Difficult Passages

A Pastoral Reference
All Entries
30 Old Testament / Theology / Science

The Age of the Earth and the "Days" of Creation

Gen 1:1–2:3; Ex 20:11; 2 Pet 3:8; Ps 90:4

The Difficulty

Genesis 1 describes creation in six “days” (yom), with God resting on the seventh. Taken at face value with the genealogies, Archbishop Ussher (1650) calculated creation at 4004 BC. But astrophysics dates the universe at 13.8 billion years old, and geology dates the earth at 4.5 billion years. Biological evolution describes the development of life over billions of years through natural processes. How do we read Genesis 1 in light of modern science? Is this a crisis of biblical authority, a misreading of the text, or a genuine contradiction? The answer shapes pastoral ministry with scientists, with young people who feel forced to choose between faith and learning, and with congregants who’ve been told their salvation depends on rejecting mainstream science.

Responses

Young Earth Creationism (YEC)

Summary: The six days are literal 24-hour days; the earth is roughly 6,000–10,000 years old; mainstream geology and evolutionary biology are mistaken.

The position of Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, and a significant portion of American evangelicals. The Hebrew yom with ordinal numbers (first day, second day) and with “evening and morning” in Genesis 1 most naturally means a 24-hour day. Exodus 20:11 grounds the Sabbath command in a literal six-day creation. Jesus spoke of creation as “from the beginning” in ways that seem to assume a recent creation (Mark 10:6). The scientific consensus on an old earth is based on uniformitarian assumptions that don’t account for a global Flood’s catastrophic effects. Ken Ham and others argue that the gospel itself is undermined if Genesis is mythologized — if there’s no historical Adam and Fall, Christ’s atonement has no context.

Strengths

Natural reading of the Hebrew. Consistent with Exodus 20:11. Takes biblical authority seriously. Ken Ham’s “gospel logic” argument (if no Fall, no need for Christ) has force for some.

Weaknesses

Conflicts with overwhelming scientific consensus across multiple independent disciplines (astronomy, geology, biology, genetics, archaeology). Requires positing massive deception or systematic error in mainstream science. Has driven many thoughtful young Christians out of the faith when they encounter the scientific evidence. Not the dominant view in church history — many fathers read Genesis 1 non-literally.

Further Reading

  • Henry Morris and John Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood (P&R, 1961) — the foundational YEC text
  • Ken Ham, The Lie: Evolution (Master Books, 1987) and The New Answers Book series
  • Terry Mortenson and Thane Ury, eds., Coming to Grips with Genesis (Master Books, 2008) — academic YEC defense
  • For a critique from an evangelical who left YEC: Gregg Davidson and Kenneth Wolgemuth, eds., The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth (Kregel, 2016)

Old Earth Creationism (OEC) / Day-Age

Summary: The earth is billions of years old; the “days” of Genesis 1 are long periods of time; the order of creation roughly matches scientific understanding.

Held by Hugh Ross, C.I. Scofield (in his reference Bible), and many older evangelicals. The Hebrew yom can mean an indefinite period (cf. “day of the Lord,” “day of trouble”); Genesis 2:4 uses yom to describe the entire creative period. 2 Peter 3:8 notes that “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years.” The creative sequence roughly corresponds to scientific understanding: cosmos first, then earth, then seas and atmosphere, then vegetation, then animals, then humans. Hugh Ross’s Reasons to Believe ministry has argued that the Bible and science, rightly interpreted, converge. This view dominates in some evangelical institutions and was common in the 19th century before YEC consolidated in the 20th.

Strengths

Takes both Scripture and science seriously. Avoids the conflict that drives young people from the faith. Yom does have semantic flexibility. Pastorally workable with scientifically literate congregants.

Weaknesses

“Evening and morning” (Gen 1) and the ordinal numbering suggest literal days more than long ages. The order doesn’t perfectly match science (plants before the sun? — though some argue about what “sun” means in Gen 1:14–19). Still struggles with evolutionary biology, since day-age typically holds to special creation rather than common descent.

Further Reading

  • Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days (NavPress, 2004)
  • Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis (RTB Press, 2014)
  • Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Zondervan, 1982) — classic day-age defense
  • Robert Newman and Herman Eckelmann, Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth (IVP, 1977)

Evolutionary Creationism (Theistic Evolution / BioLogos)

Summary: God created through the process of evolution over billions of years; Genesis 1 is theological, not scientific; there is no conflict between evolutionary biology and Christian faith.

The position of the BioLogos Foundation (founded by Francis Collins), Denis Lamoureux, N.T. Wright, John Walton (broadly), and many scientists of faith. Genesis 1 teaches theological truths — that God is creator, that creation is good, that humans bear God’s image — but does not teach modern science, which would be anachronistic. The scientific description of deep time and biological evolution accurately describes how God created. This view has deep Wesleyan roots: Wesley himself accommodated emerging scientific knowledge and was open to revising earlier interpretations in light of new evidence. The UMC has no official position requiring young-earth or anti-evolutionary views.

Strengths

Avoids false conflict between faith and science. Allows full engagement with scientific research. Consistent with most mainline Protestant positions, including Methodism. Denis Lamoureux and others provide rigorous theological frameworks. Resolves pastoral crises with scientifically trained congregants.

Weaknesses

Requires careful articulation of what it means that Genesis is “not scientific” without sounding like Scripture is inaccurate. The historical Adam question becomes complicated (see below). Some view it as capitulating to science at Scripture’s expense. Pre-fall death (natural throughout evolution) creates theological challenges for some atonement models.

Further Reading

  • Denis Lamoureux, Evolutionary Creation (Wipf & Stock, 2008) — the most rigorous theological treatment
  • Francis Collins, The Language of God (Free Press, 2006) — accessible personal account from the geneticist who led the Human Genome Project
  • Deborah Haarsma and Loren Haarsma, Origins: Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (Faith Alive, 2011)
  • BioLogos Foundation: biologos.org — excellent articles and resources
  • John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One (IVP Academic, 2009) — functional ontology view compatible with EC

Literary-Theological (Genre-Sensitive Reading)

Summary: Genesis 1 is neither a scientific account nor a historical chronicle but an ancient Near Eastern theological text; asking “literal or figurative” misses its genre entirely.

Held by John Walton, Tremper Longman, Peter Enns, and many mainline scholars. Genesis 1 is written in the genre of ancient cosmology, which was never intended as science in the modern sense. The text answers the questions the ancient world was asking — Who is God? What is the world for? What is humanity’s purpose? — using the thought-forms of the ancient Near East. It polemicizes against Babylonian and Egyptian creation myths (the sun and moon are just “lights,” not gods; the sea monster is tamed, not a rival deity). Asking whether the days are literal 24 hours or long ages imposes modern scientific categories the text was never designed to answer. The right question is not “When?” but “What does this text proclaim about God and creation?”

Strengths

Historically responsible — takes the ANE context seriously. Resolves the science/faith conflict by refusing its premises. Pastorally powerful. Walton’s “cosmic temple” reading is theologically rich.

Weaknesses

Can feel like sidestepping the question. Doesn’t directly engage the scientific evidence. “Genre” arguments can be applied too broadly (what else is “genre” and therefore not historical?). Some will worry about undermining biblical authority.

Further Reading

  • John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One (IVP Academic, 2009) — essential
  • John Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve (IVP Academic, 2015)
  • Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam (Brazos, 2012)
  • C. John Collins, Reading Genesis Well (Zondervan, 2018) — balanced literary treatment