Was the world really created in 6 literal days? (Creationism vs. Evolutionism)

What's the deal with evolution?

This is a question that comes up often when considering the first 2 chapters of Genesis.

As I read Genesis 1 and 2 and I think about creation and evolution, I think that there is only one question and one answer that means a whole lot to me.  Q: Where did the world come from?  A: God made it.  One thing all scientists have had to conclude is that the world had to have a beginning, no matter what got us here in 2009, it had to start somewhere.  Some scientist give it a name like “the big bang” and that’s fine,  but who made the big bang?  The fact is, that if evolution does exist God made evolution.  God also made science. And he made our minds, and gave us freedom to deny him or believe him with those minds.  Pretty trippy, huh?

But it is important when considering this to do a real heart check about why you think or do not think it is an important question to answer.  You can almost bank on the fact that any time you put an “ism” at the end of the word, it means that there are lots of people out there who have made a religion out of whatever that ism is about.  CreationISM and EvoltionISM are two good examples.  I think that these are people in two distinct groups who sound like they are talking about the origin of humanity but between-the-lines they are saying either “the bible is literally accurate” or “the bible is a fraud”.  Of course they are both making it far too simplistic.  Personally, I believe in evolution, but not the way the evolutionists do.  I also believe in creation, but not the way the creationists do.  Creationists want to say that the world was created in 6 literal days as described in the bible.  Pictures of people with dinosaurs are ways of emphasizing those believes.  These people are also called literalists.  While I do believe that God could indeed created the world in 6 days (or a mere snap of his finger), I don’t think this is the point of Genesis 1 and 2.  The point is simply that God was first, and he is the one who created.  The 6 days may simply represent some important divisions of God’s creation, as well as emphasizing the all important 7th day where God rested (something I hope to do someday too).

By the way, this worldview has a name, it’s called “Intelligent Design”.  It’s simply the belief that our world was indeed created by a higher being.  Whether that was in 6 days, or 600 billion years, it was still created by something, someone, greater.  2 Peter 3 says that “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.”  So even 6 days as written in Genesis, could really be a long long time.  As a follower of Jesus, I believe that the higher being that created everything was God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

Most evolutionists who don’t believe in a creator are atheists who don’t believe in God at all, or agnostics who believe that even if there is a creator or ‘initiator’ that being has no connection or interaction with us.  These are also the same people who hold up Charles Darwin as a kind of ‘hero’ of evolutionary thought.  However, what is rarely discussed among evolutionists today, is the fact that Darwin’s theory of evolution has very serious scientific holes in it.  If you’re curious, check out best sellers like “Darwin’s Black Box”.   This is not to say that evolution is not credible, but only to say that the man that is so widely renown as a hero to scientists and atheists was really only the author of a theory not a scientifically proven fact.  Even my high school science book called it Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, but this theory was  taught like it was fact, and it is always talked about like that, as if the word ‘theory’ doesn’t mean what it really means.  I mention this only to point out the fact that there must clearly be some religious-like biases on the side of many people to promote the ideas of evolution as if they are proven fact.  Similarly there are religious-like biases on the side of the creationists who talk about 6-day creation like it is a proven fact.  Obviously we are dealing with a case of radical beliefs that have radical followers.  But at the end of the day the important thing is still who made it, not how it was made.

The final thing that I didn’t mention is that it’s not just a creation vs. science thing.  Science is often on the side of the idea of creation, and there are lots of great, credible scientists out there who are great men and women of faith.  They simply know when to stop looking for proof, and when to start believing in something greater than they could ever comprehend.

Any thoughts?

Tags: , , , ,

5 Responses to “Was the world really created in 6 literal days? (Creationism vs. Evolutionism)”

  1. Glenn Martin Miller Says:

    I began the reading on December 25 – no Luke ! No Christmas ! not till January 01 ! Parsing the Bible in pieces is an editorial feat though, and it’s all good.
    As I work through the text, I am often puzzled by my own literalism. Six days to God who is infinite in time, power, and omniscience may be incomprehensible in the sense that God works, and so we humans are given ways to understand within our own context the power. Could God create the universe in a second? Scientists say it took less time ! Is a “day” a geologic period? Scientific proof says the earth developed over eons – yet an eon to One who is infinite is an entirely different conception of time. Indeed modern physics seeks explanations for “time” itself. Flowers were relatively late additions to the tree of life in terms of geological period.

    I note, reading the “tree of life” and the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”Gen2: 8-10 that ” good and evil” was the forbidden one, and the tree of life was a textual afterthought. Other aspects – again my literalism may overtake my metaphorical interpretations, are noteworthy. After eating, Adam hears God “walking in the garden.” Gen 3: 10. God asks ( but he already knew!) ” Who told you that you were naked?” . . . later the “Lord God makes clothing from animal skins for Adam and his wife.” Gen 3: 21. Then God says ” Look, the human beings have become like us, knowing both good and evil. What if they reach out , take fruit from the tree of life and eat it? Then they will live forever !” So God banished them from the Garden of Eden, and he sent Adam out to cultivate the ground. . ” Gen. 3:22 -23.

    What was the evil that Adam and Eve became aware of? They had “shame of their nakedness”. Was nakedness not evil before the eating of the fruit, then evil afterward? Or was the “real ” evil their knowledge of disobedience to God, and their exposure to the serpent’s deception? Though earlier, Genesis states we are made in the image and likeness of God, Genesis reports God as saying that after eating fruit of the tree of good/evil ” human beings have become like us”, ( again, not to be taken literally?), and blocking the couple from Eden evermore lest they partake of eternal life (the promise of Christ, delivered via the geneaology of Matt 1:1-2:12).

    The first murder occurs shortly after in the Genesis text, wherein the mens rea ( legal term for mental state) of Cain and his attempt again to “hide” from God through deception occurs Gen 4: 9- 10.

    The literal “contradictions” are ways of expressing profound paradoxes in the human relationship to the Creator. Is it our nature to be deceived and to try use deception, even where we know our hearts are naked before God? Is our “image and likeness” leading to a sort of arrogance, desiring not God’s blessings and love, but his power? Does the woman Eve get the “wisdom” she wants in eating the fruit? And are we, given the great freedom we have to obey the Lord, always somehow drawn to that which we are forbidden? God promises that we will overcome the “Tempter” symbolized by the serpent. His son Jesus Christ offers eternal life. But, like so many Biblical passages, there are puzzlements aplenty, at least for this humble reader.

  2. How can there be a day when the sun wasn’t created until third day? « Metro Bible Blog Says:

    […] The third kind of day is a long period of time or an age.  For example our grandparents may have said of their youth, “back in my day” in which case “day” may represent several years of their lives.  It is very likely that this might be the proper understanding of day in Genesis 1, as God may have taken years or epochs to create things.  (see evolutionism vs. creationism). […]

  3. skoszudo Says:

    Hi, a small thought from a physicist:

    There is a strong theological argument against creation by evolution: If one takes serious the theory of evolution, there can never have been anything like the fall of mankind (or the concept of sin). Simply because there is nothing like sin in a materialistic theory, and there is nothing like a first man, who could be deceived into sin, but there is a mixed group of prehominides and hominides.
    Since there cannot be a redemption from something nonexistent, Jesus has died for nothing if God created via evolution. If you start mixing up scientific theory with something else, you can also believe in a creation from nothing, it’s just a small step.

    If God created without the mean of evolution, there could have been a fall of man, and then it makes sense, that Jesus came and died and rose again to redeem us.

    God bless

  4. Chance Says:

    Hi. After reading this I can’t help but want to throw a point out there about Genesis. I am a Creationalist that strongly believes in the 6 24 hour day period creation. Now, I am only 14 years of age so I do not have much of a background in science. But I do have a strong background in Christianity.

    OK. My point is that wasn’t Genesis written for the people’s understanding? Moses wrote it after a revalation from God. Wouldn’t God have told Moses about the Creation in a way that he and the people understand? If he wanted the people to fully understand the Creation, wouldn’t he have said that it took millions of years?

    And on the point of the literal vs. loose interpretation of the bible, the people didn’t know that much about this God of theirs, for they didn’t have the bible to read daily like we do. Just a thought, but shouldn’t God make most, if not all, of the things he has decided to reveal to them literal? And on the 2 Peter 3, don’t you think that in the New Testiment some things might be intended by God to be loosely interpreted since we already know how our God works and what he intends for us to understand?

    These are few of the beliefs of mine that have been revealed to me and are not my ideas but the God who sent me.

    Overall, I believe that all this is rubish if you do not already have a relationship with God. Alot of “Christians” go into this discussion and have not even fully excepted Christ. My point? Get right with God before worrying over a simple thing like Creation. Also, the bible says that Christ brings diversity. Should this be taken literal? Let Christ decide for you. Luke 12:52 – “For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three.” But he brings us together on this point – he is our savior and will bring those of us who believe salvation.

    God bless.

  5. an idiot abroad Says:

    I am confused by the thought, the engineering, the fitting-it-in across the relaxation of every thing else I need to do as Chief Cook and Bottle Washer in my enterprise

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: