In order to answer this question one must first have a clear conception of what is meant by the alternatives: the doctrine of “Theistic Evolution” and “the Christian Conception of the Origin of Things.” My understanding of these alternatives is as follows: Evolution as used in this connection refers to a concept of origin by means of gradual development due to natural causes which are still in operation and which, therefore, can be observed and studied experimentally. “Theistic Evolution” means that this gradual development is under the direction of God. In other words, theistic evolution implies that God has brought things into being by means of gradual development due to natural causes which arc still going on at the present time. The fundamental idea inherent in all evolutionary thinking is a methodological principle usually referred to as uniformitarianism. The evolutionist uses this principle to interpret past events including those which have to do with the origin of things.
Now, what is meant by “a Christian conception of the origin of things”? It seems to me, this depends on a correct interpretation of the Biblical account of creation. A Christian conception is always one which is based on the Bible. This is particularly true with reference to the origin of things. The question, therefore, comes down to this: “Is the doctrine of theistic evolution as defined above in accord with the correct interpretation of the Biblical account of the origin of things?” What does the Bible reveal concerning the manner in which the universe was created? It certainly gives no scientific account of the Divine process of creation. We simply read, “God said, ‘Let there be’.” However, this does not mean that the Bible says nothing about the manner of creation. Reformed theologians usually distinguish between primary and secondary creation. By the former they refer to that act of the Creator by which matter was brought forth out of nothing. ‘The Scriptural reference to primary creation is especially found in the first verse of the Bible, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” By secondary creation they refer to the work of God during the six days of the creation week, the hexaemeron. It consisted of forming and ordering the formless created matter into an organized whole by acts of separation and differentiation. During these days light was separated from darkness, earth from sky, land from water, etc. Heavenly bodies, plants, and animals were made and assigned to their habitats. Finally man was created as the crown of God’s creative work to have “dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Gen. 1:26).
The line of distinction between primary and secondary creation should not, however, be so sharply drawn that only primary creation becomes real creation and secondary creation becomes merely a phase of God’s providence, Both were special creative acts, differing from God’s providential care with which He sustains the universe since creation. In his scholarly work on the first three chapters of Genesis Dr. G. Ch. Aalders stresses this point repeatedly as is indicated by the following quotations:
“It is possible to refer to the so-called secondary creation as a ‘forming’ or ‘preparing’ of the world, with this provision, however, that one adhere very definitely to the idea that this ‘forming’ and ‘preparing’ of the world must be sharply distinguished from providence.”
“‘Creation’ and ‘preparation’ of the world, that is, primary and secondary creation together, form a separate work of God wholly and completely different from his providence.”
“Genesis 1:3 and the following teach us that the divine creative work of each day took place as follows: God said, ‘Let there be light’; ‘Let there be firmament’; etc. This presentation alone is sufficient to make us see the ‘preparation’ of the world (i.e. secondary creation) as an entirely different act of God than his sustaining providence and rule over this world.”
“From all this it is perfectly clear that it will not do to differentiate so sharply between the primary and secondary creation, that only primary creation is considered as a unique work of God, whereas the secondary creation is in reality identified with providence.”
“The creative work of God has not been limited to the production of matter, out of which then all has developed…but God has made a series of different created forms to appear out of this created matter; by means of an entirely unique process which is in actuality different from his providential guidance as we see it in nature at present.”1
This interpretation of the Scriptural account of creation does not permit the use of the uniformitarian principle as implied in theistic evolution, in which creation and providence are not distinguished.
Dr. Charles Hodge similarly wished to distinguish quite clearly between creation and providence when he stated: “The scriptures expressly distinguish the power by which things were created from that by which they were continued.”2 A little further on he states: “Creation and preservation differ, first, as the former is the calling into existence what before did not exist; and the latter is continuing, or causing to continue, what already has a being; and secondly, in creation there is and can be no cooperation, but in preservation there is a concursus of the first with second causes. In the Bible, therefore, the two things are never confounded.”3
In Dr. C. C. Berkouwer’s work on The Providence of God, the same distinction is emphasized when he states:
“The confessions distinguish sharply between the Divine acts of sustaining and creation. Bavinck speaks in the spirit of the confessions when he says that creation passes over into sustenance. It is, he says, as when man stops work, and rests. This is not to say that sustenance is a less mighty or less Divine act than is creation. The sustenance of the world bespeaks the majesty and incomprehensibility of God’s working no less than does creation. Calvin rightly ascribes the continued existence of the world, just as much as its origin, to the presence of Divine might.”
“Nevertheless, the church does not hesitate to distinguish between these acts of God. Recall how the scripture speaks of God resting after he had finished the work of creation. ‘And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made’ (Gen. 2:2). This resting of God is obviously viewed in close relation to the perfecting of creation. This relation between resting and finished work is underscored again in the decalogue where the passing of the work week into the day of rest is based upon God’s working and thereupon resting: ‘…for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; Wherefore Jehovah blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it’ (Ex. 20:11). Again, in Exodus 31:17 we read that the sabbath is a sign between the Lord and his people: ‘…for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth. and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.’ In these and other witnesses believers have correctly read the unique, once-for-aIl, perfected character of the work of creation.”
“The phrase ‘and was refreshed,’ a purely anthropomorphic expression, suggests the transition, just as our human ‘taking refreshment’ implies a pause from work and beginning of rest (cf. Ex. 23:12). This ‘and was refreshed’ connotes, does it not, the unique, done-with character of God’s created work?”4
If these interpretations of Scripture are correct, and I believe they are, there is no room for a uniformitarian explanation of the origin of things. An evolutionary explanation based on present occurrences is incorrect. I am well aware of the fact that there are other interpretations of the creation account in Genesis, but these are, to my mind, accommodations to a uniformitarian principle which a Christian cannot accept. “By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which appear” (Hebrews 11:3).
Moreover, in the various fields of science this principle of uniformity can not be consistently applied. Many geological formations cannot be explained by natural changes such as are taking place at present. This becomes quite evident when one reads “a historical-critical study of the principle of uniformity in geology, biology, and theology,” by Dr. R. Hoogkaas, professor of the history of science at the Free University.5 And in biology the supposed evidences for evolution are of a limited nature and do not indicate the origin of the major groups of living organisms by means of processes which are at present in operation.
We, as Christians, must, therefore, conclude that theistic evolution, since it is based on a uniformitarian conception of origins, is not in accord with Biblical and natural revelation and is, therefore, not in accord with a Christian conception of the origin of things.
1. Translated from: G.C. Aalders, De Goddelyke Openbaring in de Eerste Drie Hoofdstukken van Genesis. (Kok, Kampen, 1932) pp. 216 ff.
2. C. Hodge, Systematic Theology I (New York, Scribner, Armstrong and Co., 1876), p. 576.
3. Ibid., p. 578.
4. G.C. Berkouwer, The Providence of God (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1952), p. 351.
5. R. Hoogkaas, Natural Law and Divine Miracle (E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1959).