During the Years 1984-5 Profs. Van Till, Menninga, and Young, all science professors at Calvin College, were study fellows at the Calvin Center for Christian Studies. The result of their studies was the collaborative effort published as Science Held Hostage (subtitled What’s Wrong with Creationism and Evolutionism).
How such an inflammatory title came from those who so stridently object to inflammatory language is not explained.
This is the author’s attempt to overcome much of the antagonism and mistrust present in the current controversy over creation/evolution. This is an admirable and noble task since the controversy in our denomination presently rages largely due to the teachings of the authors themselves.
Their claim is that there has been a misperception. Too many people see the controversy as a war between science and religion. The real war, we’re told is between two forms of science, i.e. creationism and evolutionism. If it were up to the authors, religion would be left out of scientific discussions. Then science and religion could operate as partners, not enemies, in the quest for understanding ourselves and the universe.
The present impasse in the current debate over creation/evolution exists due to “the misperception about the nature of the professional scientific enterprise” (p. 10). Natural science is defined as the “investigation of what can be known from within the physical world itself, without reference to anything that is non-physical” (p. 19). Reality, we’re told, consists of two realms, the physical and the non-physical. Science, when done well, deals with the former while the latter is examined by philosophy and religion. Good science (what the authors argue for) “sets aside the matter of the relationship of the physical world to any beings or realms of reality that transcend the physical world” (p. 19). Transcendent beings and realms of reality are not denied, rather “natural science chooses to remain silent on questions concerning the relationship of the material world to other realms of being” (p.170).
It is thus maintained that the present controversy is not between science and religion since they respectively deal with different domains. The present controversy exists because creationists shout at evolutionists who in turn shout back, but who both are guilty of misrepresenting and misusing science. The authors maintain “one cannot employ natural science for the purpose of supporting preconceptions drawn from one’s philosophical commitments or system of religious beliefs” (p. 41). This is exactly what both creationism and evolutionism do, and in so doing, make science “bad” science. “In both cases, science has become indentured in the service of an ideological or religious commitment” (p. 153). “Science held hostage by any ideology or belief system, whether naturalistic (evolutionism) or theistic (creationism), can no longer function effectively to gain knowledge of the physical universe” (p. 41). It is maintained that if all parties involved in the debate were to recognize and respect the domains of science and religion, the controversy would largely cease.
In order to make a contribution towards that end the authors spell out the definition of natural science and the values with which they operate in the first section. This then is used as the criteria for evaluating creationism and evolutionism in the following sections. The bulk of the volume is spent discrediting both of the above. Basically, creationism is faulted for sloppy science which transgresses established scientific values in order to “warrant its belief in a particular concept of divine creation” (p. 153).
Evolutionism is faulted for asserting religious conclusions about the origin and governance of the universe as if these were supported by science. The authors conclude with a section containing suggested questions for evaluating literature so as to avoid antagonism and determine validity in future studies.
The suggested method follows the basic distinction between two realms of reality. Science investigates the inherent intelligibility of the physical universe in the categories of physical properties, physical behavior, and formative history. It merely discovers what the world is like and describes it. Religion and philosophy provide the meaning of the universe, hence they are concerned with questions, of origin and governance. “Each (domain) deserves to have its unique domains respected by the other” (p. 19). When science answers questions of meaning, origin, and governance or when religion makes assertions about formative history and physical behavior, boundaries have been violated and confusion and controversy result.
This bifurcation of reality into two realms, physical and transcendent, is the product of post-Kantian secularist philosophy. It is evident that each domain contributes different forms of knowledge (i.e. the physical yields scientific knowledge; the transcendental yields religious knowledge).
This allows us to see why the authors claim criticism of them is unjust. When they speak of evolutionary theory this is only speaking of formative history, i.e. the scientific, physical realm. They claim not to be in conflict with religion, for they still believe God originated and governs the world. They know this from the religious realm. However, what has effectively been done by dividing the field of knowledge is to restrict the area over which the Scripture has authority. Clearly, not science, but Scripture is being “held hostage!”
Scripture is the only infallible rule for faith and life; so we must see if Scripture limits the range of its authority. II Tim. 3:17 says Scripture equips man for every good work. Is that only religious works? Is not all of life religious? God tells us in Col. 1:18–20 that He has reconciled all things on earth and in heaven through Christ, so that He might have the supremacy. Christ is the “head over every power and authority” (Col. 2:10). Are Profs. Van Till, et al, asking us to believe that science isn’t under Christ’s authority, that Christ’s Word is limited to transcendental matters? It would appear so; but, God tells us differently!
In fact, science does make pronouncements about God even when it limits itself to the physical domain. Ps. 19 tells us that creation declares God’s glory and proclaims the work of His bands (v. 1). The sun in its daily course reveals God’s governance (vv. 4-6). The entire physical universe reveals God to man, we’re told in Rom. 1:18–20. Why doesn’t science see this? God tells us that man “suppresses the truth in unrighteousness.” There are none so blind as those who will not see. That science “chooses to remain silent on the transcendent realm” (p. 170), is not an indication of integrity; it is a damning admission of guilt!
The authors condemn creationists for sloppy science, because they fail to take account of all the evidence (and rightly so). But then they want us to follow the authority of their science when it willfully, and culpably, leaves out the largest and clearest piece of evidence—God Himself! It should be clear that the science our professors would have us adopt is not only secular; it is anti-Christian!
While I agree with the authors that science and religion need to work together for a better understanding of creation (a word the authors consistently, and consciously? avoid) and Scripture, I maintain that this can only be done when science is done on a Christian, not secular, basis with Scripture as the final authority.
These professors do not now adhere to their own principles. Based on their findings from science, which are merely theories, they want the church to reinterpret God’s absolutely authoritative Word! So much for respecting religious boundaries! Science now tells us Gen. 1–11 is not history (fl. Van Till), that Adam was MAYBE one of the Neanderthals, not the fust man on earth (C. Menninga, The Banner Nov. 12, ‘84), that Bible texts CAN’T challenge scientific conclusions, despite their theoretical nature (D. Young in a speech at Calvin Seminary Sept. ’87). This is plainly a case of “Scripture held hostage!” By adopting a secular philosophical basis, the authors have made an alliance with the world, but don’t they know that “friendship with the world is hostility towards God” (James 4:4)?
The gospel of Christ challenges not only our morality but our intellectuality as well. Intellectual sin needs to be repented of as “we take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ” 2 Cor.10:5). God commands us to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God,” not make alliances with them!
I ask my brothers to return to the sure foundation of the word of Christ (in whose light we see light). “All other ground is sinking sand.” But from such a sure foundation we can work together to answer all our questions.
Paul T. Murphy who was a delegate at our church synod, is studying at Westminster Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, Pa.