Could God have created the universe using the natural (I.e., time, space, energy, and matter) processes He developed in a way that meets modern scientific observations and still aligns to the literal 6 day Biblical narrative?
Biblical Christians believe that God is, by inherent nature, logical but also not bound by natural human perspectives and wisdom.
1 Corinthians 3:19a
For the wisdom of this world is folly with God
Therefore, Biblical Christians have a responsibility to be skeptical of any scientific framework that implicitly or explicitly denies the Biblical Creator-God. Thus, we subjugate all scientific observations to the greater standard of Biblical Science. The branch of Biblical Science that deals with the observation and explanation of natural components is characterized here as Biblical Creation Science (BCS).
BCS is essentially Natural Science with the foundational axiomatic assumption that all nature originates from an Intelligence best revealed in the Bible. BCS is contrasted with the currently reigning worldview of Atheistic Natural Science (ANS, my shorthand label), whose foundational axiomatic assumption is that creation is the product of non-intelligent random chance and the interaction of fundamental natural components (time, space, energy, and matter).
BCS assumes God is the transcendent Master Developer and that the Creation program deployment occurred in six 24 hour stages:
Day 1 - the introduction of natural components:
- The heavens (space) and the motionless watery earth (matter)
- A supernatural source of illumination (light) and starting the earth’s spin (time and energy)
Day 2: Earth’s atmosphere (ocean and sky)
Day 3: dry land, other water formations, and initial organic life (plants)
Day 4: the Earth-observable universe
Day 5: water and air based organic life
Day 6: land based organic life and the special creation of Man
Both BCS and ANS axiomatically assumes that, after the special creation event, natural laws generally progress in a uniform, steady and predictable manner. However BCS, unlike ANS, does not obviate miraculous events, such as the Great Flood and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Unlike ANS, BCS does not assume the present is the most trustworthy way of interpreting the past.
An example of this is the assumptions of ANS cosmological, geological, and biological evolutionary theories which posit the necessity of homogenous uniformity of natural forces, particularly the requirement of the unchanging flow of vast quantities of time.
BCS assumes the natural component of time is malleable to God and the implicit/explicit assumption of homogenous steady-state time flow in all places and all times by predominant ANS evolutionary theories is false.
The Bible clearly states that human observations of God’s utilization of time are not perceptually equivalent (See Psalm 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8). And in Joshua 10 we are even given an example of God manipulating and slowing local time to accomplish His purpose while time progressed naturally external to the local area. The sun didn’t actually stand still, it was perceived that way by the local audience.
The Creation account is undeniably recorded from an “Earth local” perspective, so the unfolding of the observable universe would have looked like a 24 hour “fast forward” of the creation events outside that viewpoint. All natural components would have progressed in a way that meets current scientific observations, except the natural component of time was accelerated. Something very similar took place under the water cover of the Flood event to break up the monolithic land mass (I.e., Pangea) of Day 3.
This interpretive framework rebuts any argument that “the Universe is old or God is a deceiver” in favor of God being in full control of the natural forces He created as a part of His program.
God expects that Biblical Christians subordinate human wisdom to His Word. Therefore, we should subject all scientific observations and conclusions to this standard.
In other words, when ANS frameworks contradict BCS, faithful Christians should develop explanations that align with the Bible first, man’s wisdom second.
The universe is both old and young. It’s age is relative to the frame of reference of the observer.
Otherwise we are guilty of presuppositional capitulation.
God’s observations fundamentally shape reality.
Man’s does not.
If you’ve found this to be compelling or helpful, please share!
Ugh. Where to begin? I'm going to deal wih the facility of this one statement: "The Creation account is undeniably recorded from an “Earth local” perspective." First, why is it undeniable? No person was around to see the creation. There was no man on Day #1. There was, in fact, no Earth. So, it is prima facie deniable. No man, no earth, no perspective. The story would have had to been told to Adam, and we have no proof of that in the Bible, and then passed down thru his generations (again no proof) and eventually written down and translated for us today. It wasn't until it was first written down that it was given its “Earth local” perspective. A much better argument is to look at creation from John 1:1. First there was the Word, then there was the world. Then man finally came along.
ReplyDeleteFirst, thanks for the engagement!
DeleteSecondly, and before I address anything else, you seem to be denying that the narrative even has a perspective.The Bible is undeniably the delivery of a narrative through humans, regardless of its veracity.