1. The first thing to remember is that the Bible is not a science book. Yet, when it does make statements that are of a "scientific" nature, it is correct. That has proven to be the case time and again and regardless of with which branch of science the debate deals. For many centuries now the Bible has proven itself to be a truthful and reliable source of information.
2. The perceived conflicts between the Bible and science arise primarily when one side or the other of the debate dogmatically adheres to a position that is not supported by the demonstrable facts. In a supposed attempt to uphold the Bible, the “creationists”—mostly allied with fundamentalist Protestants—have insisted that the earth and the universe are less than 10,000 years old. This extreme view has invited the ridicule of geologists, astronomers, and physicists, for it contradicts their findings. Some fundamentalists insist that the creative “days” are literal, restricting earthly creation to a period of 144 hours. This provokes skepticism in scientists, for they feel that this claim conflicts with clear scientific observations. I respectfully submit that it is the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible—not the Bible itself—that is at odds with science. The Bible does not say that each creative “day” was 24 hours long; indeed, it includes all these ‘days’ in the much longer “day” showing that not all Biblical ‘days’ contained just 24 hours (Genesis 2:4). There is a very strong Biblical argument that can be made that these days, at the very least, are thousands of years in length. The idea of “creation” has been given a bad name by creationists and fundamentalists. Their dogmatic teachings on the age of the universe and the length of the creative ‘days’ are in harmony neither with reasonable and true science nor with the Bible. Science also has its crackpots, excuse me, scientists who have extreme positions that are held to just as “religiously” and that are not supported by the demonstrable facts. In other words, these conflicts arise due to the failings of men rather than from any real failings found within the Bible.
3. Set aside, just for the moment, the question of time line. And then consider the information presented in the creation accounts recorded in the Bible. Even though they are very brief and simple we are informed of many significant events. And among the sacred writings of the world’s major religions only the Bible relates that God created something out of nothing, this being one of the meanings of the Hebrew word, ba·ra´´, rendered “create”, and some scientists now agree that is what happened. Also, based on demonstrable facts, scientists have now provided us with the order in which life appeared on earth and it is the same order recorded in the Bible over 3500 years ago. There are many scientists who have postulated the steps or significant events that would be required to get from "the beginning point" (again, some scientist now believe that the universe had a beginning point, some even believe that the universe around us demonstrates “design” and “intelligence” and in a form of “creation” but still reject a personal Creator) to an inhabitable earth; those postulations, when boiled down to their most basic elements, are remarkably similar to what we find recorded in Genesis.
4. Now to the question of time line. On one extreme you find the “six 24-hour days” camp and a time line that goes something like this: 6 days (144 hours) + the amount of time between Adam's creation and today = 6000 years give or take. On the other extreme you find many camps that postulate time lines of many billions of years where our sun, solar system and earth are generally thought to be about half the age of the physical universe (I have read recent estimates for the age of the physical universe ranging from 8 – 20 billion years). Interestingly, the positions taken by the camps on either extreme of this question are based on a misreading and a misinterpretation of the record that requires one to exercise a “religious faith” to be able to accept it. No doubt the truth of the matter will not be found in either of the extremes.
5. Let me say this to the ‘six days’ camp. The question is not “Could God create everything in six days (144 hours)?” The answer to that question is: yes, absolutely! Followed up by this question, “What took you so long?” For I firmly believe that if God had chosen to do so He could have created everything instantly and in a fully completed and perfectly livable condition. However, the actual question we are dealing with here is “DID God create everything in six days (144 hours)?” Or did He, being the timeless One, feel no “urgency” and therefore worked within the laws of the physical universe that He Himself established and which may have required the passage of some considerable time (more than 144 hours and less than many billions of years)? If God chooses not to directly reveal the answer then it may require us to live long enough to observe the answer firsthand as we exit the ‘seventh day of rest from creative works’ (which we are still within) and again enter into another period (day) when God produces “creative works”.
6. Let me say this to the “billions of years” camp. Why are there so many different and so widely varied ages given for the earth and the universe if those ages are actually being determined based on a set of demonstrable facts? The obvious answer is that they are not. That puts those “ages” into the realm of theory. And theories must be accepted, not based on demonstrable facts rather, on “belief” or “faith”, isn't that right? Consider this: encyclopedias from around the turn of the last century speak of the ‘scientific estimates’ of the age of the earth and of the time required for ‘evolution’ to do its work as being many millions of years. But now, only a century later, we find that the ‘scientific estimates’ have lengthened by a thousandfold and stretch into the billions of years. Could it be that as men discover how truly complex the universe and the life it contains actually is that more and more time becomes required for their theories to appear believable? I once read a quotation, as best I remember, that was attributed to Louis Pasteur, and the gist of it was that the problem with scientists is that they only get the results they WANT to get. For quite a long time now the vast majority of scientist have been devout atheist/evolutionist. (See #2 above.) Could it be that man does not yet have information accurate enough to be able to come up with the answers? Quite likely. Could it be that one of the major unknowns not accounted for within the scientific calculations is God and his creative activities? No doubt. Now I realize that it is hard to say yes to that last question when you do not even believe in God, therefore, how can you ever hope to find the answer to that question?
7. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) Neither starting date nor duration (short or long) is specified and yet this simple statement provides us much information. First, God did not use preexistent material when creating the physical heavens and earth. This is made clear by using the term “beginning”, if this material (matter) preexisted or had always existed, it would have been inappropriate to use that term. Combine that with the use of the term “created” (from the Hebrew ba·ra´´) used exclusively with reference to divine creation, and as mentioned above, this term means to bring something or someone into existence or to making something from nothing and the message is unmistakable and clear. Interestingly, after creating the earth, the Bible does state that God formed or made “from the ground” beasts and birds (Genesis 2:19). He also “formed man of dust from the ground” (Genesis 2:7). However, Genesis 1:1 stands by itself and is not included in the events of the “first day” which begins in verse three. Therefore, could the heavens and the earth be billions of years old, as scientists claim? They may very well be. Verse one neither requires nor precludes such. But do not forget that many “scientific” claims are based on the quicksand of “theory” rather than the firm foundation of demonstrable fact. The final result of the “beginning” made at Genesis 1:1 is beneath our feet and over our heads.
8. Genesis 1:2 as rendered in the GNB – “the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the Spirit of God was moving over the water.” Living Bible – “the earth was a shapeless, chaotic mass, with the Spirit of God brooding [Rotherham also uses “brooding”] over the dark vapors.” New Revised Standard with Apocrypha – “the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God {Or [while the spirit of God] or [while a mighty wind]} swept over the face of the waters.” What a beautiful word picture! Remember Moses is only hitting the high points for us, so what is going on here that is noteworthy? Opinions vary widely. But at a minimum we can get a sense that “care” is being exercised and that “work” is being done by the “breath” or “wind” of God (see Genesis 3:8 or iii:viii) (problem with emoticons). When Moses comes back in the resurrection we will have to ask him what he thinks this verse is all about. In the mean time, we again find no time references. How much time had past since verse 1 and how long did this interim step or period last? The Bible simply does not specify the time covered. Interestingly, this point/period is referred to by other scriptures such as the first half of Job 38 and Proverbs 8:22-31 and many others besides.
9. The events of the “first day” begin with the first recorded creative declarative, “Let there be light”. Remember that “the heavens and the earth” already existed when that statement was made. But the creationist would have us believe that light was not created along with the “heavens” but was created at this point. That doesn’t make much sense, does it? To them this is a record of light’s creation as if someone flipped a switch and there was a flash of light. But what does the Bible really say? Verse 2 informed us that the surface of the earth was in “total darkness”. At that early point, something—perhaps a mixture of water vapor, other gases, and volcanic dust—must have prevented sunlight from reaching the surface of the earth (Job 8:9). Then in verse three the Bible describes the first creative period this way: “God proceeded to say, ‘Let there be light’; and gradually light came into existence”—Genesis 1:3, A Distinctive Translation of Genesis by J. W. Watts. Where? Not in the universe as a whole but at the surface of the earth that had been in total darkness. Therefore, the case must be that by the close of day one in verse five we find the earth is in its orbit around the sun (providing the light though not yet visible, that doesn’t happen till day four) and rotating on its axis (producing alternating periods of day and night). The expression “gradually . . . came” accurately reflects a form of the Hebrew verb involved, denoting a progressive action that takes time to complete. This verb form can be found some 40 times in Genesis chapter 1, and it is a key to its proper understanding. What God began in the figurative evening of a creative period, age or epoch, became progressively clear, or apparent, in the morning of that “day.” Also, what was started in one period did not have to be fully completed when the next period began. For we find that light gradually began to appear on the first “day,” yet it was not until the fourth creative period that the sun, moon, and stars could be discerned (Genesis 1:14-19).
10. Genesis 1:3-5 from CEV reads: God said, "I command light to shine!" And light started shining. God looked at the light and saw that it was good. He separated light from darkness and named the light "Day" and the darkness "Night." Evening came and then morning--that was the first day. Let’s take a tongue-in-cheek look at the use of the word “day” in the above verses and consider where a truly consistent, strictly literal reading and interpretation will take us: The first use of the term “day” is for the 12-hour period of “light” alternating with the 12-hour period of “darkness” called “night”. Why God himself named that 12-hour period “day”. Therefore, why is it then that when we get to the last word in verse five the term “day” just assigned by God to designate a 12-hour period then suddenly becomes a 24-hour period? And not only that but also this literal 24-hour period begins at evening and ends at morning, a literal 12-hour period? Whoa doggies, am I getting confused or what? Also, that makes it seem that God is a ‘night owl’ who only works at night! Now that makes a lot a sense, doesn’t it? How much more reasonable and sensible it is to accept that “day” can mean something more than just 24 literal hours.
11. I will stop here because this is already much to long and I have already made my point. You say that you missed it. I am not surprised; I hear that often. Therefore, let me summarize for you. The point was/is that the Bible does not give us a time line that can be followed backwards to arrive at a “date” for the beginning of creation. Any effort to do so is an exercise in speculation. The oldest event that can be directly dated from the Bible record with anything near reasonable accuracy is Adam’s creation. Anything beyond that does not find direct scriptural support but must be arrived at by deduction and inference. One final point, a close reading of Job 38 and Proverbs 8:22-31 will reveal that there were ‘creatures’ present at the time of Genesis 1:1. Therefore, creation actually began even earlier than that.