The GGU-model as discussed in "Science Declares Our Universe Is Intelligently Design" never needs to be interpreted theologically. Although it's shown that the notion called "in-transit'' information and other known theological interpretations are viable scientific and rational possibilities, there's one that I now accept. It solves the problem of the apparent development of our universe and local environment over a vast number of years and, yet, rationally models the Genesis 1 - 8 account in the most literal sense possible. This includes a young-earth concept. But, the creationary model I accept is distinct from those presently being popularized by Answers in Genesis (AiG) and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). [The phrase "local environment" means the Earth, sun and moon, and depending upon evidence and personal choice could include all of the other named constituents of our solar system.] Although, in what follows, I use some of the terminology found in this book, not knowing the exact meaning of these terms should not influence basic comprehension. The term "development" refers to the notion that formation of entities progresses from definable simple stages to definable complex stages via pre-designed event sequences.
[1] I accept that pre-designed branches of the Genesis sequence (i.e. library) produced by sudden appearance in mature and functional form all of the Genesis 1:1 - 31 described entities as this process is discussed from page 193 through the first paragraph of page 203. None of the originally realized biological entities were formed from less complex entities via any form of biological evolution. These biological objects came from a collection of specially designed objects each being termed as a "kind." As to the formation during day-four of the exterior universe, I accept the modern "rapid-formation" (III) in-transit information model, as discussed in my second "belief" statement, with a "hot firmament" beginning scenario as the most Scripturally correct "model." The hot firmament and in-transit information models comprise branches taken from the Genesis sequence. Both of these models are described briefly in the referenced book. As of the date of this revised statement, certain cosmological observations seem to yield predicted anomalies not adequately explained via a universe that has developed over a long cosmological time-span. This evidence increases the probability for acceptance of one of the modern in-transit information models relative to an actual meaning for the Hebrew and Greek "star = ast er." All of the required GGU-model processes and ultranatural objects employed comprise the "foundations" of the Earth (Job 38:4, Isa 51:13, 16) and are all created over a zero observer time interval and comprise one of the two heavens implied by Genesis 1:1. [See zerotime.pdf a technical paper for the notion of zero observer time internals.]
[2] Although I developed the scientific models for the development of the exterior universe via "in-transit information" and these model remains viable, one needs to determine at what point in the development of the exterior universe realization occurred. For type (I) in-transit information model, the external universe is suddenly realized as it appeared about 6,000 years ago. For the hot firmament model, there appears to be some Biblical evidence that points to the sudden realization (appearance) of the basic "universe forming material." The hot (i.e. energetic) firmament model for the exterior universe, as detailed on pages 213 - 215, uses a mode of development that can take any finite amount of exterior universe time but, the development would only take "one" day of "Earth-time" as measured relative to the original Earth. (The Hebrew word often translated as earth ('erets) is also often translated as a portion of the original solar-system object. In these "belief" articles, I use the capital "E" to indicate the entire original earth object.) Earth-time is time measured via any highly periodic Earth-bound physical-system behavior. Earth-time is a restricted form of observer time. (I mention that the basic aspects of the hot firmament model were first purposed in March 1994. For further details, the actual "stuff" that comprises the firmament and Scriptural evidence, please see "belief2" mentioned at the end of this statement.)
[3] I accept that the Fall of Adam and Eve triggered a shift in a library or a branch in the Genesis sequence, a shift that altered the local environment to some extent so that it would adhere to some of the describable physical processes that govern the exterior universe. This comes from the notion of what was considered as "good" and "very good" as stated in the Genesis creation scenario. Comparing the created entities prior to the Fall with those that existed after the Fall (thistles), indicates a deterioration in the "good" and "very good" notions relative to physical-system behavior after the Fall. Indeed, certain weak aspects of what some term as "natural evil" (disease and aging factors) may be considered as now present in this newly realized environment. Of course, such physical-system behavior existed in the covirtual or potential form by pre-design, which now becomes reality. This reality is a direct result of human choice. However, the local environment still appears to be governed by "physical" processes that are different from those we observe and describe today. Indeed, there was still no rain. I consider this "shift" to other event sequences as a type of rational choice that requires a special Divine intervention and application of the newly discovered interface operator. (See URL arXiv )
[4] God states in Genesis 6: 13 "I will destroy them (together) with the earth." Thus He intends to destroy the original Earth as well. I accept that yet another Divine intervention is made that shifts to another pre-designed branch in the Genesis sequence so as to completely destroy most of the original Earth biological entities and to ruin the special aspects of the Earth and, most probably, its local environment. This shift has removed all the "obvious" evidence that such a special pre-flood local environment existed. (This replacement notion is more fully described in my third personal statement.) It seems that this shift is made so that, after the Flood, the physical-system behavior within the local environment appears consistent with the processes that govern the development of the exterior universe. (By disobeying God's behavioral requirements, humankind has now placed itself in a physical environment that is highly dangerous to its physical well-being.) I note, however, that the current earth along with its local environment that results from this replacement still retains many of the rather unusual aspects associated with the original formation. Depending upon what constitutes its local environment these could include such aspects as a position relative to its home galaxy, planetary orbits etc. This would be a signature indicating that the basic astronomical purpose for the original formation still is operative. This type of alteration in our local environment is a one-time event as indicated in Genesis 8:22 and 9:11. The next such alteration will be to the entire universe as indicated in Revelations 20:11 and 21:1.
The Flood branches exist within the Genesis sequence and, for many individuals, it forms part of the "strong delusion" that God said He would "send." However, the branches contain certain anomalies within our local environment that cannot be convincingly reconciled with secular macroevolutionary mechanisms such as unguided mutations. This would be a signature, for those who can discern such anomalies, that God created our original local environment in a special form as indicated within the Scriptures and the development of certain entities within, at least, our local environment cannot be satisfactorily explained by means of any internally displayed or humanly described modern evolutionary mechanism. Further, from the viewpoint of an in-transit information or hot firmament model, the material universe was realized during approximately the past 6,000-year period of standard present-day earth-time. However, the exterior universe and our local environment now "appear" to be billions of years old relative to many present-day earth-time measuring techniques. The "delusion" is actually self-delusion in that individuals have a choice as to how our universe came into being, where one such choice strongly correspond to a non-biblical world-view.
[5] Consequently, I accept that the universe as it presents itself today appears to have developed via pre-designed event sequences that give the appearance of great age. However, there will be anomalies that cannot be "explained" by means of any secular theory of macroevolution. I speculate that these anomalies include the lack of any actual evidence for the macroevolutionary development, from less complex structures, of certain animal and vegetable entities (the kinds) that, according to the Bible, were created rather suddenly in mature and fully functional form and were carried on the ark. In my final personal statement in this series, I show how all such claimed present-day anomalies can be completely explained. To those that accept the literal Biblical account, it's rational to assume that the present-day form of development is not the original process by which our local environment was formed and developed through the time of the Flood.
Important additional details and other aspects of this solution appear in the next article Continued Belief Statements. Further, a link at the end of this next article will take you to my final personal statement, a statement that solves all of the post-Flood controversies.
If you have not already done so, you might find it instructive to consider what I actually do when I construct creationary models. [See What is Creationary Science?.] Under no circumstances, do I wish any individual to be influenced in their choice of a cosmological model simply because I have chosen a specific model. Only 22 pages in "Science Declares Our Universe is Intelligently Designed" (Xulon Press April 2002) are used to describe how the GGU-model is applied to theology. There are many other rational possibilities.