The Creation of Angels/Spirits; Genesis 1; and the Big Bang
Atheists Pg > Atheists Bible Challenge
By Stephen Michael Leininger
Published: 07/12/2026
STOSS Books
The Creation of Angels/Spirits; Genesis 1; and the Big Bang
Introduction
One of the main targets of STOSS is to show that God, the TRUE and ULTIMATE Scientist-in-Chief, created the Universe as a means for man to know, love, and serve Him. For example, this website contains two articles titled The Thirty-Four Mysteries of Biology [and cosmology] Hidden in Scripture and Why Haven’t Biologists Connected DNA to Dust in Bible and Why They Should.” Since God created all about which scientists seek to understand, God’s creation, Scripture should logically contain scientific truths, though often hidden in the form of phenomenological and mythical languages, especially since the science is presented in applied science fashion.
We know that before God spoke the words, “Let it Be” (aka the Divine Fiat), only God existed in the infinite, eternal now. After the Divine Fiat, creation was immediately made ex nihilo (created from nothing). Many believe the Big Bang was that instant. According to Michel-Yves Bollore, & Oliver Bonnassies:
The Standard Model of the Big Bang is thus supported by such a large number of probative observations that the vast majority of cosmologists now accept its central claims. It very precisely describes a Universe whose structure came to be at the dawn of time. This Universe has not existed for all eternity: it came into existence at a finite point in the past. The origin of the Universe suggested by this model is an absolute beginning. This is a radical claim whose implications deserve to be fully investigated: matter and energy, even time and space, came into existence in this instant of initial cosmological “singularity.”[1]
To get some idea of the energy created in the Big Bang, consider this: Scientists studying the Shroud of Turin estimate that the energy powerful enough to produce the vacuum ultraviolet radiation necessary to reproduce the image on the Shroud would be roughly thirty-four thousand billion watts of energy.[2] Keep in mind, this energy was mediated through his resurrected physical (glorified but not mortal) body! So the amount of energy produced by Divine Light on the singularity is unimaginable.
In my opinion, this is one example of why we should heed the words in Gaudium et Spes. In it is written, “It is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man [including the biology of that flesh] truly becomes clear.”[3]
Angelic spirits did not exist before that Divine Fiat. We know this because time was also created at the Big Bang.[4] Add to this the teaching that angelic spirits are described as being aeviternal, i.e., having a beginning but no end. It can thus be surmised that, according to Augustine, they were created within the first biblical day, after the Big Bang.[5]
Additionally, by showing the correspondence between the post-Big Bang timeline and the six Days of creation in Genesis 1, we see that “Day” as used in Genesis almost certainly does not refer to a literal 24-hour day.
Catholic sources commonly teach that God governs the universe through angels, usually describing this as angelic ministry, divine governance, or the execution of God’s providence rather than “managing the universe” in a modern sense. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says angels are God’s servants and messengers.[6]
According to Catholic Answers:
[The higher choirs of angels] don’t function here below and neither do many other of the orders of angels. But the ones closest to us deal with human society, human concerns, the governance of the material universe itself. And then all the way down to the governance and guidance of individuals, the so called guardian angels, which we all have.[7]
Incorporating Science and Genesis 1
As mentioned above, Augustine taught that the angelic realm was created during the First Day with God’s command, ‘Let there be light’ (Gen 1:3–5). He supported this interpretation by appealing to Job 38:7, which he understood to indicate that angels existed before the fourth day, when the stars were created. Since the sun was made on the fourth day, the Light God created must, in all likelihood, have been made on the first Day (Gen 1:3), when pure energy was made (After about 10-43 seconds of the Big Bang).
This view represents one approach within patristic theology to locating the angelic creation within the Genesis account. Other Church Fathers and later interpreters have proposed different timings. However, Augustine’s specific attribution of angelic creation to God’s ‘Let there be Light’ command remains the most historically documented position linking the angels to this particular verse.[8] Does science concord with his interpretation?
To start, Bollore & Bonnassies write:
At CERN[9] in Geneva, it is now possible to reconstruct the energies that existed one second after the Big Bang, enabling experimental verification of theories during this period. Before 10-10 seconds, the theories are not verified, and before 10-43 seconds, we do not have and may never have a theory.[10][11]
With the above qualifications in mind, the post-Big Bang timeline of creation can be held as fairly and scientifically accurate. The CERN data, as revealed by Bollore and Bonnassies, would be an accurate scientific description of the first four Days of creation as described in Genesis 1. For Days five and particularly the second half of Day six, the main scientific disciplines would be Biology, Biochemistry, Quantum Biology, Microbiology, and Organic Chemistry. Related disciplines (Day five and first part of Day six) include Botany, Zoology, Ecology, and Systematics/Taxonomy.
In general, the first five of the nine scientific disciplines would also apply to Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib in Genesis 2 as well as to any treatment in Scripture of salt, dust, stone, rock, sea (see Connotations). The geological sciences would also contribute to our biblical understanding of these latter terms.
Genesis 1: Day One
Genesis 1 reads:
(v.1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [I believe this verse specifically refers to the Big Bang event itself. The creation of all subsequent matter begins with verse 2.](v.2) The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.(v.3) And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.(v.4) And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.(v.5) God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening, and there was morning, one day.
The Planck Time and Day 1
After about 10-43 seconds (known as Planck time), we can start to describe the Universe’s evolution with some confidence, using inflation theory, general relativity for gravity, and the standard model of particle physics for the other three forces. At that stage, the Universe was compressed into an unimaginably tiny volume, around 10-35 meters across, with a temperature near 1032 kelvin and an energy of about 1019 GeV (one giga-electronvolt is about 1.602×10−10 joules), consequently, no stable matter could exist, not yet even Hydrogen (a single free positively charged proton is a hydrogen nucleus, or H+); it was essentially pure energy which, as shall be seen in the section on The Photon Epoch, would not be visible/observable—just as angelic spirits are not visible. However, it must be noted that we may never have a theory on exactly what pure energy means.[12]
From that point onward, the total amount of mass-energy in the Universe is taken to be fixed, changing only as the Universe expands.[13] Since angelic spirits are pure energy, the First Day in Genesis seems the most likely time for their creation. For it is the time when God said, “Let there be Light.” As mentioned above, this is the interpretation Augustine held.
Genesis 1: Day Two
Genesis 1 reads:
(v.6) And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”(v.7) And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so.(v.8) And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
Day Two appears to be the point during which the angelic spirits were tested by God. Verse 2 of Genesis 1 uses “waters” in the context of the waters above, which the Spirit of God was moving over. It was through the Spirit that the angelic spirits were formed, given a rational intellect.
However, in Day Two of Genesis v.7, God created a firmament[14]The Hebrew word for “firmament” in Genesis 1:6 is raqiya`. It means an expanse that is fixed rather than solid., which He called Heaven (‘H’ is capitalized to denote a particular place/thing distinct from the lowercase ‘h’ in the more general term ‘heaven(s)’ listed on the Third Day of creation[15]). This seems to point to the place where God dwelt,[15B] along with the unfallen angels, those who chose obedience to God’s will. Remember, the entirety of Genesis 1 took place before the fall of man and, therefore, before the fall of all of creation (Cf. Rom 8:18-23).
This ties into that which separates the light from the dark (v. 3-5). After all, the dark angels were thrown out of Heaven. Recall the story of the rich man and Lazarus. As Luke writes, “Between Heaven and Hell was a chasm that could not be crossed by either side” (Lk 16:19-26, 10:17–20). The firmament, i.e., Heaven, was that chasm.
As a side note: the above seems to indicate that Creation, the Temple of God in Genesis 1, will never be annihilated, but freed from decay, as suggested by the Gloria prayer: “Glory be to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.”
St. Hildegard, too, seems to say as much. She writes:
[O]f all the strengths of God’s creation, Man’s is most profound, made in a wondrous way with great glory from the dust of the earth and so entangled with the strengths of the rest of creation that he can never be separated from them; for the elements of the world, created for Man’s service, wait on him, and Man, enthroned as it were in their midst, by divine disposition presides over them.[16]
According to Wesley Crouser:
Levenson and Walton have identified parallels between the creation account in Gen 1 and the construction of the wilderness tabernacle and Solomonic temple.[17] They suggest that the similarities between the construction of the cosmos [Heaven] and the tabernacle indicates that Gen 1 considers the created world itself to be a cosmic temple.
The Hadron epoch and Day 2
Between 10-6 and 10-4 seconds after the Bang, quarks combine to form the total amount of hadrons, i.e., protons and neutrons, that will constitute all matter. After this short hadron phase, the creation of new protons and neutrons will never again be possible in the Universe.[18]
Aquinas and Creation
The Hadron Epoch supports Aquinas’ belief that, after the ex nihilo creation of all matter on the first day (specifically, after verse 1 of Genesis 1, all matter (including photonic light, aka created light) was formed from the Big Bang.
Aquinas wrote:
3) The final stage of the second creation was opus ornatus (the work of adornment).
According to Aquinas, the creation of animals would fall within the work of adornment.[21] In the first creation out of nothing (the Big Bang), matter with some general form is made at once. Whereas in the work of formation (further classified as distinction and adornment), totally new substantial forms (the various types of souls) are immediately and supernaturally infused into living matter (matter such as dust / salt / stone of the earth) by God into that which was produced in the first creation.
Everything made after the first creation, which I believe is described by Gen 1:1, starts with Gen 1:2 onward to Gen 1:31.[22] The latter two stages in Aquinas’ account of creation would involve pre-existing matter and would be described in Scripture employing phenomenological and mythical language.[23]
According to Aquinas, creation is the production of something in its entirety: matter and its substantial form.[24] Since angels/spirits were almost certainly formed after the original “Bang” and are aeviternal, they would have formed by the Holy Spirit from the energy the singularity created.
Important to note is that protons are also described as Hydrogen ions. What is the main component of water? Hydrogen! Water becomes visible when two Hydrogen ions bind to one Oxygen. When Scripture refers to the waters, could hydrogen be a component of what is being referred to? The Holy Spirit is referred to as Living Water. In the view of STOSS, the Holy Spirit uses water instrumentally (bio-living water) to effect the ordered function of the body.
Furthermore, hydrogen is inextricably linked to energy/light. The Sun is powered by nuclear fusion in its core, where hydrogen nuclei (each nucleus consisting of a single proton; an H+ proton-H+ proton chain) combine to form helium and release energy. Think also of a hydrogen bomb.
What do “waters” in Genesis 1 mean? At around 15 minutes after the Bang (see “Matter Setting Period” further below), the Universe consisted primarily (about 92%) of hydrogen nuclei, each consisting of a single proton+1. Two-thirds of a physical water molecule consists of (H+1) atoms consisting of a proton nucleus. Oxygen didn’t even exist then. So, as a theological-linguistic observation rather than as a chemistry claim, the human authors of Genesis 1, inspired by the Holy Spirit, could be using the waters-hydrogen to phenomenologically link waters with spirits post-Big Bang.
Scripture supports the phenomenological link between water (H2O, 2 protons and one Oxygen. Hmmm, isn’t the Spirit the Breath of life?), living water, and spirit/Spirit. It is through the actions of the Holy Spirit that bodies of H2O are parted (see Gen 1:6-7; Ex 14:15-22; Josh 3:5-17 through 4:1-18; 2 Kgs 2:5-9, 12-15). Jesus said that we must be baptized in water and Spirit (Jn 3:3-7). In Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, an inextricable link is established among the Spirit, fire (the Holy Spirit), and water (Ex 13:17, 21-22; 14:19, 24; 33:9-10; Num 14:14; Deut 31:15). Each passage links a pillar of cloud (composed largely of droplets of water) and/or a pillar of fire, which is also linked to the Spirit, e.g. Pentecost and tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).
According to Hildegard of Bingen:
Because the soul has a fiery nature, we are warm-blooded creatures. Its paths are windy in nature. The soul inhales the breath of life into the body and then expels it. By inhaling, we dry out, which is good for us since our flesh remains healthy and flourishes as a result of the dryness. By exhaling, the fire of the organism is diminished and warmth is removed. . . . If that warmth were not discharged from the body, the fire of the soul might burn the body, just as a house might be completely destroyed by the heat of a fire. The power of the soul clothes us with flesh and blood and completes us as a total unity, just as all the fruits of the Earth are ripened by the blowing of the winds. Through the fiery capacity of the soul, we are also able to realize that we possess God, and through the breath of the spirit we understand that we can act within our body.[25]
The soul, as Hildegard calls it, must be understood in the context of the spiritual soul. It is the lower powers, i.e., the soul, of the spiritual soul that generates heat. I actually wrote this article in preparation for my next article in which I explicate the differences between vegetative, sensitive, and spiritual souls.
Bioenergetics and bio-regulation involve the interaction of photons with the electrons that are part of the atoms that make up all matter within the living organism. Structured Biological Water (aka bio-living water) is vital to that interaction. This process may seem counterintuitive, but water in its hydrogen-oxygen components are essential for the regular combustion flow in living cells. Even more startling is that water itself can be burnt by splitting water molecules.[26] Obviously, this would result in the emission of photons. Water burning refers to the transformation of ordinary H2O (the water molecule) being changed into H2O2 (Hydrogen Peroxide gas) through various means within the body and then being split—separating the hydrogen atom(s) from the oxygen atom(s).[27]
Hydrogen is an energy source, and oxygen gas (O2) is a vast energy store. However, due to the laws of quantum physics, the O2 must be activated before it can release its energy (in the form of photons). This activation occurs when it comes into contact with an atom with two unpaired electrons, triggering a chain of events that allows the oxygen to release electromagnetic energy (light) with each successive electron reduction.[27B]
The Quark Epoch
After 10-12 seconds of the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces are then definitively separated. The Universe is filled with a hot (energy in the physical creation generates heat, as evidenced by the presence of extreme temperatures post-Big Bang), dense quark–gluon plasma, containing quarks, electrons, other leptons, and their antiparticles.[28]
Matter Setting Period
At about fifteen minutes after the Big Bang, the basic composition of the universe is nearly fixed. It consists primarily of hydrogen nuclei, i.e., protons (about 92%), with helium making up roughly 8%, tiny amounts of deuterium (around 0.002%), and only trace quantities of lithium (about one part in a trillion). Once the temperature falls below one billion degrees, the relative amounts of these light elements become permanently established.[29]
The Photon Epoch
From about 15 minutes to 380,000 years after the Big Bang, energetic photons govern the universe’s rapid expansion. These high-energy photons continually disrupt the formation of atoms by preventing electrons from stably binding to atomic nuclei. By ~380,000 years, when the first atoms and visible light emerge, the temperature has fallen to roughly 3,000 kelvins.At this point, photons no longer carry enough energy to break apart newly formed atoms as electrons attach to nuclei. The universe then becomes transparent, allowing light to travel freely in straight paths through space. With photonic light now becoming visible, the first widespread radiation was emitted uniformly in all directions. This ancient radiation is what we now call the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), discovered by Penzias and Wilson in 1964. Even today, this relic radiation fills space—about 411 photons occupy every cubic centimeter.[30]
The First Cosmic Dark Age and First Stars
Between 380,000 years and 1 billion years, the Universe enters a first dark age, but slight variations in the density of matter (an anisotropy factor of only 1:100,000) lead gradually to the production of clumps of dust that eventually, after 150 to 200 million years, will make it possible to ignite the first stars. These early stars group together in the first galaxies (observable today as quasars).[31]The Formation of Heavy Elements After 3 to 5 billion years, the first generations of stars end their lives as supernovas, creating the conditions for the formation of the heavy elements in Mendeleev’s periodic table.[32] Besides the hydrogen, helium, deuterium, and lithium that formed in earlier ages, all the atoms that make up our planet, our body, and the things we use every day come from this “stardust.”
Genesis 1: Day Three
Genesis 1 reads:
(v.9) And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.(v.10) God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.(v.11) And God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth.” And it was so.(v.12) The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.(v.13) And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
Day Three: An Exegetical Hurdle
At this point in Genesis 1, we find ourselves in a bit of a conundrum. In Day 3 (beginning in v.11), we read of the bringing forth of vegetation, plants, and trees bearing fruit. Why is this a problem? Because the Sun, moon, and stars aren’t created until Day Four.
How do other exegetes answer that conundrum? According to Verbum’s AI-assist:
One influential perspective argues that the sun, moon, and stars became distinctly visible from Earth’s surface for the first time on Creation Day Four[32B], but this doesn’t necessarily mean they were created on that day. The Hebrew verb form used in Genesis 1:16 doesn’t specify when the sun and stars were made, and the initial creation account in Genesis 1:1 places the making of the sun and stars before the six creation days.[32C] Under this reading, Day Four marks visibility rather than creation—perhaps atmospheric conditions changed, allowing the heavenly bodies to become observable from Earth’s surface.
The most straightforward resolution follows the first approach: Genesis 1:1 describes the initial creation of all heavenly bodies, while the narrative of Days 1–6 describes how creation became progressively visible and functional from an earthly perspective. Day Four’s account focuses on the sun’s appointed role in governing day and night, not on its origin. This reading harmonizes the sequence of visibility with the logical necessity of solar energy for plant photosynthesis.
Other credible theologians hold distinct positions on this question, each attempting to resolve the apparent chronological problem in different ways.
John Walton, an Old Testament professor at Wheaton College, proposes that Genesis addresses functional creation rather than material origins. The ancient Near Eastern authors weren’t concerned with the physical origins of matter itself but with assigning functions and purposes. From this perspective, the sun was “created” not when hydrogen atoms began fusing but when God “made the sun to shine for us and our benefit.”[32D] This interpretation sidesteps the chronological tension entirely by reframing what the text intends to communicate.A second approach emphasizes literary structure over strict chronology. Genesis 1 displays intentional literary parallelism where the first three days correspond to days four through six, suggesting the account may be topically arranged rather than strictly chronological. While this arrangement creates difficulties for a literal reading—vegetation flourishing before the sun seems physically impossible—a topical arrangement need not sacrifice the account’s historicity.[32E]A third view treats Genesis 1 as a literary framework where God “forms” domains in days 1–3 and “fills” them with occupants in days 4–6. The sun and stars on Day 4 accomplish what was initiated on Day 1—separating light from darkness—creating thematic coordination between the days. Focusing exclusively on literal chronology obscures these intentional theological connections.[32F]
The hermeneutic preferred in this article is the one explicated in The Ignatius Catholic Bible Study. According to ICSB:
Genesis pictures the newly created world in a state of primeval chaos. Submerged in water and shrouded in darkness, it is a place that is unfit for habitation and life. The author conveys this idea by describing it as something “without form and void” (Gen 1:2). This twofold problem of formlessness and emptiness is important because it sets the stage for the days of creation that follow, where God imposes order on the chaos in two phases: on days 1–3 he forms the world into its temporal and spatial dimensions, and on days 4–6 he fills the world with its designated rulers. Genesis thus arranges the creation account in symmetrical fashion, with the first three days corresponding to the second three days (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae 1, 70, 1).[32G]
So, as a result of this understanding, a linear scientific time frame would be applicable to days 1 through 3, but a separate one for days 4 through 6. More succinctly put: The linear scientific timeline applicable to Day 3 is the same timeline, though the alignment is slightly offset, that is applicable to Day 4.
The Science of Day 3
· 4.55 billion years ago [9.25 billion years after the Big Bang (BB)]: Let there be light: The Sun begins fusing hydrogen into helium.· 4.5 billion years ago [9.25 billion years after BB]: Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars form. A Mars-sized planet collides with Earth, and the debris forms the Moon.· 4.5 to 4.1 billion years ago [9.3 billion years after BB]: The Sun gravitationally separates from its protostar siblings.· 4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago [9.7-10 billion years after BB]: The giant planets’ orbits shift, scattering small worlds throughout the solar system. Some bombard the inner planets and likely deliver water and organics to Earth.· 4 to 3 billion years ago [9.8-10.8 billion years after BB]: Small world bombardment causes widespread volcanism on the inner planets.· 3.8 to 3.5 billion years ago [10-10.3 billion years after BB]: Life begins on Earth. Also bacteria [bacteria have been present since early Precambrian time, about 3.5 billion years ago. Bacteria were widespread on Earth at least since the latter part of the Paleoproterozoic, roughly 1.8 billion years ago, when oxygen appeared in the [Earth’s] atmosphere[32H]· 3 billion years ago [10.8 billion years after BB]: Mars loses most of its atmosphere and water.· 2.5 billion years ago [11.3 billion years after BB]: Photosynthetic organisms evolve on Earth and pump oxygen into our atmosphere, helping create the blend of gases we breathe today.
The end of the 3rd day constitutes the culmination of the three days dedicated to the formation of creation. The time devoted to giving creation temporal and spatial dimensions.[32I] Starting with Day 4, God fills the “emptiness” with life—culminating in creation’s designated ruler.
Genesis 1: Day Four
Genesis 1 reads:
(v.14) And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens [lowercase ‘h’] to separate the day from the night;(v.15) and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.(v.16) And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.(v.17) And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth,(v.18) to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.(v.19) And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
The Science of Day Four
As was discussed above, approximately nine billion years after the Big Bang, our Sun begins to form as a third-generation (Population I) star.[33] All of the cosmological sciences discussed about Day 3 is recapitulated in Day 4. Day 3 completed God’s work of bringing form to the formlessness described in Genesis 1:2. However, Day 4 is the beginning of three days during God fills the “void” described in Genesis 1:2. What does God fill it with? Complex life, culminating in man created in his image and likeness. It was at the culmination of Genesis 1:56 that all that was necessary for biological rational man to exist was accomplished.
Genesis 1: Day Five
Genesis 1 reads:
(v.20) And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens.”(v.21) So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.(v.22) And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”(v.23) And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
Note: It wasn’t until these forms of complex life that God gives the command to be fruitful and multiply.
Genesis 1: Day Six
The Bible describes the sixth day thus:
(v.24) And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so.(v.25) And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.(v.26) Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”(v.27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.(v.28) And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”(v.29) And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.(v.30) And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.(v.31) And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.
Note that Creation was only described as “very good” after the creation of man, who was made in the image and likeness of God. Male and female, he created them.
What do Scientists Say About Atheism/Darwinism?
I want to be clear. None of the scientific discussions above should be interpreted as supporting a cosmic Darwinism/pagan/New Age hypothesis in which spirits could have naturally evolved, without the intervention of the Holy Spirit, from energy created during the Big Bang.
Neo-Darwinism is slowly but surely suffering a science-based demise. A thorough scientific rebuttal of this theologically dangerous hypothesis, one even encroaching on religious institutions, especially as it affects the exegesis of Adam and Eve’s creation, is near the top of my list of planned articles to write. All three of the above ideologies are part of Satan’s 100 to 120-year plan to destroy the Church (see Beast of Revelation, Parts One, Two, and Three).
Genesis 1:2 reads, “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.” This biblical event occurred on the First Day of creation, the time frame discussed in the science above. Spirits are pure intellect. As such, the Holy Spirit would have given them their intellect—their substantial form. However, until they passed the test, to which God subjects all who are created in His image, the Holy Spirit did not dwell within them. As such, they did not participate in the beatific vision of God.
Bollore & Bonnassies cite four credible scientists who use science to help rule out materialism and those who attempt to deify nature (Pagans, New Agers, etc.). They are:
1) Arno A. Penzias, 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics:To be in accord with our observations, we must understand that not only is there a creation of matter but also the creation of space and time. My argument is that the best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.[34]And:Astronomy leads us to [a] unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing.[35]2) Alexander Vilenkin, a physicist at Tufts University and co-author with Arvind Borde and Alan Guth of the great cosmological theorem confirming that the Universe had a beginning:It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.[36]3) Max Planck (For whom the Planck Epoch is named):All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.[37]4) Igor and Grichka Bogdanov:But then, if the singularity at the origin of the Universe is now well established scientifically, why does it arouse so much passion, not to mention rejection? Surely it is because it forces us to make an impossible choice: between a Universe without cause, or the face of God.[38]
Conclusion
All too often, I hear well-meaning exegetes tell us that we should not think of the Bible as a science book. I understand their reasons. Scripture is not a science textbook. To believe so can be theologically problematic and provide atheists with tools advantageous to their God-less agenda.
However, this does not undermine the accuracy of the statement that the Bible is the most advanced science book ever written. How are we to reconcile the two positions? Scripture is written in the style of applied science[39], using the language of myth and phenomenology. Scientist John Lennox writes:
Suppose, for instance, that God had intended to explain the origin of the universe and life to us in detailed scientific language. . . . If the biblical explanation were at the level, say, of twenty–second–century science, it would likely be unintelligible to everyone [and would remain so for many thousands of years]. . . . Rather than scientific language, the Bible often uses what is called phenomenological language—the language of appearance. It describes what anyone can see.[40]
Regarding myth, it is widely accepted that Genesis 1 and 2 use mythical language. Does that then mean the creation of Adam and Eve is an allegory, fable, or a parable? Not just no, but hell no![41] Bernard Batto defines myth as language used to express realities that transcend human understanding yet are nonetheless profoundly true.[42] The language of myth conveys a paradigmatic shift in human knowledge.[43] A linguistic tool often used to communicate such paradigms is paradigmatic substitution.[44] The term “Big Bang” is a modern-day application of that concept. It reflects the mythic formulation used in ancient Hebrew Scripture.[45] Ancient Hebrew scholars shared a mythic vocabulary with neighboring cultures.[46]
Those who interpret Genesis as nothing more than allegory or metaphor are prone to serious misinterpretations. Mythical language was used to express profound theological truths, not to propagate fables. The Genesis writer(s) specifically endeavor to avoid mythical vocabulary contradicting those theological truths.[47]
It is in this context that science and Scripture accord with each other, and demonstrate Scripture as the most advanced science (especially biology)—True Science—book ever written. Three quick examples are: DNA is dust (Gen 1:9) and salt[48] of the earth (Mt 5:13), and Lot’s wife became a pillar of salt (Gen 19:26).
ENDNOTES:
[1] Bollore, Michel-Yves & Oliver Bonnassies, God, the Science, the Evidence, trans. Rebecca M. West and Christine Elizabeth Jones (Luxembourg, Palomar, 2025), Kindle Edition, p. 106, eISBN: 978-9-99878-241-9.
[2] Marco Tosatti, “The Shroud is not a fake,” Vatican Insider, https://web.archive.org/web/20170509131532/http://www.lastampa.it/2011/12/12/vaticaninsider/eng/inquiries-and-interviews/the-shroud-is-not-a-fake-jdiKKEyJ0uDsE4XpV13TcK/pagina.html#:~:text=The%20Shroud%20is%20not%20a%20fake: La Stampa, Dec. 12, 2011 (accessed 12/15/2011).
[3] Catholic Church, “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium Et Spes,” in Vatican II Documents (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2011), nos. 22, 41 ; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), n. 359 ; cf. TOB.]
[4] Bollore, Michel-Yves & Oliver Bonnassies, God, the Science, the Evidence, p. 106.
[5] Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Inter-Varsity Press, 1989), 75 ; cf. Ovie, A. V., “The Creation and Fall of Angels In Augustine’s Interpretation of Genesis 1,” IGWEBUIKE: An African Journal of Arts and Humanities 7, no. 2 (2021): 212–227, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23433.67684.
[6] Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), nos. 328–330.
[7] Fr. Hugh Barbour, “What Do Catholics Believe About Angels?” Catholic Answers, 04/13/2020, https://www.catholic.com/audio/caf/what-do-catholics-believe-about-angels#:~:text=the%20very%20highest.-,But%20those%20angels,-don%E2%80%99t%20function%20here.
[8] Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Inter-Varsity Press, 1989), 75 ; cf. Ovie, A. V., “The Creation and Fall of Angels In Augustine’s Interpretation of Genesis 1,” IGWEBUIKE: An African Journal of Arts and Humanities 7, no. 2 (2021): 212–227, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23433.67684.
[9] CERN is the European Organization for Nuclear Research, a major particle-physics laboratory near Geneva. It studies the fundamental structure of matter using large scientific instruments, including the Large Hadron Collider.
[10] A negative exponent applied to a temporal interval (e.g., 10−𝑥 seconds) denotes a duration shorter than one second. As the magnitude of the negative exponent increases, the corresponding interval decreases proportionally, yielding progressively shorter time spans.
[11] Bollore, Michel-Yves & Oliver Bonnassies, God, the Science, the Evidence, trans. Rebecca M. West and Christine Elizabeth Jones (Luxembourg, Palomar, 2025), Kindle Edition, p. 110, Chapter five note#88, eISBN: 978-9-99878-241-9.
[12] As was written earlier: i.e., before 10-10 seconds, the theories are not verified, and before 10-43 seconds, we do not have, and may never have, a theory (Bollore & Bonnassies, God, the Science, the Evidence, p. 110, Chapter 5 note #88). At this time, the existence of Spirits is not scientifically testable.
[13] Bollore, God, the Science, the Evidence, pp. 104-106.
[14] The Hebrew word for “firmament” in Genesis 1:6 is raqiya`. It means an expanse that is fixed rather than solid (James Strong, “H7549-Firmament,” The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2010), Hebrew and Aramaic Section, p. 267.) ; The Literal Sense of ‘Firmament’ is a boundary, an “expanse on which celestial bodies appear to be projected” Jeremy Thompson, “firmament,” Biblical Word Senses Dataset, with Contributions from Sean Boisen, Mark Keaton, Jeremy Thompson, David Witthoff, DB:WORD-SENSES2023-07-28T13:51:49ZWordSenses.lbswsd, (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press and Faithlife, 2009 and 2012-2015), accessed through Verbum 10 Academic Edition).
[15] Defending the Faith Study Bible: Notes (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, Inc., 2019), p. 7, ISBN: 9781600631276 eISBN: 9781600631702.
[15B] Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch, Genesis: With Introduction, Commentary, and Notes, ed. Revised Standard Version and Second Catholic Edition, The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), 18.
[16] Hildegard of Bingen, Hildegard of Bingen: Scivias, ed. Bernard McGinn, trans. Columba Hart and Jane Bishop, The Classics of Western Spirituality (New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1990), p. 98, ISBN: 0-8091-3130-7 (pbk) ; cf. Garden of Eden Parts One and Two.
[17] Levenson, Creation, 78–99; Beale, Temple and the Church’s Mission, 29–80 ; Walton, Genesis 1, 178–92 ; both cited in Wesley Crouser, “Cosmology,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
[18] Edward W. Kolb and Michael S. Turner, The Early Universe (New York: Addison-Wesley, 1994), cited in Bollore, Michel-Yves & Oliver Bonnassies, God, the Science, the Evidence, trans. Rebecca M. West and Christine Elizabeth Jones (Luxembourg, Palomar, 2025), Kindle Edition, pp. 104-106, eISBN: 978-9-99878-241-9.
[19] Aquinas employs the phrase, “Per opus creationis instituta est tota creatura quantum ad esse suum informe [Through the work of creation, all creation was established as to its formless being],” (Super Sententiarum Librum (Super Sent. Lib.), 2 d. 12 q. 1 a. 5 co, Super Sent. Lib. 2 d. 15 q. I pr.). Thomas recognizes the first article of the Creed speaks about opus creationis (Super Sent. Lib. 2 d. 17 q. 2 a. 2 arg. 3), cited in Michael Chaberek, Aquinas and Evolution (Southwestern British Columbia, Canada: The Chartwell Press, 2017), p. 54, footnote #56; ISBN: 9-780991-98805-1 (paperback).
[20] The creation of plants is attributed to the work of distinction (cf. Aquinas, ST, 1, Q. 66-74, cited in Chaberek, Aquinas and Evolution, p. 55).
[21] cf. Aquinas, ST. 1, Q. 66-74.
[22] Chaberek, Aquinas and Evolution, p. 55.
[23] John Lennox, Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), pp. 66-68, ISBN: 978-0-310-12782-6.
[24] Aquinas, ST. I, Q. 65, A. 3, co ; cf. ST. I, Q. 45, A. 4 ad. 3 ; cited in Chaberek, Aquinas and Evolution, p. 55, footnote #60.
[25] Hildegard of Bingen, Hildegard of Bingen’s Book of Divine Works (De Operatione Dei): With Letters and Songs, ed. Matthew Fox, trans. Robert Cunningham (Santa Fe, NM: Inner Traditions/Bear & Company, 1987), Kindle Edition, Locations 2201-2214, ISBN 978-1-59143-818-2 (eBook).
[26] Vladimir L. Voeikov, “Biological Significance of Active Oxygen-Dependent Processes in Aqueous Systems,” Water and the Cell, ed. Gerald H. Pollack, Ivan L. Cameron, Denys N. Wheatly (The Netherlands: Springer, 2006), 287, 289-292.
[27] Vladimir L. Voeikov, “Biological Significance of Active Oxygen-Dependent Processes in Aqueous Systems,” Water and the Cell, ed. Gerald H. Pollack, Ivan L. Cameron, Denys N. Wheatly (The Netherlands: Springer, 2006), 287, 289-292.
[27B] Vladimir L. Voeikov, “Biological Significance of Active Oxygen-Dependent Processes in Aqueous Systems,” Water and the Cell, ed. Gerald H. Pollack, Ivan L. Cameron, Denys N. Wheatly (The Netherlands: Springer, 2006), 287, 288-289.
[28] Bollore, Michel-Yves & Oliver Bonnassies, God, the Science, the Evidence, trans. Rebecca M. West and Christine Elizabeth Jones (Luxembourg, Palomar, 2025), Kindle Edition, pp. 104-106, eISBN: 978-9-99878-241-9.
[29] Bollore, God, the Science, the Evidence, pp. 104-106.
[30] Bollore, God, the Science, the Evidence, pp. 104-106.
[31] David H. Lyth, The History of the Universe (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2015), cited in Bollore, God, the Science, the Evidence, p. 106.
[32] The nucleus of the iron atom is the most stable. Lighter chemical elements (helium, carbon, oxygen, chlorine, potassium, calcium, titanium, silicon, etc.) are formed in nuclear fusion reactions inside stars, but heavier elements (nickel, copper, zinc, silver, tin, platinum, gold, lead, uranium, etc.) can only form under the extreme conditions of the explosion of supernovae that mark the end of these massive stars (Bollore, God, the Science, the Evidence, p. 106).
[32B] Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 43–44.
[32C] Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 43–44.
[32D] J. B. Stump, Science and Christianity: An Introduction to the Issues (West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017), 110.
[32E] Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 1–11, ed. E. Ray Clendenen and Brandon D. Smith, Christian Standard Commentary (Holman Reference, 2022), 541–542.
[32F] Dan Salter, The Curse Removed: A Look at Image-Based Atonement (Eugene, Oregon: Resource Publications, 2021).
[32G] Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch, Genesis: With Introduction, Commentary, and Notes, ed. Revised Standard Version and Second Catholic Edition, The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), 18.
[32H] Kadner, R.J., Rogers, K. “bacteria.” Encyclopedia Britannica, June 5, 2026, https://www.britannica.com/science/bacteria.
[32I] Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch, Genesis: With Introduction, Commentary, and Notes, ed. Revised Standard Version and Second Catholic Edition, The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), 18.
[33] Bollore, God, the Science, the Evidence, p. 106.
[34] In Malcolm W. Browne, “Clues to Universe Origin Expected,” New York Times (March 12, 1978), https://www.nytimes.com/1978/03/12/archives/clues-to-universe-origin-expected-the-making-of-the-universe.html. On this subject, see Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe (New York: Basic Books, 1977) ; cited in Bollore, God, the Science, the Evidence, p. 108.
[35] Arno Penzias, quoted by Walter Bradley in “The Designed ‘Just-so’ Universe,” 1999, https://web.archive.org/web/20101110083038/http://www.leaderu.com/offices/bradley/docs/universe.html. See Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, “A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s.,” The Astrophysical Journal 142 (July 1965): 419–421 ; cited in Bollore, God, the Science, the Evidence, p. 108.
[36] Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), 176 ; See also Vilenkin’s 2013 interview “Many Worlds in One” for the Copernicus Center for Interdisciplinary Studies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHEp855NS6c ; cited in Bollore, God, the Science, the Evidence, p. 108.
[37] Max Planck, “Das Wesen der Materie” [The Nature of Matter],” speech at Florence, Italy (1944), in the Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (Boltzmannstraße 14, D-14195 Berlin-Dahlem). On this subject, see: “Max Planck Biographical,” Nobel Lectures, Physics 1901–1921, (Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing Company, 1967), all cited in Bollore, God, the Science, the Evidence, p. 108.
[38] Translated from Igor and Grichka Bogdanov, Le Visage de Dieu (Paris: Grasset, 2010), 117, cited in Bollore, God, the Science, the Evidence, p. 108.
[39] “Applied Science–an Overview,” ScienceDirect Topics, accessed July 6, 2026, https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/applied-science.
[40] John Lennox, Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 26, ISBN: 978-0-310-12782-6.
[41] According to Ludwig Ott, “the various races are derived from several separated stems (polygenism), the Church teaches that the first human beings, Adam and Eve, are the progenitors of the entire [rational] human race (monogenism). The teaching of the unity of the [rational] human race is not a dogma, but it is a necessary presupposition of the dogma of Original sin and Redemption” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible, trans. Patrick Lynch (Cork, Ireland: The Mercier Press, 1952), Kindle Edition, Location 3063). This teaching has been classified Sententia certa (Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Location 3063), which means it “is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions)” (Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Location 852).
[42] Bernard F. Batto, “Myth,” in The New Theological Dictionary, eds. Joseph A. Komonchak, Mary Collins, and Dermot A. Lane, (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000), 697–701, ISBN-13 978-0-87061-295-4.
[43] John Lennox provides a biological example of a paradigmatic shift when he writes, “[When Ernest] Rutherford discovered the nucleus of the atom he at once overthrew a dogma of classical physics and an immediate paradigm shift resulted. And DNA replaced protein as the basic genetic material virtually overnight” (Lennox, Cosmic Chemistry, 80).
[44] Ehsan Namaziandost, Sajad Shafiee, and Hosna Rasooyar, “Paradigmatic Relations and Syntagmatic Relations: Are They Useful in Learning Grammatical Structures?” Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research 5, no. 5, (November 2018): 22-23, 26-27.
[45] Bernard F. Batto, “Myth in the Hebrew Bible,” In the Oxford Bibliographies Online, 2023, https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0125.xml.
[46] Bernard F. Batto, “When God Sleeps,” Bible Review 3, no. 4 (1987): 16–23.
[47] Batto, “When God Sleeps,” 16–23 ; see also J. Brian Bransfield, The Human Person: According to John Paul II (Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 2010), 54–55.