Conflict: Science and Genesis 1-2

In my first investigation on the topic of Did God Lie, I arrived at the conclusion that the apparent contradiction between the creation account narratives in Genesis 1 and 2 were a result of misinterpretation.

However, in my second investigation on Does Genesis 1-2 contradict science?, it appears to me that there is a tension between what we know from Science and what we know from a proper interpretation of Genesis 1-2.

The Tension

There are two main point of tensions that I observed from my investigation:

1. A literal interpretation of Genesis clearly contradicts what we know from Science about the cosmological history of the universe and the history of life. However, it is unclear whether Genesis is meant to be literally interpreted.
2. The presence of carnivorous animals before man contradicts even a non literal interpretation of Genesis.

Literal interpretation of Genesis contradicts Science

At this point, I haven’t reached a firm conclusion on whether Genesis was intended to be interpreted literally. There is a wide range of scholarly opinion, though most contemporary biblical scholars seem to favor a non-literal approach. Based on what I’ve read so far, my tentative view is that Genesis 1–2 may have been written with both a literal intent and a strong theological purpose (which is against the scholarly opinion).

Here’s a quick summary of both approaches

• Literal: Genesis 1-2 describes real historical events, and the six days of creations are 24-hour days
• Non-literal: Genesis 1-2 is a theological or literary account—the six days are symbolic, analogical or part of a literary framework. (events may not have occurred as described)

If Genesis is meant to be interpreted literally, a contradiction with scientific findings becomes difficult to avoid.

• Cosmological History of the universe
  • Genesis: Earth was created before the Sun and stars.
  • Science: The Sun and stars formed before Earth.
• History of Life
  • Genesis: Plants and animals created in 24-hour days
  • Science: Plants and animals evolved from unicellular organisms over a long period of time

There are essentially two ways to reconcile this tension, argue that:

1. What we know from Science is wrong
2. What we know from Bible is incomplete

The first way is to challenge the methodology and evidence used to derive the conclusion in question. While there are some critiques in this area, the prevailing scientific consensus considers the evidence for the age of the universe and evolution to be strong and reliable. I haven’t explored this route in depth, but may revisit it in the future.

The second way is to suggest a plausible explanation for the apparent contradiction observed. The one listed in Does Genesis 1-2 contradict science? is the apparent age theory which suggests that God could have created the world with an appearance of age, such that it aligns with both Genesis 1-2 account and the scientific evidence gathered. While this is logically possible, this does not seem likely and there is no evidence in the Bible suggesting this.

Given these points, if Genesis was intended to be taken literally, there does appear to be a meaningful conflict between the biblical text and scientific understanding.

Carnivore animals before man

Even in a non-literal interpretation of Genesis, Genesis 1:29-31 suggests that animals were herbivores before man were created. (see here)

This issue presents a deeper tension for me than the previous one. While the earlier concern could potentially be resolved by adopting a non-literal interpretation of Genesis—a view I’m not fully convinced by but still consider plausible—the explanations I’ve encountered for this particular point seem less persuasive.

Similar to any scientific critique, a defense could be made by challenging the methodology and evidence used to arrive at the conclusion. However, the general consensus seems to be that the conclusion that there are carnivorous animals before man seem reasonable.

Another way to resolve the contradiction is by arguing that the interpretation of Genesis 1 does not necessitate that animals only ate plants and that natural processes like predation for animals, but not humans, were part of God’s good creation, to bring about life’s diversity through evolution. However, if we consider the context that the writer and audience were in, Genesis 1:29-31 would have been intended to communicate that animals were originally intended to eat plants only and that, it did occurred as intended.

Handling the tension

If we only consider Genesis 1-2, I think it would have been unreasonable to conclude that God is real. While Science is fallible, the general methodology and approach is one that’s truth seeking—it is reasonable to hold tentatively to the conclusions we know from science.

Thankfully, for most believers, faith in God doesn’t rest entirely on Genesis 1–2. It rests on a broader foundation that includes personal experiences of God, spiritual transformation, and the reliability of the Bible as a whole. This foundation can help us navigate areas of uncertainty or apparent contradiction.

Still, like an airplane that can survive isolated system failures but crashes when too many failures occur, our faith could falter if too many foundational beliefs were undermined.

Regardless, for those committed to seeking truth, intellectual honesty means acknowledging when there are real tensions—such as the presence of carnivorous animals before humans—between scientific knowledge and scriptural interpretation.