and checked that we were complementing each other. Terence Martin made many helpful suggestions concerning the implications of what I had written. My sons, Herold and Carlos, and my wife, Aida, also read the drafts, offered helpful suggestions for their improvement and gave me unconditional support. My editor and publisher, Henry Neufeld, merits my special gratitude for having offered me a contract for the publication of a book I had not yet quite written. That was a first for me. He also decided to make this a companion volume to the book by Edward W. H. Vick which takes a look at the Christian doctrine of creation from a systematic perspective. I am most indebted to him for the professionalism and dedication with which he has carried this project to a most satisfying completion.
INTRODUCTION
These days, unfortunately, the United States is divided on a long list of issues. They range from social issues, like abortion and gay marriage, to political issues, like the role of government in the market and the proper use of military power in the territory of other sovereign nations. These issues certainly are very important and the positions adopted on them will make significant differences to the future history of our nation. I fear, however, that another issue that has been pestering our national life for over a century continues to have a significant impact on our society and its effects are increasingly deleterious. I refer to the debate concerning the scientific study of nature and Christian faith. Like the other issues mentioned above, it must be admitted, its importance spills over national frontiers. By referring to its impact on the American horizon, I am in no way saying that it is not also very significant in the lives of Christian believers in other countries.
That nature reveals an evolutionary process is not a recent discovery. The ancient Greeks as early as the third century B.C.E. knew that things in nature evolve. When Charles Darwin became a student at Cambridge University his professors were teaching evolution as a phenomenon clearly visible in nature. Of course, there were also prominent Cambridge theologians who opposed any deviation from a static view of nature. They insisted that nature be taken as a system that began six thousand years ago, as Ussher’s chronology of biblical history then being printed on the margins of Bibles told everyone.
Charles Darwin’s contribution to modern science was to offer an explanation as to how evolution takes place. He brought out the evidence collected during his three-year-long journey around the world on the Beagle to argue that the engine for the evolution of life forms was what he called “natural selection.”
Ever since Darwin, biologists have been studying the ways in which living organisms evolve. In the process they have been making modifications to Darwin’s explanations. As a result, the notion of natural selection has become a hotly debated issue among biologists. The decipherment of the genome and more generally the rise of genetics as the most rapidly advancing area of biology have made biologists realize that natural selection does not by itself account for all the changes taking place in living organisms. Natural selection is to be seen in conjunction with gene duplication and random (and not so random) mutations as the factors bringing about evolutionary change.
The commanding position of Darwin’s theory as the best way to understand how evolution works, however, gave rise to strong opposition to it by those who saw it as a threat to the authority of the Bible. In an effort to sustain belief in the biblical records within a society that was benefiting from the advances of science and their application in technologies that make life more comfortable, fundamentalists came up with creationism. This is an effort to make the creation account of Genesis scientifically valid. Such effort came to a head at a well publicized trial on December 7–9, 1981, at Little Rock, Arkansas. The trial tested the constitutionality of a law passed by the Arkansas legislature. Act 590 required that in every class in science in the school system of this state the “two scientific models” concerning the origin of “the universe, earth, life and man” should receive “balanced treatment.” The two models were defined as “creation science” and “evolution science.” While it clarified that no religious instruction was allowed in the classrooms, it insisted that the “scientific evidences and the inferences therefrom” were to be presented in favor of both scientific models. The trial resulted in Judge William Overton ruling that “creation-science” is not science but religion. A somewhat related law passed in Louisiana was tested at the Supreme Court of the United States. In the 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard this law was declared unconstitutional. As these efforts by creationists proved unsuccessful and the courts declared that “creation science” was not at all science but religious doctrine, the fundamentalist point of view was renamed “Intelligent Design” in order to obscure its theological underpinnings. This subterfuge, however, has not deceived anyone.
The battle over evolution vs. creationism has been raging in our midst and, unfortunately, it has not been limited to the social gatherings of inquisitive adults. It is being fought in the school boards of the nation and has been having a deleterious effect in the science classrooms not only of our public schools but also in those of some religiously controlled colleges. Many professors in denominational colleges are being asked to offer creationism as a viable scientific alternative to evolution.
It may be argued that the pressure to denigrate scientific findings as “so called science” leaves students with a misunderstanding of science and a low estimate of its benefits. Comparative studies of the knowledge of science among secondary school students in different nations rate American high school students in seventeenth place. As a consequence the population at large is suffering from an ideological misdirection of the educational curriculum. This is particularly true among those who discontinue their formal education with a high school diploma. I think, therefore, that this issue has increasing significance on account of its multiple consequences.
Closer to home, it is to be noted that young people of this generation are growing up with distinctive traits and preferences. They are much less inclined than previous generations to wish to establish their own place under the sun by themselves. The rampant individualism of the near past is giving place to a more community-oriented style of life. But their idea of community is not necessarily institutionalized or ideologically delimited. This means that they are leaving the churches of their parents in large numbers. The Barna Group sponsored a five year study of the reasons young people leave the churches of their childhood. In the book making public the results of this study, You Lost Me: Why Young Christians are Leaving Church and Rethinking Faith, David Kinnaman reports that thirty-five percent of the respondents said they resented that Christians are too confident they know all the answers. Twenty-five percent identified Christianity as anti-science as a reason for leaving, and twenty-three percent said they had been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.
Since I am neither a scientist nor a historian or philosopher of science, I do not feel I can contribute to the elucidation of the issues involved in this debate. Even if I were, probably I would not get into the fray after the highly commendable recent contribution by Conor Cunningham. His book, Darwin’s Pious Idea: Why the Ultra-Darwinists and the Creationists Both Get it Wrong, explains the twists and turns both among Darwinists and creationists through the years with admirable clarity and charts a path for bringing about a concordat between the camps. His argument is built on evidence from orthodox Christian theology which the creationists seem to ignore. Still, Cunningham argues, with the creationists, that all the biblical evidence on creation is found in Genesis’ first three chapters.
Furthermore, I am fortunate to be writing this book as a companion volume to one by my colleague Edward W. H. Vick. In his book he takes a look at the Christian doctrine of creation within the framework of systematic theology. Thus, I can concentrate my study of creation on the evidence available in the biblical texts. Still, I shall preface my study by some general observations concerning issues that sometimes interfere with the study of the biblical materials.
To affirm that God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth does not require that creationism control what is taught in science classes. To characterize nature as creation is a theological statement. To study nature scientifically is to use the knowledge already attained by evidence objectively studied to predict possible scenarios in areas