Can the Bible and Science Be Reconciled?

For over a hundred years, a growing body of geological evidence has shown that we live on a very old earth. Assuming that geological processes took place at the same rate in the past as they do now, it seems that the earth must be millions, even billions of years old. This seems to be at odds with a strict interpretation of the Bible which calls for a much younger earth. Which is it? Is the earth several hundred million years old, or is it six thousand years old? Is there any way we can reconcile the scientific need for a young earth with the Biblical account? Actually there is. Some Biblical scholars believe that the Gap Theory of creation can explain this theological problem.

Genesis 1:1 says that, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The next verse says that the earth was "formless and void" and the rest of the chapter describes how God made that formless void into the earth that we know today. Some Biblical scholars now believe that there is actually a gap between the first and second verses of Genesis. These scholars say that God created the heavens and the earth and plants and animals and that creation then became formless and void during Satan's fall. Thus, what we have considered the creation story for so many years, is actually the recreation story.

The good thing about this gap theory is that it explains the geological record and ancient fossils by saying that they were the product of the first creation that, for whatever reason, was destroyed. While some scholars argue on the particulars of how they believe the gap theory works, most of them say that it makes for little disagreement between science and the Bible. Those scholars who believe in divine about 6,000 years ago can use the gap theory to explain some of its most challenging questions. Those scholars may still have some quarrel with historians who believe that recorded human history is older than 6,000 years, but that discrepancy is easier to explain than the billions of years that seem to be missing from the traditional, literal view of creation.