Geocreationism and Concordist Theory (Part 3) - Confirming Scripture with Science
In Part 1 of this series, discussing Paul H. Seely’s article, The First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist Theory and in Biblical Context, I confirmed that Geocreationism is a Concordist Theory. In Part 2, I explained why a significant difference between Geocreationism and other Concordist theories is that Geocreationism does not reinterpret scripture to fit the accepted geologic ages, but uses the sequence and language of the scripture to find when in the geologic record each “day age” took place. The only scientific assumptions Geocreationism starts with is that the earth is old, and that when we find a sequence of events similar to the scriptures, the finer details may provide further insight into the scriptures… a feedback loop if you will. In this post, I will address Seely’s scientific criticisms of Concordist Theories. The great thing about Seely’s criticisms is that they are on the mark, or would be except that his science is understandably out of date.
Seely’s article was written in 1997, when scientists generally agreed that the oceans originally formed 3.9 billion years ago. It was not until 2001 (as far as I know) when respected secular scientific publications started showing up to challenge that. Until then, we knew very little of what occurred before 3.9 billion years ago. The atmosphere did not appear to form until then, and we had no rocks that dated back before then. However, we did have sea algae that seemed to date back to 3.8 billion years ago. This means we definitely had an ocean by 3.8 billion years ago, but we couldn’t prove one beyond 3.9 billion years ago. And in 1997, that was the commonly accepted position.
In 2001 a study of zircon crystals was published in the scientific publication “Nature”, explaining how ancient zircon crystals might just prove that the oceans of the earth originally formed 4.4 billion years ago, very soon after the earth itself was formed.
Now these zircon crystals were actually discovered in the 1980s, and were dated back to 4.4 billion years ago even then. However, it wasn’t until 2001 (as far as I know) when scientists determined the most likely possibility for how they formed, and the solution required an ocean.
Now, scientists know there is still more to figure out, but they do know this: formation of zircon crystals requires super-heating and supersaturation, two seemingly contradictory conditions. Given that no crust appears to be older than 3.9 billion years old, it demonstrates that the crust before then was either never solid, or it was periodically melted. Either way, we have the super-heating. But, given how high temperatures were (as hot as lava), you would think that any water that was around would be only steam. However, this discounts several other scientific facts that establish the possibility that super-heating and supersaturation did in fact occur simultaneously on the early earth:
- The earth was once bombarded by periodic meteors. Based on the record of meteor activity recorded on the surface of the moon, the last such meteor struck 3.9 billion years ago. The size and depth of the craters also suggests that if one of the larger meteors were to strike the earth, it would create enough energy to melt any crust that was forming and to vaporize any ocean that was forming: super-heating and supersaturation.
- It has long been believed that outgassing (the formation and escaping of water vapor from within the earth’s crust) was a significant contributor to the early ocean waters. Combine this with the scientific fact that pressure can turn a gas into a liquid without lowering the temperature. With the pressure of a young ocean resting on the young earth’s cracks, and pressure of the earth’s core pushing out more H2O, and it seems likely that the points where outgassing occurred would have been hot, but wet: super-heating and supersaturation.
What I find so cool about this all is that I had no idea such research existed when I concluded that I had to treat the recording of Genesis 1 as if it was historically accurate. I had only to find the evidence. Well, now you know the evidence, too. Seely however was not privy, having written his article in 1997. And so, let us see exactly what he wrote. I will be skipping around a bit.
Genesis 1:2
Seely starts this section as follows:
Gen. 1:2 describes the state of the earth before God’s organizing activities began. The earth at this point was “formless and void,” covered with an ocean, and shrouded in darkness. The question for the concordists is: “When did the earth look like this?”
This is the correct interpretation of the conditions of the earth, and Seely’s summary question is the right one to ask. He then outlines how other prominent Concordists answer the question. In general, they agree this is a description of the formation of the earth from a condensed cloud into a planet. Unfortunately, I find that such an interpretation requires one to discard some of the scripture, or to interpret the words symbolically. It would appear that Seely agrees:
What about the ocean covering the earth? Ross ignores it. He presumably could not make any sense out of it since there was no ocean of water covering the earth as it condensed out of the nebula. Newman & Eckelmann acknowledge an ocean of water as stated in Gen. 1:2, but not in a liquid state. They identified the “Deep” with a “gas cloud.” The water, they say, could be “a mass of ice crystals or droplets,” a large cloud of water vapor, or even some other fluid. Young accepted the prima facie meaning of “the deep” and the “face of the waters” in v. 2, and referred to them as “a primeval ocean.” He said, the “early earth was desolate and lifeless, and there was a primitive ocean.” But Young was describing the earth long after it condensed out of its “formless and void” state. The ocean in Gen. 1:2, on the other hand, is present while the earth is still in its “formless and void” state.
As Seely correctly shows, all of these theories either discard the literal definition of an ocean, or discard the “formless and void” state of the earth. By using scientific evidence to establish when an ocean existed, with no land, and no light, Geocreationism dismisses neither. I talk about Day 1 in quite a bit of detail on this blog. You can find links in my Geocreationism Study Guide.
Next, Seely addresses the sequence of events that scripture says happened, and the problem is poses for Concordists:
The problem the concordists have here is that science tells us the dry land of the earth formed first, condensing out of a nebula in a molten form that was far too hot for any water to rest upon it. After it cooled, however, an ocean did form on earth.
- - -
But, in Genesis the ocean exists first, and then afterward the dry land appears. The statements of Gen. 1:2 and science are exactly opposite to each other.
- - -
It is accordingly highly improbable that “deep” (tehom) in Gen. 1:2 means anything other than a deep sea, a literal ocean.
- - -Â
It was not until the advent of modern geology-astronomy that the tehom of Gen. 1:2 was interpreted as a cloud; so, obviously this interpretation did not arise from the text but was derived from modern science and imposed upon the text. The concordists are rewriting the Bible.
Well, as I explained above, there was an ocean 3.9 billion years ago, and Geocreationism’s claim is that 3.9 billion years ago is when Day 1 occurred. Therefore, even though the oceans occurred after a crust 4.4 billion years ago, the dry land recorded in Genesis didn’t occur until between 3.8 and 2.4 billion years ago. This means that the sequence of scientific events 3.9 billion years ago matches the scriptural record perfectly.
Scientifically speaking, I am comfortable saying that when it comes to Day 1, scripture was right all along!
Genesis 1:3-5, 9-10
Seely’s discussion of light falling upon the earth builds upon his discussion of Genesis 1:2. His discussion of Day 3 builds on it more. His argument is that because modern science has dry land forming before oceans, then the light of Day 1 must have fallen upon dry land, hence constituting a rewrite of Days 1 and 3, because scripture says dry land didn’t occur until Day 3. However, I have already shown that the most recent science establishes the biblical sequence of events that Seely is pointing out: oceans, followed by light, followed by dry land.
- - -
In conclusion, Seely is correct in pointing out that Concordists generally advocate a sequence of events that contradict the scriptures. Geocreationism does not however, because it uses more recent science to establish the very sequence of events that Seely and I both see described in the scriptures. I would like to say that his entire article can be dealt with in this manner, but I cannot, as we will see in my next post.