…And It Was So: How Modern Science Sheds New Light on the Biblical Account of Creation

By Dr. Scott Ransom

In “…And it was So” Dr. Scott Ransom argues that perceived gaps between science and the Biblical account of creation are symptoms of misinterpretation. A proper understanding of the Hebrew language, the audience for which Genesis was written, the process of Biblical translation, and the nature of science coalesce into a coherent picture of creation in which science and the Bible align.
Ransom takes the reader into the story of creation and the science behind it, distilling complex scientific concepts into easily digestible nuggets, and along the way introducing us to many of the lesser-known heroes of scientific discovery. In the end the reader will have a new appreciation for both science and the Bible as well as the harmony that exists between both.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Archway Publishing
• Release date: Oct 18, 2022
• ISBN: 9781665730464

Book preview

Copyright © 2022 Dr. Scott Ransom.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means,

graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by

any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the author

except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

Archway Publishing

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.archwaypublishing.com

844-669-3957

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in

this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views

expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the

views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models,

and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture taken from the King James Version of the Bible.

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the Holy Bible, New

International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica,

Inc.® Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.

zondervan.com The NIV and New International Version are trademarks

registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.®

Mere Christianity by CS Lewis © copyright 1942, 1943 1944,

1952 CS Lewis Pte Ltd. Extract used with permission.

Albert Einstein quote © The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

With permission of the Albert Einstein Archives

ISBN: 978-1-6657-3045-7 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-6657-3044-0 (hc)

ISBN: 978-1-6657-3046-4 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2022917422

Archway Publishing rev. date:  04/11/2023

To my amazing family,

for so willingly loaning me to this effort.

By faith we understand that the universe was created

by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made

out of things that are visible. Hebrews 11:3

I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in

this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I

want to know his thoughts. The rest are details. Albert Einstein

Contents

Introduction

1     Foundations - Worldviews and Words

2     A Hebrew Primer

3     In the Beginning

4     Earth

5     Light

6     Sky & Sea

7     Land

8     Life Begins

9     Sun, Moon, and Stars

10   Creatures

11   Humankind

12   A Second Story

13   What This Means for Us

References

Appendix A: Comparison Charts

Appendix B: The Verbs of Creation

Introduction

On Christmas Eve, December 24th, 1968, the astronauts of Apollo 8 looked out of their small spacecraft’s windows to view the surface of the moon whizzing past underneath them, tantalizingly close at just under 70 miles away. It was the first time anyone had gone to the moon, the first time man had visited any celestial body. It was also the furthest anyone had been from earth - the previous record had been set by Apollo 7 at 283 miles. Apollo 8 went nearly a million times further, to over a quarter of a million miles away.

Television sets around the world glowed as over a billion people, scattered across 60 countries, tuned in to the broadcast of this historic event and heard the astronauts begin reading the first verses of Genesis 1:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

These majestic words introduce the world’s most read, most translated, and arguably most significant book in all human history, a fitting narration to the monumental achievement of man’s arrival at the moon.

Yet despite the timeless beauty of these words, they belong to one of the most contentious passages in the Bible. Over the millennia since they were penned various interpretations have been proffered as to their meaning. Arguments have developed over definitions of individual words, most famously the ‘days’ of the creation sequence. How we interpret the Genesis account of creation is especially pressing in the scientific age. At first blush, what scientific theory has to say about the age of the universe and the origin of humanity directly conflicts with a traditional interpretation of Genesis. Controversy around the meaning of the passage has in some ways never been greater, and the stakes have never been higher.

There is a personal stake as well. I attended an engineering college where most of my peers were scientifically literate individuals. An unchurched friend of mine began reading the Bible from the beginning (where else would one start?) and immediately hit a wall. Being aware of my own faith, he came to my room to voice his frustration and questions: The earth and everything in it made in just a week’s time? The sun and stars made after the earth? Woman made from a man’s rib – a man’s rib? He did not read anything beyond the first two chapters because of their affront to his scientific perspective.

At the time I did not have good answers for him. In fact, his questions only served to remind me of my own as a high schooler attending both a public high school and a church Sunday School. From my perspective the gap between science and the Genesis account of creation was wide. Too wide. I had attempted to address the inconsistencies I saw in the creation account by any number of hand-waving explanations. Perhaps Genesis was intended only as a poetic description of creation. Maybe it is only a metaphor for how God created things. But if the first two chapters of Genesis are a metaphor, what about the rest of Genesis, or the rest of the Bible? Where does the metaphor end and literal, factual accounting begin?

This line of questioning is not too dissimilar from others’ as well. While many Christians hold to a literal interpretation - and by literal, what is typically meant is the King James’ Version or a traditional rendering - with its accompanying 6,000-year-old age for the earth, some view the passage as aligning with contemporary science. This latter group is itself divided on the topic of evolution but generally Christians in this category agree the earth is older than 6,000 years. Still others believe that the Genesis account is intended only to reveal theological truth and nothing more. This group generally feels that attempts to reconcile the passage with current scientific understanding are at best misguided.

Clearly there are many different perspectives, and proponents of each are often adamant about not only the truth of their position but also the spirituality of it. Genuine, God loving Christians can sincerely disagree about the intent of Genesis 1 and the meaning behind it without calling into question the veracity of each other’s faith. Both old earth and young earth creationists can equally believe in the inspiration and authority of scripture. This is a necessary starting point in any conversation about this topic.

There are many other things I believe we can agree on as well as we investigate the question of the meaning of Genesis 1. The first is this: If one accepts that God is both the author of the Bible and the designer of the universe, then it follows that there must be a harmony between the Bible and science. Or, more specifically, a harmony between an accurate interpretation of the Bible and correct interpretation of scientific data. And in fact, it was belief in this harmony, a conviction that the Creator was behind the universe and its laws of nature, that motivated the first scientists (originally called philosophers, then later naturalists) to begin probing for scientific truths, making discoveries that eventually led to understanding and the development of technologies we enjoy today.

We can also agree that this generation is not the first to experience a clash between science and the Bible; disagreement on this topic is not new. And the conflict has been, at times, acrimonious to say the least. But as new evidence comes to light, both about the Bible and about science, the gap between the two shrinks. That harmony, long sought after by the earliest scientists, can be found. I hope that some will find it here.

Much to my publisher’s dismay, this book is written for two different audiences. The first is made up of those Christians who believe that the only legitimate interpretation of scripture is the 6,000-year-old young earth interpretation; that scripture from the King James Version (KJV) is closest to the original intended meaning. There are many beliefs that go along with this perspective, beliefs that may also conflict with science to such a degree that it can lead some to doubt the veracity of science and walk down a path of mistrust and even anti-science sentiment.

This book is also written for people like my college friend. Secular scientists and others who have discounted all the Bible has to say because of the barrier the first two chapters present to them and their worldview. There are many scientists out there whose own research and investigations are leading them to conclude that there is in fact a God, but their doubts about the veracity of scripture keep them from recognizing him as the God of the Bible.

I’ve also tried to include a glimpse into the majesty that is the science behind creation; the marvelous wonder that is the cosmos and what incredible life exists in it. And along the way highlighting a few of the unknown heroes that made contributions to the knowledge we have of this amazing universe, sometimes despite antagonistic peers and often without proper recognition,

The first two chapters provide important background information, setting the stage for our approach and analysis. The remaining chapters track the days of creation; in some cases, a creation day is captured in just one chapter, while in others multiple chapters examine sequential creative acts occurring the same day.

As you might imagine, this book includes a lot of scientific information from a wide variety of fields. While I have tried to make it as detailed as practically possible, I have also tried to explain it simply using everyday language. My emphasis is on telling the story that Genesis gives us. But, where a more thorough look into a particular topic might be of interest to some, I have included what I am calling Deeper Dive sections in grey. These sections can be skipped entirely without any impact or loss to the rest of the narrative, but I encourage you to try them out.

Thank you for investing your time in reading this. It is truly my goal that it helps bridge the widening gap between science and faith and helps in some very small way to restore the unity that our world so desperately needs.

Chapter 1

Foundations - Worldviews and Words

O n the remote island of Rapa Nui stand enormous, monolithic statues that have inspired awe for hundreds of years. The island, better known as Easter Island, is home to nearly one thousand of these statues, called Moai. Lining the shorelines like ancient guardians, the Moai have evoked curiosity in explorers and other visitors who have wondered who carved these statues and why.

But the bigger question though is how. How could statues standing up to 35 feet tall and weighing over 80 tons be moved from the mountain where they were carved to the shoreline twelve miles away, all without cranes, tractors, or anything more than simple hand tools?

Over the years many theories have been proposed to explain this. Some are fanciful, suggesting that the island’s volcano had flung the statues into place, or that extraterrestrials stranded on the island taught the natives how to make robot-like devices out of rock.

Some theories are more credible, including the idea the Moai were slid on layers of sweet potatoes, or that the native peoples rolled them down on palm logs or used makeshift carts or sledges to drag the statues down to the shoreline. Researchers have tested these theories and found them all wanting.

Ask the islanders themselves and they will tell you that the island lore, passed down from generation to generation, claims that the statues walked from the volcano to the shore. More precisely, the tale uses a phrase in the native tongue that means walked upright yet without legs.

This idea of the statues literally walking upright without legs down from the mountain was of course dismissed by archeologists. It sounds like a myth, a tall tale or more of a religious belief than an accounting of what actually happened.

Yet a careful look at several pieces of evidence led some researchers to pause and consider whether this walking upright theory might have merit.

The first piece of evidence came from surveying the island itself. There are several roads leading down from the mountainside connecting the origin of the stone used in the statues to their eventual destination on the shoreline. These roads, many of them overgrown and barely visible, are precisely sloped. They were clearly designed, with a maximum six-degree slope downhill, and a maximum three-degree slope when traversing uphill enroute to the shore. Researchers surmised that the only reason to pay such careful attention to the slope of the route must be because the method of transport required this type of precision. They would not have engineered these precise slopes just for fun.

Other clues came from the statues themselves. Despite the successful transport of hundreds of Maoi to their locations along the shore, some Maoi did not make it. There are about fifty statues that fell over during their transport and were just abandoned where they lay. These are referred to as road Moai.

Researchers noticed something interesting about these road Moai: those that had fallen on sections of road leading uphill were almost always laying on their backs, while those found on sections of road leading downhill were most often found laying face-first. Those statues that had fallen on level roadway were equally as likely to be on their backs as their fronts.

The only explanation for this outcome is that the statues were being transported facing forward, vertically. This conclusion aligns with ancient walking upright without legs origin story. But how would that have worked?

Other visitors to the island, including Norwegian adventurer Thor Heyerdahl, attempted to move the statues in this vertical position by either dragging or sliding them along the ground, only to find the statues became significantly damaged in ways that are not seen in existing shoreline Moai.

Then, in 2001, two researchers, Carl Lipo and Terry Hunt, from the University of Hawaii began looking at other differences between the fallen road Moai and those that were successfully placed. They consistently found that road Moai did not have carved eyes, but instead had sharply angled, recessed slots where eyes would be. They also found that road Moai had larger bases with lower centers of gravity than their placed counterparts, and that this base was D-shaped with the curve facing forward. They also found that the bases of road Moai were angled, making these statues lean forward significantly, so much so that the statue would not have been able to stand on its own.

By comparison, finished statues standing on the shoreline had nicely carved eyes without the sharply angled slots along the sides. Their sides were trimmed down, as if they had spent some time at the gym, and this raised their center of gravity. Their bases were flattened, making the statues stand straight rather than lean forward.

These differences suggested something exciting: perhaps the angled and rounded fronts combined with the lower center of gravity might allow the statue to be walked down the mountainside on those precisely sloped roadways, possibly by attaching ropes to the recessed eye slots. By pulling on the ropes in a heave-ho fashion the back-and-forth motion might make the statue transit forward, upright. Then, once they had arrived at their destination, the statues were reshaped into the finished product.

To test this theory, researchers created a mock Moai. Using detailed scans of existing road Moai, Lippo and Hunt fashioned a scaled-down concrete Moai, standing 10’ tall and weighing five tons. They tied ropes to the upper part of the statue in the deeply recessed eye slots, one rope on each side of the statue and one rope behind. With a team of people holding the rope from behind to keep the statue from falling forward, a team on either side of the Moai alternately pulled their respective ropes to cause the statue to sway left and right.

As the team on the left pulled their rope, the statue leaned left and rolled forward on its D-shaped front, rotating the statue and lifting the opposite side which moved it forward. Then the team on the right would pull their ropes, and another rolling swivel step was made. With this left-right-left-right sequence, twenty-six volunteers using three ropes were able to successfully maneuver the sample Moai 300 feet in just under 40 minutes. This sequence of the statue rocking and swiveling forward can only be described as walking upright without legs.

117172.png

Often times an origin story is viewed as a myth or tale when a closer examination can reveal truth in the account. The creation story in the Bible is often seen as just that – a story. A myth. An account steeped in religious dogma and not in line with current scientific thought.

Even in Christian circles the Genesis account of creation is often viewed as a metaphor that only vaguely describes creation, more a poem than a scientific account.

We will examine this story, looking at the Biblical account of creation through the lens of science. And just like the researchers on Easter Island, we may be surprised at what that origin story tells us, and how science may in fact confirm many of the things found in the Bible’s account that some might otherwise dismiss.

We will be looking at the early Hebrew in which the Genesis account was written, as well as data and findings that science is discovering about the universe, earth, and the creatures that inhabit it, and considering for ourselves how much alignment exists between the two. Along the way we will be meeting the people involved in making these discoveries and uncovering the evidence. And like the researchers studying the Moai, we may find that the ancient lore bears a lot of scientific truth.

Why is this important

For most of his adult life, Jerry Ransom was employed as a truck driver and part-time insurance salesman in the Midwest. As an infant he lived in a one room log cabin, the son of a protestant pastor and farmer, one of five siblings. He was also my father, and he and my mom provided my brother and me a Christian upbringing.

As a child I was always interested in science, especially robotics and medical technology. My dad was always curious about the things I was tinkering with in the basement of our farmhouse and would tell me stories of his own childhood where the means to have hobbies was slim.

When I was in elementary school the company my dad worked for began to implement computers into their business and performed an assessment of their employees to see which ones had aptitude to be trained to work with this new technology. My dad was selected for this training but ultimately turned it down, choosing to remain a truck driver. From time to time, he would take me on one of his long truck runs, and during one of these trips I had the opportunity to ask him why he had turned down a job offer that seemed like a step up.

Computers, and really science and math in general, just was not something I was ever drawn to he said. In my house growing up, getting anything more than a C in science meant that you might be worldly or getting pulled in the direction of evolution. I was surprised to hear this. I had known my grandparents to be intelligent and supportive people, and the thought that they might discourage achievement in science puzzled me.

But I also reflected to just a few years prior, when my mom grounded me from checking out non-fiction books from the library. Yes, grounded me. Like many young boys, I was fascinated by dinosaurs and read all I could about them. Nearly every dinosaur book started out with a chapter on evolution, and it was my exposure to this material that so concerned my mom.

Mine was not the only conservative Christian household to be concerned about the influence science might have on faith. Sadly, many well-meaning Christian parents view this influence as potentially negative, rather than presupposing that a deeper understanding of science might lead to a deeper faith, as has been the case for me. As a Christian, my faith has been shaped and deepened by a love of science and a pursuit of learning how the universe works.

I have seen this consistently throughout not only my growing up, but also in my education and career. There are many Christians who feel they must choose between believing what the Bible says and believing what science tells us. Some choose to believe one thing on Sunday and another during the rest of the week. Others commit to one full time and walk away from the other completely.

This is especially unfortunate because it is contrary to what the Bible teaches about the consistency of God: if God created science and inspired scripture, should we not find agreement between the two? If there is a disparity or inconsistency between scripture and scientific evidence or data, should we not perceive it as either an error in interpretation of scripture or understanding of science, or both? If God truly made the universe, should we not want to fully explore that universe and see it for what it is?

To be sure, this divide is on both sides. Many Christians and people of faith distrust science, and many scientists distrust faith. This divide has subtle yet tremendous implications for society – especially a democratic, self-governing society.

According to a recent survey, 63% of Americans identify themselves as evangelical Christians, and two thirds of those reject evolution. Now, there is a lot more to science than evolution, and even the term evolution requires some unpacking to ensure we are all talking about the same thing. And evangelical Christians are just one of several groups who report having faith. But regardless of the type of science or faith in question, the divide between the two has significant consequences.

If young Christians are dissuaded from pursuing careers in science, then Christians will make up a smaller percentage of the future scientific community. It does not make sense to sideline ourselves in an era when technology and science holds sway over so much of our lives. Willingly excluding our voice from the scientific debate is to put our future in the hands of those who may not share our core beliefs.

At a time when important questions about concepts such as stem cell research, cloning, vaccine mandates, and brain-computer interfaces are at the forefront of debate, would it not be wise for Christians be even more engaged and able to participate in these debates, having their voices heard and helping steer where these technologies take us as a society?

Science and the Importance of Scientific Literacy

As faculty at a state university, I have seen firsthand the conflict that many students and faculty experience between their faith and science. Most accept what science says about the earth and life – that the earth is billions of years old and that the various species, including our own, may have evolved from other species. But they often keep that belief to themselves when at church or around Christian friends and family, while keeping their faith to themselves when with work colleagues. Some fear having their research sidelined if they are perceived as biased by religion.

On the other side of the coin, for Christians wanting to share their faith with those around them, those who view science with skepticism and distance themselves from the scientific debate will increasingly be looked down on by an increasingly scientific community. Christians cannot reach people of science, or people in general, if their message is seen as irrelevant or simply wrong. This obstacle is not new; St. Augustine, an early church theologian and philosopher, wrote about the importance of developing this literacy:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions…the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? St. Augustine

Augustine is not implying that Christians should not be prepared to face ridicule over basic tenants of the Christian message (such as the deity of Christ and his resurrection), for this ridicule has always been present and scripture says it is to be expected. Rather, Augustine is saying Christians should be taking steps to ensure the reason for any ridicule is not due to a lack of knowledge about science. One of the greatest defenses against this is to learn and understand that science.

Unfortunately, many people of faith view the pursuit of science as an attempt to discredit faith in God. There certainly have been some scientists who did so, blending their scientific endeavors with a bias against faith in God. But science is generally focused on the search for truth; an unbiased, methodical examination of the natural world around us for the purposes of discerning truth, discovering the laws by which it operates and how those laws have influenced our universe and the life in it. It is often motivated by a desire to improve conditions for that life. As a believer myself, I have also viewed science as a tool to understand the majesty of creation and its creator. In all these ways, science should intrinsically align well with a belief in God.

Atul Gawande, an American surgeon, writer, and public health researcher, while giving the 2016 commencement address at the California Institute of Technology, said science is …. a commitment to a systematic way of thinking, an allegiance to a way of building knowledge and explaining the universe through testing and factual observation. He continued by highlighting that scientific explanation may not fit our mental models, but asserting true facts is what good science strives for. And including the narrative that explains them is even better…but you also hope to accept that nothing is ever completely settled, that all knowledge is just probable knowledge. A contradictory piece of evidence can always emerge. Hubble said it best when he said, ‘The scientist explains the world by successive approximations.’

This methodical approach did not get fully underway until the 17th century, when the English philosopher and Lord Chancellor of England, Francis Bacon, pushed science beyond the philosophical approach and introduced a model based on theory, experimentation, and observation.¹ Scientists observe the world around them, and create theories to explain those observations. Those theories are tested by experiment and prediction, and the observed outcomes produce confirming evidence for the theory. Or as often happens, contradicting information is observed, which helps refine the theory into something more accurate. This process is repeated over and over as a theory is refined and moves ever closer to real truth.

Science works by experimentation. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, is really something like, ‘I pointed my telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 1:25 a.m. on January 12th and saw thus and such.’ We can draw conclusions from observations, and causes for those observations can be inferred, but to answer whether there is anything deeper behind the things science observes – a who, a creator – questions of that nature fall into the realm of faith.

The Influence of the Worldview

One might hope that the data derived from this process would be clearly interpretable, leading to a single conclusion. But that is not so. An experiment can produce an outcome that can be interpreted in multiple ways. How an individual interprets data presented to them, and ultimately what theories the person believes and which ones they do not, is often based on the person’s worldview.

In the West we do not often think about worldviews (not so in other parts of the world). When was the last time you woke up and said to yourself you know, I think I’d like to tweak my worldview a bit today? Yet we each have a worldview, and we tweak this worldview all the time. Our worldviews envelop us, they influence how we interpret everything we hear, everything we read, and they dramatically influence how we think about the world around us. Yet we are often unaware of what our worldviews are, and they are changed and honed usually without our conscious input.

There has been a tremendous amount of discussion, debate, and all out argument about how the universe and the world came to be. There have been debates among Christians about how scripture should best be interpreted. There have been debates among cosmologists about how exactly the universe took shape. Debates among geologists about the age of the earth and how it came to be in the form it is. Debates across all the scientific and religious spectra. And these debates typically stem from how we interpret the data we find, and this interpretation comes from our own personal worldview.

A worldview is defined as a set of assumptions about how the world is; how it is organized and how it works. Our worldview is shaped by the information that is taken in by our brains, and it acts as a filter that interprets the information that is coming in through our senses. It is also shaped and changed over time by the very information it is processing.

We all have access to the same data about the creation of the universe. But the debates that we see among people about the origins of the universe stem from differences in our worldviews that impact how we interpret the data we have.

One person can look at layered rock strata and conclude that sediment was deposited over millennia resulting in the slow buildup of that stratum. Another person, equally intelligent and genuinely interpreting the data, can examine that same rock strata and conclude that the sediment was deposited quickly in a catastrophic event. One person can look at light from a distant star and conclude that the light took a long time to arrive at the observer; another person can conclude the star was in a closer location when the starlight began its journey.

The cause for these differing interpretations is not the evidence itself – both are reviewing the same data, using the same tools to look at the same thing whether it is rocks or starlight. The reason for two different conclusions is that the data is being viewed through two different worldview lenses.

One lens says that the earth is millennia old, and so any data it encounters that can be interpreted in a way that aligns with that worldview makes it through that worldview filter. Data that does not align with their worldview is filed in a needs further investigation folder and is questioned, treated as suspect, or just ignored. The same is true for a young-earth worldview.

Even an open-minded, conscientious person can struggle to digest data that conflicts with their worldview. And most people I have interacted with on both sides of these issues are generally intelligent, thoughtful people who truly want to get at the truth behind the origin of the cosmos. And they are coming at the problem of data interpretation from two (or more) worldviews.

It is also worth noting that a person may have multiple worldviews whose elements might be in conflict with one another. In other words, a person may believe two different things at the same time even when the two beliefs are mutually exclusive. In college I knew an individual who was certain that males had one fewer rib than females, because God had taken a rib from Adam to create Eve. When I asked them if they thought that a mouse with its tail removed would have only tail-less offspring, they laughed and said of course not. But when I pressed them to explain what the difference was – why Adam’s male offspring would be perpetually missing one rib while a mouse’s offspring would be able to grow their tails naturally, they quickly became irritated with my question (and, in case you are wondering, men and women both have the same number of ribs – 12 pair).

My college friend was not atypical. A recent Gallup poll surveyed people on their beliefs about creation. They asked people whether they believed God had created people in pretty much their current form, sometime in the last 10,000 years. They found these results:

Then they asked the same survey respondents whether they believed in evolution – the theory that human beings and other creatures developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, and got these results:

Since the majority of respondents believed God created people in their current form very recently AND the majority believed people evolved over millions of years, it is clear that many of those taking this survey held two conflicting opinions about the origin of human beings.

We all have blind spots like this, due in large part to the fact that our worldviews are not always apparent to us. And, when confronted with an inconsistency in our worldviews, we will naturally become uncomfortable and maybe even defensive. We do not like confronting inconsistencies in our worldviews, which contributes to the acrimony often seen in debates about creation.

Our view of our own origins is a part of our overall worldview. Is Genesis 1 a literal telling of events, or a metaphorical story? Was it meant to describe the actual activities surrounding creation or provide a competing creation mythology for early Israelites? Was the author merely speculating on how the universe was created, or were they divinely inspired to write the account? Our answers to these questions influence how we interpret scientific evidence about creation.

With the panoply of theories and associated worldviews it can be difficult to decide how to get to the bottom of it all. There is not complete consensus among scientists on every facet of science, and there is not complete consensus among Christians on every Biblical interpretation, so finding harmony between the two seems daunting at best.

It should come as no surprise that this is not the first time in history that there has been friction between viewpoints based on scientific evidence and Biblical interpretation. Throughout the ages this has been a recurring theme, and it may be helpful to consider how people have navigated these controversies in the past. A good example to choose is the famous Pillars of the Earth debate.

The Pillars of the Earth

In the 16th century the primary controversy confronting the church and science was whether the earth moved. Christians were wringing their hands in response to astronomer Nicholas Copernicus’ suggestion that the earth orbited the sun when clearly scripture taught that the earth was fixed, immovably, in space. This longstanding viewpoint came from a plain reading of verses like these:

For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and He

hath set the world upon them. I Samuel 2:8

He set the earth on its foundations; it can

never be moved. Psalm 105:5 (NIV)

The world also shall be stable, that it not be moved.

I Chronicles 16:30b

Not only was the earth stationary, but scripture also suggested it was the sun that did the moving:

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and

hastens to his place where he arose. Ecclesiastes 1:5

…the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his

chamber…His going forth is from the end of the heaven,

and his circuit unto the ends of it… Psalm 19:4-6

Science, at least in the 4th century BC, was aligned with this view of an unmoving earth. Famed Greek philosopher Aristotle taught that the earth was fixed at the center of the universe, with the sun and stars revolving around it. This of course resonated with people; it seems common-sense that the sun goes around the earth – that is what we appear to see every day. Besides, if the earth moved, surely we would all be flung off into space, or at the very least face a strong headwind when walking against earth’s motion. Science, religion, and intuition all seemed to agree: the earth did not move.

As we will see in a few chapters, this alignment would be eroded a few centuries later as scientific evidence accumulated in support of a heliocentric system, placing the sun at the center of the solar system, and setting the stage for conflict between the two worldviews. Galileo was famously tried for supporting this heretical view that the earth was in motion. Far from being an atheist, Galileo was motivated by a deep desire to understand God’s creation. He felt, as many scientists do today, that we were endowed by the creator with senses and intellect and reason for, in part, the purpose of exploring and understanding creation.

Protestants and Catholics alike railed against this new scientific theory, the heliocentric theory. Religious leaders such as Martin Luther and John Calvin voiced their opposition to this viewpoint. Calvin wrote:

By what means could it (the earth) maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its divine maker fix and establish it? John Calvin

Galileo was excommunicated from the church and ultimately forced to recant his theory. But scientific evidence continued to mount and today we all (or, mostly all) know and accept that, yes, the earth does move around the sun. We also know, though we do not think about it often, that this motion is anything but minor; on average the earth is traveling at a blistering 67,000 miles per hour in its orbit around the sun.

Once the certainty of earth’s motion settled in, people began to interpret those Old Testament verses differently; maybe the ‘plain reading’ that seemed so straightforward and intuitive was not the correct reading. Perhaps the Bible was suggesting that no one other than God himself could have set the earth’s foundations, that no one other than he could move it. And it is these more metaphorical interpretations of the verses that we tend to accept today.

Principles of Interpretation

This brings us to an important question: Why were Christians eventually willing to accept this revised interpretation of scripture rather than insisting on a plain reading, literal view of earth’s pillars? Why are we not divided into fixed earther and moving earther camps today?

How did we, as a church, change our interpretation of scripture in light of scientific truth without compromising our faith-based principles?

Biblical interpretation should never become subservient to science. Science itself is a moving target, shifting and honing as it seeks truth, and we would do well to not couple our understanding of scripture to something transitory.

At the same time, we want to interpret both science and the Bible in light of the evidence we currently have, understanding that it might be incomplete at this moment in time, but doing our best to consider what truth science provides us. Scholars and others have developed several principles that can help us navigate this path towards truth.

Consider the rest of scripture The Bible, as God’s word, should be consistent, and therefore not self-contradicting. This principle can help us discern whether a worldview aligns with scripture. For example, the Appearance of Age interpretation, which involves God modifying the apparent age of objects in the universe or crafting them to appear older than they are, does not align with passages that talk about God loving truth and honesty. It seems inconsistent that God would try to trick scientific observers into thinking the universe is older than it really is. On the face of it, scripture as a whole does not support this worldview.

Examine the cultural context It is important to discern the meaning of a passage in its original context, and then consider what it might mean for us today. Looking at the original audience, the circumstances they were in, and - especially for Genesis – what they were capable of understanding. Galaxies, atoms, and genes are recent concepts that the original Israelite audience would have known nothing about, so we should not expect those words to be present in the Genesis account. However, those concepts might well be present in forms that would have been digestible by that ancient audience while still being recognizable by today’s audience.

Consider metaphors carefully The great apologist author C.S. Lewis said that it is impossible to speak of things outside our immediate senses without using metaphor. And we see this all the time in the realm of science. Light is described as particles which can bounce off objects and travel through the vacuum of space, but we know it is not anything like a marble with which you and I are familiar. But thinking of light as such provides us an image that helps build understanding. We see this in the church as well. For example, in Communion we are presented with the body and blood of Christ. They are wafers and wine (or grape juice, depending on your denomination), likely similar to what was at the Last Supper, yet Christ indicated a deeper meaning for these elements. By partaking in Communion, we are remembering the blood he spilt for us and the new life that is indwelling us. There is both a physical (literal) meaning and a metaphorical meaning. Metaphors stand for realities and choosing to adhere to literalisms only can sometimes lead one to miss important deeper meanings.

Science can help discern without driving When we uncover a conflict between science and scripture it is useful to consider what the science has to say. This does not make scripture subservient to science, but rather uses science as a tool to aid our Biblical interpretation. In the case of the Psalm 19:4-6 and similar verses we saw earlier, one interpretation is that the passage is literally saying the sun moves. Another interpretation is that the passage is speaking metaphorically, in the way we all do when we refer to sunrise and sunset. Understanding the science behind earth’s motion allows us to discern the metaphorical meaning in this verse. It is not that science is determining for us the meaning of the verse, but rather science is helping us discern the correct interpretation from among multiple, scripturally plausible, meanings.

Focus on the main message We should remember that as much science as is in the Bible, particularly its first two chapters, science is not the main message that scripture has for us. Our primary calling is to understand God’s love and provision as described in the scriptures, and to understand how to live relative to him and each other.

These are the principles we will use as we examine the Genesis creation account. But before we begin, there is one more factor that we need to consider. A huge factor, and one that significantly influences how we read the passage and what the passage originally meant. And that factor is language.

We will address this factor in two sections. First, we will look at the English translations of our Bibles, the words so familiar to so many of us, and see the impact those translations have on the Genesis account. Then, in the next chapter, we will look at the Hebrew language and the significant differences between it and the English. Both shape our interpretations of the creation account.

Biblical Translations: A Brief History

Writing the Bible was no small endeavor. It was written by some forty different authors in three different languages over a span of 1,500 years. The most recent of the books it contains was written over 1900 years ago. Though many, many versions have been created, each with its own emphasis and language, the overall meaning has been remarkably well preserved. The versions we currently use are surprisingly similar to the oldest known versions. It is astounding that the document we have today has remained so true to the original text over all that time.

As we consider the Biblical creation account and evaluate its standing in the context of current scientific thought, it is worth reviewing how that account came to be. The story of how that version and the language used in it came to be found in the Bibles we read has its own history; a history that impacts how we read and interpret Genesis.

As I was growing up in my family’s church and attending children’s programs like AWANA, the King James’ version of the Bible was the translation primarily used. This is the version that has all the thee’s and thou’s and reads like a Shakespearean sonnet. AWANA emphasizes memorizing passages of scripture, and though I am glad I can recall so many verses from my childhood, they are all in the Old English language of the King James’ style. When I am recalling a verse from memory for my kids I either have to do a quick modern paraphrase or risk sounding quite old-fashioned.

When I was ten years old, I began asking my parents and Sunday School teachers why it was that the Bible used such odd language, why we did not use something that sounded more like normal speech, without the need to look up every third word we encountered. The answer I was given by many well-meaning teachers and even a pastor was that because Old English was closer in age to the original it meant it was more accurate than all the current modern translations.

That made sense to me, and I merrily continued reading my King James’ version, struggling often to understand what was being said, but its reported authenticity made the struggle worth it. Better to have a difficult time with the right verbiage than to easily read something that was incorrect.

I had this mindset until college, when I began looking into translations and what the original text said and found that things were not as simple as I had been taught. I would like to share some of the things I learned as it applies to the creation account in particular,