It seems as if the main problem is the either/or support for one or the other, which many see as completely contradictory scenarios. You can't believe both...it has to be either science or religion....hence the name of this forum.
The only way for some to meld the two is to assume that either God created the evolutionary process, or that everything in Genesis is metaphorical. It occurs to me that there is a balanced view somewhere in the middle, using the Bible and established science to solve the conflict. It does not force us to accept one and reject the other.
A misreading of Genesis is at the base of this whole argument IMV. Genesis 1:1 simply states that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". There is no actual timeframe between this fist verse and what follows. So, logically to me, the act of creation may well have occurred millions or even billions of years ago.
The following verses see God preparing the earth for habitation and ultimately all the living things that share this planet with us. It is obvious that life at a bacterial level was not addressed because humans had no ability to see them, and with all creation in balance, everything worked as it was supposed to. No bacteria would cause harm to any living thing anyway.
The final, crowning achievement was man....the only creature given God's attributes and moral qualities. Along with that was free will....a precious gift that would benefit mankind in a variety of ways every day as they filled the earth and beautified it.
The other way that Genesis is misread IMO is with regard to the meaning of the word "day". In Hebrew it is "yohm" and it can mean a literal day or an extended period of undetermined length. By assuming that the "days" were 24 hour periods, science comes along and laughs at the suggestion because its a blind Freddy thing that the earth and all that is on it was not created 6,000 years ago. Now we have a butting of heads and the slanging matches that infer lack of intelligence and blind faith. Science clearly sees its superiority in this argument which is why so many are now siding with science. The Christians who adhere to creationism then start to try and justify their position and appear to many to be religious ignoramuses.
So what is the middle ground that forms a bridge between religion and science?
1) The opening verse of Genesis is a completely separate act to what follows. The planet could have been in its unprepared state for millions of years after the creation of the universe. But God, at some stage began his preparation of a completely formless and waste ball of matter that was just the right distance from its sun and just the right size and shape to support life. We have no way of knowing when that happened.
2) The preparation of earth for habitation could be fully supported by science. The very first thing to appear is "light" and the next is earth's atmosphere. Nothing can exist without these first being in place.
Water was the next ingredient and from the start it is apparent that water already covered the surface of the whole planet. Part of God's preparation was to make land masses come up out of one vast ocean. The dry land was then clothed with vegetation...and also the first living organisms would have accompanied it, since vegetation is broken down into soil by bacteria in the natural recycling that takes place in nature. Since photosynthesis was essential for the life of plants and trees, the luminaries that were already there shedding their light, were somehow made visible from the earth's surface, perhaps by removing some cloud layers. (These were mentioned in Job 38:4-11) Genesis is presented from the perspective of an earth dweller. Plants can grow with light that is bright enough, but now there was full sunlight. A nightlight was also now visible as were the stars.
3) The living things that God made first were the marine creatures, followed by the flying creatures, of which there is infinite variety....insects, beetles, bats, birds...even pterodactyls. If the creative "days" were not 24 hours long, it allows for a very long and protracted creative process. The thought of the big wizard in the sky 'poofing' things into existence was never the case. God is a creator, not a magician.
4) Then the land creatures appear with a clear distinction between the wild animals and the domestic ones. Each has a habitat and food prepared for them in advance of their creation. It was all beautifully planned. Even the dinosaurs may have served a purpose, eating down the vegetation that had grown for perhaps thousands of years with nothing to keep it in check. Once they had served their purpose, then perhaps their contract was not renewed?
If you extend the creative "days" into epochs of undetermined length, then all things become possible....and why there were no dinosaurs on the ark.5) Finally, as God's last creative achievement, man is brought into existence, different to all the other creatures in that he alone was appointed to be this planet's custodians and caretakers. Endowing humans with His qualities, God was ensuring that they would represent him adequately in that role....and would have, if all had gone to plan.
So if you remove the 24 hour "days" you can have a creation that agrees with true science (as opposed to the theoretical kind) and the Creator becomes a master craftsman taking his time to craft his creation to his satisfaction as each period closed with his declaration that it was "good".
This is what makes sense to me.
Last edited:
