For many who have undergone scientific education, a literal reading of Genesis may seem to conflict with established scientific understanding, particularly regarding the history of life and the cosmological history of the universe.
However, if the author of Genesis did not intend for the text to be interpreted literally, then reading it as a strict historical account would be misrepresenting its purpose. In that case, any perceived conflict between Genesis and science would be a misunderstanding of its intended meaning—which may be more theological or analogical rather than a scientific description of creation.
Contradictions here refer to discrepancies between what Genesis records as having happened and what scientific evidence indicates actually occurred. It does not include contradictions based on questions of possibility, such as ‘How could God create something from nothing?’ or ‘How could plants survive without the sun?’—since these can be addressed by appealing to God’s omnipotence.
Should Genesis 1-2 be interpreted literally?
A literal interpretation of Genesis 1–2 means that the events described happened exactly as written and are not symbolic or figurative. This question should be addressed through biblical hermeneutics and exegesis, rather than by trying to align the text with modern science. Forcing Genesis to match current scientific understanding is not considered a sound exegetical approach, especially since the scientific concepts we now understand were unknown in the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) context in which Genesis was written.
Scholars have different perspectives on the best way to interpret Genesis 1-2. Here are five major theological views1Averbeck, Richard. Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation. Hendrickson Publishers, 2013.:
- Richard E. Averbeck: A Literary Day, Inter-Textual and Contextual Reading
Averbeck believes that Genesis 1-2 serves as an analogical framework intended to communicate theological themes, by looking at how Genesis fits within the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) worldview. - Todd S. Beall: A Literal Approach
Beall believes that Genesis 1-2 should be interpreted as a historical account that is intended to be taken literally. - C. John Collins: With the Grain, Analogical Days
Collins interprets Genesis 1-2 as “exalted prose”—neither purely narrative or poetry— and the six days of creation as analogical days - Tremper Longman III: High Style Literary Prose Narrative
Longman interprets Genesis 1-2 as a theological narrative presented within a literary structure, and thus not intended to explain how God created the universe. - John H. Walton: Ancient Cosmology
Walton interprets Genesis 1-2 as an ANE text sharing an ANE cosmological worldview, which is more concerned about function as compared to material.
Most contemporary scholars, especially those in biblical studies and theology, do not take a literal approach in interpreting Genesis. However, there are Christians, notably Ken Ham, that hold to a literal approach.
*This question is not one that can be easily answered. This entry would be updated with links to entries that explore further each of these views after a deeper investigation on my end.
Does Science contradicts a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2?
While most of the obvious contradictions could potentially be explained by non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1-2, there are some that could not be.
Presence of carnivorous animals before man
Scientific evidence indicates that carnivorous dinosaurs existed long before humans appeared on Earth2www.usgs.gov. “Did People and Dinosaurs Live at the Same Time? | U.S. Geological Survey,” February 14, 2022. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/did-people-and-dinosaurs-live-same-time.. This contradicts the narrative in Genesis 1-2 which suggests that animals were not carnivorous prior to the creation of humans.
- Premise 1: God created animals before man (Genesis 1:24-26)
- Premise 2: God gave only green plants to animals for food (Genesis 1:30)
- Premise 3: Before man’s fall, everything was good (Genesis 1:31-32). In other words, premise 2 was adhered to.
- Conclusion: Animals, created before man, must have been herbivorous
This view is often connected to the belief that death entered creation only after human sin (Romans 5:12). However, Romans 5:12 specifically refers to human death, and not animals. Since plants were given as food for both animals and humans, their consumption may have involved some form of plant death even before the Fall—though not necessarily, as it’s possible that plants were eaten in a way that allowed them to continue growing, without being fully destroyed. The Bible isn’t clear that plant and animal death were present before man’s fall as part of God’s design.
The huge timescale difference between the appearance of animals and man, could be addressed by a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2.
Detractors’ view
Detractors employ a range of explanations/defenses to resolve the contradiction:
- Challenge the scientific methodology, or interpretation, used to conclude that there were carnivorous animals before man
- Argue 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
Nevertheless, as emphasized earlier, the proper interpretation of Genesis should be based on careful hermeneutics and historical context, not on retrofitting the text to align with modern science. Genesis 1:29–31 seems to reflect an understanding that animals were originally intended to eat plants—this would have made sense to the original audience that were not aware of modern discoveries.
Does Science contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2?
If Genesis is interpreted literally, it provides a historical account of the universe’s creation and the origin of life. This includes interpreting the “days” of creation as 24-hour periods. In this section, we focus solely on whether a literal reading contradicts scientific evidence, without considering non-literal interpretations such as the analogical days view.
Cosmological History of the Universe
The key contradiction between a literal interpretation of Genesis and modern science is the creation order of Earth, the Sun and stars.
- Genesis: Earth was created before the Sun and stars.
- Science: The Sun and stars formed before Earth.
Genesis 1 tells us that the universe is created in the following order:
- Day 1: heavens, earth, water and light
- Day 2: sky
- Day 3: dry land and vegetation
- Day 4: sun, moon and stars
In contrast, modern cosmology describes a different sequence of events:3NASA. “Cosmic History.” science.nasa.gov, 2024. https://science.nasa.gov/universe/overview/.4Warren, Sasha. “How the Earth and Moon Formed, Explained | University of Chicago News.” news.uchicago.edu, 2024. https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/formation-earth-and-moon-explained.
- Spacetime, the universe, begins expanding rapidly
- Universe cools enough to form the first atoms (besides helium and hydrogen) and for light to be able to travel over great distances
- Stars—including our sun— form
- Earth forms from dust and gas orbiting the Sun
- Moon forms together or after Earth
History of Life
A literal interpretation of Genesis tells us that plants and animals were created in a matter of 24-hour days. However, Science tells us that plants and animals evolved from unicellular organisms over a long period of time4University of California, Berkeley. “Important Events in the History of Life (Text-Only Version) – Understanding Evolution,” April 3, 2021. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/important-events-in-the-history-of-life-text-only-version/.. These two interpretations clearly contradict in terms of the timeframe of how plant and animal life came to be. While there are still scientific questions that we don’t have answers to on the history of life, none among the scientific community supports the view that plants and animals were created in a matter of 24-hour days.
Another key issue is human origins. A literal interpretation of Genesis 1 tells us that Man is created in the image of God. However, Science tells us that we likely evolved from a common ancestor with other primates4University of California, Berkeley. “Important Events in the History of Life (Text-Only Version) – Understanding Evolution,” April 3, 2021. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/important-events-in-the-history-of-life-text-only-version/.5Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. “Introduction to Human Evolution.” The Smithsonian Institution’s Human Origins Program, 2022. https://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution.. DNA evidence, fossils, and comparative anatomy support this evolutionary link.
Detractors (human origins): God could have created animals that are biologically similar to humans
Detractors argue that being created in the image of God does not contradict evolution. The scientific evidence for common ancestry (such as shared DNA and fossils) does not necessarily exclude divine creation. A possible reconciliation is that God had created a range of animals, including those that were biologically similar to humans. This scenario is compatible with both Genesis 1’s account and the scientific evidence observed.
Detractors: God could have created with the appearance of age
Detractors argue that, being all-powerful, God could have created the world with the appearance of age, or in a way that aligns with the scientific evidence we’ve gathered. If successful, this could resolve all the contradictions listed above. However, while this remains a logical possibility and could potentially resolve the apparent contradiction, it seems highly unlikely. There is no compelling reason to believe that God would deceive us by creating, or allow for, evidence that leads to mistaken conclusions. It would be more reasonable to think that God would either provide clear, supporting evidence or leave us with no evidence at all, rather than deliberately offering evidence that contradicts the true events.