This paper is written for those who believe in a Creator God,  and  also happen to believe that this same Creator used Evolution to create our world and its accompanying universe in something greater than 144 hours — otherwise known as the six 24-hour days reported in the Bible.  It is not intended to convert or debate with atheists, or with those who do not believe in an ordered universe.  Nor is it put forth to offer a scientific theory for those who already believe that God created it all during the six days reported in Genesis and that He did so by means that are beyond human ability to accurately theorize. ¹  As it was so well stated in the 1943 film, The Song of Bernadette,

    When I say "an equally scientific alternative" I mean that I will use another equally revered scientific theory to explain how, contrary to the theory of evolution with its creation happening over billions of years, creation could actually have happened in six literal 24-hour days.  However, before jumping in headlong, allow me first, to briefly review the difference between Scientific Theory and Law.  As you will see in my concluding remarks, the difference between these two is both significant and, far too often, forgotten, or worse, ignored.

    Scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, are held to be the universal and constant facts of the physical world.  "Laws" differ from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an empirically determined statement of fact.  Put another way, a scientific law, a physical law, a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior.  Empirical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and simple observations that, over many years, have become accepted universally within the scientific community because they have always been observed to be true.  A theory, on the other hand, may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law, but a theory is NOT law.

    Laws are distinguished from theories by their simplicity.  Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops.  Not so with scientific laws.  This is because a scientific or physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, attempts to explain it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it.  Simply put, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains  possibly  why and how something happens.

    Some of the more famous laws of nature include the law of gravity, Isaac Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook's law of elasticity.  Two of the more popular (though rarely understood by the public) theories are Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

    Theistic evolution is not a "theory" in the scientific sense.  (Admittedly, neither is Literal Creation.)  Rather, it is a syncretic ² view or opinion about how the science of evolution relates to some religious interpretations. ³  Since theistic evolution is not a "theory" in the scientific sense, we will direct our focus on its scientific core, namely, biological evolution, and from there offer another viable scientific theory from which we will draw an equally syncretic merger of science and religion.

From All About Science: Darwin's Theory Of Evolution — A Theory in Crisis  we find a concise and clear definition of Darwin's Theory of Evolution:

    Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers — all related.  Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification".  That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time.  In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival — a process known as "natural selection."  These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation.  Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature). ⁴

    Using Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and specifically, the time dilation component of it, we can, with equal certainty present a counter argument against evolutionary creationism, and  for  literal creation (or how God might have created the heavens and the earth during six literal, 24-hour days).

    In Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Time Dilation is the phenomenon whereby an observer finds that another's clock, which is physically identical to his own, is ticking at a slower rate as measured by their own clock.  This is often taken to mean that time has "slowed down" for the other clock, but that is only true in the context of the observer's frame of reference.  Locally (i.e., from the perspective of any observer within the same frame of reference, without reference to another frame of reference), time always passes at the same rate.  The time dilation phenomenon applies to any process that manifests change over time.  Time dilation can be most easily shown using our solar system's nearest star system, Alpha Centauri.

    Simply put, Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light-years from our solar system.  Discounting things like "G acceleration limits" (to protect the human body from being crushed by rapid acceleration to light speed), were we able to travel at 99% the speed of light, it would take us nearly nine years to reach Alpha Centauri and immediately return.  But that nine years would only be that long down here, on earth.  From the traveler's perspective, however, the trip would appear to take less than two days (approximately 34 hours) by his watch.  So how does all that tie into creation?

    In Genesis 1:3 it says that God created light.  More impressively, is the fact that He simply spoke it into existence.  In Genesis 1:14, God subsequently creates the sun and other stars (light producers).  This is a noteworthy point for two reasons: First, God created the sun and stars  AFTER  He created light, and second, it clearly shows that there is a difference between light and its galactic producers.  If an all-powerful God creates light itself, then such an omnipotent God can certainly create the heavens and earth at the speed of that light (or greater) and by His clock, it would actually take only the smallest fraction of the time than it would otherwise appear to have taken.  In other words, using our time dilation example — our trip to Alpha Centauri and back — from the created's perspective (down here on earth), everything on the earth would appear to be much, much, much older than it really was!

    In 2007 my bride and I went to Florissant, Colorado for our wedding anniversary.  There we saw some incredible fossils.  By the calculations/estimations presented there, our solar system is some 4.5 billion years old.  Many scientists hold that the "big bang" occurred some 13.7 billion years ago.  Based on a 4.5 billion year guestimation, God created it all at the rate of 8,681 years PER SECOND.  Using 13.7 billion years and God's creation speed is a mind blowing 26,427 years per second!  All possible in the light of  the time dilation component of Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

    In this admittedly simplified presentation, the purpose was to debate the idea of Theistic Evolution scientifically rather than theologically.  The goal was to counter Theistic Evolution's underlying scientific theory, biological evolution, with an equally scientific alternative, Einstein's Theory of Relativity — again, debating theory with theory.  I believe I  was true to that purpose and goal.  But there remains yet one more point that should not be overlooked.  Namely, that all of this is totally theoretical.  All arguments — from both sides — regardless of how well they are presented and argued, are still based on, as yet, unproven theories.