The creation-evolution controversy can be argued about scientifically, but it is foolish to conclude that it has no bearing on the Judeo-Christian religions. What the Genesis creation story means is a significant question and to some a stumbling block in accepting those theistic religions. I am not a Biblical literalist, and I do not claim to know what the correct interpretation of the Creation story is. In this article though, I will attempt to point out a few things that may be helpful to those seeking the truth in this matter.
Many people think the most rational thing to do is to accept the scientific theory that is accepted by the majority and interpret the Bible accordingly. I'd like to give a word of caution against that. While I once held this view, that was before I had read Del Ratzsch's book The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate. I was shocked to learn how non-conclusive science really is. Historically, there have been so many false starts in science that it would be rather incredible if we were the ones who were finally on the right track. Because of the numerous misconceptions of science, I suggest one click here before going on. This is not to say that science should be shunned altogether in this matter, nor is it to say that science is not worth pursuing. But I would like people to keep in mind that the case for/against evolution is not exactly air-tight, since proof in any rigorous sense is beyond the ability of science. In any case, the idea of instilling religion into science is not new. Indeed, some pretty respectable scientists (Newton, Boyle, and others) did exactly that (Click here for a brief discussion on science and religion). Of course, if one adopts the approach of fitting Scripture into science, one must be careful in interpreting the Bible correctly. If one is not proficient in interpreting the Bible or if one thinks the Genesis account is too ambigious, looking at science and fitting the Genesis Creation Story into science may very well be the most rational thing to do. I do not wish to belabor the issue, but I would suggest that one learn the nature and philosophy of science before deciding on how to go about this.
To be sure, there is a contradiction is between the standard macroevolutionary theory and some people's interpretation of the Bible. Much confusion exists in the first chapters of Genesis. In the early 1600's, when the King James Version of the Bible was first translated, the English scholars chose to translate the ancient Hebrew word “yom” as day. When people today read the Bible, and the see the English word day, some don't even consider for a second that it could mean anything else. But ancient Hebrew only had about 3,000 words, in comparison with English, which has about 500,000 words. Consequently, in Hebrew one word had to cover many of different meanings. The Hebrew word “yom” can connote a literal 24-hour day, but it can also mean a long, indefinite period of time. In fact, if an ancient Hebrew writer wanted to speak a word with this meaning, there was no other word available to them. So a literal reading of the 1st chapter of Genesis doesn't necessarily show a young earth. The first chapter could be interpreted as a very brief summary of the 4.55 billion years or so the earth went through before humans appeared. To some people, if you read it and just connect the text to the physical evidence, it gives a perfect step by step account of what happened to the earth.
The Bible says that at the very beginning of the earth, it was totally covered by water, which is consistent with the scientific finding. Keeping in mind that Genesis 1 verse 2 "the spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters," places the perspective under the atmosphere, not up in the heavens somewhere looking downward. Understanding that the point of view is just above the surface of the water explains why light appears before the sun. At first the cloud cover was so thick that no light could penetrate, then as the atmosphere started to thin some light could come through, then as the atmosphere began to look much more like it does today, the sun became visible like it is today.
In regards to the flood, some hold that there is no reason why it would have to be a global flood, It was probably true that at this point in history, people were all more or less in the Fertile Crescent and perhaps the immediately surrounding areas. Thus only a local flood would be necessary; furthermore any flood that wiped out the entire population of the earth would be considered to cover the whole earth, especially by Moses who probably wrote the account. Also, some areas of the text almost imply that the flood didn't cover the entire planet, for example winds would have a huge effect bringing the water levels down, but would have absolutely no effect on water covering the entire world.
