By way of introduction, I wish to call attention to the formulation of the subject of this chapter, "Genesis and Science." The material of this chapter goes beyond the more limited subject of Creation and Science. To be sure, the maintenance of the creation doctrine in connection with some of the scientific data and evidences that have been collected and that are frequently used to deny the truth of creation is involved in this discussion. In a way this is even our chief interest in this discussion. However, a proper discussion of this subject must needs go beyond the creation record. To an increasing extent in current discussions, both on the part of those who deny the truth of creation and on the part of those who maintain it, the entire first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis have become involved. And, as will become evident later in this chapter, I certainly believe that a Christian view of science in relation to the truth of creation must take into account much more of Scripture, and particularly of Genesis, than the creation record of Genesis 1 and 2. Ultimately, of course, the whole principle of Scripture itself, but also essentially the whole content of Scripture becomes involved in this discussion. But we shall concentrate especially on Genesis in relation to science.

In the second place, I must needs emphasize that this chapter does not concern Genesis versus Science, or Science versus Genesis. That would imply that there is a conflict between the two; and I do not believe that there is such a conflict. Genesis and science, I believe, are quite compatible. As soon as you pervert science into a religion or set of beliefs which stands opposed to Genesis, then you no longer have science, but scientism. But Scripture and science, properly conceived, are compatible. Otherwise, it stands to reason, of course, that a Christian could never be a scientist. Hence, our discussion in this chapter centers on "Genesis and Science." We are interested in the relation between Genesis and science and between Genesis and some of the data which science has compiled and which are pertinent to this subject. We are also interested in Genesis in relation to some of the allegedly scientific conclusions that have been reached and that are maintained in connection with what Genesis teaches concerning creation.

The subject of this chapter, therefore, rather naturally arises in connection with the position taken in the previous chapter. There I took the position, strictly on the basis of Scripture, that the doctrine of creation must be literally maintained, and that, on the basis of clear and simple exegesis of the Word of God, it must be maintained that creation took placed in six real, ordinary days. I also suggested that perhaps this position raised questions in the minds of many concerning all the alleged scientific data and claimed scientific evidence which seem to contradict the literal creation doctrine. To those questions this chapter is devoted.

Before entering into the discussion of this subject, I wish to make a few observations as to my approach.

First of all, I want to insist, as I also maintained principally in the previous chapter, that the doctrine of creation, the literal creation doctrine, does not depend on science or on scientific evidences. Nor does it depend on one's ability or inability to explain any alleged scientific evidences to the contrary. This point I deem very important, and I hope this will become increasingly clear in the course of the discussion. But I want to emphasize this point from the outset. This is the strength of the Christian's position. His belief in the literal creation doctrine depends emphatically on the Bible, and on the Bible alone. Let me emphasize that very strongly in this way: even if I could not explain the data produced by science at all, I think it can be explained, by the way, -- but even if I could not explain it, even if no suggestion of an explanation could be made, I would nevertheless maintain the literal creation doctrine, solely on the basis of Scripture. To me, that is simply a matter of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

I repeat: that is very important, and it constitutes the strength of the Christian's position. This has often been forgotten; and I think it is often forgotten today. People of God have allowed themselves to be swayed by influences other than the authoritative influence of Holy Scripture. That is per se wrong. It is a violation of the principle of the authority of Scripture. I am very well aware of the fact that there are scientists today, also Christian scientists, who sneer at that. They call it Fundamentalism, and they claim that it is three hundred years behind the times. That makes no difference to me, for the simple reason that this sneering constitutes neither a Christian attitude nor a sound argument.

This, therefore, is my starting-point in this chapter.

In the second place, although we are dealing in this chapter with science, I must emphasize that my approach is not that of a scientist. I am not a scientist. I would not even dare to call myself an amateur scientist. And I certainly do not write these lines as a scientist.

I do not, however, mention this as an apology, or excuse. Nor do I mention it because I have no respect for scientific disciplines and research. The contrary is true. I believe that science is proper and that scientific research is beneficial, yea, that science is necessary. Moreover, I believe that the area of science is a proper one for the Christian's labors. Let me make myself crystal clear on that point. I am not opposing science in this chapter.

But I mention this because it affects my approach to this subject. I happen to believe also that a good scientist can meet and destroy many of the arguments of an evolutionistic scientist on a scientific basis and can show those arguments to be grossly unscientific. In the course of this chapter I shall make a few passing references to such attempts. However, the emphasis of this chapter will not be on that aspect of our subject. That is not my sphere for the simple reason that I am not a scientist. Nor will my fundamental approach be the scientist's approach. But there is a deeper reason why that will not be my approach. Principally I believe that the heart of a sound defense of the faith, the heart of what is called in theology a sound apologetics, is Biblical, not rationalistic. And it is on that Biblical basis that I will approach the subject of this chapter. You might, of course, expect that of a preacher. Nevertheless that is very important. The question which confronts you and me with respect to every aspect of life, science included, is: what does the Word of God say?

We now turn to the subject:

There are three aspects of this subject which we shall consider in the course of our discussion, as follows:

I. The Proper Relation Between Genesis and Science;
II. Scientific Data in the Light of Scripture;
III. Suggestions Toward a Positive Scriptural Approach.

In discussing the relation between Genesis and science we must, first of all, have a clear understanding of these terms. What is Genesis? And what is science?

As far as Genesis is concerned, I may be very brief. The previous two chapters have been devoted largely to this question and have dealt both with the authority and with the teaching of Genesis concerning creation. To summarize, Genesis is the infallible record of the revelation of God in Christ concerning the beginning of all things; Genesis is perspicuous, clear; and Genesis is literal sacred history, -- teaching, as far as our immediate subject is concerned, the literal creation doctrine expounded in the previous chapter.

The other subject under discussion here is science. What is meant by that?

The term "science" comes from the Latin word scientia, which simply means "knowledge." True science, therefore, is knowledge; and as a discipline aims at discovering knowledge. We must know more, however, than this mere derivation of the term. As a working definition of science from the formal point of view, the definition furnished by the Oxford Dictionary will serve our purpose. Science is "a branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truths within its own domain."

In connection with the preceding, I wish to point to a few significant items.

In the first place, science is concerned with facts and laws which have been demonstrated. It is important to remember this, so that we may understand that this is the limitation of all true science. All is not science that passes for science. Any alleged science or scientific conclusion that goes beyond this limitation of demonstrated or demonstrable facts and laws has no right to the name science. In close connection with this stands a second item, namely, that the scientific method involves the method of experiment and what is called "experimental reproducibility." In the third place, it lies in the very nature of science that it is strictly limited to the measurement and study of present phenomena and processes. Those things which can be or have been observed and studied in the present, or such data as have been recorded by men in the historic past (so that there is a historical record of them), -- such things are the proper object of scientific study and investigation and knowledge.

Exactly at this point it is necessary to point out emphatically that science, therefore, is not inference and is not speculation or speculative theory. Science is bound to observed facts and demonstrated truths; and it is limited to the present and the historic past. This is characteristic of science from a formal point of view, -- and science is, indeed, a very formal discipline. It is precisely at this juncture that one of the main problems from a formal and scientific point of view arises in connection with the subject of this chapter and in connection with evolutionistic theory. This is frequently forgotten. The attitude is assumed that evolutionism is highly scientific and that creationism is extremely unscientific (and I mean by creationism the belief in a literal six-day creation). The two are frequently made to oppose each other on this ground, as though the creationist blindly flies in the face of science. Also those who attempt to compromise between creationism and evolutionism like to present matters in this way, as though strict, Biblical creationism is scientifically absurd. We may well remember, however, that much of what is claimed to be science and scientific conclusion is not science whatsoever, but mere inference, speculative conclusion that has supposedly been made on the basis of and in the name of science. This is a good distinction to keep in mind, therefore, when approaching this entire discussion from a strictly formal, scientific point of view.

Although, however, we can accept the above definition from a formal point of view, we should nevertheless remember that this formal definition of science is rather barren. For a correct understanding of our subject it is necessary to probe a bit deeper into the nature of science in relation to Genesis.

From the deeper, spiritual point of view we must remember that true knowledge is always knowledge of God. "The knowledge of the Holy One is understanding," Proverbs says. And that also holds true for science. True science is ultimately concerned with the knowledge of God. It must stand in the service of the knowledge of God, and it must end in the knowledge of God. If it fails to do so, it is not true science. For that reason, even though science is a very formal discipline and even though as far as its formal methods are concerned science is much the same for believer and unbeliever, we must always keep in mind that science is more than a formal discipline. It includes, certainly, interpretation. The latter belongs with science. It includes not only the formal interpretation of certain data, but it includes the spiritual interpretation of it and the application of all the scientific data and conclusions with respect to the knowledge of God. In this sense of the word a very learned scientist may be a gross fool and an ignoramus if with all his scientific learning he does not end in the knowledge of God and is not subject to the knowledge of God as revealed in the Scriptures. In that case he is not truly a scientist, but the antithesis of a scientist. Let me point out in this same connection that this fact, that science is essentially knowledge of God, from the outset rules out evolutionistic science: for the science of the evolutionist exactly denies God. His science is no true knowledge because it is no knowledge of God. It is the opposite of knowledge; and the spiritual opposite of knowledge is the ignorance of the lie. It is principally at this point that the Christian comes to the parting of the ways with the evolutionist. This is the basic truth we must remember.

And therefore there is another question at stake here. That question is: what is the relation between Genesis, with its creation record, and science, with its scientific investigation and data, from a Biblical and spiritual point of view?

This is a quite different question, but a very important one.

This question involves, of course, the truth that God's revelation is two-fold. There is His revelation in Holy Scripture; and there is also His revelation in all the works of His hands. We must remember in this connection that God's revelation is one. There are not two different, unconnected revelations of God, but one revelation that is two-fold. To that second aspect, sometimes mistakenly called "general revelation," belong the entire universe and all the history of that universe, or, if you will, God's works in creation and in providence.

It would be worthwhile to expound this idea of God revelation in the works of His hands, as well as the relation between the two aspects of God's revelation, further; but that would take us too far from the main subject under discussion here.

What is especially important to note in this connection is the fact that it is with that book of God in nature, in creation, in the works of His hands, that every scientist works. He cannot avoid that. No matter what part of God's creation he labors with, no matter what branch of science he enters, he is working with God's book. When he takes up his scientific labors, he opens God's book. Figuratively speaking, as he conducts his scientific investigations and searches out the secrets of the universe, he is paging through God's book of nature, perusing it, even delving into its details and studying it very carefully. Whether he admits this or not, makes absolutely no difference as to the fact. The unbelieving scientist, of course, will never admit that when he labors in his particular branch of science, he is working with God's book. He rules that out from the beginning. He is an unbeliever. He will not admit that he is working with God's creation. Nevertheless, he is doing so. He is reading that book. In His creation God as it were puts that book before his eyes. And whether he acknowledges the Author of that book or not, and whether he has spiritual eyes to discern the real contents of that book or not, he is reading that book. He cannot avoid this.

This is the plain teaching of Scripture.

Let me refer you in this connection to Romans 1. That is a very important passage from many points of view. Moreover, it applies not only to the scientist, but to mankind in general. I have in mind especially verses 19 and 20, where you read exactly concerning the matter under discussion. Notice: "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them. For God hath showed it unto them." Let us stop and take notice of this, first of all. The apostle is talking about the wrath of God revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness, vs. 18. And concerning these men he makes the statement that that which may be known of God is manifest not merely to them, but in them, and that the reason for this is that God takes care of it, God Himself hath showed it unto them. Hence, there is no man who can escape this knowledge of "that which may be known of God." Next, the apostle goes on to explain how God shows this unto them: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen." Notice that: they are clearly seen. And how? The text says: "Being understood by the things that are made." That is creation, the universe, the works of God's hands. And what can be clearly seen? The text answers: " .... even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." This therefore is Scripture's testimony about the things with which every natural scientist necessarily labors. He comes face to face with the testimony of God's eternal power and Godhead. And I emphasize again: this is true whether or not the scientist admits this.

There is still more. God takes care that man, -- every man, the unbeliever as well as the believer,- has sufficient natural light, natural understanding, power of intellect, to read that book of creation, and not only to read it, but to read it intelligently and to interpret it. Mark this: the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood from the things that are made. That means that as far as that book is concerned and as far as man's power of mind and intellect is concerned, he can clearly see God's eternal power and Godhead in that book of nature, or book of creation. (I don't even like to call it a book of nature, but that is a term frequently employed.) This is a Scriptural fact. God takes care of this. God has showed it unto them, Romans says. And the man who reads that book of God must give an answer for what he reads. He is held responsible. For this passage in Romans tells us that this is the purpose and the result: "so that they are without excuse." Hence, man is left in the position that he can give an answer and that he must give an answer. And that answer ought to be this: that he acknowledges God's eternal power and Godhead and that he knows God and glorifies and thanks Him as God.

Let me insert here in parentheses the additional fact that the modern scientist, and modern man in general, in fact, has much more than this "book of creation." For he lives in the nominally Christian world; and in that nominally Christian world he has the Bible. In that Bible the truth concerning the origin and the nature of the entire world of created things with which the scientist labors is set forth, so that he is still more emphatically left without excuse. But I purposely want to emphasize the fact that the scientist works with God's "book of creation" because I want to emphasize that there is no disharmony between God's testimony of Himself as the Creator in the works of His hands and His testimony of Himself as the Creator in Scripture. One and the same God stands revealed in His two-fold revelation. And I also want to emphasize the fact that the scientist is always confronted by the necessity of giving a spiritual, ethical answer.

Now what takes place, first of all, when the unbelieving, ungodly, evolutionistic scientist reads God's book of creation?

Note: I do not say: when the scientist reads that book. But I say: when the unbelieving, evolutionistic scientist reads that book. We cannot simply lump all scientists together. There is a difference, a spiritual difference. From a spiritual point of view, every scientist begins with a bias, either the bias of faith or the bias of unbelief. And if he is consistent, he builds the entire structure of his science from that bias.

What does the ungodly and unrighteous, unbelieving, evolutionistic scientist do with God's book?

He can read it. He can see things in it. He can see very plainly. And he can see not merely so-called scientific facts and data; but he can read things in that book about God! Moreover, he reads very well. The scientist gathers data concerning the universe. Further, he classifies and interprets that data. And following that interpretation, he comes to a conclusion. And his conclusion is the exact opposite of what that book tells him. His conclusion is: "There is no God. There is no Creator. Things came of themselves; or things had no beginning. But there is no Creator God!"

You understand, that conclusion is a spiritual one. The reading and interpretation of God's book of creation is basically a spiritual matter. And the ungodly scientist's conclusion is not a matter of an intellectual lack. It is not due to the fact that in the natural sense of the word that man cannot read. He has his remnants of natural light. But the light that is in him from a natural point of view is from a spiritual point of view darkness. And because he is spiritually darkness, the ungodly scientist does not want God. And because he does not want God, he rules God out of His own book. That is what takes place spiritually. And if the light that is in a man be darkness, the Lord Jesus says, how great is that darkness! Or, as the Canons of Dordrecht in speaking about man's glimmerings of natural light put it: "But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God, and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God." Canons, III, IV, 4.

Such is the proper evaluation of unbelieving science and its conclusions from a Scriptural and Reformed point of view. This should be the evaluation which we as children of God maintain, not concerning science, but concerning unbelieving science.

The above represents the first aspect of the answer to the question of the relation between Genesis and science.

The practical significance of this is that as Christians we must not gullibly accept all that is presented in the name of science in this "scientific age." We must evaluate very critically and with spiritual discernment.

We are in this connection, however, more directly concerned with the science and the alleged scientific conclusions of the theistic evolutionist.

Very commonly these scientists, generally classified as Christian scientists, make one sad mistake. Their mistake is that they compromise with the science of the unbelieving, evolutionistic scientist who rules God out of His own book. My point is especially not that they compromise materially, compromise as to their teachings, with the result that they present an essentially contradictory mixture of evolutionism and theism. This they also do. But my point is that behind the compromise in their teachings is a mistaken, but very fundamental, compromise as to method.

The Christian scientist, of course, is bound to recognize the truth of God's two-fold revelation: in Scripture and in the works of His hands. He is also bound to the principle that God's revelation is essentially one, and that therefore there can be no contradiction in that two-fold revelation. Every Christian scientist is certainly compelled to recognize this. But, in the first place, the theistic evolutionist in his science fails to distinguish between the data of that book of creation, -- if you will, the words of that book where God spells His name in His creation, -- he fails to distinguish between that data and the unbelieving interpretation and method of interpretation of that data which the evolutionist follows. As a result, he follows the evolutionist all the way in his interpretation, until he comes to the conclusion. As a Christian, he cannot accept the evolutionist's conclusion. For at the point of that conclusion he confronts Scripture and his theistic faith. And then he is bound to say, of course: "No, that conclusion, namely, that there is no God, I don't want. I cannot accept that because I don't want to get rid of God." And thus you get the essentially contradictory teaching of theistic evolutionism.

But, secondly, what has happened to his method of science? What has happened to it, not from a formally scientific, but from a Biblical point of view? This has happened. In one form or another, he says that we have to take those two parts of God's revelation together, side by side. We must take God's revelation in His book of creation and His revelation in Scripture side by side. Put in this form, that sounds rather innocent. But as a matter of practice (and also principle), he ends by adjusting the Scriptures to the supposedly scientific conclusions which he has read or which others have read to him out of that book of creation. It is right here that we have the core of the whole problem; and it is at this point that the fundamental mistake is made, a mistake that is theological in its nature. That error has to do with the relation between God's revelation in "nature" (with which science deals directly) and God's revelation in Scripture.

Numerous examples which illustrate this error can be produced. As a concrete illustration of what I mean I wish to quote from "Beyond the Atom," by Dr. John De Vries (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mich., 1950). The following quotation is from pages 37 and 38:

The Christian recognizes that there are two documents, with regard to the formation of the universe and its inhabitants, at his disposal. The first, and most important, of these is the Bible, which comes to us with the authority of its sacred inspiration. This revelation fitly opens with a brief account of the creation of the material world, animated nature and man himself. Side by side, we have another manifestation of the same divine mind, the book of nature, itself the work of God, which is open to our curious gaze. To man alone, among all created beings, has been granted the privilege of reading in it. This he does by patient and intelligent researches. Both these books are legitimate sources of knowledge, but we must learn to read them aright. We should not hope to gain, much less ask, from science the knowledge it can never give, nor seek from the Bible the science which it does not intend to teach. As the opening chapter of this volume seeks to demonstrate, we should receive from the Bible, on faith, the fundamental truths to which science cannot attain. The results of scientific research must serve as a running commentary to help us to correctly understand the comprehensive statements of the Biblical account. Only in this way can we truly see that the two books, given to us by the same author, do not oppose, but complete each other. Together they form the whole revelation of God to man.

Apart from any other elements in the above quotation about which I have serious doubts, there is one statement which is altogether erroneous. It is this: "The results of scientific research must serve as a running commentary to help us to correctly understand the comprehensive statements of the Biblical account." Put in plain language, this statement means that science,--what we read out of the book of creation and what we derive by way of interpretation of that book of "nature", must explain the Bible. Scientific theories and conclusions must rule Scriptural exegesis. The book of God in creation must interpret the book of God in Scripture. This method is exactly a case of putting the cart in front of the horse. At root it is a denial of the sole authority of Scripture. The reader must understand that I am not interested in any personal attack on the author of the above quotation. I am only interested in the position which he sets forth here and with which I am compelled to disagree. But this is an error that is very commonly committed in defining the relation between Scripture and science, especially with regard to the subject of creation, the age of the universe, etc.

The disquieting result of this erroneous method is that the plain teaching of Genesis, which ought to be normative for our Christian science, is set aside or twisted in order to make Genesis conform to what science likes to have it say. And that twisted version of Genesis is then presented as a matter of legitimate interpretation.

Today there are those who carry this method very far, also in the Reformed community. There are those who accommodate themselves wholly to the evolutionistic theories and who make an altogether absurd attempt to accommodate Genesis and its creation record to these evolutionistic theories. Dr. Jan Lever, zoologist at the Free University of Amsterdam, is guilty of this. Not only does he place the first man far back in the dim reaches of pre-history, but he holds that it is exegetically proper to teach that some pre-human animal became human, and that man was Adam. Dr. J. Stellingwerf in a more recent book ("0orsprong en toekomst van de creatieve mens") does not hesitate to teach that Adam was not the first man. In fact, both at home and abroad, both among scientists and theologians, the individual who maintains a strict attitude of no compromise with evolution or theistic evolution and who insists upon the literal creation doctrine is becoming increasingly rare. If you are at all inclined to observe tendencies, you will observe that the tendency to subject Scripture to science and to substitute theistic evolution for creation is becoming stronger and stronger and steadily more radical, so that eventually any similarity between these scientific conclusions and Genesis and between the supposed interpretation of Genesis and the plain language of the book of Genesis itself becomes strictly coincidental.

It is against this fundamentally wrong approach and this basically low evaluation of Holy Scripture that I want to warn, first of all. This is probably the most serious aspect of the discarding of the creation doctrine in this "age of science." Eventually, following this rationalistic method and approach, all of the miraculous and all of Scripture will be discarded. Such is the lesson of church history also. Many an individual and many a church has trod that path before. Let the church take warning!

From a spiritual, ethical point of view, the wrong in this approach is that it constitutes an attempted compromise between light and darkness, between faith and unbelief, between revealed truth and human philosophy, between the church and the world. And the two simply will not mix. Unbelief and faith, also in the sphere of science, stand antithetically over against each other. It is high time that Christian scientists recognize this and act on it resolutely.

Having engaged in a rather lengthy negative criticism with respect to this relation between Genesis and science, I now present the positive and proper approach. It is very simple.

The Christian begins, -- and he not only begins, but he also ends, -- on the basis of the absolute authority of Scripture. That is simple, so simple that many a scientist would probably call it simplistic. That does not worry me. I want to maintain strictly the absolute authority of Holy Writ; and any tendency not to maintain that authority indeed worries me.

One does not have to maintain that Scripture is a science textbook in order to maintain this position. Everyone knows that the Bible is not a science textbook. It does not speak scientific language, and it does not present a scientific analysis of things. When it records the creative work, it very evidently does not do so from the viewpoint of an astronomer and his telescope, for example, but from the viewpoint of the earth as the habitation of man and as the center and stage of all history. I am afraid, however, that the whole idea that there are some who teach or who are compelled by their view to maintain that the Bible is a science textbook is an attempt to ridicule the adherence to the authority of Scripture and its creation record, an attempt to reduce that position to absurdity. But it is a poor attempt. The question is not whether the Bible is a science textbook, but whether the Bible records facts, and whether the Bible speaks accurately. The latter must certainly be maintained at all costs. And then, when it comes to the interpretation of the data of the universe, and when it comes to matters of the origin of things and the manner of their origin, and when it comes to the matter of the destiny of things (inextricably bound up in the whole evolution theory), Scripture speaks! And Scripture speaks inerrantly! Let us never forget this. And science must bow to that speech of Scripture, or it is not even true science!

That means, as far as method is concerned, that the believing scientist interprets God's book of creation, so-called revelation in nature, by faith in the light of Holy Scripture. He does not reverse this relationship. He does not come with his science to Scripture, and, discovering that the two apparently do not agree, say to himself, "Well, I will have to adjust my interpretation of Scripture to fit my science and my scientific data." He comes with his science to Scripture, and he is willing to bow before the Scriptures with his science. And if apparently there is disharmony between the two, he says, "I will have to re-examine and adjust my science and my scientific conclusions so that they are in harmony with Scripture."

That fundamental principle may never be violated. You may not even say, "We will put the two, science and Scripture, side by side, treat them on equal terms." That is not Reformed, and it is not in harmony with the principle of Scripture's authority. In the Reformed faith, the faith of the Scriptures, there is nothing of equal authority with the Scriptures. That is the language of Article 7 of the Confession of Faith: "Neither do we consider of equal value any writing of men, however holy these men may have been, with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God; for the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself."

Finally, I would caution that the Christian should keep his Christian sense of perspective in this age of science. We live in an age that is widely characterized as the "age of science." And generally speaking, worldly science is full of vainglory, full of the pride of life, especially in this space age. The world boasts that there are practically no limits to what science can accomplish. The Christian should remember, however, even apart from the truth that the natural man holds his natural light in unrighteousness, that fallen man has only remnants, glimmerings, of natural light. His ability to probe into that book of the universe is after all very limited. The great, self-exalted modern man is but a very puny and limited creature, for all his boasting. And the Christian must beware, even from this point of view, that he does not idolize science.

We are now ready, having discussed the more basic issue of the principles and the methods involved, to turn to the subject of the scientific data and alleged scientific evidences, or proofs, which are brought to bear against the literal creation doctrine and which are frequently claimed to make the maintenance of that literal creation doctrine utterly foolish and impossible. Undoubtedly it is this aspect of our subject in which there is the most popular interest even though, at least in my opinion, it is not the most fundamental aspect of the subject. Undoubtedly, too, there are many people of God who are somewhat dazzled by these claims from scientific quarters and who are somewhat awed by what is claimed to be and what may superficially seem to be overwhelming and fool-proof evidence. From this point of view it may be fruitful to consider these claims of scientists.

It is not my purpose to present an elaborate and detailed account of these alleged proofs of science, but rather a comprehensive summary; and I will try to do so without becoming overly technical. I assume that most of my readers are not scientists any more than I am.

There are various kinds of data and alleged proofs against the literal creation doctrine and in favor of evolution that have arisen from several rather closely related sciences.

There is, first of all, the science of what is called historical geology. It is not accurate to speak of it simply as geology. For geology is a legitimate science which enters into many more areas than this one. Historical geology is the study, simply put, of the rock strata, the layers of rock in God's creation. On the basis of that study it sets up a geological column, in which, it is claimed, the various layers of rock are placed in their proper historical order, according as they were deposited in time. I probably ought to remind you that there is no such thing anywhere in the world as a geological column. That column is theoretical; it is an idea. Nowhere can you find all of the strata that are supposed to be in that geological column and in the fixed order which is theoretically assigned to them. In fact, if every layer were given its theoretical maximum size, and if then all the layers were piled up on one another, it is claimed that there would be a column of a hundred miles deep. But that column is not found anywhere in creation. There are scattered data all over the world on which this theory is built up. Moreover, in connection with that geological column there is a time scale set up which goes back in terms of billions of years.

Secondly, there is the science that is called paleontology. This is the science which makes a study of what are called fossils. It does this in conjunction with historical geology and with a view to establishing various ages in history and "pre-history," as it is called, back into those dim billions of years. This study is supposed to show an evolution in the realm of the living creature; and a conclusion is drawn from this study of fossils according to which an evolution in the rock strata is also established.

In the third place, we may mention anthropology. That is also the name of a theological discipline; but in this connection it refers to the study of man's evolution. It busies itself particularly with the ancient forbears of modern man, with prehistoric man and with various supposed specimens of prehistoric man. Such alleged pre-historic men are supposed to have lived in various parts of the world hundreds of thousands and even millions of years ago.

The science of archeology, or historical archeology, is also to be mentioned here. Archeology busies itself with finding and digging up remnants and evidences of past civilizations. It is a perfectly legitimate study in itself, of course. But in this connection historical archeology is interested in finding evidences of ancient civilizations and producing proofs or indications of human civilizations as far back as possible, beyond any limits of recorded history, and especially beyond the commonly acknowledged limits of Biblical history.

Finally, we may mention the science of astronomy, the study of the heavenly luminaries. In connection with our subject, astronomy is used in reasoning from the claimed distances of the heavenly lights and the time that it requires for light to travel, in order to make a mathematical computation of how long it would have taken for light to reach our earth from a given distant star, and thus to draw the conclusion as to the extreme age of the world.

In connection with the above scientific studies, especially in comparatively recent times, a great appeal has been made to various methods of what is called "radio-active dating." Especially because of these dating methods the evidences produced by science are alleged to be virtually unassailable. There have been various attempts at dating the universe before the advent of atomic science and these radio-active dating methods. But the latter are supposed to be very accurate and reliable. I will mention and explain these methods briefly and non-technically.

First of all, there are various methods which are used with respect to inorganic, mineral matter. Various chemical elements are radio-active to a certain degree; and they have a tendency to disintegrate into other elements, or isotopes. The rate of that disintegration can be measured. Hence, if there is a mineral containing both the parent substance and the daughter element, as it is called, then science can compute the time period, it is claimed, during which that daughter element has been accumulating by that process of disintegration. The reader has undoubtedly heard of or read about some of these methods. There are methods that involve the disintegration of uranium and thorium into radium and helium and lead; that involve the disintegration of rubidium into strontium; and of potassium into argon and calcium. Recently, too, there has been mention made of a method called glass fission track dating.

In the second place, there is also the Carbon-14 method of radiological dating, which is applied to organic materials and which is said to be useful for relatively "shorter" periods of time,--according to some, under 60,000 years. Wood items, for example, can be dated by this method, which is used especially in the dating of ancient civilizations.

On the basis of all these studies and these methods of dating, allegedly highly accurate conclusions are reached. Today the conclusion is reached that the universe is four and one-half billion years old. Four and one-half billion! And the conclusion is reached also that man and civilization of one kind or another are much older than the six to ten thousand years within which the creation-doctrine is usually presented.

What must the Christian say of all this?

The claim is, of course, that all this evidence is very scientific and very accurate, that it is compelling evidence, and that the creationist cannot possibly escape its force, and that this scientific evidence is the downfall of the creationist doctrine, especially of the literal-creationist doctrine.

Let us consider this, first of all, in the light of the principles discussed in the first part of this chapter. What do scientists do with this alleged evidence in relation to Scripture?

The rank evolutionist, of course, does not care about Scripture. He chooses in favor of his scientific data and his alleged evidence, and he discards anything Scripture may have to say. In fact, he mocks at the Bible. But remember, too, that the evolutionist discards God's book of creation. For that book of creation plainly testifies of God; but with his unbelieving science he denies the very testimony of the data which he studies and on which he claims to base his proof. All the data point, according to Scripture, in one way or another, to God's eternal power and Godhead, to the Creator. The evolutionist denies this, and he denies God; and he worships and serves the creature rather than the Creator!

In the case of the theistic evolutionist we face something different; and I am convinced that we face something more dangerous and insidious. The theistic evolutionist, of course, cannot discard Scripture, not if he wants to remain a "theist." He cannot overtly discard Scripture and its creation record. What, then, is he compelled to do in order to maintain the evolutionism which he alleges his science compels him to believe? He must adjust the Genesis record to fit his science. He believes that his scientific data, which he equates with God's revelation in nature, must serve as a running commentary on Scripture, not that Scripture must serve as an infallible guide in his scientific investigations. As a result, he makes room in creation week for four and one-half billion years; and he makes room in the work of creation for a process of evolution, or progressive creation, as he likes to call it sometimes.

That very method and approach is wrong!

Principally, this is following a rationalistic method, the result of which is contrary to the plain and authoritative teaching of Scripture. Remember: scientism must get its billions of years into Scripture's creation week. It does not help to get these long periods of time into history after the week of creation: for at the end of that week all things were finished, according to Scripture. But as soon as the theistic evolutionist attempts to introduce these four and one-half billion years into the Bible's creation week, he runs squarely into the Bible's testimony that it was a week, that creation took place in six days. Into that week his four and one-half billion years simply do not fit. Hence, by some exegetical sleight of hand he must force them to fit. And in the name of interpretation, which is not legitimate exegesis whatsoever, he gets rid of the six days and substitutes his long periods of evolution. That is not exegesis, but "eisegesis," what the Dutch call inlegkunde, a laying into the text of Scripture something that is not there and that the text does not say. Such is the rationalistic method of adjusting Scripture's record in order to make room for these alleged scientific conclusions.

The conclusion to which the Christian scientist should come is exactly the opposite. If his science leads him to conclusions which are plainly contrary to Scripture's testimony concerning the creation of all things and concerning the age of the universe, he should discard his conclusions as being impossible. That is not being unscientific; it is responsible Christian science. And he should re-examine his scientific data in the light of Scripture, in order to discover, if possible, the correct way of harmonizing his data and his evidence with Scripture. But even if and when it should prove impossible for him to harmonize his scientific data with the testimony of Scripture, he must allow Scripture to stand and take the position that somewhere along the line his scientific investigations have been faulty.

In the second place, in close connection with this subject stands the whole matter of Biblical chronology after creation. Somehow the ideas of so-called secular history have crept into Christian thinking, with the result that a place must be found in our Christian conception for a pre-history and for pre-historic civilizations, etc., while Scripture itself furnishes us with history from the beginning of the world. The entire relatively brief chronology which the Bible presents is often mocked as ridiculously impossible. It is claimed that the generations of Adam in Genesis 5 and the generations of Shem in Genesis 11 furnish nothing in the way of a chronology. It is asserted that the Bible is not interested in chronology (which is true in terms of mere telling of time, but which is not true as soon as one recognizes that this chronology is intimately connected with revelation and that all history is inseparably connected with time), and it is claimed that there are any number of untold generations that have been omitted in these records of Genesis. I assure you, however, that on an exegetical basis that Biblical chronology cannot be so lightly waved aside, and that on Biblical grounds it is very difficult, to say the least, to disprove a rather definite chronology of the prediluvian and immediate postdiluvian periods. And it is Biblical grounds which must be adduced, of course. And if on Biblical grounds that chronology would be stretched to the utmost, you could perhaps get ten thousand years as the age of the world. For myself, for many reasons I prefer to hold a much stricter view than that.

But now from a practical point of view, what is the Christian to think of science's alleged evidences?

First of all, I wish to make some observations as to the reliability of this alleged evidence. In this connection, although the attitude is frequently taken that it is preposterous to challenge this evidence, it should be remembered that the methods of science have changed many, many times. They have even changed in recent years. In my research on this subject I read somewhere that there have been over forty methods that have been tried, and one after the other discarded, in reaching these conclusions that the universe is very old. Over forty methods! Science has been very changeable. Science itself has had to admit that its research has been unreliable. The conclusions which various evolutionistic scientists have reached have changed also. At one time it was thought that the world was 57 million years old. Later a certain Lord Kelvin revised this to 20-40 million years. Then again the estimate was revised to 90-100 million years. Approximately ten years ago (this was after the advent of radiological dating) the most accurate conclusion reached on the basis of data at that time was supposed to be that the world was 2 billion years old. Today there are many who claim flatly that the universe is 4.5 billion years old; some make the figure 3 billion-plus; others say it should be 5 billion-plus. Don't forget that these very changeable conclusions certainly cast unfavorable reflections on their own reliability. Finally one is moved to ask: what does science want? The same is true with respect to the history of man. Estimates made via the Carbon-14 method range all the way from 35 to 70 thousand years, and some even lower.

Of course, all these figures are quite unimaginable, besides. I suppose science can find a certain amount of safety in these dim and unimaginable billions. But do you know what six thousand years is in relation to 4.5 billion years? It is comparable to one-tenth of one second in relation to a whole day. But that is supposed to be the relation between history and pre-history. It may well be mentioned that this whole conception is silly from the point of view of divine wisdom. It is worse than building a two-stall garage on the foundation of a skyscraper!

As I suggested earlier in this chapter, these claims of science may also very well be criticized from a scientific point of view. I shall leave that to scientists, who are much more capable of this than a non-scientist such as I. But I wish briefly to point out a few items here. First of all, scientists themselves, -- not in every case Bible-believing scientists, have frequently pointed out that these evidences are not as cut-and-dried as they have been presented to be. There have been red faces, for example, when living specimens of animals which were supposedly long extinct and pre-historic have been produced to contradict fossil evidence. Nor, for example, are scientists unanimous on the subject of the dating methods. Moreover, there is not only contradictory evidence, but there are also very principal arguments that can be raised solely on a scientific basis. For example, it can be argued that a fundamental law of science is the law of the conservation of matter, while the evolutionist needs the creation, the formation, of new matter. Another fundamental law of all science is the universal tendency towards disorder, disintegration, and decay, while evolutionism needs advancement and development and progress.

Above all, however, -- and this is my particular interest in this discussion, -- the entire evolutionary presentation, whether of non-theist or theist, comes into conflict with Scripture's testimony. On that basis alone, ultimately, it may not be countenanced by the Christian.

Preface

1. The Divine Foundation: the Infallible Scriptures
   • The Scriptures Inspired
   • Graphic, Plenary, Verbal Inspiration
   • Organic Inspiration
   • The Infallible Scriptures
   • Scriptural Proof
   • Our Reformed Confession
   • The Divine Foundation
   • Attacks on the Foundation
   • Our Calling To Guard the Foundation
   
   
2. The Creation Record: Literal or Not?
   • The Issue: Creation versus Evolution
   • In What Sense Is Evolutionism the Issue?
   • The Literal or Non-Literal Issue
   • An Exegetical Question
   • The Non-Literal and Literal Views
   • Evaluation
   • The Proper Scriptural Interpretation
   
   
3. Genesis and Science
   
   • What Is Science?
   • The Scientist and Revelation
   • The Evolutionist and God's Book of Creation
   • The Science of the Theistic Evolutionist
   • The Proper Approach of Faith
   • Alleged Scientific Evidences
   • A Brief Critique of This Alleged Proof
   • Positive Suggestions Toward A Proper Christian View