GeoCreationism.com

The one thing I hate about creation-theory websites is their appearance that they have the answer and everyone else is poorly misled.  There’s no doubt that my own blog will come off that way to some, perhaps for the same reasons others seem that way to me.  Alas, it is regrettable, for (perhaps like other sites’ writers) that is not my heart.

My heart’s desire is to help remove division from the church, that more people may be brought to Christ.  Ironically, I could merely be adding to this division.  However, this blog exists because of the chance that I’m onto something.  In faith, I know there is a truth out there, because the Bible says something, and so does science, and there is a reason for them both saying what they do.  Jesus knows what that something is, because He helped bring it all about, and my prayers throughout this project have been for Jesus to reveal what it is He did and what He saw.

“Well, who are you?” you might ask.  Just a man seeking answers.  That’s all.  I am certainly not the first man to have insight or receive revalation, and if where I have arrived is correct, then I am nothing special for it.

I believe God revealed to some Christians that a gap exists in the past, when Satan ruled the earth.  I believe those people, referred to as gap-theorists, were open to this revelation because they already believed in an old earth, but could not initially explain the scripture’s account of seemingly recent events. So, they placed the “gap” between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.  I think they were mistaken, that the gap is at the night separating Days 4 and 5.  But still, they were open to an insight that most, even now, still reject.  Like the Gap Theory however, Geocreationism accepts the revelation of a gap, even while placing it in the middle of the Creation week.

I believe Moses recorded a literal account of the creation.  I am not the first one to believe this.  Young Earth Creationists have believed this for I-don’t-know-how-long.  However, Old Earth theories as a whole have not historically fit science into scripture without rejecting some significant aspect of the science or the scripture.  The best known compromises relegate the scripture to symbolism, leaving Young Earth theologies with an overwhelming hold on the “literal interpretation” position.  Like Young Earth Creationism however, Geocrationism also accepts the literal tone of the Creation Account, even while interpreting those events in geological terms.

I believe that each creation Day maps to an age or epoch of the earth, and I am not the first one God has revealed this to.  However, the existing Day Age Theories tend to reject the literal nature of the Creation account, even while claiming to embrace to it.  Progressive Creationism shows a nice mapping of the universe’s development to the Days of Genesis 1, but allows their epochs to overlap when the Days representing them are clearly sequential.  Another Day Age theory places God’s creative prouncements before the creation, leaving Genesis 1 to record the results after the fact, resulting again in non-literal Days.  Like the Day Age Theories however, Geocreationism accepts that the Days map to sequential epochs in history, even while maintaining the literal nature of a Day (sequntial, separated by the setting and rising of the sun, but from Jesus’ perspective)

Secular atheists completely reject the existence of God and the validity of the scriptures.  However, they tend to accept the mainstream interpretation of science that the universe is over 15 billion years old, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that life evolved on Earth.  Discoveries in the last 10 to 20 years include the existence of 4.4 billion year old zircon crystals (which suggests the earth was cool enough for an ocean very early).  Another discovery is evidence of the KT impact that was first hypothesized, decades ago, to have killed the dinosaurs.  Different creation theories treat this science differently, some rejecting mainstream interpretations completely (Young Earth Creationism), others modifying it some (forms of Gap Theory), and others accepting it at face value (some forms of Day-Age theory).  Geocreationism accepts mainstream science at face value.

Being merely human, I will surely get some of the details wrong.  However, I think my bigger point is correct, that somehow, mainstream secular science is exactly the story that Genesis 1 is trying to tell.  I believe Jesus witnessed it, and in fact helped it all to come about.  I believe that Jesus told Moses all about what He witnessed, and that Moses recorded it.  I believe that most of us read the account, and misunderstand it due to a lack of scientific knowledge, a tendency to treat a single revelation as if it is entire story, and some read Genesis 1 with perhaps an overabundance of stubborness and/or tradition coloring their thought. 

Through Geocreationism, I am attempting to acknowledge God’s numerous revelations to others about creation.  I acknowledge the scientific observations no one disputes, and accept the mainstream theories that attempt to explain the causes of those observations, even while claiming God is the ultimate cause.  I try tell a cohesive story that I believe may be true, at least to the extent that I can tell it.  Yet, what if I’m wrong?

If I am wrong, it will not shake my faith.  It is my faith that has gotten me this far.  When I was more ignorant of science, I thought that Day 1 was right after the KT impact.  However, there was too much conflict with the science to sustain the argument.  I then studied the science that showed I was wrong, and realized what I now call the Geocreationist theory.  Through that process, my faith was not shaken.  In fact it was strengthened as I watched the problems I found resolved one by one.  Therefore, should I have an apsect of this theory proven wrong, I will know it is no reason to lose faith, because I’ve been through that process before.

But what of the bigger picture?  Well, if am wrong, it will not change the truth of what God did… it will just mean that I don’t know what it is yet.  However, this excercise has shown that a theory can embrace the strengths of the many theories out there, simultaneously embracing a Godly faith-based treatment of scripture and a scholarly treatment of science. If Geocreationism is not the truth, then I have still shown that such a theory is at least a plausible pursuit.  So, if my theory isn’t the one that’s true, then another theory is, and if my theory seems believable but is false, how much more believable will the real truth be? And should it turn out that Geocreationism is that truth?  It is on that possibility that I must risk being wrong, even as I risk further division of Christ’s body. 

God only reveals the truth when He wants people to spread it, and asking “what if” all day can only stifle His word, and Jesus didn’t die so that I might stifle Him (not to imply that I could!).  So, I submit Geocreationism as a theory for your consideration, and will now leave the question of ”what if” for another day.