I am getting back in to reading Ross’ book The Genesis Question to finish it and carry on with the rolling review I started on it a while ago (when I got blasted for supporting the changes to the AG paper on the doctrine of Creation). Here is a passage I came across:
That so many Christians today believe the Bible is largely devoid of scientific content is, at least in part, a reaction to the last two hundred years of dialogue between science and theology in which Christian theology appears to have been bested repeatedly by secular science. The Bible, unlike any other book, is intended to be read and understood by people living in eras spanning at least 3,500 years. This places some serious constraints on the quantity and kind of science it can contain.
For the Bible to adopt the scientific paradigms or language of any age would compromise the ability of the text to speak to earlier or later generations. But, because the Bible does have the capacity to communicate to all generations of humanity, many Bible interpreters are tempted to read into the text far too much of the science of their time. For example, I have received more than ten unsolicited manuscripts from individuals who are convinced that Genesis 1, properly understood, gives a detailed exposition of the origin and structure of the various families of fundamental particles even though no word in the text even hints of particles.
from Hugh Ross’ The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis (Navpress, 2001), 14-15.
So basically, the Bible isn’t a scientific text so quit trying to make it out to be one. If it happens that modern science can support some aspect of the Genesis creation narrative, cool! If not, don’t try to wedge it into the text and make it fit. Let the text be as it is and let it speak for itself!