Previous . Next
Lecture 17: Creationism
Creationism
The story of how "young earth creationism" became one of the fundamentalist
creeds is most fascinating. Ronald Numbers, raised a fundamentalist,
researched this story extensively in his book "The Creationists" with quite
a sympathetic tone. From a sociological perspective, fundamentalists
embraced creationism because it was a creedal statement that separated
fundamentalists from liberals and catholics alike. Liberals hated it
because it was anti-rational, denying 300 years of science. Catholics didn't
like the "literalist" interpretation of Genesis, ignoring the Catholic
contributions to the subject. Think about it a minute, not a single article
of the 12 Fundamentals that define Fundamentalism, not a single doctrine of
orthodox faith as developed in the creeds and confessions of the Church over
the last 2000 years, not a single denomination depends upon the theology of
a young earth. Thus it was never an issue in 1900 years of church theology,
but suddenly found a receptive audience in the 20th century. That story is
intriguing in its own right, and worth telling.
In Number's book, he documents a survey of church theology to discover how many
hold to a young earth theology. The results are enlightening.
1929 Survey | % Agree | | 1963 Survey | % Agree |
MS Synod Lutheran | 89 | | 7th Day Adventists | 94 |
Baptists | 63 | | Assemblies of God | 91 |
Evangelical Free | 62 | | Nazarene | 80 |
Presbyterian | 35 | | Church of Christ | 78 |
Methodist | 24 | | Southern Baptist | 72 |
Congregational | 12 | | MS Synod Lutherans | 64 |
Episcopalian | 11 | | Church of God | 57 |
Other | 60 | | Moderate Protestant | 29 |
| | | Liberal Protestant | 11 |
What has happened over the years? The arch-fundamentalism of MS Synod Lutherans has
cooled a bit to young earth, Baptists warmed up a bit, and all the main line protestants
have cooled off. In contrast, several denominations that hardly rated in the 1929
survey have become prime defenders of the young earth faith, notably the 7th Day
Adventists, Assemblies of God, Nazarene and Church of Christ. These are a rather
disparate bunch, with AOG being pentecostal and experiental, whereas Nazarene and
Church of Christ are staunchly anti-pentecostal. However they are united in appealing
to the same socio-economic class, and all hold to Niebuhr's category of separation
between Christ and Culture. Clearly, all four of these denominations embraced this
interpretation more completely than their more moderate protestant colleagues. Why?
The history of how creationism took fundamentalism by storm is documented
carefully in Numbers' book. There are several complementary reasons for
this phenomena.
- Evolution had continued its deconstruction of man
(see C. S. Lewis' excellent monograph, "The Abolition of Man"), and
fundamentalists desperately needed a response. Kant's wall separating the
noumena from the phenomena, religion from science, turned out to be the
blade of a bulldozer on the tractor of scientific materialism. Something had
to be done to stop the illegal land grab of evolutionism, appropriating
territory that had always belonged to religion.
-
A short list of orthodox Biblical
interpretations of Genesis 1-2 include:
- Day-Age assumes each day could be an age cf. Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night.
- Gap Theory assumes that there is an unspecified lapse of time
between days of creation
- Catastrophism and 2nd creation assume that the world was created
much earlier, and for whatever reason, God is recreating the world
from pre-existing material.
- 6-day 24-hr assumes that the creation took 144 hours by the
atomic clock (sun not created until day 4).
- Poetic and Genre position assume that the creation account belongs
to a different literary genre, and the words are used more figuratively.
cf. Ps 91:4 which doesn't imply that God is a fowl,
He will cover you with his feathers,
and under his wings you will find refuge;
In the 1920's, Price, a 7th Day Adventist, took #4 and elevated it to creedal
status. This may be because of all the various views of
Genesis, the young earth view had never been "harmonized" with Evolution,
making it both the most scientifically repulsive and the most unsullied
Biblical interpretation.
- Because creationism was not a hot-button in the debates of the preceding
3 centuries, many Christians felt theologically neutral on the subject. This
permitted the new-found creed to operate as a litmus test for Biblical Inerrancy,
e.g., commitment to fundamental ideals.
- Finally, the appealing simplicity of explaining all
of geology with Noah's Flood (another scientifically impossible claim), made
this theory pack a 1-2 punch with Biblical inerrantists.
It took a while for the advantages of this interpretation to spread through
the fundamentalist churches. Numbers documents several of the evangelists of
the new gospel, but there was one major disadvantage that hindered its wider
acceptance for nearly 50 years: none of the evangelists had scientific
credentials. It was only when Henry Morris, a PhD hydrologist at Virginia
Polytechnic, took on the task of writing a "creation textbook" in 1961
entitled "The Genesis Flood", did the movement gain momentum and
become the steamroller it is today. As anecdotal evidence of its power, a
recent report of "General Assembly" of the PCA church concluded that
young-earth theology was the position of Calvin and reformers, and should be
elevated to creedal status. This from a denomination that throughout the
20th century, engaged in heated debates with fundamentalists and
dispensationalists alike on the need to apply appropriate hermeneutical (I
didn't want to say scientific), procedures to the interpretation of
Scripture! (As a partial explanation of this surprising turnaround, the PCA
is a recent split from the PCUSA with particular strength in the South and
fundamentalist strongholds.) What was the attraction of creationism, and how
did it spread?
My father attended one of Henry Morris' lectures, and found his presentation
both appealing and convincing, causing him to purchase a copy of the
Genesis Flood for me when I was in 10th grade. Reading the book, even
at that young age, I couldn't help but be appalled at circular footnotes
that appear to document a controversial point, but instead merely documented
themselves. My uninformed position was that this book was only intended to
appear scientific, without actually abiding by the rigor of a scientific
document. In other words, it was an impressive wrapper around a Biblical
interpretation intended for churches, not for scientists.
(As an aside, the Intelligent Design community also combats Evolution and
posits a creator God, which on the surface, are the same goals as
creationists. Yet creationists violently reject the I.D. approach,
accusing its proponents of various heresies,
showing that creationism is at its core a theological, not a scientific
issue.)
Morris himself agrees, and has said many times that the issue is
not whether Creationism can be justified scientifically, but rather "Whom do
you believe, Science or the Bible?" In his presentations and writings he
constantly juxtaposes these as opposing epistemologies, arguing that Truth
does not have to be rational or even make sense, it just has to be an
accurate reading of the Bible. A classic argument, predating Morris, is that
the world could be a mere 10 minutes old with all the fossils and libraries
created by God to look as if it were much older, so that if God says the
world is 6000 years old, we must believe it, even should all evidence be to
the contrary. In essence, Morris agrees with Mark Twain's hero in Huckleberry
Finn, who defined faith as "believing what you know ain't so." As one might
expect, this makes debates on between creationists and scientists all but
impossible. (See my
letter to Bruce.)
In this way, Morris has moved the debate about Creationism versus Evolution
one step higher into a meta plane discussion of truth itself, a field which
philosophers refer to as epistemology. It is Pilate's classic question,
"What is Truth?" with the toga exchanged for blue coveralls. In Morris'
epistemology, the Bible trumps all other suits, and if the Bible says
something is true, then at best we can try to rationalize it or explain it,
but never contradict it. Thus anyone who opposes Morris is politely told
that they are opposing God, which makes an awfully intimidating debating
technique (and is precisely why Karl Barth was adamant about the
trancendental divide separating us finite creatures from the infinite
creator.)
As we tried to say earlier however, this presupposes that we
know precisely what the Bible says. The art of Biblical interpretation is
full of pitfalls, not the least of which is believing our hermeneutic to be
infallible. One can point out that Genesis 1-2 is written in Hebrew, and
that many of the words used in the text have multiple meanings, hence the
multiplicity of orthodox interpretations of the passage. One can also point
out that should the good Lord be capable of deceiving our senses (say, by
creating the world to merely look old), then why wouldn't He be capable of
decieving our Biblical interpretation (say, by using a word in a way unlike
any we've ever seen)? Why should the science of interpreting the creation be
fallible whereas the science of interpreting the Bible be infallible?
Indeed, as one reads the New Testament commentary on Old Testament prophecy,
one is astounded by exactly this sort of duplicity in scripture. St.
Matthew takes a phrase used by Hosea the prophet to describe Israel's escape
from bondage in Egypt as prophecy concerning Jesus' return from exile, Matt
2:14-15:
So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night,
and left for Egypt. He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to
fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
" OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON."
Which is in reference to Hosea 11:1,
When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son.
That is, a verse that no one had previously identified as Messianic or
prophetic, is suddenly elevated by Matthew to a prediction that Jesus
fulfilled. If God could surprise the scholarly scribes and Pharisees of the
1st century, who had an encyclopaedic knowlege of the Hebrew scriptures,
with creative Biblical interpretation, how much more could he surprise us
poorly educated moderns today concerning Genesis 1 and 2?
(Just to illustrate this point with a small example: Ex 32:14 (KJV) "And
the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." A
more modern, but literal translation, NASB, renders it "So the LORD
changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His
people." Even the politically correct NIV translates it "Then the
Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had
threatened." While the paraphrased NLT says "So the LORD withdrew his
threat and didn't bring against his people the disaster he had
threatened." It took a wildly inaccurate paraphrased Bible "translation"
to escape the conclusion that (a) God thinks of doing evil (b) God repents
of doing it. That is, if something as critical to theology as the essential
goodness and unchangeableness of God can be muddled in translation, surely
we should not think that our translation of Genesis 1-2 can avoid error
too.)
In fact, Morris falls into the same trap as the Evolutionist, who also
believes a theory that is often contrary to the facts. Both groups have
adopted a post-modern, post-logic position that makes Truth relative,
placing facts in a secondary relation to metaphysics; a position that easily
accomodates contradiction, and stupifies cognitive dissonance. Both groups
argue that there is no acceptable alternative view, and that despite obvious
failings, all other options are worse. And both groups adopt a view that
"Real Truth", is all about "scientific truth", statements that can be
verified by an all-knowing observer or recorded on a videotape. In one very
real sense, this epistemological stalemate can be traced to the emergence of
science as metaphysics, and the pervading influence of positivism.
This is a key point, and worth repeating. It is reductionism applied to
hermeneutics that has led to this impasse. It is the influence of
materialism on Biblical interpretation that has made creationism popular. It
is the infiltration of secular thought into theology that has created the
post-modern culture war of Evolutionism versus Creationism. Understanding
how both groups view truth, and how that concept of truth has been
influenced by culture, goes a long way toward resolving this irreconciliable
debate.
Last modified, March 4, 2002, RbS