The Christian Reformed Church has recently become embroiled in the creation-evolution debate especially through the teachings and writings of three Calvin College professors. Because we believe the issues at stake are important, we have studied the views of one of those professors, Dr. Howard Van Till. We have based this analysis on his two publications; The Fourth Day, and The Cosmos: Nature or Creation. We have written this for those who have attacked Dr. Van Till in ignorance of his views; for those who feel the issues are “above them;” for those who feel the whole thing is a “storm in a teacup;” and for those who believe Dr. Van Till has introduced a breath of fresh air into the creation-evolution debate. Let us consider his views.

   

1. Scripture and Science: How Are They Related?

Dr. Van Till points out that there are two ways of looking at the cosmos: through the spectacles of Scripture; or through the lens of scientific investigation. Each view is different, neither one is complete by itself.¹

On the one hand, science deals only with “internal affairs,” such as the properties and laws of behavior, and the history of the physical world. On the other hand, Scripture deals primarily with “external affairs,” namely, the relationship between the Creation itself and the God who is its Creator, Originator, Preserver, Governor, and Provider.

Dr. Van Till attempts to put these two domains together in what he calls a “creationomic perspective”: the view of the cosmos that is obtained when science is placed in the framework of the Biblical doctrine of Creation (TFD, preface p. ix and p. 250). This is a worthy aim, and true to the Reformed understanding that all of life is to be viewed through the spectacles of Scripture. To some extent, Dr. Van Till succeeds in carrying out this aim. He frequently stresses the importance of holding to Biblical presuppositions; namely, that Creation is distinct from God the Creator, and that it is entirely dependent on Him.

Clearly, Dr. Van Till wishes to maintain some kind of priority for Scripture. He indicates that we must .not remove the spectacles of Scripture when we peer through the telescope of astronomy (TFD, 93). Yet, he does not consistently allow the Bible to come first.

The first respect in which the Bible is not given priority is that the number of guiding presuppositions it provides is reduced. Apart from the two basic assumptions that God is Creator and rules providentially, the Bible is not allowed to speak to science. Dr. Van Till assumes that Scripture has nothing to say about how the cosmos or the earth were formed, how long it took, etc. That, according to Van Till, is a purely scientific matter, not the domain of the Bible: “the question of temporal development is exclusively and exhaustively the domain of the natural sciences” (TFD 269–270).

We believe that this reduction of the Bible’s authority is the fundamental error Dr. Van Till’s position one which then leads him into a host of other problems. Because he refuses to let the Bible speak on matters of cosmic history, and on the processes and sequences of events, he then makes many statements in which science is viewed as independent of Scripture, if not above it. The two categories, the “internal affairs” of science, and the “external affairs” of Scripture, are not wholly independent of each other in Van Till’s eyes; but “neither are they so closely related that the answers for one category of questions unequivocally determine the answers to the other” (TFD 268); “Neither biblical theism nor atheistic naturalism can justifiably make a priori demands [i.e. presuppositions] upon the results of empirical science” (TFD 208). Dr. Van Till calls his idea that the Bible and Creation deal with two different sets of questions “categorical complementarity.” And be goes even further.

Prof. Van Till, while partially silencing Scripture by saying it deals with different matters than science, also insists that the Bible should not be “interpreted in isolation from the rest of God’s revelation in the Creation . . .” (TFD 77). If we are to avoid a naive view of Genesis, for example, we need “auxiliary information that must be incorporated into the process of biblical interpretation” (TFD 76). In other words, we need the spectacles of science, or history, or whatever, to understand Scripture. So, according to Van Till, General Revelation (or man’s interpretation of it) may speak to Scripture after all.

In addition, Dr. Van Till appears to take certain scientific theories as incontrovertible fact, while leaving the Christian community to somehow fit the Bible around the theories. For example, Dr. Van Till seems to be quite comfortable with the idea of biological evolution (TFD 172, 188, 254). What that does for our doctrines of the Fall and Creation, Van Till leaves as a problem for the Christian community to work out. We would question whether it is responsible of a Christian teacher in a Christian college not to work out the theological implications of his views before he begins expounding them in public, and if his views do cause problems with the doctrine of the Fall (among other things), who or what should give way?

Further evidence that Dr. Van Till grants too much to science (or to modem scientists) is seen in the way he contrasts secular scientists with “creation” scientists: Van Till claims that secular scientists today have enough integrity that they can carry out their work without letting their religious bias seriously affect them (TFD 209, 210, 214); whereas creation scientists are people who “know” the answer to some questions and then search for evidence to support it. Because of this “fault,” they overlook or disregard any evidence to the contrary (TFD 242).

Against this, we would maintain that every person’s religious bias, Christian or non-Christian, affects everything he or she does. If our view of life as a whole is biased, all the component parts that we build into our “system” will be biased also. There is no such thing as religious neutrality.

One shudders to think what would happen if every professor at Calvin College adopted Dr. Van Till’s approach. What would happen if all the scientists took the so-called “unbiased” results of their non-Christian colleagues, and applied them to their field? If the history professors or the biology professors took the “unbiased” findings of their secular colleagues? What would happen if all this were considered to “complement” Scripture—leaving the Christian community to pick up the pieces, asking it to change its “merely human and fallible” theology, to rewrite its Confessions? But astronomy and geology are not that different from any other area of knowledge. ALL areas of general revelation need to be interpreted in the light of the Bible, not the other way around! Our starting point for understanding all things is Scripture and Scripture alone.

This does not mean, of course, that the Bible is a science textbook, or a history textbook. There are many questions that the Bible does not raise which the different branches of knowledge do deal with. Nor does it mean that the study ofGeneral Revelation may not, at times, cause us to re-examine our interpretation of Scripture. For instance, archaelogical studies have helped us better understand the Bible. These studies and scientific endeavors should not be downgraded as long as they are pursued in a Biblical way.

The problem comes when the fruits of such study are made essential to the “proper” understanding of Scripture and when the Bible is denied its unique role as the “spectacles” through which all facts must be viewed and interpreted. Scripture is its own interpreter. Other information can be of great help, but it may not dictate the interpretation of Scripture. As Report 44 says, “any reinterpretation must be based on principles germane to and garnered from Scripture itself. Ultimately, the validity of every interpretation must be judged in terms of whether it agrees with Scripture’s own interpretation of itself . . .”³

2. Scripture: How Do We Use It?

Dr. Van Till’s view of Scripture bears more resemblance to that of Neo-Orthodoxy than to Reformed theology. He distinguishes between a thoroughly Divine content of Scripture (the gospel message), and its thoroughly human form (TFD 8). He uses the analogy of a vehicle (the literary “type” of the part of Scripture, eg. the story of Creation); which has within it the contents (the trustworthy teachings of God). Only the “contents,” it seems, are God’s word. In Van Till’s view, we must therefore distinguish the contents from the package, the husk from the kernel—or we will miss the intended meaning (TFD 15).

According to Dr. Van Till, the Bible contains much that is drawn solely from human experience, for example, the man from Gath who had 24 digits. This is “merely incidental information of little importance or relevance to its gospel message” (TFD 7); “taking the Bible seriously does not require us to treat such matters as the product of divine revelation” (TFD 13).

In contrast to this view, which we believe does not take Scripture seriously, consider II Timothy 3:16; “all Scripture.is God-breathed and is useful . . . .” Dr. Van Till claims that the Bible is the “Word” of God, not the “words” of God. The term “Word,” be believes, is merely metaphorical: it simply acknowledges divine revelation; it is not meant literally in the sense of “mere words” (TFD p. 65). The 1961 Acts of Synod decision on “Infallibility and Inspiration” does not support Van Till: commenting on II Timothy 3:16, it says “Paul’s own use of Scripture indicates that the quality of ‘God Breathedness’ extends to the very words of Scripture . . . . [They are] God’s own utterances (pp. 9–10; also see what Report 44, The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority has to say about this on pages 51–52).

When Prof. Van Till applies his method to Genesis, the Creation story becomes more like a poem or a parable, and therefore not to be taken literally. After all, be argues, there were no human observers at the dawn of Creation; so we should expect an “artistic” type of literature, which tells us about God’s character and His relationship to Creation, rather than the actual means He used to establish and maintain the relationship (TFD 58). Genesis 1–11, according to Van Till, is a special brand of literature: “primeval history.” It illustrates eternal truths, but the specific details are not very important. Those details are the “packaging” in which the truth is conveyed. The stories were “never intended to answer questions about precisely what happened” (TFD 82–83). The “days” of Genesis 1, for example, are simply literary devices they are not literal days. (TFD 91).

At no stage does Dr. Van Till justify his conclusions that Genesis 1–11 is a special kind of “history.” He sets forth no evidence for saying that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are any less historical than the rest. In contrast, Report 44 (on page 42), explicitly refutes interpretations of Genesis 1–11 like Van Till’s. Furthermore, we note that Jesus and Paul understood Genesis to be recording literal, historical events. Both the words and the events of Genesis are considered significant throughout all of the Bible. Some questions arise at this point: if the Creation story is highly symbolic, as Van Till would have us believe, rather than literal, what becomes of the fourth commandment, as Exodus 20:11 grounds it in a six day creation/one day rest pattern? What becomes of the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and life to His people, paralleled as it is in Romans 5 with our relationship to the first man, Adam? What becomes of the principles of the husband’s headship, or of monogamy, grounded as they are in that first marriage of one real man to one real woman (see I Timothy2:11–14 and Ephesians 5:31)? What becomes of Hebrews 11:3? Van Till does not grapple seriously with these issues.

The danger facing our denomination in all of this is that when one begins arbitrarily dismissing certain details of Scripture as symbolic, simply because they appear to conflict with the opinions of some modern scientists, the door is open to those who would dismiss other parts of Scripture as time-bound, or culturally determined, or symbolic, simply because they do not happen to agree with whatever that part of Scripture is saying. History should teach us a lesson here. Wherever this approach to Scripture has gained a foothold, the Bible has not been more fully appreciated, but, on the contrary, it has been increasingly seen as an outdated collection of human laws and thoughts. Consider, for example, the denominations in Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, and America which have accepted this view. More and more of Scripture was eroded until even the “gospel-content” was gone. Today, we are firmly convinced that whatever happens within our own denomination, the Lord will preserve His Truth; but if we are irresponsible in our handling of it, we should not be surprised when we suffer the consequences in our churches.

Prof. Van Till has taken a dangerous and unsound approach to handling Scripture. We believe this must be opposed. We do appreciate his emphasis on the basic nature of Genesis 1–11 as being covenantal, and his teaching of Genesis on the relationship between God and His Creation is of prime importance. But why should this rule out the literal nature, the historicity, of Genesis 1–11? In fact, it supports it: the Covenant “introduction,” or prologue, to the Law in Exodus 20:2 also deals with a relationship. Does that mean God did not actually bring Israel out ofEgypt as it describes? Is that, as some claim, mere symbol also? Not at all! It really, literally, happened! By stressing “relationship” at the expense of “event–character” (i.e. historicity) in Genesis, Van Till is once again showing affinity with Neo-Orthodoxy.

3. Science How Do We Use It?

One of the key assumptions underlying Prof. Van Till’s view of science is what he calls the “Principle of Uniformity.” Specifically, this assumption states that 1) matter behaves in an orderly, patterned, non-contradictory, continuous manner, and that it always has throughout time; 2) this pattern is intelligible to human observers; and 3) it exhibits a cause-and-effect character. These assumptions apply to all phenomena in the category of material behavior.

Notice here that, strictly speaking, this principle of uniformity rules out the Biblical miracles in which Prof. Van Till professes to believe ( eg. the Resurrection). Yet he rejects the miracle of a six day creation, and he accuses Special Creationists of being “Interventionists” (they overemphasize God’s miraculous intervention, at the expense of His ongoing, regular, providential activity). Dr. Van Till has done to Creation what Liberal theologians did to miracles in general: Report 44 criticizes the Liberals for making nature a closed system of cause and effect relationships; their acceptance of a current scientific theory concerning what was possible in the areas of nature and history led them to reinterpret the miracles (p. 30).

Working with the Principle of Uniformity necessarily results in a very old age for the cosmos and the earth. Present rates for various geological and cosmic processes can be used to calculate approximate ages needed to produce the features presently observed, eg. the present speed of light implies that light from distant stars we are now “seeing” must have taken billions of years to reach us. Dr. Van Till treats these matters as facts, not as theories based on certain assumptions, which they are. Similarly, he is convinced that by geology, “the evolutionary character of planetary history is firmly established” (TFD 172). He is a little more tentative about the certainty of biological evolution, but seems to think it likely (TFD 254). He firmly states these things because of his as assumptions about uniformity: for Van Till, a denial of evolution, is a denial of the coherence and continuity of life (TFD 169). That is why he rejects Special Creationism, for it makes God upset the ordinary, patterned behavior of matter (TFD 188, 253; Cosmos 260. Likewise, the “Apparent-Age” or “Mature–Age” Theory of Creation is rejected by Dr. Van Till. This view says that God created some things already mature eg. man, many geological features, the stars. Van Till believes that if God had created the cosmos with an appearance of age, this would make Him “the prepetrator of a grand hoax” and most of creation would then be an illusion, a deception, a fiction (TFD 237; Cosmos 34, 36, 43).

We believe, however, that God has given sufficient evidence that “evolution” is not correct. If there is deception, it is self–deception on the part of those who have pressed the “Principle of Uniformity” too far.

Dr. Van Till has tried to avoid emphasising “Special Creation” at the expense of God’s regular, providential control of the cosmos. But he has fallen into the opposite trap: God’s Creation of the cosmos has been almost entirely reduced to.His providential control. What, in the end, is the “event-character” of Genesis 1–3 as he understands it? He certainly reminds us that God is ruling our world day by day, that our relationship to God is as of creatures to Creator. But the actual event of the making and fashioning of Creation recedes into the distant mists of time past, billions of years before our planet even existed. The actual event of the Creation of something out of nothing “stands as but one grain of sand on the endless seashore of the Creator’s eternal relationship with His Creation” (TFD 226)—providence is made to swallow up creation.

This emphasis on uniformity is all the more surprising in view of increasing trends in science (particularly geology) to rely more and more on invoking “catastrophes” to fill the gaps in the theory of evolution. Scientists are apparently beginning to see that “nature” is not so “orderly” as we once thought. Of course, it can still be argued that “catastrophes” also occur according to uniform principles, but the uniformity of creation under God’s rule is not the point in question here: rather, it is whether the present uniformity is a reliable guide for interpreting past events. The presence for “catastrophes” in the past makes it harder for us to reach reliable conclusions today. Because they are generally irregular, little known events, they make things happen at different rates compared to what we presently observe; they introduce new factors. It is inconsistent to argue that Special Creation cannot be true because it contradicts the present, observed pattern of uniformity, while at the same time allowing of other “catastrophes,” and even miracles, which also disrupt the present degree of uniformity.

4. Conclusion:

Dr. Van Till insists that he is not advocating “theistic evolution” (TFD 265). Despite his rejection of the term, theistic evolution is essentially what he is teaching. Moreover, the arguments he uses against Special Creation, are, by and large, the same old arguments one has been hearing from secular scientists for some time. His uncompromising rejection of Creation Science places Dr. Van Till ip. an even more extremist position than many unbelieving scientists today. Consider, for example, his rigorous application of the “Principle of Uniformity,” which many secular scientists would now be willing to moderate.

At the same time, we appreciate Dr. Van Till’s rejection of naturalistic science; and his attempt to maintain at least some Biblical presuppostions in constructing his scientific views. In practice, however, we believe he allows science (or rather, scientists) to dictate what Scriptures may, or may not, say on certain issues.

Dr. Van Till’s doctrine ofScripture, with his content/form distinction, and his emphasis on relationship over-against events, is more typical of the Neo-Orthodox position than of sound, Reformed theology. We believe this is the most serious defect in his work, and represents the biggest danger for College and Seminary, Church and School.

In conclusion, we would like to quote from Report 44: “Synod, acknowledging that Scripture is self-authenticating, reminds the churches :that the authority of Scripture is not dependent upon the findings of science; while scientific findings can serve as occasions for a better understanding of Scripture, nevertheless the church may appeal to the authority of Scripture alone as the basis for its faith and life, and accordingly must seek to develop a Christian community within which all scholarly work is carried on in faithfulness to the authoritative Scriptures (p. 53).

Notes

1. Howard Van Till, The Fourth Day (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1986) preface vii-viii. From this point on, all references to this book will be made parenthetically within the text, thus: (TFD _). 2. Howard Van Till, The Cosmos: Nature or Creation (Grand Rapids: Calvin College pamphlet, 1984) 18. From this point on, all references to this pamphlet will be made parenthetically within the text, thus (Cosmos_). 3. Synodical Study Committee Report #44, The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority, presented to Synod 1972, 30.

Humbly submitted by: Mr. Paul N. Archbald. B.Sc. (Honours) in Geology, Flinders University of South Australia; M.Sc. (Geology), Australian National University; Curator of Geology Department and Museum, James Cook University ofNorth Queensland (Australia) for 3 years; B.Div. Reformed Theological College, Geelong, Australia; cu”e!I.PY completing a Th.M. in Systematic Theology, Calvin Seminary.

Edward J. Marcusse. BA. in Greek, Calvin College; currently in the M.Div. program ofCalvin Seminary.