MAN’S AGE (Dec. 1985 OUTLOOK)
Esteemed Editor:
In the December 1985 issue of OUTLOOK you published an article by Aaldert Mennega entitled “Man’s Age.” I would like to respond to this article and in particular to the references which it makes to CREATION AND FLOOD by Dr. Davis A. Young.
Professor Mennega classifies Young as one of a group of progressive creationists . and to this group he attributes, along with their acceptance of the Genesis account of man’s origin, the view that creation days must have been very long periods of time. The progressive creationists get themselves into a bind, according to Mennega, because they try to reconcile Genesis givens with secu lar views of the earth’s history and the ages assigned to the earth’s layers. Mennega then goes on to quote Young’s book (unfortunately the quote is neither accurate nor referenced):
Thus the body of pre-man could be viewed as evolving in accordance with divinely-controlled biological laws and processes up to a point at which the spirit was miraculously formed in this pre-man. The being in view would suddenly be constituted man. This miraculous inbreathing could be the divine miraculous initiation that is required to bring man the new structure. into existence (quoted from Young, page 105).
Professor Mennega goes on to say Young’s view is a compromise which takes us so far out on a limb that it can no longer be considered Reformed. The issue, Mennega concludes , is whether our faith is placed “in God’s Word or in the theories of secular man” (Mennega. page 17). I trust he does not direct this last against Professor Young but in general against rationalistic science.
Quite frankly Professor Mennega ‘s perceptions of Young’s book do not fit with mine. Young’s book strikes me as having a deep reverence for the Bible as God’s Word both in his treatment of Genesis and other Biblical material. It echoes the deep reverence for Scripture that was always apparent in the work of his God-fearing and noble father, the late Edward J. Young, Professor of Old Testament at Westminister Seminary.
Because of the discrepancy I sensed between my impressions of Young’s book and Mennega’s comment on it I have gone back to Young’s book to hunt for the unreferenced passages Mennega quoted. I began with a chapter entitled “Whence Man” where Young clearly asserts that man is not a body with a soul “added,” but that man was created as a living creature. Furthermore he says that “man was not any other kind of creature prior to the divine inbreathing. The text clearly rules out the view that man originated from some preexisting animal life” (Young, page 138).
In the course of his discussion Young clearly states “that the idea of the evolution of man is utterly foreign to the Bible . . .” (page 138). In particular Young notes that in the Genesis account of the creation of Eve there is clear indication that Adam and Eve were not created simultaneously, but rather that Adam was first created and then Eve. Furthermore, Young asserts that the text assumes that Eve was created after Adam because she was created for him. Thus Adam is given metaphysical priority. This account of the creation of Eve is corroborated by the testimony of Paul in I Corinthians 11:8–9 and I Timothy 2:12–13. Such a view of the creation of Adam and Eve is not consistent with an evolutionary view because there is no possibility for either metaphysical or temporal priority of either sex in an evolutionary explanation.
As a second line of argument in his assertion that the Bible does not allow for the possibility of man’s evolution from animals, Young appeals to the uniqueness of Adam. Both the fact that Adam is created in the image of God and the fact that Adam is compared to Christ. Young takes to be Biblical evidence that man’s creation is that of a unique creature and one distinct from the animals. The position that Young puts forth here is entirely consistent with the assertions Young makes in the paragraphs just preceding the passage which Mennega quotes:
The final instance in which a creation occurred during creation week was the appearance of man. Verse 27 (of Genesis 1) makes this plain: “So God created man in His image. in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.” Here again is an account of the appearance of something new man. Man did not exist before the sixth day (Young. page 105).
It is at this point that Professor Mennega’s misperceptions appear. Young gives several pages to the meaning and use of “create” in both the Old and the New Testaments. Then he comes to the conclusion that if only the word bora (create) is considered in Genesis 1:27 one could legitimately adopt a view which sees man’s body as being evolved. But Young immediately discredits this possible interpretation by appealing to the uniqueness of man as God’s image bearer. He then goes on to say: “If man is ‘split’ into a spirit-body complex, it is possible to view man as being created in the sense that his spirit was that part of man miraculously formed by God and without which man would not have been man” (Young, page 105). This entire italicizing is by Professor Young himself. and it is following this italicized sentence that Mennega’s quote begins.
It is this “if clause” (if man is split into spirit-body complex) that gives the setting for the “could” and “would” clauses in the lines Mennega quotes. Evidently these terms too are conditional. Something “could” be the case if it were the case that man were split into a spirit–body complex. But Young has made it clear that the condition has not been met.
Because Mennega has not accurately conveyed the context of the passage that he quotes from Young, he leaves an inaccurate impression of Young’s position. A far better presentation of Young’s position is the following statement:
However, much other evidence regarding the origin of man is given in Scripture. These other evidences render absolutely untenable the idea of a biological evolution of man from animals. . . . No one must get the impression that I accept the evolutionary origin of man or that I believe such a view is compatible with the total weight of Scriptural data (Young. page 106).
Sincerely,
Andrew Petter
1820 Blaine, S.E.
Grand Rapids, MI 49507
RESPONSE
In reply to Rev. Petter’s lengthy response I wish to make only the following comments.
1) I do not think that I am unfairly referring to Young as a progressive creationist since he clearly classified himself as such at a Dordt College public lecture.
2) I checked the quote on p. 105 again, and I found it to be the same as in my version of the book. I doubt that anyone would stumble over the omitted hyphen between “divinely” and “controlled.” But I should have given the reference for the quote.
3) The bottom line is indeed: where do we place our faith? This holds true for everyone, of course, and not only for rationalistic scientists.
4) I do not detect the same “deep reverence for Scripture” in Davis as I saw it in his father’s writings , his claims (p. 8) to the contrary. It does not automatically rub off from father to son.
5) Young makes a number of statements in his book that appear to be contradictory. Although he says that “first the Christian goes to Scripture” (p . 136), he also says “Thus we do not really know how long a time span is covered by Genesis 5 and 11. It may be only a few thousand years. It may be tens or hundreds of thousands of years. We simply do not know. The Bible does not tell us the age of the human race” (p. 152). What then, I wonder, does it mean to go to Scripture first?
6) I am well aware of the fact that Young makes the positive statements which Petter quotes. However, if Petter would go back to that quote on p. 105, and then carefully read the sentence that follows it immediately, he will find that Young defends the position of that paragraph and appears to posit it as his own when he says, “Lest there be objection to this usage of creation, remember the sense in which creation is used in the New Testament with respect to the new birth” (p. 105–106).
7) A similar situation you will find on page 137 where he says “The text does not say how much time elapsed in the formation of man’s body from the dust of the ground. Perhaps considerable development through time has occurred in man’s body. Perhaps God used some pre-existing creature. and permitted it to develop through time into a human body. When the body became sufficiently human (italics-DY). God breathed a soul into the body so that man became truly man.” This section is very similar to the one I quoted in my article. Here. too. he appears to be saying what he himself believes. Often it is difficult to tell whether he is speaking for himself or making up some other position. In this passage at least he does not make a direct disclaimer. Repeatedly his line of argument gets rather nebulous, and he could be quoted to say various different things. But he seems clearly to be against the theistic evolutionist position.
8) I am curious what the advantage is to Young in appearing to say both yes and no when dealing with issues that are so sensitive and have such far–reaching implications. Why can’t his bugle produce a clear sound. so that everyone may know exactly where he stands?
Aaldert Mennega
Professor of Biology Dordt College
Sioux Center, Iowa