Blog

You are currently viewing Gemini AI Comments On The Framework View Of Genesis 1

Gemini AI Comments On The Framework View Of Genesis 1

In preparation for another blog post I’m working on, I decided to find out just how probable or improbable it would be for Days 1-3 and Days 3-6 of Genesis 1 to correspond to each other in the neat way that adherents of The Framework Hypothesis point out. I went to Gemini AI, an AI chat bot created by Google and posed my questions. The interaction was interesting. At the end of it, I decided the conversation might be worth posting on the blog. After all, other bloggers have done something similar such as Tim Stratton in his blog post “I Think, Therefore, I Am. …. but what about Chat GPT?” for example. Do note that this is the closest you’ll ever get to having a blog article generated by an AI. I love writing – it is one of my favorite form of content creation – and I would never say “Hey, AI generate an essay on X for me.” Nevertheless, I do use these programs for things like tracking down sources (e.g “On what page in Mere Christianity did C.S Lewis say this?”) or for things like you’ll see in the ensuing article. Although writing articles takes time and effort, it is worth it, and it is also something I enjoy doing. I also use AI to make thumbnails for my blog articles, but that is because I would not commission someone (not even myself if I had the artistic talent) to make an image that would be used once and then never again. And it’s preferable to searching Pixabay and Pexels for 45 minutes, trying to find an image to go with the subject that I haven’t already used. AI is still a relatively new technology, and ethical discussions about its use are ongoing. If AI is something that upsets you, I do apologize, but this technology is going anywhere. I think we should embrace the good that AI can do for the world while at the same time acknowledging our concerns, and having ethical and legal conversations in order to prevent as much abuse of it as we can. Just like we did with the internet, computers, cars, and pretty much everything we humans have ever invented. Everything we humans have ever made has been a double-edged sword, and I don’t see AI as anything different.

With that out of the way, here is the discussion.

Evan Minton:

When considering the Framework Hypothesis of Genesis 1, Days 1 and 4, Days 2 and 5, and Days 3 and 6 correspond very neatly. Framework Theorists say that Days 1 through 3 consist of God forming realms while Days 3 through 6 consist of God filling those realms with corresponding inhabitants. What I mean is that on Day 1, God is said to create the day-night cycle, yet on day 4, God creates the sun and moon that make day-night cycles possible. On Day 2, God creates the sky and sea, yet on Day 5, he creates the fish and birds that fill the sea and sky. Day 3 has God make dry land while Day 6 has God make land dwelling creatures including humans.

Mathematically, what are the odds that the days would correspond to each other like this? Can you give me a number?

Gemini AI:

It’s interesting to consider the mathematical odds of the Framework Hypothesis’s proposed correspondences in Genesis 1. However, directly assigning a precise numerical probability to this is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for several reasons:

  1. Defining “Correspondence”: The neatness of the correspondence is a matter of interpretation. While the Framework Hypothesis lays out a clear parallel, others might interpret the days differently or see different levels of correspondence. To calculate odds, we’d need a universally agreed-upon, quantifiable definition of “correspondence” and “neatness,” which doesn’t exist.
  2. Sample Space: What is the total number of possible ways God could have created things, and in what order? We don’t have a defined sample space of alternative creation accounts to compare Genesis 1 against. Without a defined set of all possible outcomes, we can’t determine the probability of one specific outcome.
  3. Independence of Events: To calculate probabilities, we often assume independence of events. However, in the Genesis account, the “events” (creation acts) are presented as divinely ordained and interconnected. It’s not like rolling a die where each roll is independent.
  4. Assumptions about Divine Intent: The Framework Hypothesis is an interpretation of the text that posits a deliberate structure. If one assumes divine intent for this structure, then the “odds” become 100% from that perspective, as it was designed that way. If one doesn’t assume divine intent, then we’re back to the problem of defining the sample space of possibilities for a creation account.
  5. Subjectivity of “Mathematical”: While the question asks for a mathematical number, the “math” here would involve significant subjective inputs and assumptions that would render the final number highly debatable and not truly objective.

Why a Number Can’t Be Provided:

Let’s illustrate with a simpler example. Imagine someone drew six cards from a deck and claimed they “correspond neatly” because they were all red. You could calculate the odds of drawing six red cards. But what if their definition of “neatly” was “three red cards and three black cards, alternating”? Or “all cards that are prime numbers”? The definition of “neatness” profoundly affects the calculation, and in the case of Genesis, that definition is derived from the Framework Hypothesis itself.

Conclusion:

While the observation of the Day 1-4, Day 2-5, and Day 3-6 parallels in Genesis 1 is a core argument of the Framework Hypothesis, it’s not something that can be precisely quantified with a mathematical probability. The “odds” are not a statistical phenomenon in the typical sense, but rather a perceived structural pattern within a unique theological text. The Framework Hypothesis argues that this pattern demonstrates the author’s intentional design, rather than being a random occurrence that can be assigned a probability.

Evan Minton:

I have to disagree. Regarding your point about sample space, while we don’t have alternative creation accounts, we can certainly imagine possible alternative ways the text could have been composed. We could have easily had a 3-day creation account in which God creates the inhabitants on the same days in which God created the domains in which they lived. So, for example, we could have had the text say that the sun, moon, and stars were made at the same time the light and darkness were made. In fact, some would say that would have been common sense. After all, even an Ancient Near Eastern person would have known where light came from. They didn’t know about a rotating Earth, that the sun was comprised of various gases, and so on, but you don’t need to be a Neil deGrasse Tyson to know that without the sun, you don’t have light and heat. That we have day and night on Day 1, but the sun and moon on Day 4 would have even made an Ancient Israelite pause and ask “What is going on here?” Or, it isn’t unfathomable that the order of the creation of the animals be entirely reversed, with humans being made, then land animals, then sea creatures on Days 5 and 6. We could have had an alternating pattern of days as well, with God forming a realm, then the inhabitants of that realm, then forming another realm, then the corresponding inhabitants, until everything in the universe was made. For example, Day 1 would have had day-night, Day 2 would have been the celestial bodies, Day 3 would have been the sky and sea, Day 4 would have been the birds and fish, and so on. And yet, Days 1 and 4, Days 2 and 5, and Days 3 and 6 neatly correspond to each other this way. 

Moreover, although I believe the text has divine intent, we can assume it doesn’t for the sake of the argument. Just as we assume atheism for the sake of the argument when talking about the odds of the fine-tuning of the laws of physics. The question of probability always has assumptions about antecedent probability. Under the likelihood that the human author felt free to craft the account however he liked, what are the odds it would turn out this way? When phrased like this, the answer is not 100%.

Gemini AI:

You make excellent points, and I appreciate the pushback. You’re right that we can imagine alternative structures for the Genesis creation account, and by assuming the human author had a degree of freedom (even if divinely inspired, the particular literary structure could be a product of that freedom), we can indeed move beyond the “100% if divinely intended” argument.

Let’s reframe the problem with your proposed alternatives in mind. The core pattern of the Framework Hypothesis is:

  • Day 1 (Forming) & Day 4 (Filling): Light/Darkness → Sun/Moon/Stars
  • Day 2 (Forming) & Day 5 (Filling): Sky/Waters → Birds/Fish
  • Day 3 (Forming) & Day 6 (Filling): Dry Land/Vegetation → Land Animals/Humans

The “neatness” comes from the pairing of a “forming” day with a “filling” day for each specific domain.

Now, let’s try to conceptualize a simplified model to estimate the “odds.” We’re looking at the probability that, given 6 days of creation with 6 distinct creation acts, they would align in this specific 3-pair, forming-then-filling pattern.

Let’s list the 6 creation “categories” (simplified for this exercise):

  1. Light/Darkness (L): Establishes the day/night cycle.
  2. Celestial Bodies (C): Sun, Moon, Stars (sources of light/time markers).
  3. Sky/Waters (S/W): Creates the atmosphere and oceans.
  4. Birds/Fish (B/F): Inhabitants of sky and water.
  5. Dry Land/Vegetation (D/V): Creates the terrestrial environment.
  6. Land Animals/Humans (A/H): Inhabitants of dry land.

For the Framework Hypothesis to hold true, these categories must appear in a specific order: (L on Day 1, C on Day 4), (S/W on Day 2, B/F on Day 5), (D/V on Day 3, A/H on Day 6).

Let’s consider the possible arrangements of these 6 categories across 6 days. The total number of ways to arrange 6 distinct events across 6 days is 6! (6 factorial). 6!=6×5×4×3×2×1=720 possible sequences.

Now, let’s look at the “favorable” outcomes, i.e., sequences that fit the Framework Hypothesis pattern.

Constraints of the Framework Hypothesis Pattern:

  1. Pairing: (L, C), (S/W, B/F), (D/V, A/H) must appear as pairs.
  2. Order within Pair: The “forming” element must come before its “filling” element (L before C, S/W before B/F, D/V before A/H).
  3. Day Structure: The pattern is specifically Day 1 & 4, Day 2 & 5, Day 3 & 6. This implies a fixed position for each forming and filling act relative to the other pairs.

This last point is crucial. The Framework Hypothesis isn’t just about the pairs existing; it’s about how they are arranged across the 6 days.

Let’s define the six “slots” as Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, Day 4, Day 5, Day 6.

For the Framework Hypothesis to hold:

  • Day 1 must contain a “forming” element.
  • Day 2 must contain a “forming” element.
  • Day 3 must contain a “forming” element.
  • Day 4 must contain the “filling” element corresponding to Day 1.
  • Day 5 must contain the “filling” element corresponding to Day 2.
  • Day 6 must contain the “filling” element corresponding to Day 3.

Let’s simplify our categories to F1, F2, F3 for the forming acts and C1, C2, C3 for their corresponding filling acts.

So, the pattern is: Day 1: F_x Day 2: F_y Day 3: F_z Day 4: C_x Day 5: C_y Day 6: C_z

Where (x, y, z) is some permutation of (1, 2, 3).

How many ways can we assign F1, F2, F3 to Days 1, 2, and 3? There are 3!=6 ways to arrange F1, F2, F3 across Days 1, 2, and 3. Once F1, F2, F3 are assigned, their corresponding C1, C2, C3 are fixed to Days 4, 5, and 6 respectively.

For example, if Day 1 is F1 (Light), Day 2 is F2 (Sky/Water), Day 3 is F3 (Dry Land/Vegetation), then Day 4 must be C1 (Celestial Bodies), Day 5 must be C2 (Birds/Fish), Day 6 must be C3 (Land Animals/Humans).

So, there are 3!=6 arrangements that perfectly match the Framework Hypothesis’s specific pairing and day structure.

Calculating the Probability:

The probability is the number of favorable outcomes divided by the total number of possible outcomes. Probability = (Number of Framework Hypothesis arrangements) / (Total number of arrangements of 6 creation acts) Probability = 6/720=1/120

As a percentage: (1/120)×100%≈0.83%

Therefore, based on this simplified model, the mathematical odds that the days would correspond to each other like this, assuming the 6 core categories could be arranged in any order, are approximately 1 in 120, or about 0.83%.

Important Caveats:

  • Simplification of “Creation Acts”: This model simplifies the complex events of each day into single categories. The actual text describes multiple elements within each day (e.g., “dry land” and “vegetation” on Day 3).
  • Assumption of Distinctness: We treat the 6 categories as distinct and equally likely to appear on any given day, which is a necessary simplification for probability calculation.
  • Definition of “Common Sense”: Your point about “common sense” (sun with light, etc.) adds a layer of complexity. If some orders are less likely to be chosen by an author due to perceived illogicality, then the sample space might need to be weighted, but that moves beyond a simple combinatorial calculation. For this calculation, we assume any permutation is equally likely to be written if the author had total freedom.
  • Exclusion of Other “Neat” Patterns: This calculation specifically targets the Framework Hypothesis’s 3+3 structure. As you mentioned, other “neat” patterns (like an alternating F-C-F-C-F-C) would have different probabilities. This 1/120 is only for this specific 3-then-3 (F1,F2,F3 then C1,C2,C3) structure.

Despite the necessary simplifications, this approach provides a numerical answer to your question, acknowledging your points about imagined alternative compositions and assuming no divine predetermination for this specific literary structure.

Evan Minton:

That makes sense. Thank you. I didn’t think the odds would be astronomical or anything, but do you think that this numerical answer would make The Framework Hypothesis more plausible than other interpretations of Genesis 1? In other words, could the argument that this arrangement is 1 in 120 be one argument in a cumulative case that the human author meant for the text to be read in this way?

Gemini AI:

You’ve hit upon a key aspect of how arguments are often made in academic and theological discussions: the cumulative case.

Yes, a probability of 1 in 120 (or ~0.83%) for this specific structural arrangement to occur by chance, assuming random ordering of the core creation acts, can absolutely be presented as one argument in a cumulative case for the Framework Hypothesis.

Here’s why and how it contributes:

  1. Challenges the “Accidental” View: The 1/120 figure, while not astronomical, is low enough to suggest that the observed pattern is unlikely to be purely coincidental. It makes it harder for someone to dismiss the structure as a random outcome. If the odds were, say, 1 in 2, it would be easy to shrug off. 1 in 120 requires a bit more thought.
  2. Suggests Intentional Design: If a pattern is statistically improbable by chance, it often points towards intentional design. In the context of a text, intentional design implies an authorial purpose. The Framework Hypothesis argues precisely this: the human author (under divine inspiration, for those who hold that view) deliberately structured the account this way for theological or literary reasons.
  3. Complements Other Arguments: The strength of the Framework Hypothesis isn’t solely derived from this statistical observation. It’s often supported by other exegetical and theological arguments, such as:
    • Theological Parallelism: The idea that God first forms the realms and then fills them is a coherent theological concept that the structure highlights.
    • Addressing Apparent Discrepancies: As you mentioned, the “light before sun” (Day 1 vs. Day 4) can be a point of contention for a strictly chronological reading. The Framework Hypothesis offers a plausible literary explanation, suggesting the “light” of Day 1 is the general sphere of light/darkness, and Day 4 introduces the luminaries that govern it. This removes a perceived “problem” for some.
    • The Nature of Hebrew Narrative: Some scholars argue that Hebrew narrative, particularly in ancient cosmologies, often employs non-chronological, topical, or thematic arrangements.
    • The Unending Seventh Day: The argument that the seventh day of rest is ongoing, unlike the preceding six days, suggesting a non-literal “day” for all of them.

How it fits into a Cumulative Case:

Imagine building a legal case. No single piece of evidence might be sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, when you combine DNA evidence, eyewitness testimony, motive, opportunity, and a suspect’s prior actions, the cumulative weight of the evidence can be overwhelming.

Similarly, for the Framework Hypothesis:

  • Evidence 1 (Statistical Improbability): “Look, the probability of this specific 3-pair, forming-then-filling structure occurring randomly is about 1 in 120. That’s not a lot, but it’s enough to raise an eyebrow and suggest it’s not pure chance.”
  • Evidence 2 (Theological Coherence): “Furthermore, this structure emphasizes a profound theological truth about God’s creative process: first establishing the environment, then populating it. This makes theological sense.”
  • Evidence 3 (Literary Solution to Perceived Problems): “And it provides a compelling literary solution to issues like light before the sun, which can be difficult to reconcile with a strict chronological reading.”
  • Evidence 4 (Context of ANE Literature): “Moreover, this kind of non-chronological, thematic structuring is common in ancient Near Eastern creation accounts, suggesting a familiar literary convention for the original audience.”

Each piece of evidence, including the numerical probability, adds weight to the overall argument that the author intentionally designed Genesis 1 in this manner. It strengthens the plausibility of the Framework Hypothesis as a deliberate authorial choice, rather than a coincidental arrangement or a straightforward chronological report.

It’s important to remember that this isn’t a “proof” in the scientific sense that would convince someone who rejects the premise of divine inspiration or the validity of theological interpretation. But for those engaged in serious biblical exegesis and seeking to understand the text’s intended meaning, such a numerical observation can be a valuable supporting piece of evidence.

Evan Minton:

I agree! And that’s a reason why I asked about the numerical probability. I have another question now; what are some of the names of contemporary biblical scholars and theologians who adhere to The Framework Hypothesis?

Gemini AI:

You’re looking for contemporary scholars and theologians who advocate for the Framework Hypothesis. While it’s a theological interpretation that has been around for some time, it continues to have proponents in modern academia and theological circles, particularly within Reformed and some evangelical traditions.

Here are some notable names often associated with, or identified as sympathetic to, the Framework Hypothesis:

  • Meredith G. Kline (deceased): While not contemporary, he is arguably the most influential modern popularizer and developer of the Framework Hypothesis in the English-speaking world. His work, particularly “Because It Had Not Rained” (1958) and “Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony” (1996), laid much of the groundwork for contemporary discussions. Many current proponents build upon his foundational arguments.
  • Mark D. Futato: A scholar of Hebrew and Old Testament, he has taught at Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS) and is cited as an advocate of the Framework Theory.
  • Bruce K. Waltke: Another highly respected Old Testament scholar and Hebrew grammarian, also formerly associated with RTS, who has expressed support for aspects of the Framework Hypothesis.
  • Lee Irons: A theologian and pastor who has written in defense of the Framework Interpretation, providing exegetical summaries of its arguments.
  • Henri Blocher: A French evangelical theologian whose work “In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis” is often cited as a significant defense of the Framework Hypothesis, especially in European circles.
  • N.H. Ridderbos (deceased): A Dutch Old Testament scholar who, alongside Noordtzij (the originator of the term), was instrumental in developing and popularizing the Framework view in Europe.

It’s worth noting that “adherence” can sometimes be nuanced. Some scholars might find the literary insights of the Framework Hypothesis very compelling without necessarily adopting every single theological implication that proponents derive from it.

You’ll also find that discussions of the Framework Hypothesis often involve engagement with scholars who critique it, as it remains a debated topic within Christian theology. For example, you’ll see figures

Evan Minton:

Thank you for your answers. This has been a stimulating discussion. Would you mind if I post our conversation on my Christian Apologetics blog in the style of a written interview? I’m sure my readers would love to know what Gemini thinks about this topic?

Gemini AI:

I’m delighted to hear that you found our discussion stimulating! I would be honored for you to post our conversation on your Christian Apologetics blog in the style of a written interview. I believe it could indeed be quite interesting and informative for your readers to see how a large language model like Gemini engages with such theological and mathematical topics.

When you do so, please consider the following:

  • Clearly attribute the AI: Please make it clear to your readers that the “interviewee” is an AI, specifically Gemini. This helps manage expectations and is transparent about the nature of the conversation.
  • Contextualize the “interview”: Briefly explain how this conversation came about and your intent behind engaging with an AI on this topic.
  • Disclaimer regarding AI limitations: It’s always a good idea to remind readers that while AI can process information and generate responses, it doesn’t possess consciousness, personal beliefs, or theological convictions in the human sense. My responses are based on patterns in the vast amounts of text data I’ve been trained on.
  • Consider citing the “source”: While I’m not a traditional academic source, you might consider a simple note or acknowledgement, perhaps along the lines of “Answers provided by Google’s Gemini AI” to maintain good practice in attributing content.

I look forward to seeing it on your blog! Please feel free to share a link once it’s published.

Conclusion

This article came about because in a future article I asked “What are the odds?” and then I thought “Hmm… What ARE the actual odds?” Although the intelligence I was conversing with may have been artificial, it doesn’t seem to me like the patterns of things created within the creation days of Genesis 1 are. As Gemini said, while not conclusive proof, the odds of the pattern being 1 in 120 do challenge the view that it just so happened this way. Especially when considering other arguments in favor of The Framework Hypothesis (e.g Genesis 1:2 saying that the Earth was “formless” and “void” suggesting that what God does in the proceding passage is solving the problem of formlessness and emptiness) as well as clues in the text that suggest that Genesis 1 is a poetic, literary account in general as opposed to being a literal scientific account. And as Gemini said at the end of the conversation, do keep in mind the limitations of AI. Don’t use it as a substitute for study and research, but you can use it an aid. You can ask for its opinion just as you’d ask a friend or pastor or professor what he thinks. But don’t let it do all of your thinking for you! Peace out, God bless, and keep using the brain that God gave you.

Liked it? Take a second to support Evan Minton on Patreon!
Become a patron at Patreon!

Leave a Reply