Review of Dobberpuhl’s The First Four Days

Reviewed by David Oberpriller

This book is not an “easy read.” Although it is not overly technical and contains no mathematics,
it is very dense with ideas and scientific concepts. The organization of the book is well-executed
and the language and explanations are very understandable. This makes it suitable for readers
with a basic understanding of science. However, there are a number of issues with it.

The First Four Days: The Creation of the Universe: An Annotated Account

By Delmar Dobberpuhl

WinePress Publishing, Enumclaw, WA USA

2011

203 pages

This book is not an “easy read.” Although it is not overly technical and contains no mathematics,
it is very dense with ideas and scientific concepts. The organization of the book is well-executed
and the language and explanations are very understandable. This makes it suitable for readers
with a basic understanding of science. However, there are a number of issues with it.

The scope of the book is a Biblical and scientific coverage of the first four days of the creation
account in Genesis chapter 1 – and the coverage is very thorough. Rarely does a Creationist
book go into such detail as this one. The first chapter is an introduction to the subject, Chapters
2-7 cover each of what the author calls “divine actions” that occurred on the first four days,
and Chapter 8 is a summary with a brief account of Days 5 through 7. An appendix contains
Dobberpuhl’s paraphrased version of the Biblical creation account – which he refers to as CMA
(Creating-and-Making Account) – with extensive notes on translation of words from the Hebrew.
An endnotes section and a thorough index round out the book.

Chapters 2-7 have a common outline starting with a description of the “divine action” (or
miracle), moving on to consideration of the CMA verses and pertinent verses from other parts
of Scripture, then to addressing scientific terms, building the CM model based on the “divine
actions,” and finishing with a summary of the chapter. The “divine actions” are specific
miraculous activities that the Creator performs – one or two per day. (I like the term “divine
action” and will continue to use it in this review.)

Dobberpuhl is to be commended for the copious use of terms
like “theoretically,” “speculate,” “assume,” “infer,” and related derivative words – these are a
constant reminder that cosmogony is a field where much is not certain – and cannot be – because
it is historical in nature. The use of “divine actions” is also a useful concept in organizing the
CM model and provides a God-honoring foundation to the model.

The book is actually an expansion of a paper by Dobberpuhl and two other authors that was
published in 2007 [1]. In some ways, it is disappointing that the paper’s co-authors did not
participate in authoring the book. The paper does provide a good background for the reader prior
to reading the book (and is a recommended course of action especially since it is easily available
on the Internet). It should be noted that the paper did generate a Letter to the Editor response
from Humphreys [2] as discussed below. (The text is also available on the Internet).

Chapter 1 of the book provides a succinct and useful definition of miracles (what Dobberpuhl
refers to as “divine actions” throughout the book). The key to the definition is contained in the
following quote:

“The main point to remember is that mankind and their science cannot explain miracles
when only natural processes and physical laws are assumed without any supernatural
component being involved. In physical terms, miracles are identified by a supernatural
change in one or more of the three basic components of the universe: space, material
substance, and time. God created all three of these with his first command for the
universe to come into existence (Genesis 1:1). These components are so basic to
everything physical that exists that only God can change them.” [3]

The assignment of the “divine actions” to specific parts of the days of creation is not usually
done in commentaries on Genesis 1, but is effective in this book. It allows a detailed, distinctive
timeline of the events of the four days to be assembled into the CM model.

There are a number of issues that the reader will need to notice and evaluate, and then personally
decide about their plausibility. Although they do not detract from the account of creation, these
call into question certain aspects of Dobberpuhl’s CM model. These are dealt with, though not
definitively, in the following paragraphs. As is true with any presentation of new ideas, there is
further refining to be done.

Dobberpuhl’s CM model begins with a kind of “quark soup” before the formation of protons,
neutrons, electrons, and photons – this is different than most standard creation models that
assume water is the basic substance [4]. The non-existence of light is postulated as evidence
that atoms (i.e., water) did not exist at the beginning of the CMA [5] (the way light and atoms
interact is an interesting study [6], though I was unable to find support for Dobberpuhl’s position
that atoms could not exist without light photons). This further requires that the “heaven” and
the “earth” of Genesis 1:1 were different than the “heaven” and “earth” that were specifically
defined by God on Day 3 and this is reflected in the paraphrased version presented in the
appendix [7]. This non-water original state is the primary objection expressed in Humphreys’
response [2] to the original article [1]. As Humphreys states, the literal reading of Scripture and
the successful predictions regarding the magnetic fields of the planets that he has made based on
water as the original substance point toward a literal reading of “water.” This is a valid objection
that I believe needs further work to overcome.

An interesting concept presented in Chapter 4 dealing with Day 2 and the formation of galaxies
describes each galaxy as forming from a black hole that developed white holes essentially
as a rupture in its event horizon [8]. This association of black holes and white holes does not
appear to be backed by current theoretical descriptions of these phenomena. A white hole is,
theoretically, the opposite of a black hole and the two can be (theoretically) associated with
each other in one of two ways: the matter falling into a black hole comes out of a white hole in
an alternate universe or the two are at opposite ends of a “wormhole” through the time-space
continuum [9]. It is also worth noting that white holes are only theoretical – no evidence for their
existence is currently known. Dobberpuhl goes on to use the rotational “flash” of a white hole
at the center of the forming Milky Way galaxy as a possible source of the light at the dawn of
Day 3 on Earth [10]. The plausibility of this explanation is left up to the reader, though more
information on this suggested phenomenon could have been included.

In the section of each chapter that describes other Biblical references to that chapters “divine
action,” frequent usage of Psalm 104 is made to provide Scriptural evidence for the CM model.
The interpretation of these verses is very literal. A literal hermeneutic allows for a loosening of

the interpretation in poetic passages to one that is not as literal – the psalms are definitely poetic.
Although Psalm 104 is generally regarded as dealing with the creation account (see Morris [11],
for example), an interpreter must exercise caution in not “over-interpreting” the details of the
Psalm. The reader will need to decide how literally Psalm 104 can be taken.

For these and probably,other issues, anti-Creationists will likely rip this book apart for alleged
discrepancies with “known” science (a general accusation that would typically be leveled against
any Creationist book). However, the intended audience for this book is Creationists who would
like some further insights into the science behind the days of creation and its fit to Scripture
– and who are both perceptive in their reading and willing to do some work to understand the
insights. It is a book for serious study and not for perusal by the casual reader.

Despite these shortcomings, the book is an interesting read. Many of the ideas (remember it is
dense with them) are fascinating insights that are worth consideration. In writing this review, I
was forced to do a moderate amount of research and reading to better understand and evaluate
some of the presented concepts. While I may not agree with some of them based on my research,
my own knowledge was increased – a beneficial result. I do not recommend that the reader
simply “read the book” as is often done with books. I recommend that the reader be willing and
prepared to read the background material that I have suggested and to interrupt the reading with
in-depth research to help form his/her own opinion on the concepts.

ENDNOTES:

[1] DeRemer, Frank, Mark Amunrud, and Delmar Dobberpuhl, “Days 1–4”, Journal of Creation
21(3) December 2007, pages 69-76 (available electronically at http://creation.com/images/pdfs/
tj/j21_3/j21_3_69-76.pdf)

[2] Humphreys, D. Russell, “Just Plain Ordinary Water?”, Journal of Creation 22(1) April 2008,
pages 56-57 (available electronically at http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j22_1/j22_1_56-
58.pdf)

[3] The First Four Days, pages 5-6.

[4] The First Four Days, pages 17-19.

[5] The First Four Days, pages 23 and 47-48.

[6] Anonymous, “Atoms and Light Energy”, http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lessons/
xray_spectra/background-atoms.html, accessed 7 April 2012.

[7] The First Four Days, pages 182-183.

[8] The First Four Days, pages 54-55 and 62.

[9] Anonymous, “BLACK HOLES, WORMHOLES AND WHITE HOLES”, http://
www.edinformatics.com/math_science/solar_system/black_holes_wormholes_white_holes.htm,
accessed 7 April 2012.

[10] The First Four Days, pages 101-103.

[11] Morris, Henry M. with Henry M. Morris III, The Treasures in the Psalms, Master Books,
Green Forest, AR USA, 2000, pages 206-217.