bit, stars would burn out faster, leaving little time for life to evolve on the planets circling them. If the relative masses of protons and neutrons were changed by a hair, stars might never be born, since the hydrogen they eat would not exist. If, at the Big Bang, some basic numbers had been jiggled, matter and energy would never have coagulated into galaxies, stars, planets or any other platforms stable enough for life as we know it. And so on. Scientists (especially physicists) suspect that there is indeed a law that if known would make life's origin less baffling. Atheists would go to say that such a law would play the role formerly assigned to the Creator. However, even such a law would be an evidence of God the Creator and architect of this universe. Certainly, a universe predisposed to produce life seems a more likely product of divine design than a universe in which life was a fluke. Pure science can provide us with a physics theory which gives a strictly material account of life's origin (through its self- organization), and another biologic theory which gives a strictly material account of life's evolution. Each of these theories, taken separately, are used by atheists to contradict creation. But now place these two accounts alongside modern physics, and look at the big picture: A universe all but destined to create platforms for life; a still unknown but increasingly suspected physical law that all but destined some of these platforms to be populated by little living specks; an evolutionary process that was almost destined, given enough time, to turn those specks into thinking, wondering, self-aware beings. Suddenly, the universe seems almost destined to have not only intelligent life, but intelligent meaningful life with beings like us. With little effort we can see the hand of God in all that. The impression of design is overwhelming. Stephen W. Hawking, in A Brief History of Time, says: "However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not only just a few scientists. The we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11. Does religion explain everything? Does science explain everything? Some scientists believe in a clockmaker God; he had built the universe, set its laws, wound it up, and let it run. Assuming that with the advances in science, more of these laws become comprehensible to us, they say that we could sense God through reason just by inspecting his handiwork - the universe and its laws. This approach is in many ways well suited, as religion goes, to an era as scientific as this one. However, this universe does not seem to work as predictably as a clock, a universe whose innermost workings may not be fathomable. The deeper our insight, the more baffling things become (e.g., uncertainty principle). The great physicist Richard Feynman addressed his audience saying "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, `But how can it be like that?' ... Nobody knows how it can be like that." Sir Isaac Newton, said: "In science we resemble children collecting a few pebbles at the beach of knowledge, while the ocean of the unknown unfolds itself in front of us." "`For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways' declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8,9) Furthermore, feelings and subjective experiences have no strictly scientific explanations, scientists admit, but could still have a "metaphysical" one. The idea that there might be any laws beyond the perceivable world, anything opaque to scientific inquiry is a sign that science's brash youth, when no mystery seemed beyond experimental conquest, is ending. The doctrine of scientific determinism suggested by the Marquis de Laplace (that there exists a set of scientific laws that would allow us to predict everything that would happen in the universe, if we knew the complete state of the universe at one time) (beginning of the 19th century) started to be abandoned with Max Plank's quantum theory (1900) and Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (1926). With respect for metaphysics comes respect for an idea central to religion: the unknowable, "for we know in part" (I Corinthians 13:9). Now, how can atheists, those who confidently deny God, admit that they cannot peer behind the curtain, but still affirm that there is nothing there? It becomes clear now that the ultimate questions remain unanswered, that science may be unable to answer them, and yet that science does help us mull them over, by illuminating the epic trajectory of cosmic and biological evolution on whose end we sit. The focus of the question then shifts from "creation versus evolution" to "purpose versus accident". But, purpose, like origin, is a point where the wisdom of empirical science ends and the quest for religious faith begins. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 12. Does science support or contradict religion? We should not reduce science to religion, nor vice versa. They are not interchangeable; they both complement our admiration of God the Creator. Relying on our incomplete scientific knowledge and using it to interpret religious beliefs, may lead to unjustified contradictions. Therefore, we should distinguish between the belief in the Bible and its interpretation. Since the Bible is not a scientific book, (and more importantly, the Bible never claims to be a scientific book!) it is important to make this distinction. In history, some Church leaders, especially from the Roman Catholic Church, interpreted the Bible as a scientific book. This led to several (now confirmed) mistakes in interpretation. Galileo Galilei was accused in 1616 by the Vatican, and put under house arrest in 1633, because he supported the idea that the earth revolves around the sun (and that it is not the center of the universe). He contended that the Scriptures cannot err, but are often misunderstood. More than a millennium before Galileo, St. Augustine had taught that if the Bible seems to conflict with "clear and certain reasoning," the Scriptures obviously need reinterpretation. We cannot, using our narrow understanding and limited knowledge, explain the fullness of God's ways to bring the Creation to being. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 13. Do science and religion have to compete? Let us take a look at Fernand Crombette and his work, as an example of a christian attitude and behavior. To synthesize the global work of Fernand Crombette is an almost impossible task, considering the extent of the subjects he tackled. His entire work is composed of 43 volumes, consisting of about 16,000 pages and 2 atlas maps. All his work was realized in 25 to 30 years, between 1936 and 1966. Fernand Crombette was pensioned off in 1937 at the age of 57. It was a providential circumstance that allowed him to realize this huge task: his daughter, a student in fine arts, was asked to sketch out a picture representing The Saint Women at the Grave. Fernand Crombette advised her to make it a recreation of history for which he would gather documentation. While doing so, he was struck by this verse: "For God is my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth." (Psalm 74:12) If the Bible is right, he said, Jerusalem, and more specifically Calvary, should be in the center of the world. Fernand Crombette is tempted by this thesis and he gets down to work. He tries to obtain a joining of the continents, because a center cannot be conceived without one only primitive continent (in which ancient civilizations believed). He goes to institutes and universities, consults books, studies the seabed and discovers in it the original place of continents, and he dates back their dislocation to the time of the Flood. Before him, Wegner had tackled the question of the continents drift, but while the latter believed it happened slowly, Fernand Crombette thinks it happened in 90 days. To reconstitute the original face of the earth, Fernand Crombette had to go down to the 2000 meter mark below ground, where the joinings would be real. We have to say that Fernand Crombette remembered the thesis of the philosopher Kant who pretended that the earth, at its origins, was surrounded by a beautiful aqueous ring that maintained the same temperature on the surface of the whole globe. The Bible says: "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so." [Genesis 1:7] The universal Flood, which is nothing but the fall of this mass of water, reduced the dry land to 29% of the total surface of the globe and that is how the average depth of the seas reach 4000 meters. the ring contained half of the water of the seas that now surround the whole dry land. He, thus, can find the location of the famous Atlantis so rapidly engulfed and the dimensions of which correspond to the ones given by Plato. These joinings allowed him also to locate the ancient Scythic Ocean and the famous Ile de Paques. When his work was done, he discovered, in the work of an ancient author, the declaration that the dry land occupied, primitively, about 5/7 of the inhabited hemisphere. Immediately, he verifies if his information corresponds to the author's and he finds they are almost identical. He had, before, come across a book of Father Placet, who wrote in 1668: "Where it is proved that, before the Flood, there were no islands and that America was not separated from the rest of the world." Thus Fernand Crombette received, by this double account, the confirmation of his own thesis, which scientists and specialists can verify by themselves. Actually, in the seabed are engraved the routes that the present different continents took from their initial sites. Wegner's thesis of a very slow drift is not supported any more. Only is accepted (from this thesis) the idea of an initial one continent. Fernand Crombette believes the drift happened in 90 days, during the Flood. Let us have a look on an extract of his book "Essay of a Divine geography", and particularly the chapter "Joining between America and Africa": "For the terminal part of South America to imprint its form in the oceanic seabed, the block must have been detached of its place in a relatively rapid movement, more rapid than the ascent of the magma. this way, the magma was solidified by the water before completing its upward movement. Therefore, there is no question of the drift being as slow as 1 mm. per day. We are dealing here with an abrupt movement that happened, not within 3,000,000 years as Wegner imagines, but within 90 days as the Bible says and as a result of a huge catastrophe. Reverend Father Placet told us what it was: `The universal Flood'." When Fernand Crombette will have finished his work on the continents joining, Jerusalem will be exactly in the center of the primitive only continent, which will have the shape of an eight petal flower. In fact, the name of the earth in coptic language is "Heres" which means "like a lovely blossomed flower". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Remarks: ------- o As much as possible, we have tried to keep all quotes from the Bible to be according to the NKJ translation. o Some of the answers above were pulled from the text of a series of lectures transcribed and together called "The Eternal Will". The original talks were titled the "Six Dawns" and were presented in 1981 at an annual Orthodox Conference of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. The author of the talks was Dr. Alexander Kalimiros of Thessaloniki (who reposed in the Lord in 1991). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------