Jewish and Non-Religious Views of Creation

Genesis and belief in a creator

Judaism teaches that there is one eternal, all-powerful and all-knowing God. Genesis, the first book of the Torah, begins with the words traditionally translated as “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Creation is therefore understood as dependent on God, rather than as the work of several competing gods.

The opening account describes God bringing order to the world through commands such as “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3). Its six-day narrative presents creation as purposeful:

• Day 1: light, separated from darkness as day and night.
• Day 2: the firmament, or expanse called heaven, separating the waters above from those below.
• Day 3: dry land and seas, followed by vegetation.
• Day 4: the sun, moon and stars, marking days, seasons and years.
• Day 5: creatures of the waters and birds.
• Day 6: land animals and human beings.

God sees the completed creation as “very good” (Genesis 1:31). The world is not merely a collection of objects, but a creation with religious significance. Genesis 2:1–3 completes this account: God rests on the seventh day, blessing it and making it holy. This provides a foundation for the Jewish observance of Shabbat, the weekly day of rest.

Genesis 1:27 teaches that human beings, male and female, are made in God’s image. Many Jews understand this to mean that humans have God-like capacities, such as understanding, rather than that God has a human body. Maimonides, an influential medieval Jewish thinker, interpreted “image” as something other than physical appearance.

The human focus of Genesis 2

Genesis 2:4 onwards brings the focus closer to human life. God forms the man from “the dust of the ground” and breathes life into him (Genesis 2:7). Adam’s name is connected with adamah, meaning ground or soil, linking humanity with the earth from which it comes.

God places the man in the Garden of Eden to cultivate and care for it. He permits him to eat from its trees except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The account therefore presents human life as a gift from God, with responsibilities and limits.

God declares, “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18). God forms animals and birds and brings them to the man to name, but none provides a suitable companion. God then causes the man to sleep and makes a woman from his rib. The account provides a basis for reflection on companionship and human relationships.

The two accounts have different emphases and sequences. Genesis 1 presents an ordered overview, with animals before humanity and male and female created together. Genesis 2 focuses on the man, then the animals and birds, and finally the woman. These differences raise an important question: should the accounts be read as literal chronological descriptions, or as narratives communicating connected religious meanings?

Orthodox interpretations: authority does not mean one reading

A literal interpretation treats the narrative as an account of events that happened as written. Some Jews, particularly some ultra-Orthodox Jews, take the creation accounts literally. Their commitment to the authority of the Torah can lead them to reject scientific explanations that they consider incompatible with its account.

However, Orthodox Judaism does not have one uniform interpretation of creation. The Modern Orthodox rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik explored the differences between Genesis 1 and 2 without dismissing either account. He understood them as revealing two aspects of human nature rather than simply as contradictory timelines.

For Soloveitchik, the human being in Genesis 1 seeks to understand and master the world, like a scientist or engineer. The human being in Genesis 2 seeks companionship, a relationship with God and answers about life's purpose. Both aspects belong to human experience. This shows how an Orthodox thinker can uphold the Torah’s authority while looking beyond a purely literal reading.

Reform interpretations: religious meaning rather than scientific history

A symbolic interpretation reads the narrative as expressing religious truths through its language and images. On this reading, accepting God as creator does not require treating Genesis as a scientific description. The central teaching is that God is responsible for creation; the narrative’s details communicate meaning rather than a scientific mechanism.

Reform Jewish interpretations commonly emphasise these spiritual and moral meanings and accept modern scientific explanations. Reform rabbi Aaron B. Bisno, for example, rejects treating six-day creation as a scientific or historical account. He argues that science investigates physical origins, while the Torah guides spiritual and moral life. Calling the accounts symbolic does not mean that they are worthless or meaningless.

Reform rabbi David Segal likewise explores the differences between the two accounts as an opportunity for interpretation. Drawing on Soloveitchik, he argues that studying Torah should involve both careful understanding of its words and reflection on how its teachings give life meaning. Reform interpretation therefore need not simply discard Genesis because its narratives differ.

Non-literal interpretation is not merely a recent response to science. Maimonides allowed symbolic understandings of details in the opening creation narrative. Rabbi Len Levin similarly argues that the six-day structure teaches a lesson: an all-powerful God would not need six days to create. This gives a religious reason for reading the account symbolically, rather than merely changing it to fit modern discoveries.

The useful comparison is therefore not ‘Orthodox Jews believe Genesis, but Reform Jews reject it’. Both traditions engage with the Torah, but interpretations differ over how its authority and religious meaning relate to its narrative details.

The Big Bang and Brian Cox’s explanation

The Big Bang theory describes the universe expanding from an early hot, dense state. It is a scientific explanation based on observation and physical reasoning, rather than on the authority of a sacred text.

Physicist Brian Cox explains that this expansion is not like a firework exploding from a central point into surrounding space. Space itself is stretching. His comparison is with raisins in bread dough: as the dough expands, the raisins become further apart. From any raisin, the others appear to recede, so no raisin needs to occupy a privileged centre.

Cox also recognises limits to scientific knowledge. Existing theories cannot reliably describe the most extreme earliest conditions. He does not present a complete, certain explanation of the universe’s ultimate origin. Scientific uncertainty, however, is not itself evidence that a particular religious explanation is correct.

Humanists and atheists can accept the Big Bang without believing that God caused it. Atheists reject belief in God; Humanists seek explanations through reason and evidence rather than religious authority. Neither position means that every question about the universe has already been answered.

When creation and science conflict — and when they do not

Conflict is strongest when Genesis and science are treated as competing factual descriptions of the same events. A reader who insists that creation occurred in six ordinary days may reject a scientific account of the universe’s extended development. A non-religious critic may instead argue that religious authority is not sufficient evidence for an account of the physical universe.

Compatibility is possible when Genesis is understood to explain the world’s dependence on God and its purpose, while science explains physical processes. A Jewish believer could therefore accept expanding space and still believe that God is ultimately responsible for the universe. The Big Bang would describe a process, not replace the creator. This approach fits the distinction between scientific and religious explanation made by Reform interpreters such as Bisno, although compatibility is not restricted to Reform Judaism.

This distinction does not remove every disagreement. A believer may see purpose in the universe, while an atheist may see no reason to believe in divine purpose. A Humanist may also question why a creator should be added to a scientific explanation when there is no independently testable evidence for that claim. Nevertheless, disagreement about God does not necessarily mean disagreement about the scientific account.

A justified conclusion should identify which interpretation is being considered. Jewish belief in creation does not inevitably conflict with the Big Bang: non-literal readings allow substantial agreement about physical processes. Conflict remains where Genesis is treated as a rival scientific chronology, or where belief in a divine creator itself is disputed.