Both cosmogonies are theological rather than scientific. The real purpose of the first, in its present form at least, is not so much to explain the creation of the universe as to inculcate a belief in the divine institution of the Sabbath. It belongs to the Priestly code, and one of the chief pillars of priestcraft is the Sabbath.
The second contains no recognition of the Sabbath. The chief purpose of this account of the creation, if we include the third chapter, which is really a continuation of it, is to establish the doctrine of the Fall of Man.
18.
According to the first the Creator is an optimist. He views all his works and declares them “good.”
According to the second the Creator is a pessimist. He sees in his works both “good and evil;” the good continuing to diminish, and the evil continuing to increase.
To establish the credibility and divine origin of Genesis it is necessary not merely to harmonize its theories with science, but to reconcile its statements with each other. The latter is as impossible as the former. Dean Stanley, in his Memorial Sermon on Sir Charles Lyell at Westminster Abbey, made this frank admission:
“It is now clear to diligent students of the Bible that the first and second chapters of Genesis contain two narratives of the creation, side by side, differing from each other in most every particular of time, place, and order.”