The topic of the original creation of the earth is one that is heavily debated. There are two major theories as to how the earth was created: the nebular hypothesis and six day creation. The nebular hypothesis is almost always connected to the old-earth perspective where as six day creation is almost always associated with the young-earth viewpoint. The nebular hypothesis and six day creation have both similarities as well as differences, which will be discussed in this paper.
Old-Earth Secular View
As stated before, the old-earth secular view for the topic of the original creation of the earth is the nebular hypothesis. The nebular hypothesis is a theory of the origin of the solar system (Brush, 1987, p. 249). Immanuel Kant, Pièrre-Simon Laplace, and even William Herschel were all contributors to the nebular hypothesis (Brush, 1987, p. 149). Specifically, Pièrre-Simon Laplace played a major role in the creation of this hypothesis. The main idea of Laplace’s hypothesis was that the matter which currently forms the sun, planets, and satellites originally existed in a gaseous state which then formed an immense globe that “extended from the sun’s current position as a centre out to and beyond the orbit of Neptune” (Gore, 1902, p. 179). To put the nebular hypothesis in simpler terms, it basically states that all physical objects in the universe were formed by the motion of particles of matter being scattered through space (Wylie, 1928, p. 260). In space, these particles, which were attracted to one another (according the Newton’s laws of motion), rushed together and formed rotating masses (like the sun) which cooled and then threw off smaller masses that formed planets (Wylie, 1928, p. 260).
The nebular views connection to the old earth perspective was clearly shown through William Herschel’s work. He measured the distance of stars from the earth in relation to their relative brightness and concluded that the stars above were “11 3/4 millions of millions of millions of miles away” (Brush, 1987, p. 253). Herschel then took the knowledge that light takes a finite amount of time to travel such distances and “emphasized that his telescope had the power of penetrating into the past, and that in fact the light coming from the most distant nebulae must have originated two million years also” (Brush, 1987, p. 253). It is clear how the nebular hypothesis is connected to the old-earth perspective.
Young-Earth View
Oppositely, the six day creation perspective is connected to the young-earth view. The six day creation perspective holds that the days mentioned in the Bible during creation week were six literal days. In his article “The Necessity for Believing in Six Literal Days,” Ken Ham discusses the argument for the literal interpretation and refutes against a nonliteral interpretation (1995). Ham supports the argument for the literal interpretation by using the original Hebrew word used in Genesis 1 (1995). The Hebrew word for day used in the creation passages is yom. In respected Hebrew dictionaries (Brown, Driver, Briggs lexicon), yom is actually defined as a literal day because of its use in the Old Testament (Ham, 1995, p. 39). When looking at the Old Testament, every time the word yom is used with a number or with the words “evening and morning”, it is always in reference to an ordinary day time wise (Ham, 1995, p. 39). The fact that yom is only used as a term for a literal day throughout the whole Old Testament is support for the fact that it was used as a term for a literal day in the creation story in Genesis.
Ham then refuted the argument for the earth being millions of years old through the discussion of sin. He points out that the Bible is clear about death, disease, and suffering being a result of sin (Ham, 1995, p. 39. Fossil records consist of the death of billions of creatures (Ham, 1995, p. 39). Ham points out that the earth cannot be billions of years old in order to make fossils of creatures that preceded humans because that means that death, and therefore sin, preceded humans (Ham, 1995, p. 39). Humans brought sin into the world and therefore death and sin cannot precede humans or else the entire doctrine of original sin and the message of the cross are undermined (Ham, 1995, p. 39).
Henry M. Morris brings up the following concluding question in his article The Literal Week of Creation: “If God did not mean what He said in the very first chapter of His book, then why should we take the rest of it seriously?” (1998). This question raises a solid point: if one questions the meaning of a “day” mentioned in the creation story, why believe any other part of the story? Why believe any part of the Bible? From this information, one can see that the six day creation theory works side by side with the young-earth perspective. Comparison of the Viewpoints Although the nebular hypothesis and the six day creation seem like opposites, they do have some similarities. One thing that both have in common is the geological column.
Although the geological column addresses all time periods, even up to today, it starts at the same place for both the nebular hypothesis as well as the the six day creation theory. Both begin in the Hadean eon where there was no life. The geological column remains the same for both the old and new earth perspectives, the only difference being the view of how long it took to get from the beginning to the present (millions vs thousands of years) (Ross, 2015, p. 182). Regardless, the nebular hypothesis and the six day creation theory are similar in that they both begin in the Hadean eon, or the period before life (Ross, 2015, p. 182).
Another way that the nebular hypothesis and the six day creation theory are similar is that they both involve the sun, stars, and earth. The nebular hypothesis is based off of the formation of the sun, stars and planets. Herschel’s work also discusses the age of the earth in relation to the sun and stars. The six day creation theory also involves the earth, sun, and stars as they are formed over the six days (earth on day one and sun and stars on day four. The presence of the sun, stars, and earth is present in both the nebular hypothesis and the six day creation theory and therefore serves as a similarity for the two.
Contrast of the Viewpoints
Of course, the nebular hypothesis and six day creation theory not only have similarities, but also have differences. An obvious difference is their relation to views on the age of the earth. The nebular hypothesis is related to the old-earth view (as seen through Herschel’s work) and the six day creation theory is related to the new-earth perspective (as seen through Ham’s refutation of sin coming before humans).
Another way the nebular hypothesis and the six day creation theory differ is their connection to a higher being. The nebular hypothesis is based only off of physics and science. The collision of matter and formation of stars and planets happens without intention design. Oppositely, the six day creation theory is based off of the idea of a creator. A higher being (God) was the creator and set the world into motion. In the six day creation theory, God created the heavens and the earth. He created life and everything else. God took on the role of creator and formed the earth, sun, stars, and everything else with purpose and design. The connection to a higher being, and therefore intention design, is one major way that the nebular hypothesis and the six day creation theory differ.
Conclusion
In conclusion, remember that there are two main approaches to answering the topic of the original creation of the earth. These approaches are the nebular hypothesis and the six day creation theory. These approaches explain the creation of the earth in very different ways and each side with the opposite view of the age of the earth. The nebular hypothesis and the six day creation theory have similarities as well as differences, but the end, they are both just different attempts to answer the same question of how the earth was formed.
