Science and Creation: Is Genesis 1-6 written scientifically?

A couple prerequisites

1. I am not trying to convince anyone that Genesis was written with the attempt of being scientific. Modern science is a modern invention. It is a way to look at the world. However, just because something is not written using the scientific method does not necessitate that it lacks scientific accuracy. Whether we use the scientific method or not, the world functions and actually exists in a particular way. I want to argue that the way the world came into existence according to Genesis 1-6 matches the scientific facts about the world, even if scientists come to different beliefs based upon those facts.

2. I am not claiming that my study of this is nearly detailed enough to be the final word on this issue. I do, however, know that several credible sources would support views similar to my own.

Argument #1: The Order of Creation agrees with the order of theoretical evolution.

My scientific study, though not extensive, focused on biology, and especially on botany. Botanists agree on a certain evolutionary pattern for plants. The first plants to be created were moss and ferns--plants without seeds of any kind and a simple root system. Next came cone bearing plants. These plants developed a more complex root system, as well as a way to create seeds inside their cones. The final plant development according to science is fruit bearing plants. These plants place their seeds inside a fruit--providing a source of protection and food for the seed to better survive.

Look at the wording and order of the plants created in Genesis 1:11

"Then God said, Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth, and it was so."

The categories of plants were accurate, and in the same order that scientists place them in the evolutionary cycle. Scientists would claim these evolutionary changes took millions of years, which is frankly speaking impossible to prove. What we find is scientific accuracy in God's word, even if the human author didn't understand it scientifically.

The same is found for creatures. Scientific order places water-based animals first, birds slightly later, with land-locked animals (not reptiles) to be the last phase of evolution (humanity being the absolute latest).

If you read verses 20-27, you find God creating fish first, then birds, followed the next day by animals who live on land, and finally humanity.

I doubt this is a fluke. Science is looking at the evidence, but they are looking at it through the wrong lens. There is no reason to suggest these evolutions took millions of years, except the refusal to trust the accuracy of the Bible.

Argument #2: The flood of Noah makes accurate dating impossible.

This is a pretty simple part of the argument. Scientists agree that if there was a massive worldwide flood like the one accounted for in Genesis 6, it would make it impossible to date fossil records from before said flood.

Why?

First, most scientists are currently doubting the long-term accuracy of the carbon-dating method. The method is agreed upon for dating objects that are less than 3000 years old, and many scientists still find it accurate up to about 10,000 years old.

There is a wonderful article written about carbon dating and the Flood at the link below, but here is a brief summary of what it says:

1. Carbon dating works only if we had a way of knowing the level of carbon in the atmosphere at the time of the plant/animal died. Carbon-14 is constantly at changing levels based on things such as volcanic activity, carbon-12 emissions, thickness of ozone layer, etc.
2. Every type of plant and animal accepts different levels of carbon into its system, meaning that each plant and animal species need to have separate formulas for measuring their dating: this does not exist. It cannot ever exist for an animal or plant that is extinct, because we have no control group to measure the level of carbon in such live animal.
3. A massive flood would cause normal carbon 12 to be placed in the air in massive amounts, radically changing the amount of carbon 12 compared to carbon 14. Without any definitively dated objects from before the flood, it is impossible to date anything pre-flood with accuracy using C-14 testing.

Without going any further, this points out that this type of testing is pretty much useless.

The flood also ruins the ability of archaeologists to accurately use sedimentary levels to give estimated dates to objects. Why? The Bible says in Genesis 6:11 that "all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the flood gates of the sky were opened."

Water moves dirt. Massive amounts of water move massive amounts of dirt. These levels that scientists try to use are very accurate going back to the flood, because there has not been a disaster of massive portions since then that we are not aware of. We can take into account that a volcano erupted 1000 years ago, and that level is going to be covered with volcanic ash.

The waters of the flood however, would move levels of dirt. Some areas would lose layers, others would gain layers. Trees that stood above the ground one day would be entirely covered in dirt the next. Fossils would be uncovered that were previously covered. The flood caused changes that we cannot even begin to fathom, and it creates many question marks that cannot be answered about the time before it.

(If anyone would want to argue the existence of a world-wide flood, remember that every ancient culture has a flood account, including ancient American cultures.)

My Conclusions

1. I find the biblical text hard to argue with. The bible says we were created in days, and I have no scientific reason to believe otherwise. (Note: The Sun was not created until day four, which means there is a question of how these seven days were measured, but I still think they were literal because the Sun was created to be a time marker for us--which means this time system was already established and the sun was created to help us keep track of it).

2. Stating that the Genesis account is not an accurate account of how the world was created is a step toward believing that Scripture is not inspired by God, and therefore everything that is said is subject to debate and opinion. To argue that the days were not literal days because the Sun was not yet created is a little different, because that is trying to take the text seriously, not trying to judge the text by modern scientific beliefs (which change every 5-10 years by the way).

3. Though the people who wrote the Old Testament were not scientifically minded, God knew how he created the world, and the accuracy of the text is based on God's wisdom, not humanities. If there is something that doesn't seem accurate, which should we conclude: That the God who created the heavens is wrong, or we are?

Here is the link to a great article: http://http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

I chose this article because it is written from a Christian perspective, so it does mention information about the flood that is not mentioned elsewhere. The basic information, though, is information that I have read in scientific journals and textbooks during my time at Milligan.

Hope this is encouraging and thought provoking.

Grace and Peace