How Does Science Help Us Understand the Genesis 1 Creation Sequence?

Posted bykeithpetersen80Posted inChristian ApologeticsTags:, , ,

Of all the questions I have wrestled with over the years, this was the very first one, and the biggest. In fact, this goes all the way back to elementary school, call it age nine, and continued for about fifteen more years. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that at such a young age, my question was actually a statement something like this: “The order of creation in Genesis 1 doesn’t make sense.”

Allow me to lay out the days of creation in a somewhat simplified form, like this:

  • Day 1: Creation of light; separation of light from darkness into day and night
  • Day 2: Separation of “waters:” the atmosphere (“sky,” including clouds) from the water-covered Earth
  • Day 3: Separation of dry land from seas; creation of vegetation
  • Day 4: Creation of sun, moon, and stars
  • Day 5: Creation of sea animals and birds
  • Day 6: Creation of land animals and people

Perhaps you have had the same thought that I had even as a young child: everything seems to be in order until Day 4. In other words, how could the sun, moon, and stars (Day 4) be created after light (Day 1) and after vegetation (Day 3)? One teacher (I went to Christian schools) brought to my attention something I found interesting: if you look at the creation days, you can divide them into three pairs, each of which closely relates two days: Days 1 and 4; Days 2 and 5; Days 3 and 6. However, it didn’t answer my question about sequence.

I became a Christian at age 20, but my big question was still unanswered. Then at age 24, I came across a book called The Fourth Day. The author was a Christian astronomy professor, so I eagerly began to devour it. However, I was soon disappointed because the author essentially dismissed Genesis 1-11 as nothing more than figurative language which was not meant to be taken as history! This meant he also dismissed the flood, along with the Biblical account of the origin of different languages. For him, Biblical history began with God’s call of Abraham. Thankfully, there was a footnote in which he dismissively mentioned a book called Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth by Robert C. Newman and Herman J. Eckelmann.

I knew as soon as I began reading this book that I was going to find my answer. So, rather than eagerly devour it, I carefully read it. In the second part of their book, Newman and Eckelmann take us through the first four creation days of Genesis 1 verse by verse, giving a scientific explanation for what was happening on each day. In order to understand this, they suggest adopting the viewpoint of standing on the surface of the early Earth and watching God create. This made sense to me based on the limited scientific knowledge of people at the time Genesis was written.

If you are not interested in the scientific details that absolutely blew me away, you can skip to the next paragraph. However, I will keep this brief and avoid scientific jargon as much as possible. Early in its history, Earth had a very thick cloud cover–basically a greenhouse effect which raised temperatures and caused more water to vaporize. When God created vegetation (Day 3), photosynthesis replaced a significant portion of the carbon dioxide present at that time with oxygen. This lowered the temperature, reduced the cloud cover, and prepared the atmosphere for animals and man (Days 5 and 6).

So, what happened on Day 4? For the first time, the sun, moon, and stars became visible from the Earth’s surface as the cloud cover thinned.  In other words, the sun, moon, and stars had been created prior to Day 4 (which also explains the light on Day 1).  Genesis One gives an account of what an Earth-bound observer would have seen as creation unfolded. 

It is difficult to describe the praise to the Lord that erupted in my heart when I realized my question had been answered; it was quite literally an “Oh, My God” moment. My young faith became immensely strengthened at this revelation after fifteen years of wondering and searching. There is a saying that perspective is everything; in answering this question, that is 100% true!

20 thoughts on “How Does Science Help Us Understand the Genesis 1 Creation Sequence?”

    1. Yes, Annie; God has given us the ability to investigate His world using the sciences, and they help illuminate some Bible passages, especially Genesis 1, in a powerful, awe-inspiring way. To the Creator of everything be the glory!

      Like

      Reply

  2. Thanks for sharing, Keith. I have similar question growing up. It is very interesting what your teacher told you how we can see the world creation in 3 pairs. Thanks for the explanation of Day 4.
    I am interested to check out the book you mentioned.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Linda, you’re exactly the kind of person that I wrote this post for; I knew that there had to be other people out there who had the same question. And yes, even though the three pairs didn’t answer my question, I also think it’s very interesting.

      It looks like there is a newer edition of Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth, with the two authors I mentioned plus one more. If you like, I can lend you my copy (the original edition).

      Like

      Reply

  4. Dear Brother Keith, Thank you so much for answering this. Honestly, I had just read over these passages of scripture without really probing like you did. Amazing find Brother. Thank you for sharing your study. It’s amazing I find the word study actually means to meditate on something one finds to be perplexing and through deep research one digs until they are at peace with an answer. This is what you’ve done and we get to benefit from it. I should very much like to post your blogs to my study about the Gap. I will also read your Evolution Blog. Thanks again. God bless you.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  5. To respond to the titles’ question, NO, science does not help us to understand Genesis One. I propose a simple biblical solution to this supposed cosmological dilemma (light before the sun), one that will debunk all Earth-origin cosmological models, Christian and otherwise. There is only one resolution: the one which science cannot investigate nor even deal with. Faith, as expressed in Genesis, God spoke, and the stars, sun, moon, and all other heavenly bodies which populate the Universe (which includes the light shining from each object), were brought into existence instantaneously on the fourth day. “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth … For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast (Psalm 33: 6, 9). When God declared this, He did not need 24 hours to accomplish His bidding – it happened immediately. The text does not imply it took an entire 24 hours (or four days) to accomplish His purpose. And even if it did, as with all of Jesus’s miracles, each day of creation was miraculous; entirely beyond the purview, scope, and bounds of scientific study.

    I believe many Christians have fallen into the trap of attempting to explain something that cannot be explained by natural means. It’s akin to using science to solve the mystery, of how did Jesus turn water into wine or His resurrection from the dead. Evolutionists have goaded Christian cosmologists into answering something no one is qualified to give. When Christians do not have what’s considered an adequate explanation of a biblical event, I have heard mocking comments such as, “That’s your default answer, God did it.” As if they are somehow superior, with their empirical rationales and scientific explanations. Despite such skepticism, Evolutionism cleaves to its own set of miracles, starting with the big bang which they believe brought everything into existence.

    I say to scientists, Christian astronomy professors, and those who believe God’s word, why not answer truthfully? The creation of stars and their light was a miracle; thus, we have no means to investigate nor even suggest an answer to the supposed “problem” of starlight. Thus, the book “Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth” by Robert C. Newman and Herman J. Eckelmann, offers no real answers. This is not to imply we shouldn’t study and observe the heavens; we simply need to understand the fundamental limits of science and the miraculous events it cannot examine or deal with. Therefore, no real scientific models can be put forth on Earth’s origins nor starlight; they would only be unverifiable hypotheses or pure guesses. The only Christian model dealing with origins, cannot be studied or examined by science; it’s found in the first two chapters of Genesis, God spoke, and it came into existence. The order is not “scientific,” nor was it meant to be. Again, science cannot study miracles!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. While I was searching for answers to various questions I had long ago, I came across a book called God Did It, But How? While that book didn’t answer my questions, it did point out that there are different ways to understand how God created everything.

      Here’s a very brief summary of what science tells us about some big questions. First, the evidence for the Big Bang is very strong, and here’s the best part: it means that the universe had a definite starting point, which means that Someone (or something?) had to exist prior to it; science has no good answers to that question, but only wild speculations about multiverses.

      Second, science has no answer to the origin of life; in fact, it is mathematically impossible for life to come into existence “accidentally.” And even if it did, evolution is a theory full of holes, and that is putting it mildly. For example, what the fossil record shows is that fully-formed species came into being suddenly, without transitional forms. Some have assumed that an ancient universe and earth imply evolution, which is simply not true. In fact, it has been shown mathematically that 4.5 billion years is nowhere near long enough for the proliferation of life forms that we see today.

      Finally, the universe is finely tuned, meaning that it is specifically designed for intelligent life to exist. In other words, if certain features of the universe were slightly different, life could not exist.

      All of these findings give strong evidence for God’s existence, and in fact, there are scientists who have “converted” from atheism to agnosticism because of the evidence, and some have converted to Christianity. I realize that for you, these findings may not be important, but they have been for others, and they have greatly strengthened my own faith.

      You referred to Psalm 33: 6 and 9; taken literally, you are right that 24 hours (X 6) were not necessary for the Lord to create everything; He could have done it instantaneously. I also freely concede that it’s certainly possible that the universe and earth are “young,” not ancient.

      As a lifelong friend of mine (now a retired pastor) would say, this is not a salvation issue. I’m looking forward to finding out the answer to this question in heaven!

      Like

      Reply

  7. Ancient Creation Scripturalists (ACS)
    Vs
    Old Earth Creationists (OEC)

    Compromise and conciliation at times is necessary when dealing with contracts, disputes, treaties, and the innumerable goings-on and undertakings we deal with throughout our lives. Nevertheless, I refuse to compromise my beliefs concerning sacred Scripture. Although over the years, when warranted by careful study, I have changed my views on a few doctrinal issues.

    Those who categorize themselves as Old Earth Creationists (OEC), compromise the age of the Earth as found in the first few chapters in the Book of Genesis. Since Creation is the cornerstone of Biblical integrity, we need to carefully scrutinize their philosophy, unique misrepresentations, and distortions of Scripture. There are three issues we will concentrate on.

    1. God created time on the first day. Thus, days, months, and years could not occur before time began. It was not a preexisting entity, force, or influence before its creation.
    2. There is no scientific methodology that can date the age of the Earth. Thus, it is pointless to cling to Evolutionism’s claim the Earth is billions of years old.
    3. The use of the term Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is a misnomer, for the Earth is very ancient, 6,000–7,000 years old. Consequently, a more precise term is essential. I have coined the term: Ancient Creation Scripturalist (ACS).

    Christians who believe God created the Earth about 6,000 years ago are contemptuously called YEC by both evolutionists and OEC. However, YEC is a misnomer, a term as inaccurate as it is misleading. For the Earth is not young, but extremely old, 6,000 years or so. As it conveys in Scripture, God created all things in six literal days, about 6 millennia ago. This is the truth I embrace. Thus, I identify as an ACS believer (Ancient Creation Scripturalist). Webster defines Scripturalist as: “One who derives his religious beliefs and general philosophy of life from a body of scripture teaching a single harmonious system of doctrine.”

    Christians who debate evolutionists and OEC on the age of the Earth are using a vernacular defined by evolutionists. In so doing they unwittingly admit to Evolutionism’s assumptions and premises (as they frame debates, old vs young). “One of the most basic rules of debate is to build subtle assumptions into your statements and arguments that lead your opponent to accept certain premises that benefit your position.”1 One such way, is using a snuck premise, which is a proposition somebody implies without directly saying it. This doesn’t mean what they said is incorrect or false, but a way of nullifying the challenger’s argument by getting them to agree to a ‘baseline’ which isn’t a true baseline.

    Evolutionists/OEC are experts at cajoling YEC into one big trap. Moreover, they seldom, if ever, address this claim, nor call them out on their loaded language and built-in assumptions (they frame the debate as old Earth vs young Earth). I propose and advocate, they define the terms and examine their claims to ensure the evolutionists/OEC conform to an acceptable standard. Failing to do so will continue to bolster their egregious errors and misunderstandings.

    It is precisely this evolutionary ploy that allows the OEC to insert billions of years to buttress their origins argument. This tactic is exemplified in the YouTube video “In the Beginning God; Is Earth Only 6,000 Years Old?” narrated (with great emphasis on the word old) by George Lujack.

    Psalm 102:25 “OF OLD hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.”
    Proverbs 8:22, 23 “The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.”
    II Peter 3:5 “For this, they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old” (emphasis his)

    Psalms and Proverbs were written over 3,000 years ago, Hebrews and II Peter were written over 2,000 years ago. Back then, when these books of Scripture were written, the earth and the heavens, the universe were old. Today, the universe and the earth are two thousand to three thousand years older. The Scriptures, the word of God, declare the heavens to be old, so why do YEC keep proclaiming that the earth and universe are young? One reason why YEC maintains the Scriptures declare the earth to be young, despite the scientific evidence and what the Scriptures say is that they know atheistic molecules to man evolution theory needs millions upon millions of years for it to even be a possibility. So, to stop evolution theory in its tracts, YEC stick with the story that the earth and universe are young purposely ignoring the scripture and scientific evidence that declare the earth and universe are old. YEC then must also come up with absurd science of their own to support a young earth and universe refuting verifiable science that all but proves that the earth and universe are very old.2 (emphasis mine)

    In the three verses listed, there is no allusion or any suggestion of billions of years elapsing. The word old in Psalm 102:25 is referring to mankind, which would encompass thousands of years, not millions or billions. In Proverbs, 8:22-23 “works of old” refers to creation, which took place thousands of years previously, not billions. “Before his works of old,” the six days of creation, there was a timeless duration, which, for obvious reasons, cannot be counted nor numbered, for time did not exist in eternity. In II Peter 3:5 the word old refers to the flood that occurred a few thousand, not billions of years before Peter wrote this.

    Lujack also upholds the evolutionary delusion that something 6,000 years old is very young. As the Scripture relates, the Earth is thousands of years old; therefore, it’s nonsensical to call the Earth young.

    Unfortunately, many Christians are oblivious to this subterfuge, allowing the label YEC to be used without ever correcting it. They not only permit it, but often use this misleading term themselves. Now, we cannot bridle the lips of those who twist and misuse the Scriptures; but we must not allow it to stand without challenge. Furthermore, we should never use any misnomer that weakens our case, and plays into the hands of those who hate truth. Wittingly or not, those who support and promote evolutionists’ billions of years empower the enemies of God’s Kingdom. For what does the Scripture teach? “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove (rebuke) them” (Eph. 5:11).

    Many Christians have a preconception the Earth is billions of years old. The most likely reason for this belief is the preponderance of propaganda about the primeval Earth, its prehistoric creatures, and man’s descent from the beasts. Most folks’ indoctrination began on their mothers’ knees and continued throughout their formal education and beyond. This delusion was supported by an unlimited number of books, movies, radio reports, and newspapers, all of which “confirmed” its validity.

    Recently I became cognizant of the time-honored fallacy concerning the meaning and misuse of the words old and young by evolutionists and their fellow believers, the OEC. In their attempt to lead us astray, they advocate that something 6,000 years old (the earth), is in reality very young. Nevertheless, the account of creation is true, and the record of history going back to the beginning is a true chronicle of events occurring since that time. The earth is not young as many suggest, that’s a misconception.

    I think most everyone would agree, anything 1,000 years old or older (most certainly 6,000 years), is old indeed, ancient in fact, be it an artifact or relic, Stone Age structure, coin, civilization, or a redwood tree. Sadly, we have been seduced by evolutionary notions of “deep time,” pronouncements of billions of years, etc. By contrast, 6,000 years, which denotes antiquity, is supposed to represent a minuscule period. However, a 6,000-year-old Earth cannot in any way or fashion, be considered young! I believe in an old Earth, ours, which has been around for an exceedingly long time, 6,000 – 7,000 years. Anything that old is not new or young.

    But OEC would say that compared to the billions of years of Earth’s history, wouldn’t a mere 6,000 years be a very young Earth? It would be, if you first swallowed the lie of billions of years. You cannot compare imaginary billions of years of evolutionary history with actual history. Thus, 6,000 years would be ancient, and retain the meaning as Webster defined it: “Having lived or existed for a long time … not new.”

    When we seriously contemplate and ponder their logic and irrational philosophy, we realize they believe we live in an extremely young universe, for it’s a mere 13.7 billion years old. Taking into consideration, that before this cosmos popped into existence, was given birth, or evolved, sexdecillions of years must have taken place. So, in their grand scheme of things, their billions of years, are barely a blip on the radar, just a moment in time. In fact, in their system, years and ages must go back, even farther than their mind can imagine. To quote Buzz Lightyear’s catchphrase, their years go “To Infinity and Beyond.”

    To sum it up, many Christians give this modern philosophy, Evolutionism, precedence, and superiority over the Word of God. They have allowed the popular notion the universe is much older than the biblical text allows, and needed some way to get those imagined billions of years into it. Therefore, they have accepted evolutionary delusions, its founding principle of billions of years, and clung to the misleading use and definitions of old and young. Thus, OEC has accepted this strange belief and hammered it to fit into the first two chapters in Genesis, doing real harm to the credibility of the Bible, by allowing this non-scientific belief to explain and decipher Scripture. Most importantly, Christians need to stop using the term YEC and start using the appropriate abbreviation, ACS (Ancient Creation Scripturalist), or some analogous acronym.

    1. https://www.redstate.com/diary/scorpio0679/2010/12/05/language-matters-we-need-to-set-the-terms-of-the-debate-on-taxes-and-spending/ para. 1.
    2. In the Beginning God; Is Earth Only 6,000 Years Old?–https://www. You tube.com/ watch?v=ICyZgODCyEQ, 28:57, 31:18.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Michael, it’s good to “see” you again; it’s been a while. We had a previous discussion about this when we first “met” almost two years ago. Elsewhere, particularly in my evolution and intelligent design posts, I have made it very clear that evolution barely deserves to even be called a “theory.” Regarding the age of the Earth (and universe), I wrote in a previous comment, on this post in a reply to you, that I freely concede the Earth and universe may very well be only a few thousand years old. Whereas I used to strongly believe in an Earth and a universe that are billions of years old, I am pretty close to agnostic on this issue now, but that doesn’t change what I wrote in this post. As I also mentioned in that previous comment, this is not a salvation issue, as a lifelong friend of mine (now a retired pastor) would say. We had previously agreed to disagree on this matter, and I trust that we can continue to do so.

      By the way, I wanted to let you know that I’m planning to take a closer look at a couple of chapters in your “Israel, Rapture, Tribulation” book by the end of this month and then e-mail you about it. I had planned to do it last year, but a lot of other things came up.

      Like

      Reply

      1. The point I made, time began on the first day, thus there was no time before that day, accordingly there could be no days, or years before time began, thusly, no millions or billions of years could occur before there was time.

        I deal with that issue in another book I am writing on that subject. Here is a bit more:

        “I believe many Christians have fallen into the trap of attempting to explain something that cannot be explained by natural means. It’s akin to using science to solve the mystery; how did Jesus’ turn water into wine, or His resurrection from the dead. Evolutionists have goaded Christian cosmologists into answering something no one is qualified to deal with. When Christians do not have what’s considered an adequate explanation of a biblical event, I have heard mocking comments such as, “That’s your default answer, God did it.” As if they are somehow superior, with their empirical rationales and scientific explanations. Despite such skepticism, Evolutionism cleaves to its own set of miracles, starting with the irrational and foolish, big bang, which they believe brought everything into existence.

        I say to scientists, Christian astronomy professors, and those who believe God’s word, why not answer truthfully? The creation of stars and their light was a miracle; thus, we have no means to investigate nor even suggest an answer to the supposed “problem” of starlight. This is not to imply we shouldn’t study and observe the heavens; we simply need to understand the fundamental limits of science and the miraculous events it cannot examine or deal with. Therefore, no scientific models can be put forth on Earth’s origins or starlight; they would only be unverifiable hypotheses or pure guesses. The only Christian model dealing with origins, cannot be studied or examined by science; it’s found in the first two chapters of Genesis, God spoke, and it came into existence. The order is not “scientific” (light before the sun), nor was it meant to be. Do not forget, science cannot study miracles!

        The biggest flaw with these compromises is their failure to recognize there was no time before the first day … just an infinite and interminable boundless present where God dwelt. It is futile to try and manipulate the Scriptures to accommodate something (billions of years) which never existed. The number of years cannot be used to calculate how long this supposed epoch was. As stated in Psalm 93:2, God’s throne was “established of old … from everlasting,” a timeless and incalculable condition. Because days, weeks, and years did not yet exist or occur before the first day they cannot be counted, tallied, or enumerated. Kowtowing to evolutionary pressures via a proposition (an extravagant period of billions of years) that never existed is yet more embroidery in a tapestry of lies.”

        Yes, we can agree to disagree. However, it’s an exceedingly strong point I believe you should reconsider and ponder greatly.

        It’s not a salvation issue, well, yes and no. Truth or error in all areas of life, has ripple effects (sometimes life and death effects), in all endeavors, no matter what that is. And that is certainly true for the subject in my book “Israel, Rapture, Tribulation.”

        I would be happy to discuss any chapter from any of my books, or any other subject or doctrine pertaining to Scripture.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. I agree that time (as well as space; hence the word “spacetime”) did not begin before day one of creation. The question is whether the creation days were literal 24-hour days or not. Obviously, you believe that they were; I used to believe very strongly that they weren’t, but now, as I said, what I can say is that I don’t know.

          It seems that your belief about this has grown stronger since we first met. I, on the other hand, have read some articles about starlight during the interim which have caused me to reconsider, but I’m not convinced that the authors are correct. Neither am I convinced that the cosmos is billions of years old.

          Here’s what I think is a good quote: “Sincere believers debate the meaning of yom [day] in the creation account because a case can be made on both sides.” I hope that we can move forward as brothers in Christ and not let this become an insurmountable barrier.

          Like

          Reply

            1. True, but I was getting a little concerned about a couple of things you wrote near the end of your previous comment. I think it would be best for us not to discuss this issue any further. One thing I will say is that if I ever get to the point where I have become convinced that the Earth and universe are thousands, rather than billions, of years old, I will let you know; as I noted, I have “moved” from where I used to be.

              Like

              Reply

Leave a comment