John Zimmer (
Thu, 10 Oct 96 18:36:23 CDT

Originally Raymond Zimmer wrote:

>The obvious start points to a "day" to "epoche" comparison. What
>six epochs occur in a sequence and sort of match the processes that
>are described for each day in Genesis?

Then Glenn Morton wrote

>I would object that the Genesis days bear no correspondence to the order of
>appearance of animals in the geological record. So I would not agree that the
>day to epoch approach is the obvious one.

And Steve Schimmrich wrote

> The major assumption here, however, is that the creation story in Genesis
>is in some sense a literal, historical accounting of the acts of creation.
>Not everyone would accept that it is.

> The problem is that the sequence of events described in Genesis don't
>really mesh with the fossil record. Hugh Ross has tried to harmonize
>them in "Creation & Time" but I personally don't think he was very

Hugh Ross tried to harmonize the evolutionary record to the Creation Story.
That's where he went wrong. If we imagine the Creation Story to be
just that ... a divinely inspired story, then the evolutionary record
came first and the story second. So the question should be: If the
Creation Story resembled the evolutionary record, then how would they match?
Of course, this assumes that there is some sort of physical meaning
to the Creation Story. Christian's have believed this from the get go.
But the relation to physical meaning may not come from a literal accounting
of the acts of creation. Rather an aesthetic imagining of how the
Creation Story was inspired in the first place.

Gladwich Joseph wrote

> In order to reconcile a chemist's description of a painting
> with that of an artist's description, reimaging terms
> appears futile. One needs to accept both views as
> compementary to each other and pursue the more profitable
> path of seeing the painting through 'n' perspectives.
> Every perspective enriches and magnifies, and only through
> the eyes of Faith can they lead to worship of the ONE who
> IS, in Whom we move and have are being.
> In the neverending origins debate could we be
> missing the intended teaching of Genesis?

And Gladwich has a key idea. But I would use the analogy of reconciling
a biologist's and an artist's depiction of an animal. The complementarity
becomes a little more sensible and the key concept of finding a workable
perspective a little more plain. As for the intended teaching - well -
the ways of God are not human ways.

I think that the six days of creation resemble six epochs of the
evolutionary record. To begin, I think that the first day of Genesis
resembles the formation of the solar system.

J. Raymond Zimmer