The Creation Models (Introduction and Young Earth) #34

A total of 33 blogs were posted over the past two years to summarize the Science and the Bible lecture series. The topics included Biblical scripture laced with technical content that ranged from Greenland ice core data to the lethal output of radiation from a distant galaxy to mutation rates of complex animals, etc. My goal was to provide a firm scriptural and technical foundation to support the discussion of six Creation Models. Several of these are frequently referenced in the church and have been proposed, defended, and fought over by theologians for decades. The models are listed below:

Young Earth Model
Old Earth Model
Time Dilation Model
The Gap Theory Model
Apparent Age Model
Naturalistic Model

Far too often, only one model is accepted and/or promoted within a local congregation. If a new pastor or teacher arrives on the scene with his/her new “favorite flavor,” then arguments and divisions may erupt. This is not the way it should be—I’ll follow a more effective approach provided below.

Each of the listed models has at least a few inherent strengths and weaknesses which define our starting points. And the strengths and weaknesses should be explored, not with a simple verse of scripture, but with all the relevant scripture merged with data provided through God’s creation, as instructed via Romans 1:18-21. My previous blogs have attempted to provide a platform of both scripture and technical resources. I encourage you to briefly review Part 2 of the Creation Event series (Blog #22) as we begin this series.

The model comparisons will follow the basic ground-rules and interpretive formats listed below:

Use All Available Scripture
Assume Scientific Age Measurements are Legitimate (Romans 1)
Acknowledge That God’s Natural Laws Control the Earth (and Universe; Job 38)
Acknowledge That God Also Works Via Occasional Miraculous Intervention

Scriptural interpretation will include the important, ancient Hebrew verb definitions:

“bara” – “The root bara has the basic meaning ‘to create’ . . . bara emphasizes the initiation of the object—from out of nothing.” I used the phrase, “God spoke, and “poof!” it happened.”
“asa” – “When used in the sense of ‘to make’, the emphasis is on the fashioning of the object” . . . implication is to do, or make from previously existing material.”
“yatsar” – “When used in the sense of ‘to make’, the emphasis is on the fashioning of the object” . . . implication is to sculpture, or form like pottery.”

Time comparisons will also be made between the seven “days” in Genesis 1 and the estimated age of the universe (15 By), using the comparison chart shown in Figure 1.

Finally, the six creations models discussed in this series are displayed in Figure 2. The first five models on the chart assume some aspects of “old age” within the universe, whereas the sixth is the “Young Earth” model. And that’s where we’ll begin.

Young Earth Model

This is the creation model that many of us grew up with in our church classrooms. Every creation-oriented Bible class that I can remember, back to early childhood, presented this model as a strict, literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. The creation verbs were never discussed or applied, nor was Scriptural support outside of Genesis (such as Isaiah 45:18). There was scant, if any technical (scientific) data applications since science and scientists were regarded with utmost suspicion. This, at least, was my experience, even in my early college days—perhaps your experience was more progressive.

The Young Earth model is based upon a solid faith in the Bible and a tenacious commitment to the original King James’ interpretation of “days, evenings, and mornings” in Genesis Chapter 1. And, as I’ve mentioned before, it’s a valid interpretation. A 12-24 hour period is the logical interpretation of “days” in Chapter 1 if provided no other text and if God’s creation is ignored.

With that said, the strategy I’ll follow here and in subsequent model discussions will include a review and/or interpretation of each creation day (when applicable). From the review I’ll develop a list of “Pros” and “Cons” for each model, as I understand them.

The Daily Ledger

This section critiques the Young Earth model’s interpretation of Genesis 1 on a day-by-day basis. (See also Blog #21, The Creation Event (Part 1) for additional creation context.) And again, the following summary reflects my experience with the Young Earth teachings; yours may differ.

Day 1. God’s first action was to “create (bara) the heavens and the earth.” The “heavens and earth” are viewed as two, independent entities, both simply “spoken” into existence by God. The earth was initially “formless and void” and covered by darkness. The Spirit’s presence upon the face of the earth brought order to the earth and prepared it for life. Some believe the Spirit’s presence also brought the Light of His glory, and the subsequent separation of light (day) and darkness (night).

Critique. Isaiah 45:18 provides additional, critical information regarding the Day 1 activities. The verse and verb forms are provided below:

Isaiah 45:18

For thus says the Lord, who created (bara) the heavens (He is God who formed [yatsar – sculpted] the earth and made (asa) it, He established it and did not create (barah) it a waste place, but formed (yatsar) it to be inhabited), I am the Lord, and there is none else.

The Young Earth interpretation that God “spoke” into existence (bara) the “heavens and earth” as two separate entities creates a conflict in Scripture. Isaiah 45:18 clearly states that He created (bara) the “heavens” alone, and “formed” (asa – from pre-existing material) the earth and sculpted it (yatsar) to be inhabited. This more accurate interpretation of the Day 1 event recognizes the “heavens and the earth” as the totality of the universe and all it contains—not simply two separate entities; and that resolves the apparent conflict with Genesis 1.

Day 2. The second creation day in Genesis 1 regards atmospheric quality. The Young Earth model is generally quiet regarding the origin or source of this pervasive “water” that covered the globe. However, it recognizes that atmospheric stability is a requirement for life. God addressed it as described below:

Genesis 1:6-7

“Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.

Clearly, some kind of atmospheric stability was imposed by God. Further technical discussion of the Day 2 events will be provided under the Old Earth model.

Critique. One additional assertion is often included with the Young Earth model—a hypothesis that God literally divided the water into oceans that covered the earth, and into a huge water “canopy” in the upper atmosphere that encircled the earth. It is further hypothesized that the collapse of this canopy was responsible for the 40-days of rainfall and flood during Noah’s time. Although beyond the scope of this blog, it can be shown that if all the water vapor in a fully saturated atmosphere was suddenly condensed and deposited as rain, it would only result in a 6-8 inch rainfall event. Air circulation systems, such as thunderstorms, can greatly increase the amount to over a foot in some cases, but not hundreds of feet of water as proposed by the Young Earth model. The flood was a miracle by God.

Day 3. This was a busy day. It began with God issuing a command for the seas to be gathered into one place and for dry land to appear. He then commanded the earth to “sprout vegetation”—seed-bearing plants and fruit trees—and all plants to bear fruit “after their kind” (Genesis 1: 9-13).

Just ponder a moment on the enormity of the tasks that had to be accomplished within a 24-hour period as required by the Young Earth model:

Continental uplift above sea level and ocean basin formation
Drainage and re-distribution of water from the land mass into the respective basins
Flushing of the land mass with fresh water (to remove salinity)
“Drying” of the land mass to support vegetation
Sprouting and growth of seed-bearing plants.

Critique. Clearly, a miracle would be required to accomplish this within 24-hours. God simply spoke, “Let it happen. . . .” The verb “bara” was not used, God worked with the pre-existing material. But remember, there is another creation model to be discussed in a future blog that honors both the 24-hour timeframes AND the much longer, naturalistic approach.

Day 4. If literally interpreted, Day 4 is problematic for most of the creation models. The text states the following:

Genesis 1: 14-18

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. God made (“asa”; added by JRC) the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; the stars also. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. . .

Each time I’ve heard the Young Earth model interpretation of this verse, it states that God spoke into existence the sun, moon, and stars. But notice that once again the “bara” verb is not used. The text says, “God made” using the “asa” verb, i.e., from pre-existing material.

Critique. Clearly God is speaking of the sun, moon, and stars in this context, but it’s a challenge to reconcile with reality. Why would God create green plants on Day 3, prior to the sun’s creation? The sun would provide light for photosynthesis, and warmth for survival. We don’t know the temperature of a recently formed earth under the Young Earth model, but temperatures in space plummet to below -150 °F without a nearby star for warmth. God is certainly capable of artificially “warming” the earth for plant survival, by why would he follow such an odd sequence?

Day 5. This is one of the most amazing verses in the Old Testament, at least for me. Here’s the text:

Genesis 1: 20-21

Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens. ”God created (“bara,” added by JRC) the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good…

Critique. This is only the second time in the creation account of Genesis 1 that the “bara” verb is used. God literally “spoke” into existence (He “poofed”) the swarms of animals that we see as the Cambrian Explosion of life in the fossil record (recently discussed in Blog #___). Unfortunately, this amazing correlation and “proof” of God’s existence goes un-noticed and un-mentioned in the Young Earth model. The model does not acknowledge a consistent fossil record in the geologic strata, nor the astonishing explosion of life in the Cambrian Period. The Young Earth model simply acknowledges that God created an amazing diversity of ocean life, and the birds. And He did, but the significance of the “bara” verb and the powerful linkage between God and His creation goes unmentioned.

Day 6. On this final day of creation, God created the most complex animals in His creation—the mammals and man. Again, the Young Earth model acknowledges the great diversity of life and the pinnacle—mankind. I have never seen a reference in the Young Earth model to the third usage of “bara” in Genesis 1; again, perhaps you have. The verb denotes the emplacement within man of God’s very image. The model does recognize the significance of His image within mankind.

This has been a rather monotonous review of the Young Earth creation account from Genesis 1—monotonous because it provides a literal interpretation of the verses that most of us have heard since early Bible school days. Figure 3 shows the time-scale comparison chart for the Young Earth model; no Old Earth comparisons are made.

I am not against a literal interpretation.

I am against an interpretation that ignores other important Biblical verses that expand upon the creation account (e.g. Isaiah 45:18). And most importantly, I cringe at what is overlooked by ignoring countless scientific observations that help us “understand” His creation, and that glorify God in the process as per Romans 1:18-21.

Unfortunately, this approach is still upheld in some churches and occasional Christian literature. And some Christian literature has become caustic, ridiculing not only scientists, but even Christian authors such as Hugh Ross who hold an alternative Old Earth view.¹ Surely this must grieve the Lord.

Finally, listed below are the Pros and Cons of the Young Earth model from my perspective:

*PROS*	*CONS*
Rigorously follows a literal interpretation of Genesis 1	Fails to incorporate many other creation scriptures in the Bible that expand upon the literal Young Earth interpretation (e.g. Isaiah 45:18)
Rigorously accepts literal King James translation of “yom” as a 24-hour period, with a literal translation of sunrise and sunset (a valid translation of the text).	Fails to recognize and incorporate the important creation verbs “bara,” “asah,” and “yarsar” that greatly expand upon the Young Earth interpretation
	Fails to follow Romans 1:18-21 and Psalm 19:1,2 and examine His creation via multitudes of scientific observations through which God is glorified. This would also greatly expand the Young Earth model.