Well yes, at that point the difference between theists and atheists becomes abstract. If not a personal being, who is to say your "creator" is not the sum of innate forces moving the universe, pretty much the same as what atheists believe without mystical angles
So why do "sophisticated" scientific apologists still peddle Christianity?
The answer is as always: cold hard dollars
Ain't nobody buying your books and following you if you aren't promising eternal life to the paupers. Sad but fact of life.
I’m not saying the Bible is a science textbook or that Genesis is meant to be read as literal gospel. But it is interesting that thousands of years ago, people described a creation sequence that broadly mirrors the scientific picture we now accept.
If you read each “day” as a stage, the alignment looks like this:
Day 1 – “Let there be light.”
The universe becomes filled with light (Big Bang → transparent cosmos).
A long era passes while galaxies, stars, and eventually the Sun form.
Day 2 – Separation of waters (oceans below / atmosphere above).
Early Earth cools, forms a dense atmosphere, and then oceans.
Day 3 – Land appears; vegetation begins.
Continents rise; early photosynthetic life develops long before animals.
Day 4 – Sun, Moon, and stars become visible.
They already existed, but Earth’s atmosphere only becomes clear later.
Day 5 – Sea life → flying creatures.
Life begins in the oceans; flying creatures evolve much later.
Day 6 – Land animals → humans.
Animals dominate the land first; humans arrive last.
Not proof of anything by itself, but the sequence is remarkably similar. It’s just one of those interesting places where ancient imagery and modern science line up better than most people think.
