The following article by Dr. Aaldert Mennega, chairman of the Department of Biology at Dordt College, Sioux Center, Iowa, is reprinted by permission from the January 28, 1971, issue of CALVINIST CONTACT.
If it is true that there are basically only two kinds of people, Christ-believers and Christ-deniers, then the antithesis between the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness is still a reality with which to reckon even in our day. Traditionally the Church of God has confessed that God Almighty is the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe, and that He made man in His image, as the crown of His creation.
Man was given the cultural mandate to subdue the earth and to rule it. Christ-believers have been obediently busy in this task to some extent throughout the ages, with more or less appropriate results. But the Christ-deniers have not been exactly sitting still, either. They have been busying themselves to get power and control of their environment, to regain the security they lost by denying God. And if we take stock of the scientific and technologic accomplishments of unbelieving scientists through the centuries, we must admit tremendous advancements have been made. But it is doubtful whether any progress has been made in their effort to find a reliable alternative to God.
Comparing the beliefs of the early Greeks with the beliefs of our modern Western scientists, we find that they are essentially the same; their security is no greater now than it was then, and the state of human affairs is surely as chaotic, if not more so. The need and search for meaning in life is at least as urgent, and tl1e hopes of ever finding this meaning are getting slimmer as the years pass.
Phenomenal results and progress of natural science – For the time being, man is fairly comfortable with the “enlightening” results and progress of natural science. How eagerly the idea of evolution was snapped up in the 1800’s as an alternative to theism! The origin of species by natural selection and the descent of man from the animal kingdom were the pinnacle of enlightenment. And the progress of natural science on these premises has been indeed so phenomenal that the claim, “No respectable scientist any longer doubts the factuality of evolution,” resounds throughout contemporary literature.
That this claim is to a large extent correct regarding unbelieving scientists should be acknowledged. More disturbing, however, is the fact that increasingly this claim is true also for Christian scientists. This is not to say that the many scientists who still believe in God as Creator are not bona fide scientists, but they are regarded by many of the unbelieving segment of the scientific world as not up to date.
Fascinating new vision – The question now forces itself on us whether the two ideas of creation and evolution can actually be reconciled, or whether they are mutually exclusive as some claim. Many have attempted to reconcile the two, and even in Reformed circles synthesis of creation and evolution motives has become popular.
Many of us are aware of the strong current of thought among Christian scientists and theologians which claims that the developments of the natural sciences are forcing us to take a new stand in our theology, to look at Scripture from a different point of view, and to alter our basic world-and-life view. The more vocal elements of this movement simply stale that the chemical evolution of matter, biological evolution, and the evolution of man are a fact. In their view, man is an extension of the animal kingdom, who only in the last few thousand years changed from the life of a hunting nomad to a life of agriculture and animal husbandry.
As the newest line of development in evolution, mall has since the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries acquired a fascinating new vision of limitless possibilities of the technologic control of life. Through careful comparative study of man and mammals, man can now get to know himself, and since he has become aware of his place in the evolutionary pattern, he can now direct his own development: he has his future in his own hands.
Concurrent with man’s evolution into the new, scientific phase, he is said to have developed a social and ethic awareness which has caused a turn-about in his thought, resulting in a concern about alleviating sickness, improving working conditions, allowing all people to enjoy vacations, and arousing “truly beautiful feelings of righteousness and sympathy.” For man to get to know himself and to influence and direct the gigantic process of evolution, more knowledge must he amassed, it is said, and the specialists in the various sciences must get together in order to solve the problems of the future—so that there still may be a future for man.
Radically different from Scripture – That this picture of man is radically different from that given us in Scripture is obvious. But from which perspective, from which vantage point shall we look at man? Is he the ape-like brute who has emerged from the animal kingdom through mechanical forces, or is he a glorious creature, image-bearer of his God, the crown of creation, but fallen into sin through disobedience? Is man evolving into a higher phase, or can he only look to Christ for restoration to a true relationship to God? Is man’s future in man’s hand or in God’s?
That our perspective makes the facts appear in a completely different light we can clearly see by contrasting how Christ was regarded by the Pharisees, with the view of His disciples; how the soldiers saw the empty tomb, with the apostles’ teaching about Christ’s resurrection; and Saul’s relation to Christ before, with that after Damascus. And when Christ took upon Himself our human nature in His incarnation, did He become an evolved animal?
Obviously, we must determine on which basis we shall establish our perspective, and the choice which we must make is clearly either Scriptural revelation or an apostate construct of natural science. If we choose the latter, however, we are at the same time committing ourselves to a world-and-life view out of which this “scientific” perspective of man has arisen. And reconciling (his perspective with that of Scripture is no more feasible than the synthesis-thinking of the early Patristic period of history, in which the church people read current Greek philosophy into the Scriptures and then exegeted the same philosophy out of Scripture again. Instead of applying Christian principles to their problems, they deprived these principles of their power, and complicated and augmented their problems, by their acceptance of non-Christian theories.
In the same way, when we accept the non-Christian perspective of man as modern apostate science presents it to us, we undercut the renewing power of Scripture, which alone can give us the proper perspective on man. To amalgamate these two views of mall is to wipe out the antithesis between the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of light, and to surrender to a synthesis mentality which is paralyzing and which can lead only to denial of Scripture and to conceptual distortion of the true state of affairs in the realm of creation, which natural science seeks to explore, explain, and subdue.
Scriptural creation motive – In order to engage truthfully and fruitfully in science, Christians must maintain the Scriptural creation motive, and in that light they can indeed conduct meaningful investigation in the natural sciences, reach valid conclusions, find cures for diseases, develop new methods for improving the lot of man and alleviating his suffering, and arrive at new insights about human relations.
And as Christians engaged in science, they will do these things not because man is evolving into a new phase with new awareness, but in obedience to the cultural mandate, and in obedience to the command to love God above all and to love our neighbor as ourselves, through the new life in Christ, our Redeemer and King.
If it is true that there are basically only two kinds of people, Christ-believers and Christ-deniers, then the antithesis between the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness is still a reality with which to reckon even in our day. Traditionally the Church of God has confessed that God Almighty is the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe, and that He made man in His image, as the crown of His creation.
Man was given the cultural mandate to subdue the earth and to rule it. Christ-believers have been obediently busy in this task to some extent throughout the ages, with more or less appropriate results. But the Christ-deniers have not been exactly sitting still, either. They have been busying themselves to get power and control of their environment, to regain the security they lost by denying God. And if we take stock of the scientific and technologic accomplishments of unbelieving scientists through the centuries, we must admit tremendous advancements have been made. But it is doubtful whether any progress has been made in their effort to find a reliable alternative to God.
Comparing the beliefs of the early Greeks with the beliefs of our modern Western scientists, we find that they are essentially the same; their security is no greater now than it was then, and the state of human affairs is surely as chaotic, if not more so. The need and search for meaning in life is at least as urgent, and tl1e hopes of ever finding this meaning are getting slimmer as the years pass.
Phenomenal results and progress of natural science – For the time being, man is fairly comfortable with the “enlightening” results and progress of natural science. How eagerly the idea of evolution was snapped up in the 1800’s as an alternative to theism! The origin of species by natural selection and the descent of man from the animal kingdom were the pinnacle of enlightenment. And the progress of natural science on these premises has been indeed so phenomenal that the claim, “No respectable scientist any longer doubts the factuality of evolution,” resounds throughout contemporary literature.
That this claim is to a large extent correct regarding unbelieving scientists should be acknowledged. More disturbing, however, is the fact that increasingly this claim is true also for Christian scientists. This is not to say that the many scientists who still believe in God as Creator are not bona fide scientists, but they are regarded by many of the unbelieving segment of the scientific world as not up to date.
Fascinating new vision – The question now forces itself on us whether the two ideas of creation and evolution can actually be reconciled, or whether they are mutually exclusive as some claim. Many have attempted to reconcile the two, and even in Reformed circles synthesis of creation and evolution motives has become popular.
Many of us are aware of the strong current of thought among Christian scientists and theologians which claims that the developments of the natural sciences are forcing us to take a new stand in our theology, to look at Scripture from a different point of view, and to alter our basic world-and-life view. The more vocal elements of this movement simply stale that the chemical evolution of matter, biological evolution, and the evolution of man are a fact. In their view, man is an extension of the animal kingdom, who only in the last few thousand years changed from the life of a hunting nomad to a life of agriculture and animal husbandry.
As the newest line of development in evolution, mall has since the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries acquired a fascinating new vision of limitless possibilities of the technologic control of life. Through careful comparative study of man and mammals, man can now get to know himself, and since he has become aware of his place in the evolutionary pattern, he can now direct his own development: he has his future in his own hands.
Concurrent with man’s evolution into the new, scientific phase, he is said to have developed a social and ethic awareness which has caused a turn-about in his thought, resulting in a concern about alleviating sickness, improving working conditions, allowing all people to enjoy vacations, and arousing “truly beautiful feelings of righteousness and sympathy.” For man to get to know himself and to influence and direct the gigantic process of evolution, more knowledge must he amassed, it is said, and the specialists in the various sciences must get together in order to solve the problems of the future—so that there still may be a future for man.
Radically different from Scripture – That this picture of man is radically different from that given us in Scripture is obvious. But from which perspective, from which vantage point shall we look at man? Is he the ape-like brute who has emerged from the animal kingdom through mechanical forces, or is he a glorious creature, image-bearer of his God, the crown of creation, but fallen into sin through disobedience? Is man evolving into a higher phase, or can he only look to Christ for restoration to a true relationship to God? Is man’s future in man’s hand or in God’s?
That our perspective makes the facts appear in a completely different light we can clearly see by contrasting how Christ was regarded by the Pharisees, with the view of His disciples; how the soldiers saw the empty tomb, with the apostles’ teaching about Christ’s resurrection; and Saul’s relation to Christ before, with that after Damascus. And when Christ took upon Himself our human nature in His incarnation, did He become an evolved animal?
Obviously, we must determine on which basis we shall establish our perspective, and the choice which we must make is clearly either Scriptural revelation or an apostate construct of natural science. If we choose the latter, however, we are at the same time committing ourselves to a world-and-life view out of which this “scientific” perspective of man has arisen. And reconciling (his perspective with that of Scripture is no more feasible than the synthesis-thinking of the early Patristic period of history, in which the church people read current Greek philosophy into the Scriptures and then exegeted the same philosophy out of Scripture again. Instead of applying Christian principles to their problems, they deprived these principles of their power, and complicated and augmented their problems, by their acceptance of non-Christian theories.
In the same way, when we accept the non-Christian perspective of man as modern apostate science presents it to us, we undercut the renewing power of Scripture, which alone can give us the proper perspective on man. To amalgamate these two views of mall is to wipe out the antithesis between the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of light, and to surrender to a synthesis mentality which is paralyzing and which can lead only to denial of Scripture and to conceptual distortion of the true state of affairs in the realm of creation, which natural science seeks to explore, explain, and subdue.
Scriptural creation motive – In order to engage truthfully and fruitfully in science, Christians must maintain the Scriptural creation motive, and in that light they can indeed conduct meaningful investigation in the natural sciences, reach valid conclusions, find cures for diseases, develop new methods for improving the lot of man and alleviating his suffering, and arrive at new insights about human relations.
And as Christians engaged in science, they will do these things not because man is evolving into a new phase with new awareness, but in obedience to the cultural mandate, and in obedience to the command to love God above all and to love our neighbor as ourselves, through the new life in Christ, our Redeemer and King.