Real Science? Real Faith?
The testimonies of God's people are precious. Every child of God is treated by him as an individual - a special member of His family. It is always good to hear the stories of how He has met with our brothers and sisters in Christ.
The testimonies of sixteen scientists have been gathered together in a book entitled Real Science, Real Faith (Edited by R.J. Berry, Monarch Publications, 1991). All the writers are Christians who have attained some eminence in the world of science. Nine of them are University professors. They all set out to discuss some aspects of the relationship between science and faith, drawing extensively from experiences gained during their own lives. The general plan of the book is commendable: God leads His people into all sorts of spheres of employment and service, and surely it is right for us to listen and learn from one another.
The Foreword points out that there is a basic unanimity of belief in the Lordship of Christ, the authority of God's word and the validity of Christian experience. Reference is made to `honest accounts of wrestling to faith and in faith from people with scientific background and expertise'. All these emphases are to be commended. God has given us minds and he expects us to use them! There is no clash between rationality and Christian discipleship. Those who have been called by God to serve him in the world of academic life have great opportunities to give a lead to the thousands of students (and others) facing a hostile intellectual environment dominated in our country by evolutionary humanism and scientism.
The general style of the book is conversational and anecdotal. The various authors give outlines of the challenges they have found in their intellectual pilgrimages. Thus, Colin Russell challenges the thesis that the Biblical call to subdue the Earth has led to the ecological crisis; Roy Peacock suggests that the Second Law of Thermodynamics (`entropy is increasing') demands a Creator; Monty Barker addresses issues raised by the `materialist and deterministic bias to the understanding of psychiatric illness'; and Sam Berry takes a biblical perspective on science and miracles to the pages of The Times and Nature. There are helpful perspectives here, and food for thought.
It is the book's approach to origins which seriously damages the usefulness of this book. Most of the contributors refer to the `problem' and the way they approach it. The position advocated is known as Theistic Evolution. Colin Humphries declares: `I believe that God is in charge and that evolution is the way he chose to carry out his creation' (p.125). Different strands of this teaching come to the fore in the different contributions. Some of the more important consensus views are the subject of comment here.
`How?' and `Why?' questions
Sam Berry, Colin Humphreys and Donald MacKay all refer to the simple idea that science asks questions beginning with `How?', whereas Christianity is concerned with the question `Why?' (pages 9, 113 and 208). Whilst this seems appealing, justification is lacking. Is this really the way the Bible approaches the issue of `ultimate questions'? For example, how does it apply to miracles? Both `How?' and `Why?' are relevant questions - and it is intended both that we recognise the extraordinary activity of God and discern Christological meaning. Asking the question `How?' seems to be necessary if we are ever to conclude that God's supernatural power is displayed in the miracle.
The How/Why questions are helpful in thinking about scientific law and God's providence, but it does not seem appropriate when dealing with God's revelation in history. Historical events are common to both science and the biblical record. The resurrection of Christ is the classic example: the theological liberals say: `It's the meaning of the resurrection that matters, not whether it involved a supernatural raising of Christ's physical body. In any case, science tells us that there is no mechanism for a human to physically rise from the dead'. Theistic evolutionists should be aware that they are arguing like theological liberals when they address origins issues as follows: `It's the meaning of creation that matters, not whether it involved God's extraordinary, miraculous activity. In any case, science tells us that evolution by natural selection is the way God filled the world with living things'.
Biblical hermeneutics
How is Genesis to be understood? What sort of literature is it? Martin Bott says: `I regard the Genesis story, perhaps as far as Chapter 11, as a sort of parable which reveals great basic truths about the purposes of God and the nature of mankind without any requirement for them to be taken strictly literally (p.28)'. Robert Boyd explains that `the divergence between literal biblical accounts and the evidence of science presented a problem to me at that time . . . [and came to realise] that the Godhead who emptied himself to be incarnate in Jesus also stooped to speak in our colloquial ideas and through imperfect human personalities (p.70)'. Duncan Vere writes of the Genesis account: `Above all, it is primitive poetry; not biology, not history, not myth, but an observer-told account from a primitive culture of what he had been shown of the works of God, offered to his understanding (p.99)'. These writers all agree that the historical character of Genesis 1-11 is to be rejected - but there is little consensus as to what it actually is! Is it parable? Is it poetry? Is God speaking through imperfect human writers? Is it revelation coloured by the concepts of a primitive culture? How do these ideas differ from those emerging from theological liberalism? Nowhere are the principles behind the conclusions made clear - and this is not a commendable feature of a Christian book. Do we come to hold certain views because they are also held by eminent people? The true disciple will learn from others - but only as they promote understanding of the revelation of God.
Theological aspects of the Creation/Evolution controversy
Sam Berry speaks for many of the contributors in advocating views which differ strongly from those generally adopted by creationists. Berry asserts that `much of the argument [is] about interpretation rather than basic doctrine' (p.186); that there are only `superficial conflicts between the scientific understanding of evolution and the biblical record'(p.186); and actually goes on the offensive to say `My provisional belief is that `creationists' are frightened of the challenge of a God who is Lord of change as well as of changelessness, and who may surprise by his demands and unexpectedness; in other words, `creationism' can be a wall against God himself' (p.187). Malcolm Jeeves expresses feelings of exasperation with the debate when he writes as follows. `If, in our search to understand man and his nature, we recognise the difference between what is written for our learning in Scripture and what we discover in our scientific research, we shall be well set to avoid fruitless conflicts. But I suspect that we shall continue to witness attempts to read late twentieth scientific views of man into the words of Scripture. If only we could accept Scripture for what it is and let it speak for itself, we could gain so much and avoid so many unnecessary time-consuming and energy-draining debates and conflicts' (p.158-9).
Is the creation/evolution debate an example of an unhealthy interest in controversies The Bible(1 Timothy, chapter 6, verse 4)? Is it an unprofitable and unedifying conflict between Christians? If this were the case, we should withdraw forthwith and focus our energies on building the Kingdom. However, the reviewer, along with many others, is persuaded that the issues are not of periferal interest. Theological foundations are affected! When the Scripture is allowed it speak for itself, it sounds an alarm against evolutionary worldviews! The Bible presents a historyof the life which differs markedly from the evolutionary reconstructions of the past. The theological principles behind the creation and the Fall are fundamental to our understanding of man, the state of the world and the meaning of redemption. BCS publications, including Creation Manifesto, give substance to these points. By presenting the controversy as irrelevant to biblical theology, a serious error of judgment is being made. By taking this stance, Theistic Evolutionists are erecting a barrier to meaningful communication - those who disagree with them are regarded as `troublers in Israel' and unworthy of serious attention. Furthermore, their analysis of the situation bypasses the challenges brought by evolutionary humanism - and consequently dilutes the message of salvation which is to be brought to this needy world.
It is a grievous matter to differ so fundamentally with these Christian brethren about the issues at stake here - but until there is more meaningful communication than is apparent in this book, the controversy must continue. Our prayer is that we may all seek to have the Spirit of Christ to guide our words, our actions and our attitudes.
David J. Tyler (1992)
