Do Scientific Theories Oppose Prescient Biblical Claims?

This image reflects how the very intelligent can sometimes be blindfolded.

Unfortunately, the two notions of creation and evolution are typically argued in opposition to one another.

This article on earth's history shows that computer models still do not agree with hypothesis and explanations, while the 'order' of what came first is continuously debated.

Words commonly and traditionally literally interpreted do not always lend a proper understanding of the early chapters of Genesis.

Those same words carry different meanings in later chapters of Genesis and the rest of the written and printed and recorded Word of God as is known and understood.

Case in point; the words 'day' and 'week'.

Centuries later the word 'day' in reference to 'time' was interpreted through Peter's inspired words when he asked his readers to consider a day to be “like a thousand years” and conversely “a thousand years to be like a day” regarding God's timing of events and people's expectations of certain events.

If God says “soon”, you may expect 'soon' to mean later that day, or perhaps in a few days as you understand days and what is soon to you, you may learn this lesson.

When reading about ancient prophecy and fulfillments, 'soon' would sometimes come about several centuries later (while a particular prophetic fulfillment did occur during that time, but this is another article).

Cautiously, not every time the word 'day' is mentioned should a 'time' period be interpreted as a thousands years, or more, or less, or just the same as what a day is understood today (24 hours).

In Genesis we find the first instance of God 'calling' (or naming) something; God 'called' the light 'day' when distinguishing it from the darkness, calling secondly the darkness 'night'.

Notice that some scientific theories say the order of 'light' preceding the sun's existence and the timing of water existing on earth in Genesis is 'wrong'.

But what 'light' is Genesis speaking of?

In which way did 'light' exist in the universe 'before' the earth's sun existed?

Read this article's recent scientific assertion:

In fact, the team estimates that as much as 50% of the water now on Earth may have existed since before the birth of the sun 4.5 billion years ago.

In other words, there is fluidity with interpretation at times, whether speaking of 'time' as a concept or other ideas.

Similar interpretive freedoms are found regarding a 'week' which were later to be realized as 'years' when considering certain prophetic messages found in Isaiah and Daniel.

There can exist a language within a language.

Depending on the message, certain words mean something different in one context than they would in another context...or when used in a different language.

The Bible being one language (although written in any given human language, like English, not originating with humans) and science being another language (although also written in English but originating with humans).

I think people should consider translating the languages of God's creation and man's evolution to resolve the perceived differences between both languages as best they can.

In consideration of scientific theories and facts, Genesis' account can resemble an open outline that allows for science's breadth and intricacy of content to fill.

What do we see when reading both languages?

The Genesis account doesn't mention the primordial creation aside from briefly mentioning God having “created the heavens”...focusing then specifically on the earth's creation and the development of life on earth...with man quickly becoming the main character focus.

The Big Bang as modernly understood is not a biblical theme aside from 'created the heavens'.

The Genesis account is centric to life on earth with man as the focal and centric point of that life on earth.

Genesis chapter one expresses a general description of the order of how the earth came to be developed and populated by life.

Periods of creation / manifestation, growth, evolution, adaptation, and preparation within a period of time prior to the next sequence of creation / manifestation, growth, evolution, adaptation, and preparation within another period of time prior to the next sequence....et al.

A sequence being something, as almost all things humanly understood, being explained according to human perception while not reaching, for example, an apex as a previous apex was reached in a previous sequence.

Perception meaning that like a log in a fireplace eventually runs out of fuel and stops burning, the observer may say “the log's time has run out”, yet the remains of the log are simply something else now, for those elements that previously made up the log have moved on to become or interact with other elements in another manner.

To mention the language of math within the language of science, mathematical computer models have been made to exemplify what is theorized to have occurred in the past.

These models portray an outcome according to the computer's mathematical program.

Notice computer programs are authored by people, computer programming being yet another language.

Math is also another language, of numbers and concepts.

Math's language was developed by man over time according observations of the physical world, eventually theorizing the invisible world through and from the basis of this language.

Computer models follow their programmed mathematical computer sequence.

I breathe because that is what certain parts of my body were programmed to do.

Neither myself nor another man programmed my body to breathe.

The computers and their theoretical models, however, have been programmed by men to follow the languages man has made them with... in order to produce an outcome hoped for by man and interpreted by man to explain things both known and unknown to man.

Do you follow?

Much how in Genesis we read that “God said” and then things came to be, in a similar fashion man believes he has 'created' things with the use of words and tools in hand.

But hasn't man simply made up words and given these words definitions according to what man understands?

As God spoke all known and unknown things (and also visible and invisible things) into existence from His mind, so also have men brought forth into the world their ideas, but again in a very different manner.

Does man create as God creates?

Man thinks so, but this is too high a claim and thought...based in ignorance and arrogance.

Ignorance being unable to properly define words, and arrogance in assuming too much.

Something out of nothing is an act of creation, and illogical and impossible (yet in science it is a theory, so perhaps it is possible from a secularist's point of view).

For those with faith in God, something out of nothing is not an impossibility, but to resolve one language with the other, this issue needs to be discussed with a bridge language (the bridge being explaining in certain terms 'how' something can come from nothing').

The believe does not need a thorough explanation or for this idea to make full and complete sense, because the believe takes God according to His Word.

And this is one of the points being expressed: the Genesis account reveals the guarantee that God can be believed according to His Word...so long as one understands the language.

A man turning a tree into a table is 'making'...'turning' an already existing thing into some other thing is not 'creating', but men have used that word 'creation' quite loosely.

Man does not create, but simply 'makes' using already existing elements on earth.

Science calls the programmer of evolution and all things material 'natural selection' and other terms, arguing 'order out of chaos' and other theoretical (but possible) ideas.

This is the idea that life forms have changed according to their surroundings and those who survived time and circumstance having adapted...perceived as being stronger or better than previous life forms.

It all makes logical sense, until one considers certain life forms living today are 'ancient' when compared to man, not having 'evolved' much and still simple and not complex (like an amoeba or this shark recently found that is supposed to be 80 million years old and not exit anymore, having supposedly preceded mankind).

The computer has its designer, as the program has a programmer, math its historic developers.

What of the natural world?

Are we to believe, as science claims, that the natural world somehow manifested out of nothing?

And that such a manifestation began, as science claims, from chaos?

A mass variety of 'things' came from nothing?

An ordered world was developed from utter chaos?

Only in theory can such things be considered logical.

If the table and chair I am sitting at has a maker, while made from wood which the maker had little to do with unless he planted and watered the tree for its wood (and this is all logical), why do men desire to theorize that even MORE intricate things on earth had no designer or maker, but simply came to 'be' out of chance and chaos?

That is quite illogical.

As science explains, the Big Bang initiated the material world and all things were thus set in motion, postulating that order resolved out of mass chaos and all things eventual sprouted from nothing, or a singularity.

I would dare say this argument is similar to the argument against people who use the Bible as support for the Bible.

It is pointing at a fallacy and can be applied to both science's findings and Bible arguments.

The one weighty point in favor of the Bible's Genesis account is this: that account preceded science.

Secondly, science is following quite closely the Bible, and the latter, again, is surprisingly agreeing with the former.

What is even more interesting regarding order out of chaos and something out of nothing is that these two concepts are also found mentioned in Genesis' narrative.

If there ever comes a day the theory becomes a fact, since it already follows the patterned sequence Genesis evokes, will the Genesis narrative continue to be ignored?

This is quite the rational dilemma for those who like to refute the Bible yet are by their science actually following the same general narrative.

Evolution is a major component within things set-in-motion, as we can agree no two days are ever the same in every aspect - never experiencing the same natural events one day to the next.

Although a stream follows a similar pattern, water molecules do not follow the exact same pattern between the rocks in a stream.

Variation, fluidity, change and adjustment are constants in life.

The notion of evolution includes adaptation with further moments (times/epochs/days) and major points of initiated creation (the Cambrian explosion as an example).

Evolution includes the understanding that much time is necessary for life forms to mutate, evolve and adapt into other life forms...yet the Cambrian explosion challenges this theory.

Here is opportunity to stretch the imagination further in considering bigger ideas.

According to both Genesis and evolutionary theory, the final 'product' to be found on earth (despite discoveries of new species previously believed to be unknown / undetermined / unfounded by man's eyes) is mankind himself.

The Bible doesn't claim to explain scientific ideas nor express certain details as scientific studies demand.

I don't think the believer should desire for this to be, because the disciplines of both languages are not the same despite one aiming to detail what the other expresses generally and, so far, quite correctly.