Determining the Date of Day 4: How mainstream science should complement scripture
One of the difficulties with discussing an old earth is that people tend to think that it requires placing science over scripture. In discussing Day 4 for example, a familiar argument is that scripture clearly records the creation of the sun, moon, and stars occurring on Day 4. Therefore, as the argument goes, any theory to the contrary, using science to back it up, is setting aside the plain meaning of the scripture in favor of man’s “scientific” wisdom. I would like to convince you otherwise.
As explained in my post “http://geocreationism.com/2007/08/24/biblical-difficulties-for-a-young-earth-part-3-the-sun-is-not-in-the-sky/“, there is no requirement in the text that requires creation of the celestial bodies to occur on Day 4, though I admit a plain reading appears otherwise. To be specific, Genesis 1:16 indisputably reads, “God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.” However, read out of context, there are many verses in the bible that appear to say more than they do. So, let us read the verse again, but continuing on through verse 18:
16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
Do you see what verses 17 and 18 do? They tell us where God put the sun, moon, and stars: in the expanse of the sky, which God made on Day 2, when “…God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it.” (Genesis 1:7, NIV). But are the sun, moon, and stars really in the expanse? A plain reading would suggest it, but we know it’s not true. How do we know? One word: science.
Through science, the church has accepted the fact that when God “set them in the expanse of the sky”, He really put them in space. The wording merely reflects our earthly perspective, that the celestial bodies are seen in the sky, though they are really set in space. Is the church placing science above God’s Word? Not at all, but through science they understand the scripture better.
- - -
A YEC (Young Earth Creationist) might say that verse 16 records the making of the sun, moon, and stars, and verse 17 records their placement. And, figuratively speaking, they really are set in the sky, so couldn’t those be separate actions? Well, it is true that if God created the celestial bodies on Day 4, verses 16 and 17 could have been written exactly as they are. But, one can only use this argument to conclude that “God created them on Day 4″ if one assumes the sky was empty when Day 4 began. In other words, in the morning, the sky was empty; in the evening it had a sun, moon, and stars. So, if you can establish an empty sky at the beginning of Day 4, then you would have an argument. However, the scripture suggests quite the opposite.
Before Day 4 began, Day 1 ended with the waters above connected to the waters below… a tumultuous rainstorm perhaps. Day 2 created a separation between the waters above and those below, leaving a gap between the ocean and clouds. Day 3 left the sky alone, or at least nothing was recorded to change it. Therefore, as best as we can tell from the scriptures, Day 4 began with clouds from Day 2 enveloping the earth, preventing anything beyond them from being seen. So it seems that on Day 4, the skies could have started out cloudy. This is unfortunate if you want to prove the celestial bodies didn’t exist when Day 4 began, because they may well have been behind clouds! But then again, they might not have been, in which case Verses 16 and 17 really do record separate actions. In all truth, the scripture is silent on this point.
- - -
A YEC might then point us at the primary purpose of the sun, moon, and stars: to mark the days, seasons, and years. Doesn’t that mean they didn’t exist before Day 4? Well, maybe. It certainly means they couldn’t be used to mark the days, seasons, and years, and not existing is a pretty sound reason for that to be true. But, didn’t we just see above the scripture establishes the possibility that Day 4 began under the clouds? That means that from the surface of the earth, the sun could not be used to mark the days. The moon could not be used to mark the seasons or the years. The stars could not be used to mark the night. It seems that simply blocking the celestial bodies behind clouds and removing the clouds on Day 4 would suffice for the scripture to be true as written.
But, what about using the sun, moon, and stars to separate the light from the darkness? If they already existed on Day 1, then wasn’t God separating the light from the darkness on Day 1? And indeed He was. So then, what is Day 4 talking about? If He already marked the days and nights with the celestial bodies on Day 1, why do it again on Day 4? This must prove the celestial bodies were created on Day 4. If only it were so.
Our entire argument for Day 4’s initial conditions is based on an earth-bound perspective, and from that perspective the sun was separating light from darkness at the close of Day 1, but it could not be used from the earth’s surface as a marker of the day and night until it was actually seen from there. So, from an earth-bound perspective, the sun, moon, and stars may have existed on Day 1, but may not have been usable as markers until Day 4.
- - -
As a final effort, a YEC might point out the possible flaw that God is not bound to an earth-bound perspective, hence undoing my argument above. Well, that point about God is true enough, but I am not the one who decided the perspective from which to interpret Day 4; I allowed scripture to interpret itself. Remember how we started above? God “set them them in the sky”, a figure of speech that makes sense only from an earth-bound perspective. God’s perspective is not limited to the earth, but Day 4’s perspective apparently is.
- - -
I believe that the above commentary clearly establishes that the Day 4 account is consistent with an earth-bound perspective, and that a literal interpretation allows the possibility for the sun, moon, and stars to have existed already, albeit obscured from view. I have also shown how the church is informed by science on what the scripture means (i.e., verse 17). Therefore, I see no problem with using science to inform us on other aspects of Day 4, without raising science above the scriptures. Specifically, did the sun, moon, and stars exist before Day 4 began? Obviously, I think the answer is yes, but my approach may surprise you.
- - -
Assuming the Genesis 1 account to be true and accurate, and written (at least in part) from an earth-bound perspective, can we scientifically determine a time in the earth’s history that is consistent with the scriptures? Specifically, was there a time when there was dry land surrounded by oceans (Day 3), plants growing on the land (Day 3), light shining upon the land (Day 1), and no visibility of the sun, moon, and stars (beginning of Day 4)? The answer, according to mainstream science is yes, from before 2.3 billion years ago to 1.9 billion years ago.
According to research reported in the Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences, the earth’s atmosphere was likely hazy, much like Titan’s atmosphere is today. It is already widely believed that 2.4 billion years ago, the earth’s atmosphere was primarily methane and carbon dioxide, similar to Titan today. The question is whether this is sufficient to produce to produce a sun-blocking haze like we see on Titan:
The researchers mimicked Titan’s hazy skies by exposing methane gas to an ultraviolet lamp, then added carbon dioxide gas to the mix to see if conditions that were probably present on early Earth would produce a similar organic haze. “It turns out that organic haze can form over a wide range of methane and carbon dioxide concentrations,” said Tolbert. “This means that hazy conditions could have been present for many millions or even a billion years on Earth while life was evolving.”
Such a haze would helped early plant life to gain a foothold on the eco-system, turning the carbon dioxide into Oxygen. Eventually, 1.9 Ga (billion years ago), there was sufficient Oxygen in the atmosphere to clear up the skies, to a point where the sun, moon, and stars could be seen from the earth.
There are three things to notice about the science here. 1) It does not contradict the account of Day 4. 2) The haze was not made of water clouds, but methane and CO2. 3) The scientists are not certain about the haze, but are certain about the methane and CO2.
What does this tell us? Well, if the earth is old, and scripture is true, then I believe it confirms the scientists’ experiments about the haze. In other words, the scripture proves the science. And with that being the case, we know the reason why the sun, moon, and stars were not visible: atmospheric haze. But then, what of the clouds surrounding the earth at the end of Day 2? Well, such clouds did exist 3.9 billion years ago, and could have remained for over a billion years more, but by the time they dissipated over parts of the earth, the methane and CO2 in the atmosphere still obscured the sun, moon, and stars, until God created plants, to clear the atmosphere up.
- - -
Does scripture take a back seat to science? Not at all. I use scripture to come up with questions that science can answer. And where science cannot make up its mind, I let the scripture do the talking. You still may disagree with me, and that is fine. My point here is not to convert your views to mine (though I wouldn’t object), but to convince you that an Old Earth Creationist can revere the scripture as God’s true Word.