Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science

by John C. Lennox

In light of the miracle of the incarnation, I find no difficulty in believing that the human race itself began — indeed, had to begin — with a supernatural intervention.

What the incarnation tells us is that human beings are unique — they are so created that God himself could become one.

the internal evidence of Scripture, the dating of the age of humanity is indeterminate. However, it is important not to confuse things that differ, namely, the age of the universe, the age of the earth, the age of life, and the age of humanity. Clearly, the earth is younger than the universe, biological life is younger than the earth, and human life is younger than biological life.

The argument is simply that, since death is a consequence of human sin, no death could have occurred before man sinned.

Here we have the basic ingredients that define human beings as moral beings. God has given them the ability to say “yes” to him by not eating the prohibited tree, and to say “no” to him by eating it. In this way the Bible introduces us to the idea that the humans are moral beings, with all that this implies.

The serpent contrives, by a devious manipulation of half-truth and a subtle appeal to her (God-given) interest in food, her aesthetic sense, and her desire for insight and fulfilment, to drive a wedge between her and her Creator. The snake’s power of persuasion is such that Eve takes the forbidden fruit19 and offers it to Adam, and they both eat.

In that searing moment they discover that the enlightenment received is far from what they thought they desired. Instead of finding life, they begin to experience death, as God had said they would. They do not at once die in the physical sense: that effect of their action will inevitably ensue in due course.

Human life, as we learn from Genesis 2, has many aspects; its lowest level is physical life, to which we must add those other things that make life life — aesthetic environment, work, human relationships, and a relationship with God. Human death, then, will involve the unweaving of all of this: it will first mean the death of fellowship with Go...

With this all too brief sketch we turn to see exactly what Paul says about it — and what he does not say. He says that death passed upon all human beings as a result of Adam’s sin; he does not say that death passed upon all living things. That is, what Scripture actually says is that human death is a consequence of sin.

Humans are moral beings, and human death is the ultimate wages of moral transgression.

We do not think of plants and animals in terms of moral categories. We do not accuse the lion of sinning when it kills an antelope or even a human being. Paul’s deliberate and careful statement would appear to lea...

since fruit and vegetables21 are explicitly mentioned as (God-given) diet in Genesis, plant life can scarcely be an issue here. Plant death cannot therefore have been a consequence of the first human sin, even though plant death is death. What about the animals? Whales, for instance, are mammals, and they do not live on gr...

If there was no death of any kind before the first human sin (and therefore no predation), did these exquisitely complex neck muscles, poison sacs, electrical organs, and camouflage systems come into existence as a result of that sin?

Is it therefore possible that corruption, disease, and human death may well be a consequence of sin, but that plant and animal death, as part of the cycle of nature, are not?23 One might then reasonably argue that Romans 8:20–21 is carefully written to refer to decay and corruption as distinct from death. Once more the key is to observe exactly what Scripture says.

From the biblical text one does not get the impression that the entire world was like Eden. Indeed the very opposite seems to be implied by the statement that God planted a garden.

it would seem that Scripture itself leaves open the possibility that animals died before sin entered the world without affecting the fact that human death was a consequence of that sin.25

One thing at least is clear from Genesis: that dark power had corrupted at least part of the animal creation. Could it be that this is the direction in which we must look in order to begin to comprehend the origin of the pain and suffering that seems to permeate the animal kingdom?

It is important therefore to combat that naturalism by presenting biblical theism as a credible alternative that, far from involving intellectual suicide, makes more sense of the data than does atheistic reductionism.

It is simply false to suggest, as some do, that the only alternative to young-earth creationism is to accept the Darwinian model.

we must beware of tying our exposition of Scripture so close to science that the former falls if the latter changes. On the other hand, we would be very unwise to ignore science through obscurantism or fear, and present to the world an image of a Christianity that is anti-intellectual. No Christian has anything to fear from true science. Many Christians have made, and continue to make, first-rate contributions to science.

Scripture, although it could be interpreted in terms of a young earth, does not require such an interpretation. There are other possible interpretations in terms of an ancient earth that do not compromise the authority of Scripture.

THE BOOK OF GENESIS is foundational for the rest of the Bible. Its opening chapter does something of incalculable importance: it lays down the basis of a biblical worldview.

The Biblical worldview begins with God; the atheist worldview begins with the universe.

The assertion that God created the physical universe is of paramount importance. It answers the question, why is there something rather than nothing? It implies that this universe cannot explain itself, as secular atheism, by definition, must maintain. It tells us that this material universe is not the ultimate reality. God is.

It is important, of course, not to confuse the fact of creation with the manner or the timing of creation. I mention this because it sometimes happens that failure to sort out problems connected with the manner and timing of creation stops people believing in the fact that creation occurred.

the God who is revealed in Genesis is uncreated, so that the “who created God argument” falls to the ground. Dawkins’s difficulty must be that he cannot believe in something eternal. Why not? Science certainly does not tell us that there is nothing eternal — indeed, the notion of an eternal universe or eternal energy has dominated human thought for centuries, and still has not disappeared from academic circles.

if Dawkins’s question is valid, it can be turned back on him. He believes that the universe created him. Therefore, we are justified in asking him: who created your creator?

God created the universe, but he is not identical with it. Noticeably the sun, moon, and stars are described purely physically, as “lights.” There is no hint of conferring any kind of divinity on them as in the contemporary pagan mythologies. Nor is the universe some kind of emanation out of God, like sun rays emanate from the sun. Matter is made out of nothing, not out of God. The Genesis account, therefore, bears no traces of pantheism.

GOD IS PERSONAL The phrases “God said,” “God saw that it was good,” “God blessed,” and, above all, “God made man in his own image, male and female he made them” are clear indications that God is a person and not a force.

There are dangers in a “Star Wars” mentality that conceives of God as “the Force,” for we are persons, and therefore assume, correctly, that we are superior to forces. We harness and use forces; so if we conceive of God as a force, we might wrongly imagine that God is some power that we can harness and use, rather than regarding him as our Creator and Lord, who is worthy of and due our allegiance and worship. It is for him to use us, not for us to use him.

John swiftly identifies the Word with Jesus Christ: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). Thus, God is revealed to us as a tri-unity, a fellowship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Nothing makes sense about Jesus Christ unless he is precisely who he claimed to be — the Word of God incarnate. Science, as has often been said, cannot rule God out. Jesus Christ has ruled him in.

the final step God creates human beings in his image. They represent the pinnacle of God’s creation: they alone are said to bear his image. Planet Earth is special. It was created with an ultimate purpose—that of having human beings on it.7

This biblical teaching, that the earth was specifically designed as a home for human beings, fits well with what contemporary science tells us about the fine-tuning of the universe.

Genesis and science say that the universe is geared to supporting human life. But Genesis says more. It says that you, as a human being, bear the image of God. The starry heavens show the glory of God, yes; but they are not made in God’s image. You are. That makes you unique. It gives you incalculable value. The galaxies are unimaginably large compared with you. However, you know that they exist, but they don’t know that you exist.

The individual steps to reach that goal were initiated by God speaking: “And God said …” This repeated reference to the activity of the word of God in creation resonates very powerfully with me as a scientist. The idea that the universe did not come to be without the input of information and energy from an intelligent source seems to me to have been amply confirmed by scientific discovery.

the nonmateriality of information points to a nonmaterial source — a mind, the mind of God.

day 4 is not so concerned about the creation of light (day 1), but about what the sun, moon, and stars, as visible entities in the heavens, were for. The Genesis text tells us explicitly: “Let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years” (Gen. 1:14).

Jesus is, of course, using the arrangement of earth’s illumination as a powerful metaphor for something at another level entirely. He expected his disciples to deduce something simple yet profound from his observation about the sun: if in the physical realm they were helplessly dependent on a light situated outside themselves, what about the intellectual, spiritual, and moral realms? Where was the source of their insights and answers, inside or outside their own heads?

God is not some distant deistic figure uninterested in his work. He regards his creation with the enthusiasm and joy of a skilful artist who is delighted at what he has done as he sees it formed and organised step by step, until the wonderful harmony of his completed work lies before him, thoroughly fit for the glorious purpose for which he intended it.

Jesus’ invitation is clear. That rest comes when we are prepared to come to him and accept what he calls “my yoke,” that is, accept his authority and leadership. At the heart of Christianity is a willingness to trust Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and thereby receive forgiveness and peace with God.

As to how the Genesis text was understood by those living in the culture that it ultimately generated, we have the evidence of the Old and New Testaments to show us that they took the Genesis material as history. The Jewish historian Josephus, in his introduction to his famous Jewish Antiquities, written around AD 110, demonstrates an acute awareness of the difference between a carefully researched factual account of history, on the one hand, and fables and deliberate fabrications on the other.

The God of Genesis is utterly distinct. He was not created by the universe, as were the pagan gods. It is the other way round. The God of Genesis is not a created God at all; he is the Creator of the universe.

by contrast with the Mesopotamian myths, Genesis has no multiplicity of warring gods and goddesses; the heavens and earth are not made out of a god; there are no mythical beasts; and, strikingly, there are no deifications of stars, planets, sun, and moon — the usual names of the last two are not even used in Genesis 1.

The universe to which Genesis introduces us is no mythical construct; it is our familiar world, with light, sky, sea, and land; sun, moon, and stars; plants, fish, and animals; and human beings. Genesis is concerned with actual and not mythical events in the world.

If Genesis depends on the Babylonian account, as is claimed, why then is it so utterly different from that account? Its assertion that there is only one God, the Creator who is distinct from his creation, stands in direct contradiction to the idolatrous interpretations of the universe that lay at the heart of the polytheistic mythologies of Babylon and elsewhere.13 By ascribing creation to one supreme God who is not himself part of creation, Genesis protests by its very nature against such polytheism.14

no de-deification took place, for the simple reason that there was no need for it. The Genesis account was written by someone who never did believe in a multiplicity of gods in the first place.

that the Old Testament is “awash with architectural imagery

the fact that the Sabbath rest of God marked an end to the period of creating and organizing the universe makes an important theological point about the physical universe that has profound scientific implications. That is, God’s creation of the universe is not the same as his upholding of the universe, so that the past cannot be exhaustively explained in terms of physical processes going on in the present.

the biblical account of both the material existence and function of the universe, and of human life in it, needs to be intelligently articulated in the public square more than ever before, in light of the contemporary clamour of the (now not so) New Atheists that their naturalistic understanding of the universe is the only intellectually respectable one.