From the religious end, when the basis of your faith as a whole gets reduced to defining what a 'day' means and having the "truth" of one's entire understanding of Biblical truth apparently rise and fall on the interpretation of the "literal" meaning of that one word - then there's something wrong. Because that's a pretty flimsy and superficial faith if it can be dismantled by the meaning of a single word.
Scientifically speaking, it does a disservice to the scientific endeavor as it reduces "truth" to existing in only facts and figures and misses the bigger picture. 2+2 indeed equals 4. But when that becomes our only source for "truth" we throw out poetic truth, parabolic truth, and story truth - all of which can be far more profound and have depth of meaning than 2+2=4. It also negates the interpretive nature of scientific study that requires one to take the data and determine "so what does this mean?" (A question I would like to point out is the exact same question Martin Luther asks in his small catechism about scriptural points... here's what scripture says... but "vas is das?" What does this mean?")
Therefore these arguments only sadden me. Primarily because I love the creation accounts of the Bible... and I love science. Because the aim of the religious quest and the science quest are exactly the same: to understand more fully the world around me.
I love discovering all the cool things that exist in our universe. I love spending a summer evening gazing up at the stars and pondering our place in the bigger story of life. I think the creation accounts of the Bible help inform me of that - not apart from what I learn in the science lab, but in conjunction with what I learn there, opening up an amazing creation that continues to unveil new wonders and information. My love and understanding of what is happening in Genesis 1, therefore, has nothing to do with whether or not the earth was created in a literal six days or not.
The creation account is poetic, it's musical - it has spawned such wonderful literary works as CS Lewis' Narnia and Tolkein's Silmarillion, where creation is sung into existence. A harmonious, beautiful creation hymn that points us to the author of life, that expresses the beauty, wonder, and joy that is our world and universe. Its rhythmic recounting of God speaking, creating, and declaring the creation is "good" touches the soul in a way that no "literal" understanding ever can. It makes it so that when I look up at the stars on those warm summer nights - I sense a deeper beauty and meaning behind everything that exists.
Because Genesis 1 tells us something very important: it tells us about our relationship with God. It tells us we aren't an accident. That there was a will behind the created universe. That we matter to God. Personally, I think He's doing a *facepalm* every time this whole "day" issue gets brought up, and goes, "You're missing the point!" The account was not written to refute questions of evolutionary process. It was written to answer a very different question that was important in its day, and is still important today: who is God, what does God do, and what does He want to do with me?
For the people of the ancient Near East, there were many different creation stories that floated around. Some claimed that humanity was created as a by-product of a war between the gods - that we were, essentially, an accident. Others claimed humans were created to be slaves to the gods.
Genesis 1 enters that conversation and rather than slaves or an accident, humans are created due to a divine will, and are then invited to partake in the divine Sabbath. A very different message than the one of its day.
Today - it serves much the same purpose, but we are distracted from engaging that issue due to arguments over the definition of a "day" and evolution. The question of who is God, what is our relationship with Him - and each other - is still a poignant question humans seek to answer, regardless of creation's methodology.
The ancients looked to nature just like modern scientific endeavors look to nature. Make no mistake - the writer's of the Bible were not ignoring science and their world. Quite the opposite. The writers of the Bible were profoundly engaged with concerns regarding how the world worked and observing the world around them. In fact, prior to the Enlightenment, most scientific breakthroughs and theories originated with people who were also theologians. Sir Isaac Newton is best known for his “discovery” of gravity, yet he wrote many more books on theology and church history than he ever did about science and mathematics. To say that the Bible is about the “why” and science is about the “how” is much too simplistic an understanding. The Bible is deeply concerned with the question of “how” as well as “why,” but it employs the understandings of its day and context as well as divine revelation. It invites the reader to understand the world around them on a much deeper level.
Scientists, both ancient and modern - were engaged in the process of this study, interpretation, and application of what they discovered. Truthfully, the only major difference between our view of the world and nature now compared to then is that the ancients attributed actual "power" and a divine will to nature - that the created world was somehow divine, whereas today science approaches nature as being devoid of any divine attributes. In the ancient world, Genesis 1 engaged what people did with their observation of nature: they worshiped the created world rather than the creator behind it.
Oddly enough - that particular issue has not changed much. While our understanding of nature may have shifted and we perhaps do not associate deified entities to trees, stars, rivers, etc., the root problem is still exactly the same. Putting one's faith in the "natural" world is still alive and well. Faith in science as the only means through which truth about our existence can be found is essentially the exact same problem that the writer of Genesis 1 was engaging. From that aspect - Genesis 1 is a timeless truth and an unwavering witness that is not dependent on what science does or does not discover - because it engages the same question either way. Because when one relies solely on the experience and observation of nature to find all of life's answers - you will come to only one final, ultimate answer. Nature is cruel. It is indiscriminate, and eventually - everything dies. End of story.
That's where scripture enters into the discussion. Is it really the end of the story? Is death the final destiny of all life?
God's Word breaks in on the natural world and says no, it's not. That death is not the final word. That the one who spoke life into existence continues to have something to say about this whole life and death thing.
Now I don't know about you - but that's a far more interesting and meaningful discussion and debate to have than whether or not the earth was created in six 24-hour days.
