The Testimony Of a Man Of Science

Some say that the creation account in the Book of Genesis and the scientific claim of a “big bang” and billions of years of the universe cannot be harmonized.
Here is the testimony of Hugh Ross, PhD. Taken from his book Creation and Time, pages 143-154.


I was seventeen years old when I began to study the Bible. I had heard some portions of it read aloud in my public elementary and junior high classrooms in British Columbia, and I had caught tidbits of it from my parents at home and at a United Church of Canada congregation that my family attended for several months during my childhood. But I had never studied it for myself. I had been studying science instead, which was my main interest from the time I was seven.
I started my Bible reading with the Genesis creation account. After all, it appears on the first page. I had another reason, though, for starting there. In my study of the history of astronomy, I had read dozens of creation stories from the world’s religions, and I wondered if this one would be like the rest. The others were good for a few laughs, with their ludicrous descriptions and inventive disordering of events. I half anticipated that the Bible’s story might be just as strange and unscientific.
What immediately caught my attention was that God established the point of view (on the surface of Earth’s oceans) for the passage right at the outset, before outlining the sequence of events. This anticipated my first concern – the perspective from which the account unfolds.
Then I made another startling observation: Along with identifying the viewpoint, Genesis 1:2 also stated Earth’s initial conditions, again clarifying the context of what followed.
To be sure, not everyone would recognize these two features of the text as complementary with the scientific method. But any careful reader couldn’t help but notice that they colorfully and dramatically set the scene.
With the point of view and initial conditions identified, I could proceed in my reading without relying on guesswork. In fact, in only a few minutes I understood what the text said about the order of events.
Now I was even more stunned. As far as I could tell from my limited knowledge, everything in Genesis 1, from the initial conditions to the identification and sequencing of major events made sense not only as a story abut also scientifically. Never had I seen anything remotely like this in other creation accounts.
I realized that the Bible had a perfect batting record on the ten creation events plus the initial conditions. I realized such a record required supernatural assistance. The human author could not have been guessing or presenting his own or his culture’s ideas.
The discovery that Genesis might be a divinely inspired book challenged me to dig deeper into the text. I recognized that the Bible could not be taken lightly or frivolously.
Because Genesis 1 proved so accurate on the description and order of creation events, it seemed entirely possible to me that it might also prove true on the creation time scale. Why? Because I, like many other citizens of this century, was aware that modern astronomy has confirmed the first verse of the Bible, that the whole of the cosmos had a definite beginning, a beginning not in the infinitely distant past but only about 14 billion years ago. Thus, when I encountered the six creation days of Genesis, it seemed possible that the word day could refer to longer periods than twenty-four hours. But I wasn’t sure.
My first clue to some flexibility of usage for day was the reference to the beginning of day and night. Obviously, the word day here had at least two meanings.
My second clue was the use of the word heaven on the second creation day. The firmament called heaven in verse 8 was distinct from the heavens of verse 1. Here again was a word taking on more than one definition. At this point I was beginning to discern that the original language of the Old Testament (Hebrew) had fewer nouns than English. Then I remembered my high school English teacher proudly pointing out that the vocabulary of English is much larger than that of most other languages.
My third clue was the lack of an evening and a morning for the seventh day. The only reason I could imagine for the author’s breach of parallelism, his failure to mention the evening and morning of the seventh day, was that the day might not yet be over. When I saw that the seventh day was a day of rest for God, I recognized a possible answer to the enigma of the fossil record.
Throughout the fossil era, new species appeared one after another after another, and species went extinct too one after another after another. But throughout the history of the human race, only the extinction rate is high. The speciation rate is negligible.
During my teenage years I had been mystified by this fact. Now I found an answer where I did not expect it – for six days God created, repeatedly and miraculously introducing new species of life on earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from His work of creating new life.
A final clue came from Genesis 2:4. There the day refers to the entire creation week. It was one more piece of evidence that the Hebrew word for “day” could indeed refer to a time period other than twenty-four hours.
That first night of serious Bible study absorbed many hours, and I made my way through only the first 35 verses. But by the time it had ended, I felt a remarkable exhilaration. Though not yet completely convinced that the words I was reading and all that followed were indeed the Word of God, I knew that I could not discount the possibility. Nor could I ignore the challenge to study the rest of the Bible, testing whether or not it proved similarly plausible.
I invested nearly two more years in the testing process, but that fist night was a turning point. Before that night I strongly doubted that the Bible could be the error-free Word of God. After that night, I became more and more convinced that it was.
My experience was not unique. I have since learned that it characterizes the approach of many with a scientific or analytical bent. If such an individual gets through the first chapter of Genesis, unless he or she has personal (or moral) barriers to belief, that person will become a believer. If someone stumbles in that first chapter, his or her unbelief may never be overcome.
A widely held conviction that persists to this day is that the words of the biblical account and the facts of science are irreconcilably at odds. Some reject the reliability of the Bible. Others reject the reliability of secular science. Still others assert that Genesis 1 and science address different kinds of truth, truth on different planes of reality, and the twain need never meet. All three groups of people make the claim that since it appears impossible to accord the description and order of creation events in Genesis 1 with the established scientific record, one might as well concede that the biblical and scientific dates for creation are at odds.
Ironically – perhaps I should add, unwittingly – in my first night of Bible study, I picked up and used an oft-overlooked key to reconciling the text with science. Years ago I mentioned that key while conversing with a renowned seminary professor. He struck his head in amazement at something so simple, wondering how he could have missed it. He encouraged me to share it as widely as possible.
The seeming futility of the attempt to integrate Genesis with the scientific record arises from an error in applying Galileo’s rule: “Begin by establishing (not assuming) the point of view.” Most Bible commentators assume the point of view to be out in the heavens looking down on the earth. As a result, they present an order for creation that is absurd next to established science.
Ironically, Genesis 1 precisely and clearly identifies the point of view for the creation account:
Darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (verse 2)
This simple statement suggests that the reader interpret the events of creation from the perspective of an observer on the surface of the earth. The view looking upward and around from this vantage point makes a huge difference in understanding the sequence of creation events. From misplacing the perspective in the heavens, it appears that light was created after the earth. The creation of the sun, moon, and stars seems to take place after the creation of plant life and after the establishing of the water cycle. But with the point of view on the surface of the earth, looking up at the atmosphere of the earth, we recognize that God’s miracles are taking place in the atmosphere of the earth, not beyond it in the galaxy and the solar system. Light was not created on the first creation day. On that day the light already created “in the beginning” suddenly broke through to the earth’s surface. This breakthrough required the transformation of the atmosphere (plus the interplanetary medium) from opaque to translucent. On the fourth creation day we see yet another atmospheric transformation, this time from translucent to transparent. Through that transformation, the sun, moon, and stars became visible for the first time on Earth’s surface. It’s not that God made (or created) them on the fourth day; He simply made them visible and distinguishable on that day.
With the point of view fixed on the earth’s surface, the “dark,” “formless,” and “empty” initial conditions make sense. It is dark in spite of the already existing heavens and earth because the earth’s primordial atmosphere and the solar system’s primordial interplanetary debris prevent the light of the sun, moon, and stars from reaching the surface of the earth. The earth’s surface is empty of life and unfit for life, because without light photosynthesis is impossible.
With the point of view and initial conditions correctly identified, the sequence of Genesis creation events no longer seems difficult to harmonize with the record of astronomy, paleontology, geology and biology. The few purported conflicts with the fossil record stem from inaccurate interpretations of some Hebrew nouns for various plant and animal species.
For example, some have ridiculed Genesis for declaring that insects appear late in the record of life on earth, after the birds and sea mammals and just before human beings. The problem reference is to the creatures “that creep upon the earth” (Gen. 1:25-26). The Hebrew word in question is remes, and its broad definition encompasses rapidly moving vertebrates, such as rodents, hares, and lizards. But remes in verse 24 has a more restricted usage. The creatures under discussion are the nephesh (verses 20-25) – soulish creatures, creatures that can relate to humans; creatures with qualities of mind, will and emotion. These can only be birds and mammals. So the remes of verse 24 cannot be insects or even reptiles. They must be soulish and able to relate with the human species.
Another point of ridicule is the mention of land mammals (Gen. 1:25) as part of the sixth creation day, while sea mammals (1:21) show up on the fifth creation day. The fossil record clearly shows that the first sea mammals came on the scene after the first land mammals. The answer to this ridicule comes from again identifying the specific classes of land mammals in verse 1:25. They are soulish, that is, apparently these particular land mammals were designed to coexist with human beings. The fossil record confirms that such land mammals do not show up until after the initial appearance of birds and sea mammals.
Events of the third creation day have also been challenged. The Hebrew phrase translated as “seeds, trees, and fruit” (Gen 1:11-12) has been taken by some as a reference to deciduous plants. However, the respective Hebrew nouns, zera, ets, and periy are generic terms that easily can be applied to plant species as primitive as those that appeared at the beginning of the Cambrian era (about 500,000,000 years ago). Their early mention in the Genesis creation account poses no scientific problem.
Scientific evidence for ocean life predating land life poses no threat either. The Spirit of God “brooded” over the face of the waters (Gen. 1:2), possibly creating life in the oceans before the events of the six creation days begin.
Here is a general order of Genesis 1 creation events:
1. Creation by God’s miracle of the entire physical universe (length, width, height, time, matter, energy, galaxies, stars, planets. etc.). Note: Planet Earth is empty of life and unfit for life; Earth’s primordial atmosphere and the solar system’s interplanetary debris prevent the light of the sun, moon, and stars from reaching the surface of the earth’s ocean.
2. Clearing of the interplanetary debris and partial transformation of the earth’s atmosphere so that light from the heavenly bodies now penetrates to the surface of the earth’s ocean.
3. Formation of water vapor in the troposphere under conditions that establish a stable water cycle.
4. Formation of continental land masses together with ocean basins.
5. roduction of plants on the continental land masses.
6. Transformation of the atmosphere from a translucent condition to one that is at least occasionally transparent.
7. Production of swarms of small sea animals.
8. Creation by God’s miracle of sea mammals and birds.
9. Creation by God of land mammals capable of interacting with the future human race.
10. Creation by God’s miracle of the human species.
Obviously, no author writing more than 3,400 years ago, as Moses did, could have so accurately described and sequenced these events, plus the initial conditions, without divine assistance. And if God could guide the words of Moses to scientific and historical precision in this most complex report of divine activity, we have reason to believe we can trust Him to communicate with perfection through all the other Bible writers as well.

[See previous article by Hugh Ross, "A Scientific Approach To the Genesis Creation".]

[Back to Home]