My Response to “Is the Day-Age View of Genesis Synonymous with Evolution?”


I am assuming that your post is in some way, either a response to or prompted by my article on June 4th entitled A Day Is a Day Is a Day of Course. If not, please forgive my unfortunate assumption and therefore my response to your article.

Your title “Is the Day-Age View of Genesis Synonymous with Evolution?” and some of your article’s content seems to make a point that I did not make. To wit, I did not argue that the Day-Age theory was synonymous with evolution. In my second paragraph I state, “In this article, I am only addressing the two perspectives mentioned, and I use the term “evolution” to encompass such approaches that undermine interpreting the days in Genesis as a normal day.”[1]

You addressed the age of the earth saying, “Hundreds of day-age creationists I know personally believe the universe is 13.8 billion years old and the earth is 4.6 billion years old.” My article does not see to address the age of the earth. Rather, I maintain that the contextual evidence weighs heavier for lunar days than vast periods of time. It seems to me that the latter, days as vast periods of time, has been deduced from the weight of science rather than consistent hermeneutics. I think Hugh Ross applies inconsistent hermeneutics so as to reconcile Scripture to his science (I have read his book). In addition, I referenced articles on my blog where I do explore issues regarding time.

You said, “We have no “fixed earthers” today because theologians rightly decided the scientific evidence was too weighty to be ignored.” As I mentioned, I have a great regard for the advancements made by science. I have had and presently have many scientists as members of my church, as well as speaking in my church on these subjects from various perspectives.

However, I do not accept the postulate that science is the unbiased enlightening guide for hermeneutics. I find your analogy to previous debates regarding the earth’s position in the universe to be disanalogous to this discussion. I consider the position that regards the days as indefinite long periods of time to be the result of discovering ways to reconcile current widely accepted scientific theories with Scripture, by relying upon exegetical possibilities rather than consistent scriptural probabilities. I do not mind being informed of and by science, but interpretation is to be the outflow of consistent contextual, exegetical hermeneutics sola Scriptura. I understand the principle of the range of exegetical possibilities of words, but that does not determine the way a word is used in a particular context. My article seeks to give grammatical and contextual reasons for interpreting the days as normal days.

Viewing the days as undefined periods of time is in concert with some of the modern assumptions of evolutionary science. Many are unaware that the age assumptions, reckoning of time, are based upon various theories of time, none of which are innate to matter. That is to say, our theory of time is a convention rather than something that is inherent to matter according to Einstein, etc. I explore this in my articles I referenced.

Further, I believe books such as Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions or Alexander Kohn’s False Prophets provide sufficient reasons for viewing science more guardedly than to grant it the preeminence of guiding our hermeneutics (both books are written by scientists).Again, while I am greatly appreciative and even amazed at some of the discoveries and advancements made by science, this elation cannot obscure the reality that science is not the unsullied objective, sufficiently self-correcting bastion of truth seekers it is often proclaimed or assumed to be. The evidence for this conclusion is voluminous indeed.[2] This should at least, provide a cautiousness to granting the dominant science of the day too much trust. A caution well needed in our day, in my opinion. I deem it to be dangerous indeed to permit science to guide our interpretation of Scripture at any time, but particularly so with verses, which otherwise seem quite clear, at least to me.

You state, “The ancient Hebrew word yom in Genesis, translated “day” in English, is literally a reference to six long periods of creation, not evolution.” In my article, I seek to present exegetical evidence to the contrary. One may not agree with my position, but at least the exegetical evidence is there for consideration. I do not think we should consider mere statements to the contrary to be persuasive without compelling exegetical evidence.

I stated my reason for writing the articles, “I intend to write a series of articles that highlight the strengths of interpreting the word “day” in Genesis chapter 1 as a normal lunar day and answers objections to this normal reading of the text.” Stated another way, I believe the preponderance of hermeneutical evidence from strictly a textual perspective is that the days in Genesis approximate days, as we know them today. Consequently, if that is true, then science must be interpreted in light of that rather than conversely.

I well recognize that many of my brothers and sisters disagree with me on this, as you yourself do. I truly understand that, and I do not wish to impugn one’s love for God or His word by my position. I do only wish to lay out evidence as I am in the process of doing, and consider contrary exegetical evidence not exegetical possibilities. My goal is to understand Genesis creation in accord with a normal reading of the contextual evidence. Then, consider various scientific theories based upon that.


[1] Any evidence or arguments I make that are not relevant to a particular position should not be considered a misrepresentation of the position, but rather my attempt to consider various views that in one way or another view the days as long periods of time.

[2] I give a substantial amount of documented evidence for this conclusion in my book, The Death of Man as Man: The Rise and Decline of Liberty

Ronnie W. Rogers