In the Big Bang Theory, the universe begins as chaos, with intense energy but no visible light because other particles get in the way so that light could not be seen. It was dark.
But then, the dark and the light were separated, so that the light of the newly created matter became visible. But there were no stars just yet. Hence, there was light but no stars — which come later – just as in Genesis 1. Continue reading
Many different hypotheses have been suggested for how to reconcile Genesis 1 with the evidence of the earth and the stars.
1. The Creation/Re-creation Theory argues that Genesis 1:1 describes God’s initial creation per science, and that there’s a long time gap between v. 1 and v. 2, reading “was” as “became” –
(Gen 1:1-2 ESV) In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth [became] without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
The six days of creation happens billion of years later, about 6,000 years in our past. It’s a popular theory. Continue reading
Those who argue for Young Earth Creationism and claim that science supports this view are not actually doing science.
If you claim to be a scientist, you put forward theories that explain why the observations that point to an ancient earth really prove an earth only 6,000 years old. And you predict what new discoveries will show. You theorize; you don’t just criticize.
Technically, true science has to be falsifiable, that is, there must be experiments or observations that could be done that would disprove the science or theory. Thus, the theory of general relativity is good science, not just because it’s been validated by countless tests, but because, had the tests gone the other way, the theory would have been disproved.
But YEC makes no such predictions, and when their claims are disproved, their position remains unchanged because their position is not really a scientific hypothesis but a belief that Genesis 1 must be read as God creating the earth around 4004 BC — which is fine as a faith claim but it’s not science.
We need to have an honest, straightforward talk. About evolution. And the age of the earth. And the universe. And a few other things.
To this point, I’ve said nothing about evolution. A few readers have felt the need to mention evolution in the comments — something about me having some kind of pro-evolution agenda or some such . But I’ve said nothing about evolution for a very good reason.
You see, the topic here is apologetics or Christian evidences. And proving or disproving evolution has very little to do with apologetics. After all, if we disprove evolution convincingly, we’ve not proven God or even made a serious step toward so doing. The earth would still be billions of years old, as would the universe. Disproving evolution does not take us anywhere near proving an earth 6,000 years old. Continue reading
Let’s return to John Walton’s idea that God made the Creation to be his temple. The scriptures certainly point us in that direction –
(Isa 66:1 ESV) Thus says the LORD: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest?
(Act 17:24 ESV) 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man … .
But how does this impact the meaning of “day”? Continue reading
One of the objections to any interpretation of Genesis 1 as other than a literal 6-day creation is God’s use of the 6 days in commanding Sabbath observance –
(Exo 31:14-17 ESV) 14 “You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. 16 Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. 17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’”
The Sabbath day honored by the Jews each week is a literal day. Does that mean that God’s one day of rest constituted a literal day? Continue reading
To avoid the force of the finely tuned universe argument, many people have argued that there must be so many universes that, by sheer luck, eventually the dice must roll in a way that life could occur — and even more so — enough universes would be created capable of producing life that the extremely long odds in favor of life arising randomly would be inevitable.
And mathematically it’s true that, no matter how improbable an event is, if the odds of it happening are greater than zero, and if you roll the dice enough times, it will certainly happen. Continue reading
This is an argument that began from within the scientific community. The gist of it is that the universe appears to have been designed for life because of the extraordinarily precise nature of certain physical constants.
Most of physics is mathematics, and countless equations are derived from other equations. It’s like proofs in geometry. Therefore, physicists intuitively expected to find reasons that certain constants (as opposed to variables) in the equations of physics are rooted in some other, more fundamental numbers or equations. And certainly many are. Continue reading
Gerald Schroeder, a Jew, has written a series of books on creation and science, offering perspectives from Jewish history often missed by Christians.
Moreover, Schroeder holds a doctorate in physics from MIT, making him truly qualified to address cosmological issues.
I admit it. The last post was repeated from 2012 — and it was not all that controversial at the time even though it offers an interpretation of Genesis 1 that is far from the usual approach.
It simply interprets Genesis 1 for what it is — inspired, beautiful Ancient Near East literature, speaking truth in its own terms. The lesson isn’t about the literal creation of the world. Rather, Walton makes clear that such literature sought to speak of purpose and function, not time order or the like. Continue reading