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 in print or online 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.
Mar 15, 2007 8:45 AM
Pink
:
. <i>We have other communication senses... sight, sound, smell, touch, and taste. All of them are integral parts of the communication code.</i> . Be that as it may be, we still interpret them in our mind using words. Concepts are made up of the tools of language which are words. . It's a deep field of study. Here's a good definition of semiotics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics . And, however speed reading works, what you read all boils down to words--sooner or later. Language is the greatest set of tools we have for understanding reality. Signs, symbols of all types, sounds, senses--all of these things--are all part of language. . Thumbs up can mean different things depending on the culture in which a person exists. .
Mar 15, 2007 11:01 AM
Paper Turtle
:
I've been thinking about your original point re the beginning of Genesis describing the beginning of language. I think there's some credence to it. I believe most parts of the Bible mean more than one thing alone.
I would suggest, though, that consciousness is what is being described--without we need sense awareness to be able to interpret the world around us so that we can navigate, find food, evade a predator, keep our bodies safe. We form our thoughts on the basis of what our senses tell us (non-verbally).
There is some evidence that primates are capable of a level of problem-solving and may make tools. Jane Goodall believs that different groups of chimps form their own distinct culture. They have to be communicating some way, and they have to be forming thoughts, without the use of a language as we understand it.
peace and love, Paper Turtle
Mar 15, 2007 12:56 PM
Pink
:
. :) . Exactamento! .
Mar 17, 2007 5:51 AM
Migisi
:
. We've been talking about the origin of communication here - from the first grunt. . Watch this video to see how far Man's come and where we're going: . http://www.scottmcleod.org/didyouknow.wmv . HAPPY ST. PATTY'S DAY!
Mar 17, 2007 6:02 AM
Pink
:
. WOW! . Great video. . I'm going to send that to a bunch of my relatives and friends. . Thanx-a-millyun! . Erin go bragh = Ireland Forever! . Today is the day to be in South Bend and Mishawauka. . <b>BTW</b>, with the exponential growth of information coming out of Communications Studies, don't you think it's impossible to believe that the world is going to slip back into the Dark Ages as is predicted by the End Timers? .
Mar 17, 2007 9:27 AM
Migisi
:
. <i>don't you think it's impossible to believe that the world is going to slip back into the Dark Ages as is predicted by the End Timers?</i> . Impossible?? Nope. TODAY will be the 'Dark Ages' compared to decades from now. I envision that future Man could blast himself back into OUR dark ages - of fear, ignorance, sickness, poverty, starvation, war, oppression, environmental contamination, and so on. . Like our sci-fi predicts, they might blame intelligence and technology as the cause of all their suffering, and anyone making use of either would be punished. Yes, they'd be back to the simple life -- without electricty, engines, computers, medicines, and inventions. . But I don't think anyone could ever destroy human curiosity and the burning desire to improve life again.
Mar 17, 2007 9:43 AM
Pink
:
. There is only one way that the world will be deterred from moving forward toward a better world and that is that there be a world wide conflict in which nuclear weapons are rained back and forth across the globe. In such a case, Russia, the U.S.A., Britain, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, all Korea, the entire Middle East, and some other beligerants will be turned into history. China will emerge and civilization--what's left of it--will advance. .
Mar 18, 2007 10:32 AM
Migisi
:
. You're presuming that some will survive a major world-wide nuclear event and be able to continue life on a devastated contaminated Earth - and produce children. From all I've read, that isn't possible. All of Man will be history.
Mar 18, 2007 10:48 AM
Pink
:
. You might be correct; but, I don't think so. . I'm positively sure there are underground bunkers--self contained--able to support life far into a nuclear future. . Nihilism has been around for a long time. It's the Adam and Eve syndrome of survival. . What is more interesting--to me anyway--it the private research that must be underway in pursuit of the most advanced biotech science possible. I cannot imagine the leaders of such nations as the U.S.A., China, Israel, and Japan are not involved in whatever it will take for the higly privileged to survive and prevail into the distant future. That video clip--Did You Know--that you posted the other day about the growth of knowledge speaks to such an issue. .
Mar 19, 2007 6:26 AM
Migisi
:
. <i>You might be correct; but, I don't think so.</i> . I hope you and I never find out which of us is right. . <i>I'm positively sure there are underground bunkers--self contained--able to support life far into a nuclear future.</i> . But for how long? You mean there might be some vaccine for radiation contamination? But what about clean food, clean water, clean air? We need natural resources to survive and prosper, no? . Musings.
Mar 19, 2007 6:40 AM
Pink
:
. The video you provided for us appears to provide us solid evidence that the future will provide us with almost unimaginable knowledge (an edge on knowing?) with which problems unknown to us in the present will be solved. . The defeatist attitudes that are so prevalent in our day to day experiences depress us to the point that we think the future will be unbearably disastrous. I'm not saying that some of us won't be torn to pieces and thrown to the dogs--that is already happening as we write our postings. It's been going on for thousands of years and in the names of various gods to whom we have thown oursleves down in prostrate fear. What we need to do is to begin the process of talking about a different future--that is imperative. . As a person--I assume--who has had many goals over the years and knows what it takes to create and achieve them, you absolutely recognize the importance of dreaming of a better time and a better way. That is probably part of the reason why you have come to reject some of the fairy tales you were fed in your more youthful days. . It's a wonderful life is more than the name of a great movie in which Jimmy Stewart acted. Even so, it was a good movie. And, just to put one more out there, it's not how we will be remembered--it's what we're doing right now that counts--remembered or not. These ARE the times that try our souls. . .
Mar 19, 2007 11:17 AM
Migisi
:
. <i>The video you provided for us appears to provide us solid evidence that the future will provide us with almost unimaginable knowledge (an edge on knowing?) with which problems unknown to us in the present will be solved.</i> . It's how that unimaginable knowledge will be used is what's in question. We've learned from our human history that discoveries and inventions intended to be used for good purposes are used to destroy - thus creating even more problems in need of solutions. . <i>The defeatist attitudes that are so prevalent in our day to day experiences depress us to the point that we think the future will be unbearably disastrous.</i> . Is it defeatist to be a realist? Considering the current world affairs and considerable and numerous threats to Man's survival on this planet, I can only surmise that the potential for an unbearably disastrous end is quite real. Perhaps not in my lifetime, but eventually. Situations certainly haven't been improving over those thousands of years. . <i>As a person--I assume--who has had many goals over the years and knows what it takes to create and achieve them, you absolutely recognize the importance of dreaming of a better time and a better way. </i> . The goals I've dreamed up and achieved only pertain to my little sliver of ~my~ world. Visualizing and working towards any goal larger than that has always left me exhausted and disappointed. I can only hope that my efforts have a wider 'ripple affect', as Paper often refers to. But I'm not that naive to think that my ripples go out and on forever. As ripples travel further from the center, they disappear. . <i>That is probably part of the reason why you have come to reject some of the fairy tales you were fed in your more youthful days.</i> . Indeed, maturity and common sense required that I abandon childish fairy tales. . <i>It's a wonderful life...</i> . Only if one loves, and is loved. You and I are fortunate in that. It's a miserable life if love is absent. . <i>...it's not how we will be remembered--it's what we're doing right now that counts--remembered or not. These ARE the times that try our souls.</i> . I couldn't agree more.
Mar 19, 2007 11:42 AM
Pink
:
. Hey! . If goal setting works for you, why wouldn't it work for a small group of people, a large group, even a nation? . First, we need to talk about it. . The assault on community has just about destroyed our ability to set group goals. . But, where there's life, there's hope. . Now, where have I heard that before? .
Mar 20, 2007 1:32 AM
Paper Turtle
:
<i><b>Migisi wrote:</b> I can only hope that my efforts have a wider 'ripple affect', as Paper often refers to. But I'm not that naive to think that my ripples go out and on forever. As ripples travel further from the center, they disappear. .</i>
I refer to "ripples" because its an easily grasped image, but I realize the image has limitations. I believe when I do something which has a positive effect, I am manifesting the Good Within. The effect of my original act may fade over time BUT when another responds to my act, he or she adds "energy" from within, and he/she sends our ripples of his/her own. In this way, the energy of my ripple is renewed and strengthened. My name/identity is no longer attached to it, but its still out there. . Native Americans refer to the Great Web of Being. I envision this as a net made of light waves. It is between and within all people and things, binding us together. What affects one, affects us all--and quantum physics seems to indicate this is true throughout the universe. . peace and love, Paper Turtle
Mar 20, 2007 7:23 AM
Pink
:
. Your comments make me think about reflecting the light. . The light, it is said, penetrates the darkness but the darkness percieves it not. . Have you ever noticed that when you aim a bright beam of light away from your self in a totally dark environment that you cannot see the light except for when it strikes some object in its pathway? If you were standing to the side of the beam of light, you wouldn't see it except that there would be something like dust or a fine mist through which it was aimed. The darkness--itself--does not recognize the light. When we look out into space after sun set, we see nothing but black space with stars that are giving off light. Then, when the moon rises, we see it because it reflects the light; otherwise, there is only black space. . Those ripples you are bringing intot he picture are like that. They go off and eventually die out unless something is there to pick up on them and to reflect their energy back. . Truth can be compared to the light and the energy of the ripples that are sent out. If we ignore the truth, are we not like the darkness that is merely penetrated when the light shines through it? .
