TOPICAL NOTES 1-2: SCIENTIFIC BIAS, RE-INTERPRETATIONS OF GENESIS 1

© 2025

1.Scientific Bias: Conventional science versus creation science

Society is taught by conventional scientists, the news media, and even our judicial system that the Genesis 1 creation account is disproved by modern science.  However, these Genesis Makes Sense commentaries provide evidence that Genesis 1 is a technically accurate, factual account. 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 on earth in a young-earth framework, however secular science is no less biased by interpreting them in a uniformitarian "millions and billions of years" framework.  The global Flood and creation models provide simpler scientific explanations for Earth’s rock layers, fossils, and the origin of life forms than uniformitarian geology and evolutionary theory, and this is covered in Topical notes 6 and 7. Apparent scientific evidence may be cited for both views, but how it is interpreted differs between conventional and creation scientists. 

Conventional scientists incorrectly presume creation scientists arguereligion not science and their research is “pseudoscience”.  A sample of their published research shows this in not the case*. Although creation scientists often discuss biblical scriptures among themselves, they have a track record of publicly debating conventional scientists that used detailed scientific evidence to support biblical creation and opposed the claims of “deep-time” evolutionary speciation, uniformatarian geology, and astro-physics. However, the posted Wikipedia article about creation science and its numerous references show the intensity of opposition by the secular community toward creation science that they refer to as pseudo-science (internet). Because creation science and conventional science are part of the worldwide political clash between biblical versus humanistic worldviews and values, understandably secular arguments against creation are not purely scientifically motivated. It’s noteworthy that nearly all of the great founding scientists including Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, James Joule, and Louis Pasteur held strong biblical beliefs. Kepler considered observational science as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him” (internet), and 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 secular science symposium.

2. Re-interpretations of Genesis 1: Theistic evolution, Gap Theory, and Day-Age view. 

Intro

Darwin’s idea of natural selection of life forms that is promoted by evolutionary speciation and its “millions of years” time scale totally conflicts with the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 (Topical note 6). However, evolution became accepted by conventional scientists who have taught it as fact in the public arena. The early Genesis accounts are often regarded by mainstream Christian churches as "myths and legends" or fictitious fables that teach spiritual lessons.  So, some theologians felt compelled to develop ways to accommodate this widely accepted secular creation paradigm yet maintain their biblical faith.    

Three currently popular schemes to reinterpret the Genesis 1 creation account are described below. Many Christians use one to either disregard and replace the biblical Genesis 1 account (theistic evolution) or reinterpret its meaning (Gap Theory, or Day-Age interpretation).

Theistic evolution:

This scenario claims that God “guided” creation of life forms from non-living chemicals and improved living organisms gradually using “evolutionary speciation” that uses genetic mutations and natural selection over millions of years. However, theistic evolution (like secular evolution) also violates the creation account in Genesis 1:11-31.  It still replaces it with lengthy evolutionary speciation instead of God suddenly creating the original sea creatures and birds, land animals and humans, each in a literal day.  Topical notes 6 explains recent secular research in two bird species that shows evolutionary speciation doesn’t produce new species in nature.

The Gap Theory:

This scenario accommodates fossil-bearing rocks that secular scientists claim are millions of years old without including evolution.  It is promoted by some theologians and a popular reference bible version.  Proponents claim 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 resulted from this ancient judgment. Verses 2-31 are interpreted to describe God's re-making and re-populating (“replenishing”) the earth, less than 10,000 years ago that fits the biblical creation time scale.  However, the Gap Theory claims Noah’s global Flood as recorded in Genesis 6-9 was instead a local flood (disregarding Genesis 7:17-21) so it didn’t leave behind worldwide ancient fossil remains. 

The proposed former inhabited earth in the beginning has little biblical support but its proponents quote Genesis 1:28 as a scripture verse that supports the Gap Theory. In this verse, the word “fill” (written Hebrew “mlau”)* used to be translated as “replenish” in a few English bibles including the original King James version [KJV]. So this verse appeared to command the humans to “replenish” the earth, as if it had been previously destroyed.  However, 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 this Hebrew word 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}.

*Scripture4All online Hebrew interlinear Bible.

Day-Age interpretation:

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 they teach that ”days” in the Genesis 1 account can mean “ages” that accommodates the secular “millions of years” time scale for life on Earth. 

However, the concluding sentence for each creation “day” in Genesis 1 includes “there was evening and there was morning”, so the originator seemed to be emphasizing these were periods of the earth’s rotation, or literal days.  

Conclusions:

ALL THREE of the above “re-interpretations” of Genesis 1 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 disregards the entire Genesis 1 creation account, while the Day-Age view and the Gap Theory reinterpret its meaning by reading ideas into it that aren’t there.

The correct factual understanding of the Genesis 1 account that is presented in the two creation commentaries should eliminate the apparent need to disregard or reinterpret its natural meaning.

{1} Ham, et all, 1990, The Revised and Expanded Answers Book, Master Books, pp70-72. This reference introduces the Gap theory.

W. Cook

Independent researcher November 2026

contact: genesismakessense@gmail.com

Please do not use web links in comments.