——Scripture says six days, I believe it was six days.———
I’m an I’D guy. I don’t find the scientific evidence for evolution convincing —at all.
But as the medieval Christians said, God wrote two books, Scripture and Creation.
The reason we believe the universe to be intelligible, and natural laws to be uniform, is because God is Intelligibility Itself. He is Truth.
Science depends on this metaphysical presupposition, so it is no coincidence that science was born in the Christian West, and failed in the East and in Islam.
The God of Truth is the God of Scripture and Creation. Scripture cannot contradict Creation, and vice versa. Any conflict is only apparent —a paradox.
So when science tells us that the universe is billions of years old, according to the laws of nature, and God’s other Book tells us that the world is six days old, we have an apparent contradiction.
We must conclude that the ancient author was speaking figuratively, since by his own account, the sun was created on the fourth day. This was St. Augustine’s conclusion.
Augustine
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis
“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).
“With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation” (ibid., 2:9).
“Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them” (ibid., 4:27).
“[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar” (ibid., 5:2).
“For in these days [of creation] the morning and evening are counted until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!” (The City of God 11:6 [A.D. 419]).
“We see that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting [of the sun] and no morning but by the rising of the sun, but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness and called the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night’; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was and yet must unhesitatingly believe it” (ibid., 11:7).
“They [pagans] are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of [man as] many thousands of years, though reckoning by the sacred writings we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed” (ibid., 12:10).
Well, with all due respect to St. Augustine, that isn’t my view. Science has told me for years that eggs were bad for my health, that fat makes people fat, and on and on, and then comes the refutation. I don’t think we should look to outside influences or explanations to try and figure out what’s clear in Scripture.
The Hebrew word “yom” used for the days of creation is used many times outside of Genesis, each time to describe a 24-hour day with evening and night, as in Genesis.
This isn’t the first time I’ve seen the argument that the days couldn’t be literal days because of the 4th-day sun creation. But all that’s necessary for day and night is light and earth rotation, and you’ll note that God created light on the first day. What the nature of that light is, we don’t know, but clearly it was sufficient. Also, remember that Revelation says there will be no sun in the Holy City, because God’s glory will be all the light that’s needed.
I very much disagree with Augustine’s claim that anyone who believes in the six day creation is “speaking idiotically.” As Martin Luther said on the subject, back when some church leaders believed that six days had to mean not millions of years, but an instant, “Grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are.”