Creationism: An In-House Discussion

The audio from the Apologetics.com Radio Show I did over the weekend on the topic of the days of creation is now available at Apologetics.com. Thank you to my friend and host, Lindsay Brooks, for giving me the opportunity to come on and discuss this issue with him. Also, thanks to the other guests, Doug Hamp and Sam Welbaum for a lively discussion.

If you get a chance to listen, please leave a comment and let me know. I am told that things really get interesting in the last half-hour segment (it's a two hour show).

Creationism: An In-House Discussion Audio Link

Radio Show Appearance TONIGHT!

Tonight at midnight (Pacific Time), I will be a guest on the Apologetics.com Radio Show, which airs on 99.5 KKLA here in the Los Angeles area. If you happen to be awake at that hour, please tune in. You can also listen live online, via the KKLA website (click on the "Listen Live" button near the top of the page).

The topic tonight will be the days of Genesis. I will, of course, be presenting the 6/24 view.

You can call in during the show with questions and comments: 1-888-LATALKS (1-888-528-2557).

If you happen to be one of those sane folks who are asleep between 12am and 2am, the show will be posted on the Apologetics.com site a few days after it airs.

Warfield not an Evolutionist After All!

In the latest issue of The Confessional Presbyterian, there is an article by Fred G. Zaspel entitled "B. B. Warfield on Creation and Evolution." Having read my share of theistic evolutionists, I was already aware that Warfield is used by them to justify their position. "I am a theistic evolutionist, just like Warfield was, so that makes it ok." That is how the reasoning usually runs. (NB: of course, to us confessional Presbyterians, it doesn't matter what any individual believes, we are held to the standard of our Confessional documents, and the Westminster Confession leaves no room for the possibility of evolution. But, I digress.)

Rev. Zaspel has done a good work by contributing fresh study to the position of Warfield in regard to evolution. He clearly demonstrates that, at best, Warfield was open to the possibility of evolution (though a highly modified version of evolution which could not be called "Darwinian"), and at times mockingly rejected the idea. It appears that Warfield in his undergraduate days probably held to evolution (Zaspel writes: "Warfield's own claim in 1916 is that he had rejected evolutionism by the early 1880s, and significantly, his remark seems to reflect his thinking still in 1916"), but at some point along the way abandoned the theory. "This is how Warfield argued consistently over the course of his career: he allowed the possibility of evolution, but he remained non-committal," writes Zaspel.

Zaspel concludes, "The prevailing understanding of Warfield as an evolutionist must be rejected."

You can order a copy of the latest Confessional Presbyterian Journal at http://www.cpjournal.com if you are interested in reading the entire article, which I highly recommend.

Whither Warfield? Into the arms of Darwin!

[Editor's note: I see that this piece by Mathison is from March 2010. I have only just now become aware of it.]

Keith Mathison has posted a piece at Ligonier Ministries discussing the relationship between science and Scripture and advocating a return to the old Princetonian principle of Hodge, Hodge and Warfield; namely, that science and Scripture, when each is properly interpreted, will be in agreement, and therefore the Christian has nothing to fear from science for it can never properly overturn his faith. Thus far, I am in agreement. Dr Mathison writes:

They [the old Princetonians] agreed that when science and Scripture appear to contradict each other, either the scientific interpretation of God’s creation is in error or the Christian interpretation of Scripture is in error, or both are in error.

Yes, this is true; however, I would note three things, one hermeneutical, two historical:

First: the proper method of biblical interpretation is to find other passages of Scripture which speak clearly about the same topic and use those passages to interpret the passage in question. Or, as the Westminster Confession (1.9) states: "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."

I see no room for "science" to "help" in our interpretation of Scripture according to the Confession. As a matter of fact, introducing the findings of science (so called) to help us interpret any passage elevates science to the level of Scripture and places it in judgment over God's Word. This is a very dangerous position to take. Applied to the age of the earth, we ought to conclude that if we are uncertain what the days of Genesis 1 are (actual days or long ages or just some sort of literary device to communicate that God created), the proper way of determining the meaning of Genesis 1 is to look to other sections of Scripture that speak to the days of Creation or the age of the earth (Exodus 20:11, for example). It is improper to ask "what does science say about the interpretation of Genesis 1?" because that introduces something from outside Scripture into the interpretation of Scripture.

Second, a historical point: geocentricism is flaunted about by anyone who wants to use science to interpret Scripture. But, the historical nuance of the Galilean affair is lost on many of those who do so (I do not accuse Dr. Mathison of such carelessness, but I have seen geocentricism pop up too many times in discussions on the age of the earth) . Briefly stated, geocentricism was not a theological position based on Scripture, but a philosophical position (Aristotelianism) forced onto the text. Can we say the same about a young age of the earth? Or does Scripture speak clearly to the antiquity of creation? To place those who hold to a young earth in the same category as those who defended geocentricism is bad history and fallacious.

Third: I can only assume that Mathison, being a well-educated Presbyterian minister, is familiar with the fact that Warfield allowed for the possibility of theistic evolution. Warfield, believing that there was no conflict between science and Scripture (he was right) and also believing that science can be used to interpret Scripture (he was wrong) concluded that it was possible for evolution to be reconciled to the creation account of Genesis 1 and 2. His method for doing so was to sacrifice the plain reading of the text in order to allow for the new science of evolution to "interpret" the text for us. Warfield wrote (Lectures on Anthrology, 1888):

I am free to say, for myself, that I do not think that there is any general statement in the Bible or any part of the account of creation, either as given in Genesis 1 and 2 or elsewhere alluded to, that need be opposed to evolution....The upshot of the whole matter is that there is no necessary antagonism of Christianity to evolution, provided that we do not hold to too extreme a form of evolution. To adopt any form that does not permit God freely to work apart from law and which does not allow miraculous intervention (in the giving of the soul, in creating Eve, etc.) will entail a great reconstruction of Christian doctrine, and a very great lowering of the detailed authority of the Bible. But if we condition the theory by allowing the constant oversight of God in the whole process, and his occasional supernatural interference for the production of new beginnings by an actual output of creative force, producing something new i.e., something not included even in posse in the preceding conditions, we may hold to the modified theory of evolution and be Christians in the ordinary orthodox sense.

I must ask: is this what Dr. Mathison wants? I sincerely hope not.

The old Princetonians were not all bad, but on the question of the relationship between science and Scripture, they failed. Once final point: Warfield was only able to come to his erroneous conclusion on evolution because Charles Hodge, who correctly rejected evolution, had compromised with the popular science of his day: geology.

"How to Think About Science" Audio Posted

The audio from the Apologetics.com radio show I was on last Friday night/Saturday morning has been posted here.

Host Lindsay Brooks, special guest Dr. Leslie Wickman, and I discussed many things on the show including: What is knowledge and can science give it to us? What is the scientific method and how does that relate to "knowledge"? Are science and Christianity in conflict? And did Christianity help lay the foundation necessary for science?

I had a great time on the show and hope to go back to discuss other science and Christianity related questions, soon!

My Notes from Last Night's Show

Last night (well, technically, this morning), I was a guest on the Apologetics.com Radio show on KKLA 99.5 here in Los Angeles. The topic of the show was "Science." I had prepared notes for several theological presuppositions which Christianity provided before "science" could be practiced. During the show, I didn't have time to go over them. So, I am posting my notes here, for anyone who is interested. These notes are based 98% on Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton's excellent book The Soul of Science [TSOS], most notably chapter one.

Christian Doctrines that Laid the Foundation for Science

1. Reality of Creation (TSOS, 22)
1. The Bible teaches that nature is real
2. This is opposed to various forms of pantheism and idealism teach that finite particular things are merely appearances of the One, the Absolute, the Infinite. Individuality and separateness are illusions. Hinduism is one such example.
3. Creation teaches that finite objects are not mere appearances of the Infinite, but that God made them; they have a real existence. The doctrine of creation implies the world is not illusory.
2. God’s Creation is Good (TSOS, 22-23)
1. The ancient world often equated the material world with evil and disorder; hence, denigrating anything to do with material things.
1. Manual Labor was left to slaves
2. Many historians believe this is one reason the Greeks did not develop an empirical science, which requires practical, hands-in observation and experimentation.
2. Christianity teaches that the world has great value as God’s creation.
1. Throughout the Creation account in Gen. 1 we find that phrase “And God saw that it was good.”
2. Creation is to be studied because it is a good thing which God has given to us.
3. Calvin wrote: “There is need of art and more exacting toil in order to investigate the motion of the stars, to determine their assigned stations, to measure their intervals, to note their properties.”
3. Creation/Creator Distinction (TSOS, 23-24)
1. Nature is good, but it is not a god. It is a creature.
2. Pagan religions are typically animistic or pantheistic. Spirits or gods reside in nature.
1. Pagan man lives in “an enchanted forest”
3. Christianity teaches that God does not inhabit the world in the way these pagan deities do.
1. He is not the personalization of natural forces.
2. He is not the world’s “soul”
3. He is its CREATOR
4. In this way, Gen. 1 stands in stark contrast with other ANE religions by rejecting any religious status to things such as the Sun, the Moon, and the stars
4. This “de-deification” of nature was a necessary precursor to science.
1. As long as nature commands religious worship, dissecting her is judged impious.
2. If the world is charged with divine beings and powers, the only appropriate response is to supplicate them or ward them off!
5. When the world was no longer an object of worship, then--and only then--could it become an object of study.
4. Rational God
1. Paganism taught a multitude of gods; Christianity One.
2. This meant that the Creator’s handiwork was unified and coherent.
3. The God of the Bible is trustworthy and dependable
1. Therefore the creation of such a God must likewise be dependable
4. Nature exhibits regularity, dependability, and orderliness.
1. Historical example: Copernicus
1. He knew the universe was “wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”
5. Laws of Nature
1. Pagan culture saw nature as alive, and moved by mysterious forces
2. Christianity led to the belief, based on the trustworthiness of God, that all natural occurrences are lawful and intelligible.
3. God is a Law-Giver, therefore we can look for Laws in Nature, just as we find His Laws in Scripture.
4. Note the order: God first then laws, NOT laws therefore God.
1. Biblical presuppositions!
6. Creation Ex Nihilo (TSOS, 27)
1. Pagan religions posited creation from some pre-existing substance.
1. Plato’s demiurge merely injects reason (Ideas) into reason-lass matter
2. Even this the demiurge did imperfectly
3. In short, this Greek creator’s hands were tied
4. Greeks, therefore, expected a level of imprecision in nature
2. Christianity teaches there is no pre-existing material that God simply forms into all things
1. God creates out of nothing the world exactly as He wills.
2. Historical example: Kepler and elliptical orbits
7. The Image of God (TSOS, 29)
1. Science depends on the sheer act of faith that the universe possessed order and could be interpreted by rational minds.
1. If only God is rational, but none of His creators are, what good does it do us?
2. In Christianity, man is made in the Image of God, and is therefore a rational creator, just as God is a rational Creator.
3. Humans can “think God’s thoughts after Him” as Kepler put it.
4. The Natural world is comprehensible because the same Logos that is responsible for its ordering is also reflected in human reason. (Kaiser, TSOS, 29)
8. The Freedom of God (TSOS, 30-32)
1. God had created a rational knowable creation out of nothing, and He was free to create it in any manner He saw fit.
2. God was not constrained by Aristotelian Forms
1. Rational intuition of the Forms is contrary to experimentation
3. 1277, Bishop of Paris (Etienne Tempier) condemned this form of Aristotelianism
1. God could not allow any other planetary motion than a circular one
2. God could not create a vacuum
3. “Voluntarism” taught that there was no limitation on God’s Power
4. Natural Law was not Forms inherent in nature but as divine commands imposed from outside nature
5. Matter was driven not by internal rational Forms, but by the sovereign commands of God.
4. Historical Example: Robert Boyle
1. God as “the free establisher of the laws of motion”
2. These laws “depend perfectly on His will.”
5. Not surprisingly, this lead to experimental methodology
1. If God created freely rather than by logical necessity, we cannot gain knowledge of creation by logical deduction. Instead, we have to go out and look, to observe and experiment.
2. Ian Barbour: “The world is orderly and dependable because God is trustworthy and not capricious; but the details of the world must be found by observation rather than rational deduction because God is free and did not have to create any particular kind of universe.

Radio Show: Science and Christianity

Tonight, from midnight to 2AM (Pacific Time), I will be on the Apologetics.com Radio show with host Lindsay Brooks and special guest Dr. Leslie Wickman of Azusa Pacific University discussing the history, philosophy and practical outworking of Science and Christianity. Topics to be addressed include:

How Christianity led to Science.
How you can be a Christian and a Scientist.
What can we actually know from Science?

And others, as time allows. You can listen in live (and call in, if you like) by going to the KKLA website. You can also download the podcast after the broadcast, if, like most of the world, you are asleep between midnight and 2AM.

Ron Numbers On Dabney

I glanced at a copy of Ron Numbers' The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design today. I was curious to see if he had anything to say about Robert Dabney. He does, on pages 26 and 30. Here is what he writes on page 26 [emphasis added]:

Even Princeton Seminary's rock-ribbed Charles Hodge (1797-1878), who concluded that Darwinism was atheism because it banished God from the world and enabled one "to account for design without referring it to the purpose or agency of God," conceded the great antiquity of the earth and gave his imprimatur to Guyot's and Dana's interpretation of the days of Genesis as geological epochs. And his disciple Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898), the scourge of evolutionists in the Presbyterian church of the South, withheld judgment on the question of geological ages and a pre-Adamite earth.

Now, to call Dabney Hodge's disciple is simply hyperbole, but that really isn't the biggest mistake Numbers makes. Dabney wrote a paper entitled "Geology and the Bible," in which he makes it clear that geologists have no right to make claims concerning the age of the earth or the doctrine of creation:

“[Geology] is virtually a theory of cosmogony; and cosmogony is intimately connected with the doctrine of creation, which is one of the modes by which God reveals himself to man, and one of the prime articles of every theology.” ("Geology and the Bible," in Discussions, vol. 3, 129)

“For, creation is not only a physical fact; it is a theological doctrine.” ("Geology and the Bible," 133)

Dabney went on to say this about theologians who compromised with the "latest findings of science" (which at the time of his writing would have been the latest findings of geology):

[Those theologians who had thus compromised] had “adopted on half-evidence some new-fangled hypothesis of scientific fact, and then invented, on grounds equally insecure, some new-fangled explanations to twist God’s word into seeming agreement with the hypothesis.” ("Geology and the Bible," 130)

Does that sound to you like Dabney "withheld judgment on the question of geological ages and a Pre-Adamite earth"? Hardly; which makes me question the accuracy of other Reformed theologians that Numbers cites in The Creationists.