Recently, Christian Reformed Church flagship magazine, “The Banner” ran a three-page article on evolution arguing that theistic evolution (now called Evolutionary Creationists) is a viable alternative for Christians to embrace. The article was written by a couple who teaches at Calvin College and who work in the Physics and Astronomy departments. The article was excruciatingly basic and it was plugging a recent book that the Professor have recently written. I want to take a few minutes to examine some of the quotes in the article.
http://www.thebanner.org/magazine/article.cfm?article_id=1935
“For example, modern species of dogs and wolves and coyotes descended from some ancestral wolf-like species that no longer exists. Similarly, all dogs, cats, and other mammals descended from a common ancestor even longer ago.
Evolutionary Creationists combat evolutionism by attacking the first premise. They argue that God could work through biological evolution to create the species, just as God works through natural processes like evaporation and condensation to govern rainfall.”
From a Christian perspective of anthropology the statements of the Haarsma’s is fraught with grave danger. Indeed, the danger is so grave in these statements that the whole Christian faith could conceivably be overturned.
The Haarsma’s are telling us that it is acceptable to believe that all mammals (and keep in mind that man is a mammal) descended from (and so necessarily evolved from) a common ancestor. If this is true then the act of God in creating man as the piece de resistance of His creation is overturned. Likewise, any idea of man as uniquely bearing the image of God seems likewise overturned. The Haarsma’s are required to answer, if their supposition as evolutionary creationists is true that man has descended and evolved from a common ancestor, where in the evolutionary process man was stamped with the Imago Dei. When and where did God, in the evolutionary creationist myth, breathe into man the breath of life?
Also the Haarsma’s must answer in their evolutionary creationist paradigm when, where and how sin entered into the world.
Another problem in the Haarsma’s evolutionary creationism worldview is the presumption that all is evolutionary process. This presumption requires the belief that nature is going from something inferior to something superior (hence the term “evolution”). The problem though is that in Scripture the assumption is just the reverse. The assumption in scripture is not that everything is going from inferior to superior but rather that in creation we had the superior (the creation that was declared “good” and “very good”) which gave way to an inferior state (we might should call it devolution) called “The Fall.” The Christian story is Creation, Fall, Redemption, Glorification. For the Haarsma’s the Christian story seems to be Creation, evolution, Glorification.
Another problem in the Haarsma’s article is that in the Scriptures we clearly see man being distinct from the animals. Man is charged to name the animals thus showing his un-relatedness to the animals. And yet the Haarsma’s would have us believe that Man, having a common descendant with all animals has a basic relatedness to the animals.
Now, I’ve raised some questions here and to be fair to the Haarsma’s they did say in the article that there book attempts to answer questions that the article did not have space to address. But I will go out on a limb here and say, without reading their book, that evolutionary creationism can’t be harmonized with Scripture without doing serious damage to scripture.
The primary message to the ancient Hebrews was about the who and why of creation—that Israel’s God is the sovereign creator of all and humans are God’s image bearers—not the when and how of creation.
This is a HUGE assumption. Where in and from Scripture does Scripture teach that Scripture isn’t concerned with the when and how of creation? One just can’t assume these things without proving them so.
One could appeal to Jesus words in Matthew 19:4-5 that Jesus Himself believed that the when and how of the immediate and direct (hence non-evolutionary) creation of Adam and Eve was important. (We might also want to ask here if Jesus’ human nature was descended and evolved from a common ancestor.)
“If God’s purposes in Genesis 1 did not include teaching scientific information to the Israelites, then we should not look there for scientific information about the age of the earth or the formation of species. Instead, we can look at what God has revealed in nature itself to understand the when and how.”
The problem here is the assumption that general revelation can’t be read and interpreted properly apart from presupposing special revelation. It is true that God has given us two books wherein we can read His revelation but it is not true that we can read the book of nature correctly if we presuppose a theology other than Christianity.
Apart from presupposing what is taught in Scripture — that the Universe has order because of God’s providence — there is no consistent reason for the Scientist to believe that the Sun will rise regularly. The irrationality for believing that the sun will rise regularly is something David Hume pointed out. A science that begins without special revelation is a science that is autonomous and so can come up with everything from punctuated equilibrium to man being descended from animals.
It should be emphasized that evolution is only a theory. Embracing evolution is a blind leap of faith. There is no science that does or can prove it. Any evidence that is brought forth to support it is evidence that only proves evolution because it presupposes the truth of evolution. That is hardly a scientific approach. Therefore to appeal to nature as interpreted by science, as the way to determine the formation of species is a thin reed on which to rely.
The most significant problem I see with the Haarsma’s article is that it doesn’t take into account how theology informs science. Those who start with the theology of Hinduism, or Islam, or Communism (let us never forget Lysenkoism) or Humanism, or Christianity are going to develop significantly different sciences. Because that is so science can not be used to prove or disprove any metaphysical or theological construct since science depends upon those constructs for its existence.
Another significant problem I see with the Haarsma’s position is its implied Deism. It seems that for evolutionary creationists God starts the evolutionary / creation process and then kind of fades away to let the evolutionary process roll on.
I will continue to be mystified by those who desire to take a paradigm that was created and defended as a means of explaining this world without taking into consideration the God of the Bible and try to combine it with the God of the Bible.
The Haarsma’s article is fraught with severe difficulties. I trust people will not take their word on the issue.
Interestingly, Gallup just released a poll that shows that only 39% of Americans believe in evolution. The higher one’s religious belief, the lower the belief in Darwin’s system. The higher one’s education, the higher the belief in Darwin’s fantasy.
We know the education level of these Calvin profs. What does their article say about their religious belief?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx
Mark,
This is why education is so important. Typically, they who hold the flow of information (educational institutions) hold the culture.
I would say though that Darwinism is a religious belief and those that believe it have a high religious belief. Hence, I think the Calvin professors have a extraordinarily high religious belief. It’s just not Christianity that they believe.
Good point. I didn’t read the underlying details of the poll, but I presume when Gallup asked about religious belief they meant CHRISTIAN belief. Therefore, your premise is still correct: one who holds to the Christian faith/religion cannot also hold to Darwinian faith/religion.
These Calvin profs are trying to serve two masters.
Mark,
I am a johnny come lately to the CRC and Dutch Reformed tradition, but as I recall this was an issue that exploded in the CRC in the 70’s or 80’s. Is that correct? Did the CRC in the last 30 years or so have a blowout over this?
Shame on CRC. They not for Christ, are against Christ. A swift spanking would be in order for the CRC, if spanking had not evolved out of acceptable behavior.
This stuff has been brewing for years. Back in the 80’s, Calvin prof Howard Van Till published his evolutionary book “The Fourth Day”. Big complaints. College trustees put on a big “show” investigation for the conservatives. Not surprisingly, they cleared HVT of any unorthodoxy. “Don’t worry alumni donors, nothing to see here.”
Note: since his retirement, Van Till has rejected the Reformed faith and now subscribes to “free thought” religion. {Boy, couldn’t see THAT one coming}
Other examples exist in the CRC, Bret that can be documented, but I’d prefer not to do that here. You would be stunned at the number of CRC minsters/professors who would scoff at 6 day creation or young earth.
Nah, actually, I would be stunned if 5% of the CRC ministers/professors didn’t scoff at 6 day creation or young earth.
Rainey,
You missed a verb and a pronoun in your first sentence. We wouldn’t want people to get the wrong impression of Biblical Christians.
I don’t think there should be any spanking for the CRC. You don’t spank cows for mooing do you? I mean — mooing is what cows do.
5% eh? I love your optimism :-).
Actually, the argument about Angels and dancing post-dated Augustine by a few centuries. It’s more commonly associated with the Medieval Church and Aquinas. Also, the argument was really not worthless but was a means by which certain metaphysical conclusions might be thought through.
So, right out of the gate I don’t agree w/ your beginning premise. Just because most Westerners today don’t understand the intricacies of medieval theology doesn’t mean it wasn’t important. Just so, the discussion concerning Godless evolution as the account for our beginnings vs. the work of a extra-mundane Creator as the account for our beginnings is a debate, not only worthy of frothing at the mouth over but it is even worthy of weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth over.
Evolution (of the variety defended by Huxley — Darwin’s pit bull) offers as plausible, change that comes by time + circumstance + chance. All causation is indeed irrational (without knowable purpose or meaning). In evolution impersonal nature replaces God as the way that change is accounted for, though such notions are irrational..
No, this is wrong. You really need to read Thomas Kuhn’s “Structures In Scientific Revolutions,” or Vern Poythress’ “Science and Hermeneutics,” or G. H. Clarks, “Science and Belief in God.” Your view is an Empiricist approach to science. Science is not beholden to observation so much as it is to Theology and presuppositions.
Right, they are being unreasonable because in their disdain for Christian religious belief as hardened dogma they replace it with the hardened humanist religious dogma of Darwin’s Theory as immutable Law.
To compare the issues of evolution vs. creation to a woman having a baby by herself to a woman having a baby assisted by a Doctor is like comparing the Scopes Monkey Trial to Jesus trial before the Sanhedrin. Which is to say that it is just ridiculous. Further your casual dismissal of the Matthew passage is just special pleading on your part.
It is fundamental to believe that God created all AND that nothing that we embrace stands in contradiction to what God has revealed regarding creation. Evolution stands in direct contradiction to what God has revealed regarding creation.
You keep appealing to “human observations” as if fact can be arrived at apart from philosophy of fact. This is an unfortunate assumption on your part. When people make “Human observations” that support evolution it is because they have embraced a evolutionary “theology” that requires them to make the observations that they make.
To accept Evolutionary premises is indeed anti-God of the Bible and is strange behavior given that evolution was a theory that was constructed and defended in order to have a beginnings story that wasn’t Christian. Abniogenesis is ridiculous and eternal matter is even more dense.
This is just a Barthian explanation of God. The reasoning is that “God is so transcendent that He is incapable of being understood.” With such a supposedly “pious” claim about God, anything can be believed about God because, well, God is so transcendent that it could possibly be true.”
It is true that the mortal cannot exhaustively comprehend God — we see through a glass darkly — but we can genuinely know God because God has made Himself known via trustworthy revelation.
Nobody here is trying to “control God.” Rather that is what those who advocate for evolution seek to do. They seek to control God by suggesting that God sanctions any and every of their boneheaded paradigms or conceptual schemes. Nobody is “seeking to control God,” here but rather to take God seriously regarding what He has revealed of Himself in His Word. When we do such a thing those who seek to control God turn around and try to accuse us of the very thing they are guilty of. It’s a neat trick if one can get away with it.
There is absolutely no good science to support Macro Evolution. The only people who find such science to be good are those who share in the beginning premises of evolutionary theology. There is nothing in Scripture that supports Evolutionary cosmology.
You try to conjure a stance of humility but in the end you seem to be expressing the pride that says God’s Word can’t be true regarding what it has revealed.
Divine has a process would seem to suggest Process Theology — a theology that is shot through with difficulties for a person of orthodox Reformed leanings.
The immutability of God suggests that the Divine does not have a process since process presupposes change. Are you sure that you haven’t mixed up Hegel for Calvin?
You’re are welcome to try and change the trajectory of the Christian story but it is you, at this point, who is being novel — and novelty it is novelty that is killing the Church today. You’re desire for process would lead (and probably stems from) to a Open Theism kind of approach. That dog might hunt among Arminians, who are already half way their in their theology, but it will never take root among Calvinists who remain Calvinists.
I’m glad that you brought up this line of discussion though, because it makes it clear that this isn’t really a discussion about the evolution without at the same time being a discussion about the Character of God. You seemingly have chosen for yourself a god that stands in opposition to the high doctrines of absolute Sovereignty (how can a god in process be absolutely sovereign?) predestination, immutability, passability, aseity, and omnipotence. At the very least given your premises all of these attributes would have need of being seriously re-defined.
Well, in this paragraph you clearly reveal that your Christianity is of the humanist variety. In your scheme humans have a free will that God goes without. Man and God are in process together it seems. This is usually known as heresy and in this arrangement you are denying God. I trust the Haarsma family doesn’t agree with you on this notion of man’s libertarian free will, but given what goes on at Calvin it wouldn’t surprise me.