This episode highlights the attempt by Stephen Jay Gould, a noted paleontologist, to maintain Darwinian evolutionary theory without the evidence that Darwin himself required in order to prove his theory. Transitional fossils, according to Darwin, would be the proof of his theory. The gaps in the fossil record in Darwin's time would eventually be filled. Neodarwinists now concede that these gaps will never be filled. Normal scientific procedure would throw out theories lacking evidence. Instead, Stephen Jay Gould has posited a new theory, punctuated equilibrium, in which the macroevolutionary framework could still be kept, even though the evidence has never been forthcoming. Genesis 1 however perfectly explains the fossil recod: long periods of stasis followed by abrupt emergence of new species. A more "scientific" approach to the fossil record would concede the explanatory power of the Genesis 1 account in accounting for natural history.
Evolution: the clash of data with theory
Assuming "days" could be taken as "epochs, science and Genesis 1 agree up to the end of day 4. The introduction of animals on day 5 however marks the end of agreement between Genesis 1 and the scientific consensus, as the vast majority of scientists subscribe to some form of macroevolution in explaining the arrival of new life forms. Despite its widespread acceptance, macroevolution is a theory that continually clashes with the evidence as revealed in the fossil record. Going forward, the evidence or raw data of "science" is cited as "scientific" (based on observation), as opposed to the theory of evolution, which is very often contradicted by the evidence itself.
The sun becomes visible–to whom?
The appearance of the sun, moon and stars on day 4, the purpose of which was to act as "signs" for seasons, day and years, was essential for those who needed the signs--animals and ultimately mankind. The second great oxygenation event about 585 million years made the appearance of the sun, moon and stars possible, just prior to the introduction of many animal species. This scientific observation fits in perfectly with the Biblical account recording days 4 and 5.
Day 1 and Day 4 reconciled, part 2
This episode recaps the resolution of the apparent problem of the source of light described on day 1 and day 4, noting particularly how an appeal to God as the source of light on day 1 makes little sense.
Reconciling day 1 with day 4
Reconciliation of the appearance of light on day 1 with the presumed creation of the sun on day 4 is a natural challenge to readers of Genesis 1. The resolution of this apparent problem centers on interpreting the text by 1) establishing the starting conditions and 2) noting the verb forms used.
Science without “scientism points to the divine
Old-earth creationism vs. young-earth creationism is a secondary issue that need not divide Bible-believing Christians. "Science" prior to 1850 was open to the supernatural involvement of God: scientists' investigations were meant to "think God's thoughts after Him." Modern science is largely dominated by naturalism which creates a false dichotomy between science and faith.
Are the days of Genesis 1 24 hour days?
One of the major disputes between science and Genesis 1 potentially centers on the interpretation of the Hebrew word "yom" or day. There are 4 literal meanings of the word "yom," one of which is an indefinite finite period of time. This possible meaning would resolve the apparent chronological dispute between Gen 1 and science.
Science confirms intelligent design
Many naturalist scientists have begrudgingly accepted that the universe has a beginning, conceding that "an agent outside of space and time" caused our universe. Many also acknowledge the "anthropic principle," that the universe is intelligently designed. Romans 1:19-20 and Psalm 19, of course, attest to these facts.
Gen 1 and the “anthropic principle”
Big bang cosmology has forced naturalistic scientists to dead with the "problem" of a beginning. Many are now also reckoning with the "anthropic principle," that the universe is intelligently designed. According to Fred Hoyle "a super-intellect has monkied" with physics and biology.
Genesis 1:1 and naturalism
Acceptance or rejection of Genesis 1:1 largely determines the lens through which people see God as potentially involved in the universe. A priori commitment to naturalism became evident in many scientists' resistance to the philosophical implications of the Big Bang, which threatened the naturalistic presumptions held by many scientists.