Creationism - National Center for Science Education

P.J. Wiseman, a British air commodore, presented a version of the Revelatory
Theory involving written rather than visual revelations in Creation Revealed in Six Days
(1949). The creation narrative was revealed by God to man in six literal consecutive
days. The actual process of creation did not occur in six days, only God’s revelation of
these events to man.
Consequently this narrative is a series of statements to man about what God had done in the ages past. It is
a record of the six days occupied by God in revealing to man the story of creation. We are told what God
said... [1949:40]
God’s words were probably written on six tablets. Wiseman points out that Babylonian
creation accounts are generally inscribed on six tablets, and uses archeological evidence
to support his theory. He argues that study of the literary structure of Genesis—the
parallel arrangement of the two three-day sequences, and comparison of the Genesis
closing formula with the colophons of Mesopotamian tablet series—supports this
interpretation. Comparison with the Babylonian account indicates that Genesis is not a
variant, but the original source, claims Wiseman. The date of creation is unknown, and
Wiseman argues that his Revelatory Theory avoids both the scientific difficulties of
youngearth creation and the unbiblical nature of the evolutionary scheme.
FRAMEWORK THEORY
The Framework, or Literary, Theory of creationism acknowledges the literary
structure—the literary “framework”—of Genesis which Wiseman interpreted in terms of
his literary Revelatory Theory, and recognizes that Genesis employs literary and poetic
devices. Thus, in this view, the events or processes of the six ‘days’ of creation are
“topical” rather than strictly chronological, and they may overlap.
William E. Gladstone, the British Prime Minister, attempted a reconciliation of
Genesis with science in his book The Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture (1896). He
dismissed recent literal six-day creationism as inadequate, and also rejected Day-Age
creationism (1896:60), arguing instead for a Framework or Literary interpretation.
Gladstone stressed that the Bible employed phenomenological language, describing
events in terms comprehensible to its “relators” and its audience. The creation ‘days’ are
“more properly to be described as chapters in the history of creation,” like chapters in a
book about important topics: topics which may overlap with each other chronologically
(1896:61-63). Thus, though some of the descriptions may be “literally untrue,” they
serve to convey greater truth than would more factual descriptions: moral and spiritual as
well as physical truths. Subdividing creation into periods of time called ‘days,’ for
instance, conveys the truth of the general series of events in terms which would be
understandable to contemporary audiences, though it is not literally true. Similarly, the
separation of “water” from “land” refers to the condensation of nebulous matter into
planets, as scientifically described by the nebular hypothesis.
Gladstone goes on to discuss the reconciliation of various events in the biblical
account with modern scientific evidence and theories. He cites many scientific sources,
relying heavily on J.W. Dawson, and also quoting from Dana’s “Creation” and Guyot’s
Creation. He refutes at length Huxley’s attacks on the scientific truth of the Bible. The
biblical account does prove to be inspired by the Author of Creation, and must therefore