Science is certainly not one of the main themes in the Bible. However, the Bible
does contain information and claims of a scientific nature. Careful analysis
of the parts of the Bible which relate to things scientists talk about will
provide dramatic evidence that the Creator of the universe has revealed himself
in this great book. It is probably true that science does not provide the most
convincing proof of the inspiration of the Bible. One could look at internal
consistency, fulfilled prophecy or historical accuracy, among a great number of other
areas, which provide great evidence for the inspiration of the Bible. The interested
reader should investigate these topics, which happen to be outside the range
of discussion in this book. While other areas might provide even more dramatic
support for the Bible than that from science, a careful and thoughtful investigation
of how science relates to the Bible will provide further strong support for
belief in its divine authorship.

First, consider the statement of someone who could represent the atheist view
in regard to the relationship between science and the Bible. To take as a typical
statement, a quote from the well-known atheist Delos B. McKown:

Christianity is scientifically unsupported and probably insupportable, philosophically
suspect at best and disreputable at worst, and historically fraudulent.[1]


This claim, a fair summary of the point of view of most atheists and humanists,
is easy to make, but does this claim stand up to an open-minded, reasoned analysis
of the scripture? This question will be examined carefully.

Lest it be said that all well-known modern scientists are anti-God, a quote
from the most famous scientist of our century, Albert Einstein would be worth

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.


He explains himself by saying:

Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside its
domain, value judgements of all kinds remain necessary.[2]


Einstein believed that science, in and of itself bereft of moral truth, is lame
without religion as a source of moral truth and as a guide to the purpose of

Atheists typically assume that there is a rational explanation for everything
that ever has or ever will occur in the universe. To quote from another humanist:

Science, on the other hand, assumes that there are no transcendent, immaterial
forces, and that all forces which do exist within the universe behave in an
ultimately objective and random fashion…A non-mysterious understandable universe
is a basic assumption behind all science.[3]


Personally, I wish this author would speak for himself. Not all scientists assume
there is absolutely no transcendent, immaterial force at work in the universe.
A strong argument has already been made that it is necessary to be very careful
about what assumptions are made in approaching such a question. In fact, it has
been shown in this book that scientific knowledge available concerning the nature
of the universe and of life prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a ?transcendent
force? does indeed exist. If the basic assumption of the humanist/atheist is false,
then isn?t it likely that their conclusions will fall apart as well? Do not
be deceived. This so-called basic assumption of science is just that, an assumption,
and a false one at that!

Those who would attack the Bible often begin by confidently pointing out the
Genesis ?myth? as proof of the ignorance of the writers of the Bible. It could
be conceded that whoever wrote the account in the first chapter of Genesis was
not a trained scientist. However, as will be shown here, despite the scientific
?ignorance? of its writer, the Genesis story itself is not at all scientifically
ignorant. In fact, the scientific insight of the creation story of Genesis,
coming from a writer who was not privy to our modern-day scientific knowledge
provides further proof of divine authorship of the Bible. The goal, then, is
to look closely at this most controversial book.

Since in this section the first chapter of Genesis will be discussed in some
detail, it would be helpful if the reader would pull out a Bible and read this
chapter. Consider as a starting point a rough outline of the creation account.
It might go something like this:


1. God existed before the creation of the universe.


2. God created the universe out of nothing.


3. After creating the universe and everything in it, God

?? created life.


4. Last of all, God created man.


Before beginning to look at the specifics of Genesis chapter one in more detail,
consider this bare-bones outline first. Is there anything here in conflict with
the known facts of science? Does Genesis one mess up on the order of things?
In fact, doesn?t Genesis offer a more reasonable explanation of how the universe got
here ?out of nothing? than the atheist? The atheist can describe the big bang,
but cannot explain how or why it happened. The big bang theory has the universe
appearing out of nothing, in agreement with the Genesis account. The problem with the
big bang theory is that it cannot explain what caused the explosion which initiated
the universe. There is strong evidence that the big bang occurred, but who or
what caused it to ?bang?? Is there any scientific precedent for massive amounts
of matter suddenly appearing out of nothing? As stated before, conclusive proof
that the big bang actually happened will prove elusive, but it just so happens
that the biblical account could explain how and why it happened.

What about how life came to be? The Bible claims here in Genesis that all life
was created by God. Despite their claims, it has been shown that scientists
simply cannot provide a believable scientific explanation of how life just came
to be by some accident of nature. Atheists may not be willing to admit it, but the
existence of life on the earth is truly a miracle. God takes credit for this
miracle in Genesis.

?In addition one finds here in Genesis the claim that man came last of all of
God?s creations. Again, the Bible has it right on. Fossil evidence shows man,
the highest of all creatures, to be one of the most recent species to appear
on the earth.

Let it be pointed out that this is not a scientific explanation. The creation
of the universe and the creation of life have no scientific explanation. Why?
They were miraculous events. In the final analysis, the existence of life is
a miracle. It has been revealed in the discussion previously that the closer one
looks at the unimaginable complexity of even the simplest life forms, the stronger
the case for miraculous creation becomes. In addition, the more physicists explore
the possible origins of the universe, the more strongly the evidence requires
a miraculous explanation for its beginnings. The interesting fact is that the
Bible just happens to get it right, despite the fact that the writers had little
if any scientific training or knowledge to draw on as they wrote. First God,
then the universe, then life, then man.

Now take a closer look at the details of Genesis chapter one. To quote a few
phrases from the first five verses. ?In the beginning, God created the heavens
and the earth… And God said, ?Let there be light,? and there was light.
And there was evening, and there was morning?the first day.? For the sake of simplicity,
three possible approaches to understanding the Genesis account will be described
and discussed.[4] One could:


1. Take the entire Genesis account in its literal, face-

?value sense, including six twenty-four-hour days of

?creation. This would imply that the earth is very

? young.


2. Take the entire account as an outline from God of

?? what he did in creating the earth, but assume that the

?? six ?days? are not literal, but rather a simplification

?? made for the sake of scientifically unsophisticated

?? readers.


3. Completely discount the entire Genesis creation story

?? as having any validity at all. One could take it to be

?? just another of a number of similar creation ?myths?

?? which were a common feature of ancient cultures?a

?? nice piece of poetry.


To the person who knows very little about the Bible, the third approach makes
perfect sense. In a secular/humanistic culture for which science has become
a virtual alternative religion, why consider a book over two thousand years
old as a source of truth? However, to the person who realizes that science cannot
explain how we came to be here, this approach may not be sufficient.

?Many people cannot help but ask the three big questions: ?How did I get here?,?
?Why am I here?,? and ?Where am I going?? Humans have an innate sense within
themselves that there must be a purpose to life?a meaning to this whole thing.
If science cannot explain the origin of man, perhaps the creator might have
revealed himself in some other way. Inevitably, someone searching for the truth
will end up considering the Bible. There, the open-minded person will find undeniable
marks of inspiration.

To the person who recognizes the Bible ?…as it actually is, the word of God?
(1 Thessalonians 2:13), choice #3 above is not an option (hopefully this would
not be an untested assumption, but rather a conclusion derived at least in part
from the evidence). For this person, the Bible is not a collection of fables, myths
and other nice stories. Nevertheless, it would be helpful for this person to
challenge themselves to at least temporarily consider the possibility of the
Bible containing errors, for if they assume the answer before doing the investigation,
it is easy to predict what the result will be. If nothing else, skeptical friends
will not be able to respect this type of approach if they catch on that this
is what is happening. Some of them may very well be able to see through an intellectually
dishonest approach to the truth. For those who would tend to fall into category
#3, please be challenged to at least consider the other two views in the light
of scientific knowledge. When one decides to take the Genesis account seriously,
one finds a surprising correlation with scientific fact.




Let us consider the first alternative described above: the face-value interpretation
of Genesis chapter one. There are two points worth making right up front about
the literal twenty-four hour understanding of the book of Genesis. First, this
would be the most obvious interpretation of the chapter. If one simply read the
account for itself, without looking through the lens of modern-day science??And
there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.??the most obvious way
to interpret these words would be to assume that each of these events occurred
in one twenty-four-hour period.

?This, however, leads to the second point about this view of Genesis. The fact
is that the earth appears to be billions of years old. Despite the attempts
of the creationists to fabricate an alternate view, the earth appears to be
old. It is not necessary to review the evidence discussed previously, but the evidence
could be summarized by stating that there is an apparent conflict between the
face-value, literal interpretation of Genesis chapter one and scientific fact.

So how can the literal interpretation of the creation account be reconciled
with the facts of science? First of all, it has already been shown beyond a
reasonable doubt that the universe was created. Besides that, life was created.
Could an all-powerful God create the world in six twenty-four-hour days? The
answer is obviously, yes. Scientific evidence supports the creation of life.
The question is simply how and when was life created. The cosmos was created.
The remaining issue is the means and timing of that creation. To the person who
is convinced that the Bible is inspired, and that the God of the Bible is all-powerful,
the creation account in the first chapter of Genesis is quite believable.

?When Jesus created enough bread and fish to feed five thousand people, the
bread and fish were created with an ?appearance of age? (John 6:1-13). In fact,
the fish was cooked already. It would be difficult to speculate how ?hard? it
is for God to do these sorts of things, but one thing one can be confident of
is that the universe exists, and it was created by God.

?It should be noted, however, that the literal interpretation of Genesis is
not a scientific theory. By definition, a scientific theory concerns known or
measurable physical facts, which are governed by predictable natural laws. A
miraculous event clearly is a violation of these natural laws. The law of conservation
of mass was violated when Jesus made fish out of nothing that day by the sea
of Galilee! This ?theory? that God created the world in six twenty-four hour
periods, even if it is true, is not something to be taught in science classes.
It could be mentioned off-hand as a possible starting point for how the universe
eventually came to be what it is today, but even if it is true, it seems reasonable
to believe that it would not be verifiable by any scientific experiment. Although
science can be used to support the concept of creation, it cannot by its nature
be used to prove a particular miracle occurred.

Some who claim to be Christians are very defensive about this point, but they
should not be. Those committed to thinking through this issue carefully should
not be intimidated by creationists into accepting the untenable position that
scientific evidence supports an age of the earth of only a few thousand years.
The literal understanding of Genesis chapter one is not scientific by any definition
of science. Being based on a miraculous event, it cannot be disproved by science,
but it is not scientific. It would be a belief based primarily on faith in the

For those who take the Genesis creation account at face value, let the author
play ?devil?s advocate? briefly in order to challenge their thinking. First,
if the earth is only a few thousand years old, how can the fossil record, containing
such apparently ancient species as dinosaurs and trilobites buried under hundreds or
even thousands of feet of younger-appearing sediment, be explained? One could
turn to the flood theory, but that theory appears to be discredited. The fact
is that if the earth is only a few thousand years old, then dinosaurs never lived.
Bogus claims of dinosaur tracks appearing together with supposed human footprints
not withstanding, if the earth is only a few thousand years old, then triceratops,
pterodactyls and a host of other species found only as
ancient fossils never
lived. This is a strong claim, but it seems impossible to reconcile the fossil
and sedimentary evidence with both a few thousand year-old earth and the existence
of some of these seemingly extremely ancient species.

Besides, what about very distant galaxies, hundreds of millions or even billions
of light years away from us? How has the light from a galaxy five million light
years away from us managed to reach us if the universe itself is only seven
thousand years old? If the universe were only a few thousand years old, then we
should only be seeing objects a few thousand light years away, and new objects
should appear to pop into existence when the light created since they were formed
finally arrives here to be seen by us.

There are a multitude of similar questions that could be asked along these lines,
a few of which were raised in the second chapter, but two will suffice to make
the point. How will the person who takes Genesis chapter one at face value answer
these questions? More to the point, how will they answer these questions without resorting
to the false claims of creationists?

?These are good and challenging questions, but there is a reasonable answer.
They might reply by claiming that when God created the world, he created it
with an appearance of age. When the earth was formed, it included fossils already
imbedded in the ground. Also, at the moment when God created the stars, he also
created light on a path from the stars to the earth, just exactly as if they
had already been there for a very long time.

Playing ?devil?s advocate? just a little bit more, people who take Genesis chapter
one literally could ask themselves why God would put fossils of animals which
never even lived in the ground? If the earth actually is young, why would God
have made it appear old? It would almost be as if God were trying to test people?s
faith, or as some critics would say, it is as if God were deceiving us. In answer,
the believer might reply, ?It is clear from nature that God created the world
as it is. Who am I to tell God how to create the world? God, in His wisdom,
could create the world in any way he wants. God revealed in Genesis chapter
one how he created the world, and I believe it.?

In summary, the believer who takes the literal interpretation of Genesis relies
on faith in the inerrancy of the Bible rather than scientific evidence as the
basis for his belief. Through the fulfilled prophecy from the Old Testament,
through the undeniable power of the words of Jesus, through the historically confirmed
resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, and many other powerful proofs, this
person is convinced that the Bible is the inspired word of God. It is no huge
leap of faith for the believer to conclude the account in Genesis is no less
accurate than all the other accounts in the Bible. It so happens that there
is no scientific evidence available to disprove the literal interpretation of
the creation account in Genesis as an accurate record of the miraculous means
by which God created the world we live on and the life it supports. It seems
only fair that those who would take a different view (for example the ?non-literal?
approach described below) respect the intellectual and spiritual right of othe
rs to interpret the Genesis creation account in this way.




Next, the second approach described above for understanding the Biblical account
of creation will be considered.[5] To quote from above, one could ?Take the
entire account as an outline from God, of what He did in creating the earth,
but assume that the six ?days? are not literal, but rather a simplification
for the sake of scientifically unsophisticated readers.? According to this view,
the Genesis creation account is God?s way of explaining to his people how he
created the world. Neither the level of scientific knowledge nor the vocabulary
of the Hebrew language would allow God to reveal the concepts of genetics, geology,
chemistry or physics necessary to fully explain what he did when he created
the world.

?In the next two chapters, a number of astoundingly accurate scientific insights
will be described which were revealed by God in the Bible to these scientifically
unsophisticated Hebrews. The creation account is no exception to this rule.
In each case, when God revealed to his people some truth with scientific implications,
he did not choose to give a detailed scientific explanation, but rather used
terms accessible to readers of the day.

In order to bring out this point, consider the creation account in more detail.
Assume for the moment that the account is given from the point of view of an
observer on the earth (Genesis 1:1). This ?observer? would first note that the
sun, as it was formed, began to produce light. As the earth formed, it would be
spinning, and there would be periods of light and darkness (Genesis 1:3). Later,
as the earth ?evolved,? a separate atmosphere and ocean formed (Genesis 1:6-8).
Next, as the planet cooled, lighter rock such as quartz and granite rose above
the heavier basalt; high enough to appear above the surface of the oceans, creating
the first continents (Genesis 1:9,10). God created the first life forms (Genesis
1:11-13), gymnosperms (non-fruit bearing) before angiosperms (fruit bearing). As the
plants proliferated, they absorbed large amounts of carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere, allowing the earth to cool enough that the thick clouds finally
parted, allowing an observer on the surface of the earth to see the sun and the
moon for the first time (Genesis 1:15-19). Next, God created many different
species of the higher life forms such as birds, reptiles and mammals. (Genesis
1:20-25). Last of all, God brought to fruition, his highest creation, man, hom
o sapiens. (Genesis 1:26-28).

It seems reasonable to ask where all the supposed scientific blunders are in
this description. The Genesis ?myth,? as some would call it, does not seem to
reflect the lack of knowledge of its authors, but rather shows an uncanny insight
into scientific truth. Allowing for the simplification in language God used
in order to communicate with a people of no great sophistication, the first
chapter of Genesis just happens to agree in outline form with modern scientific
knowledge. The Bible believer is not surprised at this fact, but the skeptic should
take note.

To put the account of creation in Genesis into context, it will be helpful to
briefly describe current scientific theories of the history of the solar system
and life on the earth. The evolutionary theory of the origin of the solar system
would predict that the sun and its planets formed from a cloud of interstellar
matter as it condensed due to gravitational attraction. According to the second
law of thermodynamics, when gases contract, they increase in temperature. As
the gas cloud, which eventually formed our solar system contracted, the innermost
matter reached sufficiently high temperature and pressure to initiate fusion
of hydrogen, and the gas cloud became a star. As the disk-shaped cloud contracted
rather than falling into the sun, the matter farther from the center was spinning
around the sun fast enough that it coalesced to form planets.

?Initially, the planets had fairly thick atmospheres made up of mostly hydrogen
and helium, with perhaps smaller amounts of methane, water and so forth, but
the innermost pl
anets lost a significant amount of their atmospheres due to
their light weight and the intense solar wind. Because on the inner planets the
lighter elements were lost in this way, there existed a higher proportion of
the heavier elements. As these inner planets cooled, an outer crust of solid
rock formed. On the earth, the proper temperature and sufficient quantity of water
allowed the formation of a layer of water to cover the entire planet. As the
crust cooled, the lighter rocks were pushed upward, forming the continents.
As the proper conditions existed to support life, living forms appeared. First very
simple one-celled species appeared. Eventually, simple organisms capable of
photosynthesizing appeared which reduced the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,
but raised the amount of oxygen to significant levels, probably for the first tim
e. This created the proper conditions for animals which use oxygen to appear.
As time progressed, ever more complex and adapted species were seen on the earth.

The account above is a fusion of theory as well as scientific evidence. It just
so happens that there is an incredible correlation between the account in Genesis
and this model. Should one be surprised at this?

It would be interesting at this point to compare the biblical account of creation
to those from cultures and religions of antiquity. For example, Greek myth includes
the claim that all the animals were originally formed by Prometheus and Epimethius
from clay molds, analogous to the production of cast iron. Greek myth also involves
the idea that Atlas holds the sky up above the earth on his shoulders, as well
as the dubious claim that the sun rides in a chariot across the sky each day.

Ancient Egyptian religion included a belief about creation as well. It involved
the belief that in the beginning the universe was filled with a primordial ocean
called the Nun. The waters of the Nun were stagnant. Out of the limitless flood
rose the primeval hill, which eventually became the landmass of the earth. The priests
of each of the great cult centers of Egypt claimed that their city was the point
where the landmass of the earth originated. Some believe the great pyramids
at Giza represent this primeval hill.

The Babylonian creation myth involved gods emerging from a divine swamp which
had existed forever. These gods came out of the swamp in male and female pairs.
As the younger gods appeared, they did battle with the older gods. In one battle,
Marduk, the son of Ea (the earth God) attacked and killed the first god of all,
Tiamat. He caught her in a net and crushed her skull. As the divine blood of
Tiamut spilled to earth, the Babylonian creation myth claims that the blood
and mud mixture formed the first humans.

The ancient and traditional religion of Japan is Shinto. Shinto scripture holds
that two gods Izanagi and Izanami were given a gift of a spear adorned with
jewels. At the time of this gift, the earth was a muddy chaos over which the
gods had flung a bridge. Izanagi and Izanami went out on the celestial bridge and
thrust their spear into the muddy chaos. They drew it back all spattered with
mud. A little fell off the spear, falling to earth, forming one of the Japanese
islands. Then these two gods came and lived on this island. Out of their union
the eight principal islands of Japan were created.

It would be difficult to say with authority what the Hindu creation story is
as there are a great number of different and sometimes even contradictory lists
of gods and myths about those gods depending on what period of Hinduism is being
considered. One myth has the first man Manu arriving on an earth devoid of animals.
Out of a sacrifice Manu offers to the gods, the first woman was made. Manu lusted
after the woman, so she changed into a cow. Manu changed himself into a bull,
and from their offspring cattle were created. Next, the woman changed into a goat,
and Manu changed himself into a he-goat and so forth until all the animals were

A creation myth of the Iroquois nation relates that in the beginning of things
there were two brothers, Enigorio and Enigohahetgea. The former went around
the world furnishing it with gentle streams, fertile plains and good fruits.
The latter followed him maliciously creating rapids, thorns and deserts. Eventually
Enigorio turned on his brother, crushing him into the earth, where he still
lives, receiving the souls of the dead and existing as the author of evil.[6]

It would be possible to quote from creation accounts from the Popul Vuh, the
ancient Mayan scripture, or from the creation stories of other Native Americans,
from Buddhist scripture and so forth, but these examples are typical. These
creation accounts make for an interesting study, but it would be very difficult
to take them seriously from a scientific point of view. The Bible is a striking
exception to this rule. Scholars and theologians may want to put the biblical
account of creation into the same basket as these creation myths, but it seems to
be a good idea to ask whether or not this is good scholarship. Here, then, is
very strong evidence, not that the Bible contains a bunch of myths and legends,
but rather that the Bible is inspired by God.

The well-trained skeptic would point out the other creation account in Genesis
chapter two. Everyone knows that this second account is a separate myth, in
total conflict with the first myth in Genesis chapter one?or so would the atheist
or even some theologians claim. Perhaps some believers have not heard this one yet!
It is a fairly common criticism of intellectuals who do not believe in the Bible.
They claim that the initial editors of Genesis had a debate over which account
to include, finally deciding to put both creation stories in despite their ?contradictions.?
This is easy enough to claim, and it gives theologians some nice topics for
their Ph.D. theses, but the relevant question to be asked is whether or not
it is true.

In fact, Genesis chapter two is not an account of the creation of the world
at all. It is an account of the creation of Adam and Eve. A careful study of
the second chapter of Genesis will show that it is an account of the creation
and fall of man. ?And God formed man from the dust of the ground? (Genesis 2:7).
It represents a relatively small proportion of what is described in Genesis
chapter one as having occurred on the sixth day. Where is the contradiction
between the general creation account in the first chapter and the specific description
of part of the sixth day in the second chapter of Genesis?

It is time for the author to play the part of the ?devil?s advocate? in order
to challenge the thinking of the person who would take the view of the Biblical
account of creation just described. To do this, the literalist would ask: ?Why
do you choose not to take what God said at face value? God said ?there was evening,
and there was morning?the first day?. Where is your precedent for simply assuming
that God did not mean exactly what he said?? This is a good question. As pointed
out above, the most obvious interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis would
be to assume that God is describing literal twenty-four hour days. In fact,
if one were to be completely honest, they would have to admit that if it were
not for knowledge gleaned from science, completely apart from the Bible, they would
probably not even have considered any other way of thinking about the creation
story in the Bible.[7

The intellectually honest person must answer this question. A general rule of
Biblical interpretation, or of interpretation of any writing for that matter,
is that the obvious interpretation is generally the correct one. Unless there
is a definite reason from the context or from information elsewhere in the writing
to support another interpretation, the ?obvious? interpretation should be taken
as the original meaning. In this case, it certainly would seem that the obvious
way of understanding Genesis chapter one would be to assume that it is speaking
of creation in six twenty-four-hour days, not billions of years. How would the
person who believes the ?non-literal? interpretation of Genesis respond to this

This person might respond as follows. First, they might claim that God did not
intend to give a step-by-step, detailed account of creation. It was not God?s
intent to include a great amount of detail of relevance to science. In fact,
what God wanted to communicate was that he was the creator of the universe, of
all life, and finally of man. God is the all powerful creator, to whom we must
give account. If God had told the Hebrews that he first created prokaryotic
life, without a definite nucleus in the cell, followed by eukaryotic life, with
a separate nucleus in the cells, he probably would have lost his audience right
then and there since they did not even know what a cell was. God chose to give
a very simple account of what he did, in the order he did it.

Secondly, to answer the ?devil?s advocate,? this person might look a bit closer
at the Hebrew language used in the Genesis account. Here, the word for ?day?
is the Hebrew word yom. In fact, this is the same word contained in the name
of the Jewish holiday Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. What does this word mean?
In the King James Version of the Bible of 1611, the word yom is translated as


1181 times as ?day? (but with several different connotations

?of the word)

67 times as ?time?

30 times as ?today?

18 times as ?forever?

10 times as ?continuously?

6 times as ?age?

4 times as ?life?

2 times as ?perpetually?


Clearly, this word has many possible meanings, depending on the context. Even
when it is translated as day, the word does not necessarily refer to a twenty-four
hour period. For example, to quote Isaiah 4:2, ?in that day the Branch of the
Lord will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land will be the pride
and glory of the survivors in Israel.? Here, even though the translators used
the word ?day,? in translating the word yom, the context does not seem to imply
a literal twenty-four hour period, but rather an indefinite period of time. It
was not hard for the translators of the Bible to decide to use the English word
?day? in the context of Genesis chapter one for the Hebrew word yom, but it
would be a mistake to be dogmatic about the interpretation of the passage as implying
literal twenty-four hour periods.[8]

Another question, which could be asked, is whether the events described in the
creation account as occurring in six ?days? could actually happen in twenty-four
hour periods. A look at the sixth day of creation as described briefly in chapter
one and in more detail in chapter two shows that in this day, God created a
number of kinds of animals first, followed by Adam. On this day, Adam named
all the creatures in the garden. Despite the novelty of all this, Adam had time
to get very lonely.? He fell asleep, and while he was sleeping, Eve was created.
It seems hard to believe all this could have happened in a literal twenty-four
hour day.

In summary, the Bible believer might conclude that Genesis chapter one is an
outline account of what God did over a great span of time as he created the
universe. Looking more closely at the text, they would discover that this account
just happens to square with currently available scientific evidence about the history
of the earth.




What about the third approach to understanding Genesis chapter one? One could
?completely discount the entire Genesis creation story as having any validity
at all.? It could be treated as just one of many interesting man-made myths;
essentially the same as a number of other creation stories common to most ancient
cultures. As has already been said, for the person who knows little or nothing
about the Bible, this would seem at first glance to be a perfectly reasonable
conclusion. It would seem to be reasonable unless one begins to look more closely
at the accuracy of the Genesis account.

?This third approach does not conflict with current scientific knowledge.? In
fact, the statement above contains no testable scientific claim.? Nevertheless
there are some questions which people who hold to this view should ask themselves.
First, how can the agreement of the Biblical account of creation with scientific
knowledge be explained? This question should be especially challenging in the
light of the creation myths created by other peoples as described above because
these other creation stories certainly do not jibe with current scientific understanding
at all.

?Second, when one considers the weight of the evidence for the inspiration of
the Bible, does it seem wise to simply assume that the Genesis creation account
is just a myth created by scientifically ignorant people? The person who is
prepared to ?blow the whole thing off as a myth? may not have looked carefully
at the evidence for the inspiration of the Bible. They would be well advised
to read the Bible carefully, first of all, and to follow up this careful reading
by considering such topics as the resurrection of Christ and Biblical prophecies
about the Messiah.

?Speaking for myself, if I had never read the Bible and seen it working in my
life, if I had never studied the Old Testament prophecies (which predict in
amazing detail the birth, life, betrayal, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ),
if I had never looked into the truth of the resurrection of Christ, I might have
reached the

Comments are closed.