Creation Days - Real or Analogy?

Are the creation days real days - or not? This has become a contentious issue in Reformed and Presbyterian circles.

In recent posts, Rev. G.I. Williamson (retired minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church) defends six-day creation, whereas Dr Vern S. Poythress (professor at Westminster Theological Seminary) favours analogical days.

1. Defending Six-Days 

According to Rev. Williamson, God's creation of the universe is a foundational doctrine of the Bible. Both the Bible and the Westminster Confession clearly state that God created the world in six days. Hence, waffling on this contradicts our claimed allegiance to the Bible and Confession. This seriously weakens our testimony to unbelievers. 

Rev. Williamson notes that a  prime motivation for rejecting six-day creation is the desire to be respected by intellectuals and scientists. A case in point here, that I might mention, is the well-known apologist Dr. William Lane Craig, who finds young-earth creationism a huge embarrassment (for an excellent recent critique of Craig, see Dr. Jonathan Sarfati's response).

Rev. Williamson finds that alternative views of the creation days (e.g., day-age, framework, analogical days) are very explicit about what did not happen (i.e., creation in six real days), but very fuzzy about what actually did happen. This, of course, is related to the desire to avoid potential conflict with mainstream science.

Further, Rev. Williamson states that the denial of six-day creation has been destructive. It has led to the acceptance of evolution, and to doubting the Biblical account of Adam and Eve, thereby undermining fundamental Christian doctrines.  

Rev. Williamson concludes by urging that we humbly submit to God's Word:

"I am more and more convinced that what seminary professors, pastors, and elders need today is a good dose of Job and Ecclesiastes, because (if they did have that) they would again be able to teach and defend what the Westminster Standards say about creation. The Standards say God “created all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good.” But in spite of some ‘fancy footwork’ by adherents of these different views, what our standards clearly say is no longer what we really believe and uphold in all our Orthodox Presbyterian Churches and Presbyterian Church in America congregations. And I think the reason is that too many who profess adherence to the Westminster Standards have been seduced by the cultural consensus which says modern scientific people now know better than our Reformation fathers. They think modern science has now made that part of our Reformation creed (taken in its obvious sense) obsolete....

 I am more and more convinced that many who think they are orthodox, and certainly intend to be, have nevertheless handled Genesis 1 and 2 in the same way the modernists handled other texts of the Scripture. This was not their intention. But it is the sad result. I therefore believe the time has come to simply say — loud and clear — “the emperor has no clothes on.”

2. Defending Analogy 

Now consider Dr. Poythress' short booklet (32pp) on Christian Interpretations of Genesis 1. This is part of the series Christian Answers to Hard Questions, edited by Peter A. Lillback and Steven T. Huff.

The cover gives a brief summary: 

"...Poythress examines which of the contemporary interpretations of Genesis are most consistent with scientific evidence and careful biblical interpretation. He presents the case for young-earth creationism, mature creation, the day-age theory, the analogical-day theory, and the framework hypothesis to see which of them stand up to scrutiny."

 Dr Poythress rightly affirms that the Bible is the Word of God, and thus trustworthy and infallible, whereas science is always tentative and fallible. Hence, in case of conflict, Poythress asserts that the Bible should have the preference. So far, so good.

Unhappily, Dr Poythress virtually nullifies this essential epistemic presupposition by driving a wedge between the Bible and its interpretation. He writes: 

"Even though the Bible is infallible, however, we as interpreters of the Bible are not. If there appears to be a conflict between the Bible and science, we have to inspect whether the science has failed because of its fallibility. But we also have to inspect whether we have failed to understand the Bible rightly." 

 Consequently, he objects to young-earth creationism primarily because he deems it to face too many scientific difficulties. Dr Poythress wonders:

"People might ask themselves whether the growth in difficulties shows that the starting assumptions of the whole project [i.e., young-earth creationism] may be wrong. Do some other approaches to science and Genesis do better justice to the evidence?"

In the final analysis, Dr Poythress favours the analogical- day theory, which maintains that the days in Genesis 1 are God's workdays, which are only analogous to human workdays. How exactly we are to view these divine workdays is not made clear. One is reminded here of Rev. Williamson's observation. But it does seem to entail that they tell us nothing of historical significance, such as the time-span or sequence of the creation events. 

Dr Poythress's main exegetical argument is that, since God's rest is everlasting, so is God's day of rest (Day 7). From this, he infers the other creation days are likewise only analogous to our days.

My difficulty with this is that Genesis 1 clearly refers to the creation days as measured on earth. The day is defined as a period of light (Gen.1: 5). On Day 4, the Sun is created to rule the day, and to give light on the earth (Gen.1:14-18). Hence Days 4-7 are definitely solar days. God blessed the Sabbath as a particular solar day (Gen.2:3). Surely He did not bless the entire time-span from creation onwards. The first Sabbath is simply the first day of God's  everlasting rest.

Given the exegetical weakness of the analogical-day theory, it seems to me that its prime appeal is that its essentially metaphorical approach sidesteps any possible conflict with mainstream science.

Interestingly, Dr Poythress's openness to mainstream chronology clashes with another article on his website: Reversing the Fall and Setting Creation Free. There Poythress argues (referring to Rom.8:18-25) that Adam's Fall resulted in a radical disruption that spoiled the entire, originally good, creation. Among the post-Fall changes, he lists the appearance of thorns, thistles, and mosquitoes.

Yet, mosquitoes have been found, preserved in amber, allegedly dating back to more than 75 million years, and thorny plant fossils date back more than 300 million years, long before man appeared. At least, according to mainstream science. Indeed, mainstream chronology entails that Adam's Fall had no visible effect on the natural world. Therefore, consistent old-earth creationists must hold that mosquitoes, thorns, predation, pain, suffering, and death were all part of God's very good creation. This is contrary to Dr Poythress's belief in a radical fall.

In conclusion, Rev. Williamson has written a timely warning that should be carefully heeded, particularly by leaders in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches. 

*****