By Ken Wear, posted February 2000
The degree of correlation, between what science tells us about the origin of our planet
and its life and the story as told in the opening chapter in the Bible, seems
remarkable to me. Our pre-Palomar (200 inch telescope -- brought on line in 1948)
universe was limited in extent and content, and the preacher's insistence on creation of
it all in one sweep seemed within the bounds of reason. But it requires a far greater leap
of faith to accept the theory of the Big Bang -- the greatest violation of science that
science has ever concocted* -- than to accept the thought of deity and His involvement.
If we limit the creation story to our solar system with its sun and planets, Genesis 1
gives a much more plausible story than explosion of an egg that had no origin. I
contend there is no essential disagreement between Genesis 1 and science. With our
present knowledge of our galaxy among the billions of galaxies I stand in awe at the
magnitude of that portion of creation embraced by the Bible as well as the insight
presented in Genesis 1.
*Cause and effect, the foundation of science, is not compatible with the notion of effect
without cause, especially such a dramatic and far-reaching effect as creation of the whole
universe.
NOTE : Quotations from the Bible are PURPLE;
Others are GREEN
In truth, the opening verse
QuoteIn the beginning God created the heaven and the
earthEndQuote (v.1, King James
Version-- KJV) hints of a limited extent -- earth only with its immediate environment
(heaven); it was an invention of religious teachers to include the totality of creation,
the entire Universe. The alternative
QuoteWhen God began to create the heavens and the earth . . .
EndQuote (found in the Revised
Standard Version -- RSV) is even more strongly suggestive of a less ambitious project;
what may have transpired before the opening of the Bible story is in no way suggested.
That is not to say that the notion, that only God pre-existed the opening account in the
Bible, is in error; the text in the Bible is simply lacking in detail and cannot be cited
to suggest the origin of God Himself or to support extension of the Bible story in
Genesis 1 to the larger Universe.
When I was young it was common to insist that God’s six days of creation were days of
one earthly rotation as we know them. Considering God’s almighty power that seemed a
plausible assertion. But the Bible text was written in the language of the Jews so we
ought to consider their notion of a day. Their day consists of morning, from sunrise to
sunset, and evening, from sunset to sunrise -- a period of light followed by a period of
darkness. Whereas KJV refers to the first day, second day, . . ., RSV says instead
Quotethere was
evening and there was morning, one day.EndQuote
If I had a dream of a period of light of undefinable duration followed by a
period of darkness also of undefinable duration, I would certainly be tempted to call it a
day. Certainly, considering the development of science and language at the time this
chapter was written, a more complete description would have fallen on ears incapable
of understanding and thus been pointless. The revelation of Genesis 1 demonstrates the
wisdom of God in presenting to His authors information within their ability to grasp.
When studying the Bible it is easy to dismiss a passage as patently in error and thus
devoid of divine sanction; less easy but, alas, also unrevealing, is an unthinking
acceptance of the wording as presented as being the inviolate word God Himself put
upon the page. Either extreme results in reducing one’s motivation for further inquiry
into the background, message or intent of a passage. But if God’s revelation to a mortal
is somehow embraced by a Bible passage, then in our search for understanding we ought
to try to reconstruct that revelation from the clues available; only in this way can we
gain insight into the events that inspired that passage.
The Creation story as presented in the first chapter of Genesis affords an outstanding
example of the extremes of Bible interpretation. We ought neither reject this material as
unbelievable fabrication nor accept it as literal truth; neither Darwin’s evolutionary
theory --Quote
survival of the fittestEndQuote-- nor
dating Creation at 4004 B.C. (Bishop Usher's calculation) ought be accepted unthinkingly.
Let us undertake a plausible reconstruction of the happenings reported in the Creation
story (Gen. 1:1-2:1) and see if perhaps the presentations in the Bible may be found
compatible with the scientific constructions growing out of astronomy and the theory
of evolution.
Science speculates that gravity drew together gases and space debris into a swirling mass
that gradually compressed with our sun at the vortex and the planets, asteroids, comets.,
etc., as left over remnants, some perhaps condensing from rings. Science also tells us
that, in the genesis of life on Earth, simple forms appeared first and evolved into greater
complexity. Plants led the parade. And the first habitat of life forms and of creatures
was the oceans.
Imagine, if you will, a breeze causing ripples on the surface of a lake and the moonlight
reflecting from the rippling surface, making sparkling scintillations as it illuminates
first one crest and then another. Now turn in your imagination to a swirling mass of
gases and debris lighted by a distant star and starlight reflecting from first one chunk
and then another. Compare the two scenes.
Quote. . . and the wind of God was moving over the face
of the waters.EndQuote (v.2, alternate
rendition, RSV) What vivid imagery in the language of the time to describe how scientists
picture the swirling mass that became our solar system!
QuoteAnd God
said, Let there be light.EndQuote
(v.3) Our sun ignited. In that portion of the universe within the scope of the author’s
revelation, where he may have seen a vaguely scintillating cloud (the waters), a light was
born. The swirling gases, under the influence of gravity, had been drawn closer
together, generating intense and increasing temperatures during the compression, until
the combination of temperature, pressure and radioactivity ignited a hydrogen fusion
reaction.
Quote
. . . and God separated the light from the darkness . . .
EndQuote (v.4) A flashlight beam through
the darkness shows no light except where it strikes an object or
particles suspended in the air; and the space between the planets is likewise
dark except where there is a body for light to strike. The author reported
here, from his vantage point beyond the solar system, his view before and
after ignition of the sun with the regions of light (the sun and
illuminated planets) and dark (regions between bodies) resulting
from the sun’s ignition.
Quotethere was evening and there was morning, one day.
EndQuote(v.5, RSV) A
period of darkness (the waters) followed by a period of light (the sun):
day one.
Quote
And God said, ‘Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let
it separate the waters from the waters . . .EndQuote
(v.6, RSV) The earth was soon to appear in its
orbital position, where it would intercept sunlight and hence bring light
where there had been dark. What gaseous clouds (waters) remained
near the earth’s orbit condensed upon the earth, creating a void
in the Quote
watersEndQuote
in the area of the
QuotefirmamentEndQuote
or solid substance.
QuoteAnd there was evening and
there was morning, a second day. EndQuote
(v.8, RSV) Thus, the record of this evening (the void
where Earth was to appear) and morning (a second day) seems a
reasonable expression of incisive insight into or a revelation of Earth’s
origination.
Scientific understanding is that our earth was initially quite hot; it was likely smooth
or nearly so; a large portion of earth’s water doubtless existed as vapor in an
atmosphere so dense as to shut out sunlight almost entirely from the earth’s surface.
But cooling caused distortion of the planet’s crust into valleys and ridges, at the same
time permitting an increasing portion of the water vapor to condense to cause bodies
of liquid water and to initiate the water cycle with its surface erosion as well as life-
supporting qualities. At some point during the cooling process, vegetation appeared.
And so the scripture records gathering together the water under the heavens, the
appearance of dry land, and the start of vegetation, again during a period described as
evening (dark at the surface due to clouds) and morning, (v.13, RSV) a third day.
A point was reached in the condensation of earth’s blanket of water vapor that light from
the sun, moon and stars penetrated and became evident at the surface. (v.14-15) And now,
from a point on the surface, the author was able to discern the sun and moon and stars
(v.16), the alternate dark and light caused by our planet’s rotation (v.17), and the
seasonal effect of the inclination of its rotational axis. It seems reasonable to accept
the author’s periods of dark and light during this day (the fourth) as the long
term effect of earth’s moisture blanket, from too dense for light to penetrate to visibility of
heavenly bodies, rather than a 24-hour period from sunset to sunset. Quotethere was evening and there
was morning, a fourth day.EndQuote
(v.19, RSV)
Animate life appeared, first in the oceans and then on land (v.20-22, RSV)
(day five) and, finally, man appeared (v.27).
Quotethere was evening and there was morning,
a sixth day.EndQuote
(v.31, RSV). The correlation between the Bible’s account and the sequence as taught
by science is remarkable. The principle difficulty -- the division into days -- has been
here accounted for by relying on the Hebrew concept of a day and then shifting the
vantage point of the observer. Explanation of the division between days five and six is
less easy, although I suggest four possibilities: (1) cyclic condensations of water vapor
so dense as to blot out the heavenly bodies, (2) a cloud of atmospheric debris thrown
up by a crashing meteorite (as is thought to have ended the dinosaur era) so dense as to
cause darkness at the surface, (3) some cataclysmic event external to earth caught the
observer’s attention, or (4) the reference was introduced due to the sequence of timing of
his revelations. But it is evident that the order of creation of plant life and animal
life, and the arrival of man, is, as recorded in the Bible, essentially in keeping with the
views of advocates of science and of evolution.
The real wonder of the biblical account of Creation in Genesis 1 is that its author
enjoyed sufficient insight as to offer anything of significance to us, and, using a
language not arising from scientific endeavors, to express his insight in a manner
intelligible in both his time and ours.
To offer an opinion or seek further comment, you may send an e-mail
that will pass my spam filter if you use as Subject -- I read your post
about Genesis1 -- exactly as you see it here.
Click here for the e-mail form.
You may have an interest in comment on other Bible stories:
I have challenged the Big Bang theory of origins; to read that,
click here.
Hit the BACK button, or click here to return
to Contents of this web site.
Post Script added 5-17-06. When I was
young we young people talked of Creation and we talked of the Bible. As
knowledge of the universe was expanded -- remember I was young during the
early days of revelations by the telescope at Palomar* -- the improbability of creation
of the totality of it all in six rotations of Earth on its axis became increasingly
apparent; insistence by clergy that the Bible was factually (and scientifically)
correct in its entirety led to an intellectual rift. There was wholesale rejection of the
absoluteness of the clergy's pronouncements (now referred to as Fundamentalism
or the doctrine of inerrancy**, the notion that every word in the Bible is absolutely
correct as expressed in our contemporary language), with the consequence that
the entirety of church teaching became suspect. Many of my contemporaries,
rather than study to learn the boundary between the clergy's assertion and the
most probable truth, rejected church teachings in their entirety and, lacking an
alternative, became atheistic.
It is true that the second chapter of Genesis seems an alternate account of the
origin of Creation. But, let us examine the words of Genesis 2 to detect their
apparent departure from Genesis 1. Verses 1-3 conclude the story presented
in Genesis 1; verses 4-6 set the stage leading to verse 7, the origin of man; verses
8-17describe a local development in a specific location; logically there is no
inconsistency between Genesis 1 and 2 to this point in the narrative. Verses
18-23 suggest original creation, but, rather than "forming out of the ground"
(or from a rib in the case of woman), it may be regarded that these were brought
before Adam in his Garden of Eden. The only truly difficult passage is verse 24,
"Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and
they become one flesh" (RSV). Adam's*** father and mother? It simply doesn't
fit. Finally, verse 25: So they were naked! Hardly unlikely.
The logical difficulty Fundamentalist preachers face is insisting that every word in the
Bible is literally correct; that fails to distinguish between allegory and history and
expands the rift between science and religion.
*Palomar is the 200-inch telescope in California placed in operation about 1948-49; I
was 20 at the time.
Like other activities of man, the church must adapt if it is to remain
relevant. Acceptance of the allegorical nature of revelations in Genesis does not in any
way violate reason or science. How could it have served God's purpose to reveal, to
people whose language and understanding of Nature did not prepare them to believe, the
magnificent story of Earth and its environment science has constructed in recent years?
Rather, isn't this revelation a further example of God's wisdom in His dealings with man?
My printer takes 5 pages or 3 sheets of paper to print this document.
For a discussion
of how the waters parted for the Israelites escape from Egypt,
click here.
For a discussion of the real and allegorical aspects of Noah's flood,
click here.
For a short story that portrays Adam as the first human to worship the one true God and
establishes a framework for the Biblical story of Adam and Eve (Genesis 3-4),
click here
A summary in layman's terms of the scientific account of the origin of our
solar system, Earth and life appears if you click here.
**Under 'inerrancy,' should a single word be proved inaccurate or false, then the entire
structure elaborated under inerrancy falls into question.
***In translating the Hebrew language, the word 'Adam' is not only the name of
an individual, but may be 'man' or 'mankind.'