Here’s my attempt to harmonize the concept of six literal days of creation with a 15-billion-year-old universe using the theory of time relativity and dilation and considering the human perspective at the time the Bible was written. I am no scientist, but I am smart enough to know the advances of science keep us on our toes. It is dynamic, and we find all kinds of complexities with regard to the way we measure things. I think it’s the same with the measurement of time. Time is just the measurement of movement. It doesn’t have existence of its own. However, as I say below, I do believe that the presence of gravity causes things to move slower, and therefore time to slow down.
At the very least, I do believe that it’s possible that something like I present in these six points could be correct. So much of the universe is a mystery.
1. Relativity of Time: One of the major tenets of Einstein’s general relativity is the concept that time is not absolute but is influenced by gravity. The stronger the gravitational field, the slower time appears to pass relative to areas with weaker gravitational forces.
2. Early Universe & Intense Gravity: Just after the Big Bang, the universe was incredibly dense with a strong gravitational field. Under such conditions, time would have been vastly slower compared to conditions later on.
3. Six Literal Days: If one were to measure time from the perspective of a hypothetical observer situated near the start of the universe (close to the Big Bang’s point of origin), then those initial periods of time dilation could mean that what felt like just six days to them (and, from one perspective, was six days) spanned billions of years in the evolving universe.
4. Human Perspective: The Bible was written for humans, and its teachings and stories are related from a human-centric viewpoint. When it discusses six days of creation, it could be referring to how time might have been from a very early universal perspective (had there been an observer), not how we, with our current scientific tools and understanding, would measure those days.
5. Harmonizing the Two Views: From the Bible’s perspective, given the understanding of time by its human authors and its intended human audience, six days was a literal measure. However, from a cosmological standpoint, given the extreme conditions and gravitational effects at play, those same six days could correlate to billions of years of cosmic evolution.
6. Bridging Past and Present: In ancient times, days were measured by the rising and setting of the sun, a very Earth-centric view. The concept of billions of years would have been unimaginable. Hence, describing creation in terms of days was more accurate for the intended audience. Today, as we understand time dilation and the vastness of cosmic history, we can appreciate that those “six days” could simultaneously represent much longer spans of cosmological time.
In essence, this argument posits that while the universe might be 15 billion years old from our current scientific perspective, the description of creation over six days in the Bible represents a literal and relatable timeframe as it would have been understood by early humans, taking into account the relativity of time. Both can coexist, depending on the viewpoint and understanding of time.
13 replies to "It’s About Time: A Quick and Dirty Harmonization of a Six-Day Creation with Our Current Scientific Model"
6 days of Creation! What a headache or like you stated Michael…it all Depends on……! Funny thing is I attended a keynote speaker an astrophysicist Dr. Cameron Hummel from Cal Tech, last night at Sequoia National Park for their 10th Annual Dark Sky. I personally posited this question to him: According to science and the Bible–14.5 billion years, 6 days is understandable and no contradiction only if it Depends on where you view this event happening! How and why? First, like you Michael–Einstein’s theory of general relativity has revolutionized our understanding of time, space, gravity! One need not be an astrophysicist like him to understand that time is Not Absolute! Whoa hold on there you might say. Remember, scripture is a translation so it does not capture nuance ….however, the absolute truth is still retain, namely there was a beginning as oppose to early 1900s’ when most scientists of that time believed it had No beginning!
(A side detour….if there is A beginning—namely Big Bang– logic would follow there has to be someone to do the Banging.)
Key to understanding cosmology: Gravity, time is dynamic depending on where you do the observing or recording and the relative velocity of observer. There is non disagreement here (when he and I talk and establish our base.)
At time of “Big Bang” gravitation force must be so strong compared to it’s current position of where we are….14.5 billions of years away…..expansion or dilation. He use a muffin expanding which I don’t like so I prefer a balloon with to permanent dark spots on its surface and when we blow up it expand and travel farther apart. Time at the beginning would be Slow due to gravity. Whereas, where we are now it would be 14.5 billions old.
We talk about “Black hole” and gravity. He believe that yes according to general relativity, time woulde pas much slower!
I also learned from him about GPS—that verify what Michael and I belief: Global Positioning System (GPS) is something we take for granted and not really understood it’s significance in arguing For our case above. This technology relies on network of satellites orbiting Earth and help us find where we want to go etc. These systems —satellites, GPS are much farther from the mas of the Earth compared to objects here on planet Earth. Due to this difference in gravitational potential, time actually passes slightly faster for the satellite than for a clock on Earth. If engineers did not consider this our GPS would be useless!
have to account for
I have less of a problem with the time frame and more with these two ideas which are part of the generally accepted theory:
– That man, rather than being a special creation has simply evolved from simpler life forms
– That there must have been death and suffering, the “survival of the fittest”, for man to evolve from less complex life forms, ans thus death did not enter the world because of Adam’s disobedience.
Reconciling the time frames does not resolve anything for me.
Yeah, the random mutation and survival of the fittest is the current theory in crisis. It seems that they are all finally scratching their heads saying, “Well, this really doesn’t work.” But their is a massive grab for some hope for a theory that keeps us intellectually content atheists.
I’ve explored this “relative time” view in the past. And I agree that it does allow for some “reconciling”. But in the end, is this what the text is trying to communicate? I don’t think so. To me, you don’t have as many physics hoops to jump through in some kind of scientific worldview if we just eliminate some of the assumptions of the six-day view.
For example, the text doesn’t say that Genesis 2 took place during the creation week in Genesis 1. So dating Adam doesn’t date creation without that assumption, just one of a dozen that the six-literal-day view makes. Or, as John Sailhamer lays out in “Genesis Unbound” (I think I sent you my copy for Credo House), Genesis 1 could be speaking of the local context of the garden and not the entire universe. Or, as John Walton points out, Genesis 1 could be a functional ontology instead of a physical one. So there are a lot of assumptions that “literalists” take that they don’t even recognize they are doing. And maybe some are even right. But then when it doesn’t fit reality, instead of questioning their assumptions, they just add an additional complex layer of additional things to “reconcile” it.
I think that my assumption kinda rules my engagement. I engage very loosely in thing that involve our current view of physics and any type of stability in both our knowledge and the universe itself. When we start with some type of uniformitarian beginning, it is a big risk, especially considering how dynamic our understanding is and, most importantly, how limited our data.
I think we all have assumptions that drive our views. But the key is to recognize that we make them and identify what they are and put it in the context of our own fallibility.
I actually wrote up a essay/blog about all of the assumptions that young-earth creationists like Ken Ham makes in his creation model and pulled together a lot of stuff scattered all over his AIG web site of things required in him model to “reconcile” what the earth shows a history of. It’s pretty fantastical and, frankly, pretty unbelievable. But it is all required if one is not willing to question the base assumptions and just keep adding stuff to it to make it work. If you want to see it, complete to links where this stuff is claimed on his web site, you can pull it up at bit,ly/AddingToGenesis
Thanks brother. I don’t know about Ham. He seems like a great guy, but he is stuck in a rut of commitment to a view rather than commitment to the mystery and wonder of it all, and the ability to change his mind. Not sure if he really wants to learn.
But, who am I to say he is wrong. With this kind of stuff I have no idea and even less care for the issue. I know the theology of it all. I don’t think one view or another changes the big picture. So I don’t get the focus.
But… I guess if you really believe the evidence strongly supports the Scripture, I’m sure it it exciting to build a big multi million dollar museum and help people understand.
In the end, I just think that is a lot more to the story and no one has it all right.
My interest in the issue is more theological as well. When I set aside my own preconceptions and studied Genesis 1 with fresh eyes, I became convinced that it is much more theological than anything else. So the thing that compels me to engage this topic is theological as well. When folks approach this topic with such dogmatism that one particular view becomes a requirement to “believe the Bible” and you have your salvation challenged and are eliminated from areas of Christian service if you don’t toe the line to some popular view of this (that isn’t as popular as folks believe), it becomes a stumbling block to the lost and a restriction for the 90% of Christians that reject the young-earth view but want to serve in conservative churches. It also greatly impacts our credibility and integrity if we go public with nonsense and distortions that back it up. There are going to be eternal consequences for that. I’m greatly more concerned over the eternal consequences of this debate than I am nailing down the date for dirt. It’s why I wrote the Amazon kindle book that I did on the topic – now a Audible book as well.
My biggest problem with most YEC (of which I am tentatively one…in a way) is their insistence that you can’t have death before sin. When I see that, the only context is the death of man. Plants, animals, and cells all were probably meant to die. I can even see this being carried on in the new earth. We better have meat!!
But they lay that down as if it is the death blow to an old earth. Their raised voices here does nothing but make me distance myself. It’s a theological and practical interpretive overreach and is discrediting.
Some may debate whether this passage refers to the Millennium or to the new creation, but Isaiah 25:6 describes a great banquet, with the finest of wines and the best of meats. Ribs? Brisket? Fried chicken? Anyway, we have cause to be hopeful!
Something to consider, especially regarding end times, specifically, the sixth seal. Jesus also mentions the 6th Seal in all three end times gospels. So does Peter in Acts 2. But it’s also, of course, in Rev 6.
Now, the Big Bang.
There are numerous verses discussing that God spreads out the heavens.
But now we see words as, MELT WITH A FERVENT HEAT, and roll back like a scroll.
Anyway, science agrees that the universe is expanding, even today. And they believe it all began with the big bang.
Now, just the opposite of that, some scientists believe that at some point, that the universe will stop expanding, and will implode. Roll back like a scroll!!
If that happens, all chaos in the universe will happen.
Science calls it…The Big Crunch.
Now, not all science agrees with that, and, the ones that do, don’t think it will take place for a very long time.
Eventually, there will be, according to the Bible, a new universe, and a new earth. Not a restored earth, but a new one.
Just something to think about.
But, regarding days of creation…
The 7th day hasn’t ended yet. Hebrews 4. That 7th day has a lot more than 24 hours, and even more than a thousand years.
I want to give a Shout Out to Michael Patton in regards to posting this topic and show that science and theology can be harmonized especially when it come to the origins of the universe is Significant for a variety of reasons. —-both theologically and scientifically.
Theological reasons:
1. Affirms God as Creator—by positing a definite beginning, we affirm the Judeo-Christian understanding of God as the Creator ex nihilo consistent with Gen.1:1 & Jn 1:1-3. This reinforces God’s sovereignty, omnipotence, and the divine plan.
2. Validity of the Text: A coherent understanding of the “beginning” can strengthen the credibility nd internal consistency of the biblical txt.
3. Cosmic Temple Theme. This biblical theological concept view the eart as God’s temple is significant. Yes, our “little blue dot” among the billions of stars appears insignificant as one of the panel from Dark Sky stated. However, a Distinct beginning reinforces this theological theme, emphasizing God’s role in “constructing” His cosmic temple.
Scientific reasons:
1. Big bang theory. Posits a beginning to the universe. Harmonizing this with a theological “beginning” can make a case for the Bible speaking meaningfully and accurately into scientific discussions.
2. Laws of Thermodynamics. The universe is moving towards entropy. This align with eschatological elements in theology—
Harmonizing biblical worldview with science: This assist in constructing a coherent worldview where faith and reason are not at odds but are complementary means to understanding reality.
Apologetic value: In a increasingly skeptical world, showing that biblical claims about the beginning are not in conflict with science can serve as an apologetic tool to engage with those outside the faith.
Mutual respect and dialogue: Create a conduit for mutual understanding, respect, understanding and collaborative exploration of truth.
Humility: Recognizing that both scientific and theological perspectives are striving to explain the enormity of the cosmos inspire a sense of humility, reinforcing the idea thta human understanding is alwas in a process of growth and refinement.
In conclusion, while believing in a specific model of creation is not “essential ” for faith, the effort to harmonize the beginning of creation in both theological and scientific terms can have far-reaching implications for the integrity of the Christian message, apologetics, and the development of coherent and realistic worldview.
Thanks Eric!