Sunlight Before the Sun — Wowie!

Today we found an oldie-goldie at the website of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the granddaddy of of all creationists outfits, the fountainhead of young Earth creationist wisdom. It’s featured again at their website, but the thing is dated 01 January 2008 — a few months before the beginning of your Curmudgeon’s blog.

It’s titled Sunlight Before the Sun, and it was written by John D. Morris, a son of ICR’s founder. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

According to Scripture, God “created the heaven and the earth” on Day One of Creation Week (Genesis 1:1). Initially all was dark, until God said, “Let there be light” (v. 3). Days Two and Three saw the oceans, firmament (or atmosphere) [Atmosphere?], continents, and plants formed, as the earth was being progressively prepared for man’s habitation. It was on Day Four that God created the sun, moon, and stars, proclaiming, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven” (v. 14), one purpose of which was “to give light upon the earth” (v. 15).

Anyone have a problem with any of that? Let’s see what Johnny Morris says:

This light was directional, coming from a particular source. The earth was evidently rotating underneath it [Rotating?], causing alternating periods of light and dark. “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night” (v. 5).

We have a few problems with that. If the Earth were flat, how would it be rotating? See The Earth Is Flat!, and also The Earth Does Not Move! Anyway, after that he tells us:

Skeptics have long ridiculed the science of biblical creation over this point. How could there be light bathing the earth before the sun was created? Obviously the Bible must be in error. But as always, this apparent error drives us to look more closely at the relevant data, both scientific and biblical.

Okay, so he looks more closely, and tells us:

Actually there are many sources of light, not just the sun. There are also many types of light, not just visible light. Short-wave light includes ultraviolet light, X-rays, and others. Long-wave light includes infrared light, radio waves, etc. Light is produced by friction, by fire, by numerous chemical reactions, as well as the nuclear reactions of atomic fission and fusion, which is what we think is occurring in the sun. God had at His fingertips many options to accomplish His purposes. Light does not automatically require the sun.

Oh, okay — so it wasn’t sunlight — it was probably some kind of fire. Fair enough. He continues:

Furthermore, we have important data given by the Hebrew words used in the creation account. When God created “light” in verse 3, the word used connotes the presence of light only, while the word used for “lights” on Day Four is best translated “light bearers,” or permanent light sources. Their purpose was not only to give light, but to serve as timekeepers for man once he was created. According to the best stellar creation theory now available, light from stars created anywhere in the universe on Day Four would reach earth in two earth days, and would be useful to Adam on Day Six.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Let’s read on:

Keep in mind that the Creation Week was a uniquely miraculous time, and we are justified in speculating that miraculous events may have been taking place outside of today’s natural laws. Especially when we realize that “God is light” (1 John 1:5) Himself, thus no outside natural source is necessarily mandated.

Ah yes, that’s very helpful. Here’s another excerpt:

For semi-creationists [What?] who claim that the “days” of Genesis 1 must have been long periods of time, a more serious problem arises. Genesis plainly teaches that plants appeared on Day Three, and the sun on Day Four. But plants need sunlight for photosynthesis and cannot wait in darkness for millions of years. If the days were long epochs, as demanded by critics of a literal Creation Week, plants could not survive.

Aha! So a creation day is a literal day. Very interesting. And now we come to the end:

How much better and more satisfying it is to accept Scripture as it stands. It doesn’t need to be fully understood and explained by modern scientific thought; it just needs to be believed and obeyed.

Did you get that, dear reader? Don’t worry about understanding — just believe and obey!

Copyright © 2023. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

10 responses to “Sunlight Before the Sun — Wowie!

  1. The real problem is that the Bible says about day 4, that the Sun was placed in the heavens to distinguish day from night and mark the passage of time. How, then, could there be distinguished the first three days and nights?

  2. What about angels? Angels glow don’t they? More proof the creationist movement is an absurdist comedy troupe.

  3. Dave Luckett

    Just when you unbelievers thought you had the Bible in a bind, we simply apply the new, improved Miraculo (now with added Godpower) and those stubborn realities just disappear! No contradiction too tough! Miraculo can reconcile God with Himself, separate cause from effect, and kill 99.9% of household atheism on contact. Use strictly as directed. Special conditions and exceptions apply. If incredulity persists, too bad, the hell with you.

  4. It’s such a simple, basic thing to look at this as a world origin myth, of a piece with Babylon’s, or Assyria’s or the stories told in hundreds of different cultures, and see the differences, how the story places a radically different set of values on its subject.

  5. For one thing, the grammar of the opening words of Genesis is not clear. Take a look at modern translations (and at the footnotes).
    There may be something like this:
    “When In the beginning of God’s having created the Heavens and the Earth, …” English grammar is so different from Hebrew.

  6. *nods* The equivalent of, “once upon a time,” the introduction to a story.

  7. Off topic:
    A recent essay online:
    MAGA Evangelicals, or,Believing “Crazy” Leads to Following “Crazy”
    By Rodney Kennedy, in

    One topic is “The Crazy Notion of Creationism”

  8. Does anyone miss the craziness of 2015–2018 when half the creationists were converting to flat earth theory?

  9. @Paul D.
    I haven’t heard much about the flat. earth theory, now that you remind us. The good old days.
    And then, there is Geocentrism. It was never popular. though.

  10. Techreseller

    To Tom S: I read the Rodney Kennedy piece. Oh my gosh. Christian Nationalist are even crazier than I thought. “How can you be Catholic, you are not Mexican?” No answer for that.

Make a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s