Creation Science

Creation Science Rebuttals

Creation Magazine (Ex Nihilo)

Problems in Interpreting Genesis, Part 1

Ex Nihilo, Volume 2, Issue 3, July 1979

Review by Greg Neyman

© Old Earth Ministries           


     This article by Dr. Noel Weeks seeks to explain how general revelation should not be used to reinterpret scriptures.  First, he starts out with his bias...

Hence to put this paper in its proper context it must be stated that my investigation begins by assuming that the view of Scripture associated with evangelical Christianity is valid.

     However, I as an old earth creationist, as most old earth creationists do, have the exact same bias.

     The point of the entire paper can be summed up with his statement:

It is nonsense to speak of the unique and total authority of Scripture at the same time as we change our interpretation of Scripture to accord with theories drawn from outside Scripture.

     If you are upset that people are coming to the same interpretation that you are, I can see how Dr. Weeks would be upset.   Yes, old earth creationists come to a different interpretation, based on what we see in science.  In fact, we must do this.  We should examine the scriptures, to see if they are true.  We should use whatever means necessary.

     If you are being tried for a crime you did not commit, and the judge did not allow the many pieces of evidence that would free you, you would be mad.  In a court of law, the jury should be allowed to examine all the evidence.  The same is true of the Bible.  Yes, the Bible is the written, special revelation of God, but so is the creation, which is referred to as general revelation.  Since God created it, it will testify to God.  When examined, it says it is billions of years old.  Since God wrote it, and God cannot lie, then it must be true. 

     The argument from young earth creationists, that we should not use general revelation, is not an argument from logic, but it is an argument from necessity.  They CANNOT allow it, because it is contrary to their interpretation of Genesis. 

     About general revelation, he says The question can only be decided by establishing a correct view of general revelation on the basis of Scripture.

     I agree.  Romans 1:20 gives us that.  Click to learn more.  He discusses Romans 1 at length, but fails to answer why it would not give us the right to use general revelation (he CANNOT, because of his necessity to disallow it).  He says that there is no indication in the Bible that general revelation tells us about the "how" of creation.  I agree, but that's not the issue.  God does not reveal the how.  "The Bible is not a book of science.  The Bible is a book of redemption" (Billy Graham quote).  If we want to know how (science), we must study general revelation.

     Next, he says

Secondly Romans 1 is adamant that sinful man suppresses and distorts the revelation of the creation. Any view of the creation that commands a consensus among non-Christians must be suspect. The appeal to certain scientific theories as though they are to be treated as revelation is completely invalidated by the Biblical teaching on general revelation

     I'm perplexed by this saying.  After reading Romans 1, I cannot pinpoint anything that indicates there is a consensus among non-Christians.  Surely this refers to evolution, but the Bible passage makes no claim.  Romans 1:18-20 discusses revelation, but verse 21 on changes into a discussion of moral behavior which has nothing to do with general revelation.

     A little later on, he says

As in the case of evolutionary theory there is a problem created by the fact that much work in the ancient Near Eastern field specifically excludes God’s activity.

     I've seen nothing of the sort out of the ancient Near Eastern field.  It is not the data coming out of the field that is contrary to the Bible, it is the interpretation of that data.  Obviously, if you are approaching the data from a young earth perspective, you will find fault.  However, from a theistic evolution or progressive creationist perspective, there are no problems.

     The rest of the article drags on with inconsequential babble, but nothing that is important for the age of the earth debate.  If you feel otherwise, let me know.    


This article is on the web at


    If you are not a Christian, and you have been holding out on making a decision for Christ because the Church always preached a message that was contrary to what you saw in the scientific world, then rest assured that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and you can believe in Christ and receive salvation, while still believing in an old earth.  Click here for more.


    Are you a Christian who believes in young earth creationism?  Now that we have shown the many difficulties of the young earth creation science model in this and many other articles, how does this impact your Christian life?  If you are a young earth creationism believer, click here.



Creation Magazine 1979


Related Articles

Evolution Articles


To learn more about old earth creationism, see Old Earth Belief, or check out the article Can You Be A Christian and Believe in an Old Earth?  

 Feel free to check out more of this website.  Our goal is to provide rebuttals to the bad science behind young earth creationism, and honor God by properly presenting His creation.