evolution is creation by continuous evolutionary processes initiated by God. Progressive creation is creation by discontinuous evolutionary processes initiated by God, but having to be shored up by sporadic injections of non-evolutionary processes. Of the two, theistic evolution is less inconsistent with God’s character. However, progressive creation may sound less offensive to college boards of trustees, contributing alumni, and supporting churches. Its purpose seems to be to permit Christian academics to say they believe in “creation,” for the sake of their constituents, without incurring opposition and derision from their non-Christian evolutionist colleagues.
The Day-Age Theory
Theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists have argued that the geological ages have been so firmly established by science that it would be folly to question them and, therefore, some means of accommodating Genesis to geology must be devised. The most obvious way of attempting this is to interpret the Genesis account of creation in such a way that the ages of geology correspond to the history of creation. Since the latter is given in terms of six “days” of creative work by God, the creation week must somehow be expanded to incorporate all of earth history from its primeval beginning up to and including man’s arrival. Hence, the “days” must correspond more or less to the geological “ages.”
In fact, some writers have even built what they feel is a case for the divine origin of the Genesis account on the basis of an assumed “concordance” between the order of creation in Genesis 1 and the order of the development of the earth and its various forms of life as represented by the geological ages. That is, in both Genesis and geology, first comes the inorganic universe, then simple forms of life, then more complex forms of life, and finally man.
However, such a proposed concordance cannot be pressed successfully for more details than that. Theories about the early history of the earth and the universe are still quite varied and indefinite. The general order noted above is only what must be postulated for either creation or evolution and, therefore, proves nothing at all. That is, if the evolutionary ages really occurred, the necessary order must be from simple to complex. Similarly, if God employed a six-literal-day week of special creation, as the Bible indicates, again the order must logically be from simple to complex, with the inorganic world first prepared for plant growth, which was then created for animal life, which was then created to serve man, who was finally created in God’s image. Since the same order is clearly to be expected in both cases, the fact that it thus occurs in both cases has no apologetic value either way.
The day-age theory is normally accompanied by either the theory of theistic evolution or the theory of progressive creation. In the previous sections it was seen that neither theistic evolution nor progressive creation is tenable biblically or theologically. Therefore, the day-age theory must likewise be rejected. Nevertheless, in this section the day-age theory specifically will be considered, showing that it is quite unacceptable on both exegetical and scientific grounds.
1. The Proper Meaning of “Day” and “Days”
The main argument for the day-age theory, other than the desire to obtain a framework corresponding to geological theory, is the fact that the Hebrew word yom does not have to mean a literal day, but can be interpreted as “a very long time.” Specific biblical warrant for such an interpretation is presumably found in 2 Peter 3:8, “One day is with the Lord as a thousand years.”
There is no doubt that yom can be used to express time in a general sense. In fact, it is actually translated as “time” in the King James translation 65 times. On the other hand, it is translated as “day” almost 1,200 times! In addition, its plural form yamim is translated as “days” approximately 700 times. It is obvious, therefore, that the normal meanings of yom and yamim are “day” and “days,” respectively. If a parabolic or metaphorical meaning is intended, it is always made obvious in the context. In approximately 95 percent of its occurrences, the literal meaning is clearly indicated.
Even in those cases where a general meaning is permitted in the context, it is always indefinite as to duration, such as the “time of adversity” or the “day of prosperity.” In fact, it would be very difficult to find even a single occurrence of yom that could not be interpreted to mean a literal solar day, and would have to mean a long period of time. (Moses never used it this way.) Whenever other biblical writers really intended to convey the idea of a very long duration of time, they normally used some such word as olam (meaning “age” or “long time”) or else attached to yom an adjective such as rab (meaning “long”), so that the two words together, yom rab, then meant “a long time.” But yom by itself can apparently never be proved, in one single case, to require the meaning of a long period of time, and certainly no usage that would suggest a geological age.
It might still be contended that, even though yom never requires the meaning of a long age, it might possibly permit it. However, the writer of the first chapter of Genesis has very carefully guarded against such a notion, both by modifying the noun by a numerical adjective (“first day,” “second day,” etc.), and also by indicating the boundaries of the time period in each case as “evening and morning.” Either one of these devices would suffice to limit the meaning of yom to that of a solar day, and when both are used, there could be no better or surer way possible for the writer to convey the intended meaning of a literal solar day.
To prove this, it is noted that whenever a limiting numeral or ordinal is attached to “day” in the Old Testament (and there are over 200 such instances), the meaning is always that of a literal day. Similarly, the words “evening” and “morning,” each occurring more than a hundred times in the Hebrew, never are used to mean anything but a literal evening and a literal morning, ending and beginning a literal day.
As added proof, the word yom is clearly defined the first time it is used. God defines His terms! “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Gen. 1:5). The word yom is defined here as the light period in the regular succession of light and darkness, which, as the earth rotates on its axis, has continued ever since. This definition obviously precludes any possible interpretation as a geological age.
The objection is sometimes raised that the first three days were not days as they are today, since the sun was not created until day four. One could, of course, turn this objection against those who raise it. The longer the first three days, the more catastrophic it would be for the sun not to be functioning if indeed the sun is the only possible source of light for the earth. The vegetation created on the third day might endure for a few hours without sunlight, but hardly for a geological age!
Regardless of the precise length of the first three days, there must have been some source of light available to separate light and darkness, evening and morning. It was apparently not the sun as it is now known, but, of course, God is not limited to the sun as a source of light.1 Whatever it may have been, the earth was evidently rotating on its axis, since evenings and mornings were occurring regularly for those three days. The placing of the two great “light-bearers” in the heavens need have no great effect on the rate of this rotation, so that the duration of day four and those following was most probably the same as that of days one through three.
It is interesting also that Genesis 1:14–19 further clarifies the meaning of “day” and “days”: “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years . . . the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night . . . and the evening and the morning were the fourth day.” It would certainly seem that there could be no possible doubt as to the meaning and duration of day after at least this fourth day.
In view of all the above considerations, it seems impossible to accept the day-age theory, regardless of the number of eminent scientists and theologians who have advocated it. The writer of Genesis 1 clearly intended to describe a creation accomplished in six literal days. He could not possibly have expressed such a meaning any more clearly and emphatically than in the words and sentences which are actually used.
Not only is a six-literal-day creation