negotiating the creation-evolution wars

8/12/2019 Negotiating the Creation-Evolution Wars

1/7

Negotiating theCreation Evolution arsy Fritz Guy

W hen it comes to putting Genesisand geology together, there are (asis often the case in the rest of life) many optionsbut no free lunches. Every approach is expensivein one way or another. But thoughtful Christianswho are in touch with the modem world usuallychoose among five principal approaches to theproblem of relating the biblical revelation aboutCreation and the natural history of the world.

It is useful to think ofeach of these approachesin an ideal or pure form, recognizing that sel-dom does anyone's thinking fit neatly into a singlecategory. (The quoted materials are intended onlyto illustrate a particular approach, not to representthe overall perspective of any particular author.)

Biblical Positivism GenesisWithout Geologyhe starting point for the approachof biblical positivism is a simplebiblical literalism that views Genesis as providingan authoritative literal account of the process ofCreation, accurately describing what occurredand how it happened. This way ofreading Gene-

sis is reflected in the bumper sticker that reads,God says it; I believe it; that settles it. Biblicalliteralism is sometimes accompanied by a suspi-cion of modem sciences (and godless scien-tists ) or by a more general anti-intellectualism.Fritz Guy is an associate pastor at the Lorna Linda Univer-sity Church and a frequent contributor to Spectrum Hereceived his doctorate in theology from the University ofChicago.

The most interesting example of this approachis the apparent age theory, which argues that inthe beginning God created a mature earth.Adam had the appearance of being an adult, and ascientific examination of his body immediatelyafter his creation would have provided ample datato indicate that he was, in fact, a fully adult male.On the SabbathofCreation week his apparent agewas at least 20 years even though his real age wasonly one day. This argument states that what wastrue of Adam was also true of everything else:every created entity appeared to have the age ofits particular maturity. Thus, trees had numerousannual rings; light was well on its way to planetEarth from distant stars; and rocks had sedimen-tary strata. Ofcourse, in no case was there empir-ical evidence of a recent Creation; by the natureof hings, there couldn't have been. So this theoryhas an interesting logical status: on the one handno scientific evidence of age or development cancount against it; on the other hand no scientificevidence can support it, either. This is why it iscalled biblical positivism : it is an apriori the-oryofearth history, simply posited on the basisof a conviction about the nature of the Genesisnarratives of Creation.The problem with this approach is that it con-siders scientific evidence irrelevant, if not mis-leading, in regard to earth history. It is not put-ting Genesis and geology together so much asta.k ng Genesis and ignoring geology. This is ahigh intellectual price to pay in a culture that isdistinguished by scientific and technologicalachievement. The price is so high, in fact, thatrelatively few people, Christian or otherwise,seem willing to pay it. The consensus is this:


2/7

Volume 20, Number 1

Science is not infallible, but God is hardly decep-tive. l Trees may have been created with annualrings; but a tree created with Abraham lovesSarah carved in its bark would have been gratui-tously deceptive. n exactly the same way, itseems, the creation of fossil sequences in rockswould have been deceptive. Evidence that sug-gests sedimentation or vulcanization is one thing;evidence that points to millions ofyears ofchang-ing forms of ife on earth is another thing entirely.Another problem is that this approach wants toexclude one area of science (namely, geology)from our understanding of reality without affect-ing other areas. But it is hard to see how this canbe done. Since Adventism is firmly committed toscientific medicine (so that its medical institu-tions and personnel will be legally qualified toprovide medical care), it is very difficult to say,We'll take seriously those sciences (like bio-chemistry and neurophysiology) that help uspractice medicine, butwe'll ignore other sciences(like geology and paleontology) if they don'tsupport our beliefs. It is logically possible (al-though culturally difficult) to dismiss science asa whole, but ifone kindofscience is theologicallylegitimate, the whole scientific enterprise is, inprinciple, legitimate. One cannot pick and chooseamong the sciences. A commitment to medicalscience means that an understanding of Creationand earth history must take advantage of the earthsciences; otherwise there is intellectual schizo-phrenia. f Adventists are going to be concernedabout origins, it makes sense for an institution thatspecializes in infant heart transplants and nuclearmedicine to also have a Geoscience Research In-stitute.

Creation Science GenesisControlling Geology

C reation science is a process ofhar-monizing an understanding ofnatural history with biblical revelation. The start-ing point is the conviction that both Genesis andgeology are relevant to an understanding ofearthhistory, because truth is fundamentally a unity.

4

Theoretically, this harmonization could work ineither direction: one could assert the primacy ofmodem science, and understand Genesis in termsof geology (which is what harmonization in thisarea usually means); or one could assert the pri-macy of the Bible and understand geology interms of Genesis. In both cases the logic is thesame: the range of the possible interpretations ofevidence in one kind of study is determined byprior conclusions on the basis of evidence inanother kind of study.

The intention of Creation science isto support the biblical accountwith scientific evidence andargument. Negatively this involvesformulating objections toevolutionary theory; positively itinvolves presenting evidence of arecent origin of the Earth, life, andhumanity.

The intention of Creation science is thus tosupport the biblical account with scientific evi-dence and argument. Negatively this involvesfomlUlating objections to evolutionary theory;positively it involves presenting evidence of arecent origin of the Earth, life, and humanity. Inthe 20th century there has beena remarkable resurgence of belief among many Chris-tian scientists in the crucial geological role of the Floodand in the idea that theEarth is extremely young. A hostof biologists, physicists, chemists, geographers, andengineers (extremely few geologists and astronomers)have recently been insisting on a return to a belief inCreation in six twenty-four-hour days only a few thou-sand years agoThis approach has two principle startingpoints. One is the conviction that biblical state-ments about origins are relevant to an understand-ing of earth's history. While it is true that indealing with Creation, the Bible puts its majoremphasis upon why God did what he did, it issignificant that the Bible is also concerned withwhat God did and even, to some extent, how he didit. And there is indeed a statement about origins


3/7

42

which, imprecise though it may be, nonethelesshas implications for the proposals of natural sci-ence. 3The other starting point is an implicit (andsometimes explicit) belief in biblical inerrancy,along with a kind of moderate (that is, not abso-lute) literalism. While affIrming a recent Crea-tion in six 24-hour days, this approach is flexiblein regard to such things as (1) the nature of thefIrmament (literally, a beaten-out metal plate in

Creation science is not science inthe generally accepted sense of theterm. For one thing, the idea ofCreation presupposes a Creator,and hence is a self-evidentlyreligious notion.

the shape of a dome); (2) the creation of the sun,moon, and stars on the fourth day, after there isalready vegetation on earth; and (3) the order ofevents in Genesis 2, which tells of the creation ofmale humanity, then plants, animals, and [mallyfemale humanity. Very few people believe thatwhat looks like sky is really a huge metal dome, orthat there was no sunor stars before the fourth day,or that humanity existed (in one gender only)before there was plants and animals. Only withthis kind of flexibility of interpretation can theconviction of biblical inerrancy be maintained.

There are three elements in the rationale forCreation science. n the fIrst place, a common-sense reading of the Genesis narratives of Crea-tion suggests that they are straightforwardprose. 4 In the second place, subsequent biblicalmaterials seem to regard the Genesis account as aliteral, factual description of the process of Crea-tion: the fourth commandment (Exodus 20: 11; cf.31: 17), for example, along with references toAdam in the Gospels (Mark 10:6-8; Matthew19:4,5) and the Pauline letters (Romans 5: 12-21;2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:13, 14). And inthe third place, throughout the historyof Christianthought, the dominant understanding of Genesishas been a literal one the most notable excep-tion being Augustine, who believed that every-thing was actually created simultaneously but was

Spectrum

presented in Genesis as taking six days so thatpeople could more easily understand it.sThe major difficulty of this approach is thatCreation science is not science in the generallyaccepted sense of he term. For one thing, the idea

of Creation presupposes a Creator, and hence is aself-evidently religious notion. This is why theArkansas law requiring the teaching of Creationscience in public schools was declared to beunconstitutional. 6 Everyone interested in Crea-tion sciences seems to be religiously motivated;not only are the authors ofCreation science mate-rials self-identified as Christian, but in every casethe materials are produced by religious rather thanscientific publishers. Recently, a new term hasbeen suggested to avoid this difficulty: originscience. This resolves the logical problem al-though, again, the proponents and their publishersare religiously motivated.7Another difficulty is the fact that, asof now, thepreponderance of scientifIc evidence points to avery old earth and a gradual development of lifeforms. Occasionally this is implicitly admitted:Creationists and flood geologists recognize thati heir theory is true, there must be some signifI-cant phenomena yet to be discovered. 8

Biblical ReinterpretationGenesis According to Geologyany Christians who have lookedat the geological evidence haveshown much support for [both] the antiquity ofthe Earth and the integrity of the Bible as God'srevelation, and have been eager to relate thediscoveries of science to Genesis.''9 And theynote some interesting similarities between Gene-

sis and geology: the order and diversityof reality,the progression of different kinds of reality fromcomparatively simple to more complex, and hu-man existence as part of a temporal process thatbegan before it and points forward to an eschato-logical future. oThose who take this approach have developedvarious ways of interpreting Genesis to take ac-count of a long span of time. (1) The gap theory,


4/7

Volume 20, Number 1

which is no longer prominent, puts geologicaltime into the fIrst two verses ofGenesis 1, which,it is claimed, describe the conditions that pre-ceded the six 24-hour days of Creation. (2) Theday-age theory, on the other hand, puts geologicaltime into the six days themselves, regarding themas indefmitely long but successive epochs.12(3) The revelatory-day theory (or pictorial-daytheory), which is not as well known, puts geologi-cal time into Creation week as a whole, withoutcorrelating days with epochs. This theory main-tains that it was not Creation that happened in six24-hour days, but the revelation of Creation.Pictorial-revelatory days, not literal days norage-days are the means of communicating toman the great fact that God is Creator, and that Heis Creator of all. 13The problem with all of these interpretations isthat they are not indicated, much less demanded,by the biblical text; they are simply d ho at-tempts to make Genesis agree with geology. Andthere are some glitches. The gap theory ignoresthe structure of Genesis 1, and the function of thefITst sentence as the thesis of the whole chapter.The day-age theory ignores the impact of therefrain, There was evening and there was morn-ing (Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19 23 31, NIV). Therevelatory-day theory ignores the need for somereference to a visionary experience.Some who take the approachofbiblical reinter-pretation go to great lengths to claim they are notreinterpreting Genesis according to geology.

The data of nature can only make us take anotherhard look at the data of the Bible to see if we haveinterpreted them correctly the fIrst time. The Bible mustfmally be interpreted in tenns of its own facts eventhough infonnation from other sources, for example,literature or archaeology, may help us to ask properquestions of he biblical text in our interpretive task. Thequestion of the length of days of Genesis 1 must bedecided by the text of Scripture and the analogy ofScripture. It cannot be decided by infonnation fromnature We cannot reject the twenty-four-hour hy-pothesis simply because it doesn't agree with science.The length of days is an exegetical question.14But after listening to all this explanation, onestill has the impression that these interpretationsreally are determined by geology.Having allowed for great ages of geological

43

time, this approach also allows for various viewsof the creative process. Here the difference be-tween progressive Creation and theistic evolu-tion does not seem to be theologically signifIcant(since the latter can easily include the former),although the two terms may be sociologicallyimportant Those who identify themselves asprogressive Creationists may be trying to avoidthe pejorative label theistic evolutionist, whichseems to many Christians to be a self-G,.ontradic-tion, since for them the tenn evolution carriesatheistic connotations.Operationalism GenesisParalleled by Geology

he approach of scientifIc opera-tionalism begins with the convic-tion that science does not provide infonnationabout reality as such, but simply gives directionsfor further research. Applied to the relation ofGenesis and geology, this means that the biblicalrevelation provides a realistic account of whathappened, while the data of natural history indi-cates how Creation appears.This means that science provides theoreticalmodels used for facilitating the predictability offuture events, but doesn 't depict the actualconstitution of the eternally real world. Scienceis unable to establish any final truth or a final system ofexplanation What is scientifIc cannot on the basis ofthe scientifIc method be shown to be objectively true,and may in fact be untrue or wrong. lS

In other words, the activity of God in the naturalworld is so far beyond human comprehension thatit is presumptuous and arrogant to assume that itcorresponds to our theories. n this view, mod-em science can pose no signifIcant problem forCreation, and Creation need pose no problem forscience, 16 because science talks about appear-ances, the Bible about reality as such. (Studentsof philosophy may here recognize the ghost ofImmanuel Kant, who distinguished between thephenomenal realm of appearances and thenoumenal realm of things in themselves. )17This approach is a sophisticated cousin ofbiblical positivism: both maintain that biblical


5/7

44

revelation cannot be refuted or supported by sci-entific data. In this respect, these approaches arelike the idea that the world and its contents,including each person' smemory, were created 15minutes ago. But this is to divorce science fromany knowledge of reality. The idea that science

Genesis is saying that God is thesource of everything. Everything iscreated by God and dependent onGod. What God creates is real andgood, so nothing is intrinsicallyevil. This is not scientific ; it isfar more important than science.cannot tell us about God is plausible enough; theidea that science cannot tell us about the naturalworld either is rather hard to swallow, especiallynow. Contemporary Western civilization ismore dependent, both for its everyday philosophyand for its bread and butter, upon scientific con-cepts, than any past civilization has been. 18

Dimensionalism GenesisIntersecting GeologyD mensionalism regards Genesisand geology, like the larger cate-gories, science and religion, as talking about dif-ferent aspects of one reality. This approach is alittle like operationalism (Genesis paralleled bygeology), but in this case, Genesis and geologyare seen as intersecting because they are bothtalking about the same subject-namely the rea-

sons for the actual reality we encounter.This approach distinguishes the question ofultimate origins (Where did it all come from?)from the quite different question of proximateorigins (How did A arise out of B, i it did?). 19Accordingly, it is believed that biblical revelationis intended, not to give an account of the processof Creation, but to identify the source and explainthe intentionofCreation. In other words, Genesisanswers the questions Who? and Why? whilegeology and its related sciences answer the ques-

Spectrum

tions When? and How?20 These are seen as com-plementary sets of questions about radically dif-ferentdimensionsofreality. Back in the 17thcen-tury, Galileo recognized this distinction when heexplained, The purpose of the Holy Ghost [inScripture] is to teach us how one goes to heaven,not how heaven goes. 21

For dimensionalism, the idea of Creation is anarticle of faith, like the idea of a Creator. It iscompatible with all kinds of scientific vocabu-laries which can underline, concretize, and illus-trate it; but what this faith speaks of remainsindependent of all these modes of expression. 22Genesis is seen as a profound religious/theologi-cal affirmation ofCreation-Genesis 1 as a hymnin seven stanzas, and Genesis 2-3 as a symbolicnarrative something like the parables of Jesus-which is taken seriously but not literally. 23So what Genesis is saying is that God is thesource of everything. God is exclusively ulti-mate; everything else is created by God and de-pendent on God. What God creates is real andgood, so nothing is intrinsically evil. This is notscientific ; it is far more important than science.To know the process by which things came toe would be only interesting; to know that itcomes from a will which unites its power with acreative love is to e able to answer with confi-dence all our most crucial questions about themeaning and intelligibility of our existence.24Thus Genesis and geology answer differingkinds of questions that need to be kept separate.Bringing appropriate questions to the Bible leadsto a harvest of beautiful and powerful answers;inappropriate questions are the seeds of non-

sense. 25Internal evidence for the theological (non-scientific) character of Genesis is seen in (a) thegrammatical and logical subject of most of the

sentences, which is not the world or its contents,but God: God said, God saw, God blessed ;(b) the two parallel series of three creative acts:forming the world by differentiation (light fromdarkness, water from air, land from sea), andfilling the world by production (astronomicalobjects, fish and birds, animals and humanity);and (c) the difference in the order of Creationevents in Genesis 1 and 2 a difference that is no


6/7

Volume 20, Number 1

problem if the two narratives are not regarded asproviding a chronological account.According to the approach ofdimensionalism,although Genesis and geology intersect (becausethey are both talking about the reasons for thereality we encounter), they cannot be in conflict:The Creator s behind all physical processes, allreproductive capabilities, all principles of harmony inthe universe. Then in principle there can be no conflict

between faith and science. Conflict will arise onlyifGodis assumed to be merely the God-of-the-gaps, whoseactivities are circumscribed to the miraculous whilescience studies the normal or natural events. f heCreator is Lordofallevents, taking ultimate responsibil-ity for everything, then the term natural will not meanself-explanatory,but that fixed and stable state of proc-esses in the universe of which God is the Ruler andMaintainer. 26This approach makes it comfortable to thinkabout both the geological evidence and the bibli-cal narratives at the same time: one can wonderabout the age of the earth and not be anxious. It isnot necessary to say, If he geologistsdon't comeup with the right data, we'll have to give up theBible. On the other hand, this approach involvesa different way ofreading the first part ofGenesis(taking it seriously but not literally ) and of

45

thinking about such things as the Sabbath, thefigures ofAdam and Eve, and the relation ofdeathto sin. This is, for some, too high a price to pay.No, there are no free lunches. Biblical positiv-ism, for example, is clear, uncomplicated, andcontinuous with historic Christianity and Ad-ventism; but it comes at the cost of isolating itselffrom modem science-which isn't possible for acommunity that is committed to scientific medi-cine. Creation science takes science seriously inorder to use it in the service of a belief based on areading ofGenesis; but it is not itself truly scien-tific. Biblical reinterpretation wants to makeGenesis scientifically respectable by harmoniz-ing it with contemporary geology. Operational-ism maintains the integrity of both Genesis andgeology, but at the costofdivorcing science fromreality. Dimensionalism gives each source ofknowledge about Creation its own role and func-tion, but it requires a new understanding of themeaning of Genesis.Among all the approaches and options, noteveryone will make the same choice, becausedifferent people will differently assess the bene-fits and the costs ofeach approach. However, wemust learn to respect one another's choices.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1 Dale Moody, The Word ofTruth (Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans, 1981), p. 142.

2. Davis A Young, Christianity and the Age of theEarth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), p. 64.3. MillardJ. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rap-

ids: Eerdmans, 1986), p. 379.4. Carl F. H. Henry, God Revelation and Authority 6vols. (Waco, TX: Word, 1976-1983), Vol. 6, p. 116.

5. Augustine, The Literal Meaning ofGenesis AncientChristian Writers, 41-42 (New York: Newman, 1982), Vol.41, pp. 141-145.6. See Langdon Gilkey, Creationism on Trial (Minnea-polis: Winston, 1985).

7. Norman L Geisler and J. Kerby Anderson, OriginScience: A Proposal for the Creation-Evolution Contro-versy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987).8. Leonard Brand, Can Science and Religion WorkTogether? Ministry (November 1987), p. 23.

9 DavisA Young, Christianity and the Ageof he Earth

(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), p. 63.10. Cf. Hendrikus Berkhof, Christian Faith: An Intro-duction to the Study of he Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1979),pp. 173, 174.11. A recent proponent is Arthur C. Custance, WithoutForm and Void (Brockville, Canada: Custance,1970).12. Cf. Young, 63; also his earlier book, Creation nd heFlood: An Alternate to Flood Geology and Theistic Evolu-tion (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977).13. Bernard Ramm, The Christian View ofScience andScripture reprint (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), p.151 .14. Young, Christianity and the Age of the Earth pp.

159-160.15. Henry, Vol. 6, pp. 110-117, 192, 193.16. Ibid., Vol. 6, pp.192, 193.17. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (New

York: St. Martin's, 1965), pp. 257-273.18. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution

(Cambridge: Harvard University, 1957), p. 3.


7/7

46

19. Langdon Gilkey, Creationism: The Roots of theConflict, in s God a Creationist? The Religious CaseAgainst Creation-Science Roland Mushat Frye, ed. (NewYork: Scribners, 1983), p. 60.20. Cf.RobertB. Fischer,God Did It ButHow? (GrandRapids: Zondervan/Academie, 1981).21. Galileo Galilei, Letter t Madame Christina ofLorraine, Grand Duchess of Tuscany, Concerning the Useof Biblical Quotations in Matters of Science, inDiscover-ies and Opinions ofGalileo Stillman Drake, ed. (GardenCity, NY: Doubleday/Anchor, 1957), p. 186.

pectrum

22. Berkhof, p. 174.23. Reinhold Niebuhr, As Deceivers Yet True, inBeyond Tragedy (New York: Scribners, 1937).24. Langdon Gilkey, Maker ofHeaven and Earth: AStudy of he Christian Doctrine ofCreation (Garden City,NY: Doubleday/Anchor, 1965), pp. 15 ,23 , 79.25. Howard J. Van Till, TheFourthDay: WhattheBi-ble and the Heavens Are Telling About Creation (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1986), p. 60.26. James Houston, I Believe in the Creator (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1980), pp. 46 47.

negotiating the creation-evolution wars

Documents