Science and Genesis

Feb 27, 2017 by

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Discussion of the conflict between Genesis 1 and science centers on evolution (“Museum Enshrines One Creationist View,” Book Review, Jan. 16), but the far greater conflict between a literal reading of Genesis 1 and science is the creation of the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day, after light and plants. This conflict is only made worse by those who suggest a day is a thousand years or an “age.”

I looked all through the Creation Museum to find some explanation for the sun’s creation on day four but found nothing. I’ve heard the sun only appeared through a dense cloud cover on day four, but that isn’t the literal reading, and no person was standing on the Earth’s surface to witness this limited perspective anyway. If God is revealing this story, his perspective is hardly limited to ground level.

It wasn’t science that convinced me Genesis 1 isn’t to be taken literally but Bible study pointing out that Genesis 1 is written in poetic form and that Genesis 2 is a second story of creation that, if taken literally, conflicts with the first. Since the writer of Genesis saw fit to include both stories, he obviously wasn’t going for scientific and historical accuracy as we think of it.

Duane Beachey
Isom, Ky.

Comments Policy

Mennonite World Review invites readers’ comments on articles. To promote constructive dialogue, editors select the comments that appear, just as we do with letters to the editor in print. These decisions are final. Writers must sign their first and last names; anonymous comments are not accepted. Comments do not appear until approved and are posted during business hours. Comments may be reproduced in print, and may be edited if selected for print.

About Me