I chanced upon a Christian blogger whose website is https://siyach.org. He wrote an article entitled “Genesis 1 and 2 are True; Creationism is Not.” This article first appeared on his website about a year from now.
He refers to people who take the position that “the fossil record and astronomical observations point to the earth, and life on it, emerging over millions and billions of years” as rationalists “who take science seriously.” On the other hand, he labels those we think that “the creation story shouldn't be read metaphorically” as literalists.
This categorization is likely not an intentional polemic, but it highlights a common misunderstanding and confusion that there is only one universal kind of science.
What he describes as “fossil record and astronomical observations” are scientific evidence. Literalists don't dispute that and even accept that.
Both camps accept that this is the kind of science we can do today, repeatably, and reproducible. This is present-day science.
But claiming that the circumstantial evidence “points to the earth, and life on it, emerging over millions and billions of years” is an interpretation colored by the historical science of origins. Not knowing that observations and data need interpretation is another confusion he doesn't realize it. We can’t blame him; many scientists don't realize it either.
Such billion-year interpretation/story is another kind of science called the historical science of the origins. This is a matter of fact.
Probably many, as he does, fail to recognize that there are two kinds of science.
Obviously, the origins took place long ago. Nobody is a direct observer or witness of them and their processes. We can only theorize and hypothesize. If the new observation contradicts the current concordant theory, fix it, even using fudge such as dark energy that nobody really knows about. Recently, new observations from the James Webb Space Telescope make it impossible to rescue the already heavily bandaged concordant theory without invoking another unobserved fudge. More and more astrophysicists recognize that there is a crisis in the concordant Big Bang mode; they are calling for an overhaul.
The blogger goes on to write: “The first thing to say about the creation story is that it is not about how God created the world in seven days.” The blogger seems to be heavily influenced by some famous theologians who don’t think Genesis shouldn't be read literally, as he cited people like N.T. Wright and John Walton.
There are three mistakes in this claim.
One, it is not a story but a narrative. Two, God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day, not seven days. Three, God did tell us how He created the cosmos.
The sequence of one day followed by another day, the earth, the water, the light, evening and morning, the open expanse filled with air, dry land, plants after their kinds, the heavenly bodies that give light to the earth, the fishes, the birds, the land animals, each after its kind, and finally human kind to rule over the earth and every creature on it.
How He created and made displays His glory, His awesome power, His unfathomable wisdom, His sovereignty and authority, and His special love for humankind.
Isn’t every divine attribute telling us about God’s character.
Many people read Genesis 1 and 2 separately from the other 65 books of the Bible. They don’t bring up how Moses and Jesus read these two chapters, because the Genesis author and the Creator read them literally. So did the writers of the other books in the Bible.
Why it matters? God is sovereign.
He could make the whole universe in six minutes. But he willed to create in six days and a day for sabbath to give an example for us to follow. Resting one day is one of the ten commandments.
It is more reasonable and rational for Christians to rely on Moses and Jesus rather than fallen modern theologians or a few church fathers.
Genesis 1 and 2 are true. So is the creationism of Moses and Jesus.