Has modern science disproven Genesis 1? This article shows that Moses' explanation of the creation of the universe is worth another look.
In the first two chapters of Genesis, Moses describes the creation of the “heavens and the earth.” The religious community is itself bitterly divided over whether Moses’ description is precise or allegorical. The non-religious community has of course long since dismissed Genesis as having any relevant bearing on the issue. This dismissal should be reassessed, and Christians should see Genesis as a source for inspiration not controversy.
Future articles will explore what the “days” of Genesis mean. (Do not misunderstand. This author is not taking the position that they are merely allegorical, but this article will not delve into that specific controversy. We will cover that later). For now, let us accept that, at the very least, Moses is laying out the Creation process in stages or steps. Does science affirm or contradict this creation chain?
First, the modern scientific community has largely confirmed that space, time, and matter had a beginning. Overwhelmingly, scientists believe that the universe is expanding and that it once originated from a “singularity” in the finite past. The implications of this fit the first verse of Genesis. Physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler explained: “At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation out of nothing.” The Bible and modern science agree: There was a beginning.
Without space, time, and matter at play, any “trigger” to initiate the universe would have to come from a source that is independent of these substances. Yet there is nothing within Nature that qualifies. Hence, the beginning of the universe was supernatural. To deny this is the same as shaking one’s fist at the sun, refusing to believe it is there.
Genesis 1:3 records God speaking Light into existence. Christian apologist Ralph Muncaster explains that this is written by Moses, but from “the vantage point of God” and that God was hovering “over the surface of the waters.” Muncaster claims that the light referred to in Genesis 1:3 is likely the result of gases in the earth, likely in the depths of the oceanic floor, becoming translucent.
Genesis 1:6 records God separating the waters, which likely refers to the origins of the hydrological cycle. Genesis 1:9-10 alludes to massive seismic and volcanic activity, which would have created the continents and other land masses.
In Genesis 1:11, God directs the land to produce vegetation. This opens up an interesting debate. If there is not yet a sun or stars, where is the light to support plant life? Is God Himself the source of the light? If God is…well…God, this is a distinct possibility. No other explanation would be needed. An alternative answer would, of course, be that, if these are six literal days, then the sun’s arrival later would be sufficient. Plants can’t survive for millions or billions of years without sunlight, but could enough of them survive one or two days?
Of course, many can’t accept any supernatural explanation, not even with God present. The anti-supernatural bias is just too strong. For these individuals, Muncaster serves up a more palatable explanation. According to Muncaster, the order of events recorded in Genesis must be understood in terms of vantage point and visibility. “It is important to remember that the frame of reference is at the surface of the waters,” he explains. Muncaster and others believe that the sun, moon, and stars were made on the first “day” when God created the “heavens and the earth.” Thus, he suggests that “prior to [visibility of the sun, moon, and stars], dense gases allowed some light, but not visibility of the heavenly bodies.”
In verses 20-21, God creates the sea creatures and the birds. And in verse 24, the land animals. Finally, in verse 26, God makes Man. Muncaster points out that this order of creation generally mirrors modern science’s evolutionary tree: sea creatures followed by land animals followed by man.
Muncaster says this general agreement with modern science is impressive. “The ten steps of creation in Genesis,” writes Muncaster, “agree with the listing of the order of those same events as defined by science. The odds of randomly ‘guessing’ this order would be about 1 chance in 4 million, similar to the odds of winning a state lottery with a single ticket.”
In short, modern science has provided no reason to rule out Genesis. On the contrary, science has more or less affirmed the basic outlines of Genesis. God created the universe, just as Moses said he did. How long it took God to do so will be the subject of our next article in this series.
The copyright of the article The Order of Creation in Protestantism is owned by Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish The Order of Creation must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Mar 14, 2007 7:26 AM
Pink
:
. An other thought provoking presentation, Brian. . You make some pretty fast leaps in logic so far as your conclusions are concerned. You don't allow much for other ways of looking at the same things. . There is, in fact, the available idea that the <i>Creator </i>is giving humans the gift of language in these opening passages of Genesis. At first thought--perhaps due to our cultural mind set about the biblical representations of creation--it seems like a far stretch to think that language is the <i>thing</i> being received here. But, if we set aside our biases and allow a consideration that what is really happening is that human beings are receiving symbols to connect with what they don't know, we could open up to some different possibilities. <i>JUST THINK ABOUT HOW WE SPEAK THINGS INTO EXISTENCE</i>. . Can you imagine a prelingual group of human beings? . Here is <i>MAN</i> unable to distinguish his own being from the dust of the earth. He has no ability to use the tools of language. He is utterly and hopelessly <i>DUMB</i> when it comes to being able to think as he has no tools for thought other than a few grunts, etc. Some advanced being comes along and <i>EDUCATES</i> him. An entire world is created for him. . Where would <i>WE</i> be without language? .
Mar 14, 2007 9:01 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
Pink, the limitations of space and time prevented me from writing a more detailed, comprehensive article. I actually had a lot more to say on the subject. As far as 'other ways of looking at it,' I am doing several articles on Creation, and will be doing my best to present all the major viewpoints.
I agree with your point about the importance of language. I don't think that is what is happening in Genesis, however. If Moses is the writer, language would not have been a problem for him. He was, after all, a former prince of Egypt - educated in the most advanced civilization of that day. And if Moses was NOT the author, then your theory gets weaker. Because the Torah would have been written, in that case, by several writers in the centuries following Moses - when language was even more cultivated and refined.
If you're assuming that Moses is writing this account based on a primitive oral tradition or perhaps is deciphering a series of cave drawings...then maybe your theory has something to it. But there's not a lot of evidence for that. You're completey in the realm of speculation.
Mar 14, 2007 9:15 AM
Pink
:
. I'm not assuming anything. Instead, I'm offering an alternative view. . However, let us take the fact that, as some where along the line, a human being must learn language if they are to interact with others and, more importantly, even to think thoughts; for, thoughts are words arranged in such a way as to provide us with understandings of what it is that is underconsideration. Follow? . You do, I am sure. . Here is prehistoric man--grovelling along when he stumbles on a rock on which some marks have been place that remind him of the sun. Maybe he put them there the day before. He turns his gaze upwards and flinches at the glare of the sun. Then he recalls this is not the first time he did that. He evokes a noise that sounds like, "Sun". . None of those thoughts are available to him with out language. A rock has no meaning in and of its own existence until he is able to assign some meaning to it and he does that with symbols like words and graphics. The study is semiotics. . The statement, "Let there be light", is amazing in the sense that prior to a word or a sign that signifies light, it would have been impossible for the human mind to comprehend light. The human would have been in an existence with out form--there would have been no awareness at all. In other words, the human being would have been like the dust of the earth and operating strictly on some form of instinct. . Have you ever seen the movie, Savages? It is well worth your while. . http://www.amazon.com/Savages-Lewis-J-Stadlen/dp/B0000AQVIV . Aren't intellectuals a pain? . :) .
Mar 14, 2007 2:54 PM
Migisi
:
<i>a human being must learn language if they are to interact with others and, more importantly, even to think thoughts; .... None of those thoughts are available to him with out language.</i> . There are other ways to communicate. My toddler grand daughter ~shows~ me what she wants. She doesn't have command of words yet. We can clearly observe that she's able to think. When I was in Mexico, I communicated almost in the same way because I don't know Spanish. . Those with hearing/speech impairment who have never heard or spoken words - they are able to think thoughts and learn to communicate them. . I've watched animal trainers use hand signs and body position to communicate commands. And animals communicate with each other through physical displays and posturing. . What was that gorilla's name that used sign language? . Would you consider these types of communication as 'language'?
Mar 14, 2007 3:19 PM
Pink
:
. <i>Would you consider these types of communication as 'language'? </i> . Sure, just like I would the drawings the prehistoric man must have made in the dirt and on the rocks. . But, I'm speaking of the spoken language--the one with the words we use as tools for thinking and that we use to send our thoughts to the minds of others. I mean the language we share in common with each other. The language we use when we post here in these threads. .
Mar 15, 2007 3:56 AM
Pink
:
. I think I have to back up a bit here. . Your subject line, <b>Nonverbal language</b> seems to give the impression that there can be a language without words. I can't go along with that exactly as it seems to be. . Words--actual words--are the tools of creation. Before we have a operative word for anything, whatever is has no meaning. We need words in order to think. . Are we capable of communicating senses without words? Music is a form of communication with the power to soothe savagery. More to the point, communication is the culture in which we exist--or, maybe it is better to say it in reverse? I <b><i>THINK a case can be made </i></b>that the Genesis story of creation is about the discovery of language. .
Mar 15, 2007 4:23 AM
Pink
:
. Cause and effect, roots and branches. . Here's an interesting article that might have some significance to the discussion in this thread: . http://www.religionandspirituality.com/judaism/view.php?StoryID=20070311-110816-4643r .
Mar 15, 2007 4:40 AM
Paper Turtle
:
We believe words are essential because we can't remember the time before we knew how to speak, and we can't imagine a world without them. But as a poet and artist I can say that it is possible to communicate--very clearly--without using words.
I am also aware that some things I have experienced/discovered cannot be adequately conveyed by words. Their influence was so profound and so all-encompassing--that I simply cannot tell anyone all about it. I think this is what is happening in the prophetic books of the Bible, and in some of Jesus' words. Words are being used, but the message being conveyed is beyond words.
And, this may sound like supernatural mumbo-jumbo to you, but I cancommunicate with infants who can't yet speak, and with animals. I'm no great psychic/telepath, but I can rceive and convey information without saying a word.
peace and love, Paper Turtle
Mar 15, 2007 5:15 AM
Pink
:
. And, as long as we're beating our own drum, I must say that I consider myself to be somewhat expert in the area of communications. Mind you, I'm not close to an expert compared to the professors at Harvard or maybe even some of the graduate students; but, compared to the ordinary Joe, I am an expert. :) Here is where you are supposed to laugh. Even so, I've been studying the subjects involved for a long, long time. Life is a study in communications. . Whatever you communicate to and with infants and animals, your understandings of that--and to the degree that you have any understandings--are always comprehended by you in words that you organize in your own mind. But, you are correct, in my thinking, that there are sensations and sensitivities for which we are unable to call up words to give them meanings. I think that is the area where genius is born. . Imagine--if you can--a human being--prelingual--standing there in the presence of another human being that is lingual. One with the look on his face of complete dumbfoundedness. The other with the look of loving kindness who--pointing to the sun in the sky--voices the word, sun, again and again and until the dumbfounded one is able to repeat, sun. Imagine the gift the dumbfounded one has received. The idea that a memory can be encoded in the sounds that can be made from withing his being. The next day and at any time later, the primitive human can bring the memory back by voicing, sun. The process is amazing; but, so common that we seem to relegate it to the scap heaps of, "So what, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that." . Once that leap into the realms of thought has been accomplished by the prelinguistic person, the growth of language is exponential and by leaps and bounds. The brain begins to recognize the creation. Awareness springs forward in the mind of the primitive human being. How is that tale told? . "In the beginning, the Earth was without form and void..." . Just a suggestion. . That's all. . Nothing to deny or to uphold, just something to pursue. . :)
Mar 15, 2007 8:31 AM
Migisi
:
. As you read my words, you voice them in your head, right? There are speed-reading courses to teach us NOT to voice them. We can still understand what we've read without word-voicing. . What if I wrote xwofl skdfjo seiru welifg? They're just meaningless symbols because we lack the interpretive code. This is what pre-language children see, that is, until they learn the code. Same with other languages - and nonverbal methods of communication. It's all in learning the interpretive codes. . We have other communication senses... sight, sound, smell, touch, and taste. All of them are integral parts of the communication code. . I would also add to those senses the nonphysical communicator of intuitiveness. While it may be underdeveloped in some, it's present in all people, IMO.
