TOPICAL NOTES 1-2: SCIENTIFIC BIAS, OTHER VIEWS OF GENESIS 1

© 2025.

1. Scientific bias: conventional science vs creation science.

The news media and even our judicial system teach society that the Genesis 1 creation account has been disproved by modern science. However, this bible study provides evidence that modern science hasn’t disproved the early accounts in Genesis. After decades of intense research with data collected from hi-tech scientific instruments, huge telescopes, and amazing space probes, these science "experts" do not all agree on a universe formation scenario or the details of how life evolved from nonliving materials. Nor do they agree on the supposed transitional fossil life forms cited as evidence for evolution. Secular science claims that creation science is biased by interpreting the universe and life in a young-earth framework, however secular science is no less biased by interpreting them in a uniformitarian "millions and billions of years" framework. Apparent scientific evidence may be cited for both views, but how it is interpreted differs.

Conventional scientists incorrectly presume creation scientists just argue religion but not science, and their research is “pseudoscience”. A sample of their published research shows this in not the case*. Although they often discuss biblical scriptures among themselves, creation scientists have been very willing to discuss detailed scientific evidence that supports biblical creation and opposes the claims of “deep-time” evolutionary speciation, uniformatarian geology, and astrophysics with conventional scientists. This is shown by their many public debates with conventional scientists in past years. The geological Flood and creation models provide better (simpler) scientific explanations for origins than uniformitarian geology and evolutionary theory, as the evidence provided in Topical notes 6 and 7 describes. The posted Wikipedia article and its numerous references show the intensity of opposition by the secular community toward creation science that they refer to as pseudo-scientific{2}. Scientific creationism versus scientific naturalism are part of the worldwide political clash between biblical versus humanistic worldviews and values, so understandably secular arguments against creation are not purely scientifically motivated. It's noteworthy that nearly all of the early great scientists including James Joule and Isaac Newton held strong biblical beliefs. A verse from John’s gospel is inscribed on Joule’s tombstone.

*https://www.icr.org/article/radiohalos-granites-evidence-for-accelerated/ (This creation science research about radio halos in zircon crystals was presented in a poster session at a conventional science symposium.)

2. Other views of Genesis 1: Theistic evolution, Gap theory, and Day-Age interpretation. 

Darwin’s idea of natural selection that promoted evolutionary speciation and its ancient time scale obviously conflicted with the early Genesis creation accounts (Topical note 6, Historical background). However, it became accepted by conventional scientists who taught as fact in public schools. So, some bible believing theologians felt compelled to develop ways to work with this widely accepted secular creation paradigm yet maintain their biblical faith. 

Three currently popular schemes to do this are described that allow the Genesis 1 creation account to accommodate the secular “deep time” evolutionary model for life: That random chemical reactions originated early life forms on Earth, which then evolved into higher plants and animals over millions of years by evolutionary speciation (Topical note 6, Did life evolve?). 

First, theistic evolution claims that God guided the origin of life forms and improved living things gradually using evolutionary speciation by natural selection over "millions of years".  However, theistic evolution contradicts the creation account in Genesis 1:11-31 that described God suddenly created the original sea creatures and birds, and land animals and humans, each in one literal day.

Recent research explains the rapid adaption of organisms to produce different varieties of a species to climate changes in a few generations with only changes to their epigenetic markers and RNA editing, but not to their fixed genomes.  Darwin’s finches (that are actually one finch species) were used in one study.  There is no evidence for “fluid changes” of organisms from one genetic species to another (evolutionary speciation) by mutations in their fixed genomes.  

Topical note 7, Radiometric dating explains flawed assumptions made in its methodology that cause inaccuracies that greatly increase the measured ages of ancient fossils, Earth's rock layers, and meteorites.  Recent discoveries of two mummified dinosaurs and soft tissue in some dinosaur fossils that are described reason to suspect the deaths of these animals was actually only thousands of years ago, not millions according to conventional scientists.  Topical note 6 (below) describes problems with evolutionary theory and should cause those who are concerned to rethink its validity. 

Second, the Gap Theory accommodates fossil-bearing rocks that secular scientists claim are millions of years old (without endorsing evolution) and is promoted by some theologians and a popular reference bible version.  It proposes that a huge time gap of millions of years existed between Genesis 1 v1 and v2.  A former “inhabited” ancient earth that was allegedly created in the beginning (v1), was destroyed by God’s judgment and laid waste for millions of years.  The observed ancient fossils found worldwide then resulted from this ancient judgment. Verses 2-31 are interpreted to describe God's re-making and re-populating (“replenishing”) the earth a second time, perhaps less than 10,000 years ago that fits the biblical creation time scale.  The Gap Theory claims Noah’s Flood was a local flood (contradicting Genesis 7:17-21) that didn’t leave behind worldwide fossil remains. 

Although the proposed former inhabited earth in the beginning has little direct biblical support, Genesis 1:28 is often quoted as a scripture verse that supports the Gap Theory.  In this verse, the word “fill” (Hebrew “mlau”) used to be translated into English as “replenish” in a few English bibles including the King James version [KJV]. So this verse appeared to command the humans to “replenish” the earth, as if it had been previously destroyed.  The meanings of many English words have changed in the past hundreds of years.  In old English from about 1200-1600AD when the KJV was first printed, “replenish” actually meant today’s “fill”, but today it doesn’t.  So today the New King James version [NKJV] that uses modern English properly translated Hebrew “mlau” as “fill” (not “replenish”) in Genesis 1:28, (and also in Genesis 1:22 and 9:1).  So using it to mean “replenish" is an incorrect translation into modern English, and “replenish” in the old English of the KJV just means “fill” of today so “replenish” doesn’t support the Gap Theory{1}.

Third, proponents of the Day-Age interpretation of Genesis 1 apply New Testament 2 Peter 3:8 to the creation-week “days”, noting that “For the Lord a day is as a thousand years…”.  Apparently, time doesn’t exist for the Lord because there are no regular cyclic events to measure time with in heaven, unlike in the physical universe (Genesis 1:14).  So these proponents teach that ”days” in the Genesis 1 account can mean “ages” that accommodates the secular “millions of years” time scale for life on Earth.  Regardless of one’s view of what time period a “day” might mean, the context for “day” in Genesis 1 should be noted: the concluding sentence for each creation “day” includes “there was evening and there was morning”, so the author seems to be emphasizing these were periods of the earth’s rotation, or literal days.       

Conclusion:

ALL THREE of the above alternative life-creation views assume the secular “millions of years” time scale for life on earth is correct, and then disregard the conflicting factual meaning of the Genesis 1 account.  Theistic evolution (like secular evolution) denies the Genesis 1 creation account, while the Day-Age view and the Gap Theory reinterpret its meaning.

These commentaries and topical notes provide evidence factual interpretations of the Genesis accounts that use correct Hebrew word meanings are supported by observed proven science.  Proven science EXCLUDES the “consensus sciences” of uniformatarian geology, evolutionary speciation, and theoretical astrophysics that describe time in millions of years for life, and billions of years for rocks and the celestial heavens.  Much of these consensus sciences are theories that haven’t actually been observed and supporting radiometric dating is flawed. What is claimed to be evidence for them has defendable alternate explanations by creation science, and the assumptions made to select what data is relevant and how to evaluate it are affected by the researchers’ secular or creation world views. (See Consensus science in Topical note 6, Topical note 7, Radiometric dating).     

Correct understanding of the Genesis 1 account that is taught by this commentary should eliminate the apparent need to disregard or reinterpret its natural factual meaning.

{1} Ham, et all, 1990, The Revised and Expanded Answers Book, Master Books, pp70-72. (Gap theory).

W. Cook

Independent researcher October 2025

contact: genesismakessense@gmail.com

Please do not use web links in comments.