Anderson University School of Theology Creationism and Science: The Continuing War 2013 Harp Professor in Residence Lecture, March 12, 2013 Robert Dr. Robert D. Branson, Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, Professor Emeritus, Olivet Nazarene University (IL) Creationism and Science: The Continuing War A Lecture Delivered by Dr. Robert D. Branson, Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, Professor Emeritus, Olivet Nazarene University (IL) March 12, 2013 Harp Professor in Residence 2013 Anderson University School of Theology, Anderson, Indiana Introduction In his book You Lost Me the new president of the Barna Group, David Kinnaman states, "Millions of young Christians perceive Christianity to be in opposition to modern science."1 He goes on to state that: One reason young Christians feel acutely the antagonism between their religion and science is that there is animosity on both sides—Western science has often seen itself as an opponent of faith. We could call this opposition 'scientism,' the assumption that science has cornered the market on knowledge, and something can only be true if it can be tested by scientific methods.2 Part of the reason why there is this perceived antagonism is that many scientists such as Richard Dawkins, the author of The God Delusion, are atheists. In his discussion of this problem Kinnaman does not mention the tension creationism, particularly that of the Young Earth Creationists (YEC), generates by opposing much of modern science in general, and in particular biological evolution. One can only wonder if this omission is due in part to sensitivity to a major section of the Barna Group's constituents, particularly conservative Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, which would include YEC. According to Barna's research 25% of those 18 to 29 years of age view Christianity as anti-science; 18% that it is anti-intellectual; 29% that churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in; and 35% that Christians are too confident that they know all the answers.3 These statistics indicate that the Church needs to seriously examine the root causes of this perception to determine if in fact the Church maintains theological positions which are in opposition to what is being taught today as science. Unfortunately it is not likely that fundamentalist segments of the Church, particularly the YEC, who are waging a false war on science, will change their position concerning modern science. Scope and Definitions of the Paper The amount of literature on this topic is endless. New books, articles, essays, internet blogs, videos, comic books, etc., are being produced almost daily. This paper cannot survey the 1David Kinnaman, You Lost Me (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011), p. 131. 2Ibid., 135. 3Ibid., 137. Dr. Robert Branson/ Creationism & Science, March 12, 2013 Page 1 entirety of material being produced. It will only attempt to set forth the basic presuppositions and methodologies of each opponent, along with some of the evidence each side presents. There are several good histories available for further study. Four that I recommend are: Karl Giberson, Saving Darwin; David Livingstone, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders; Arthur McCalla, The Creationist Debate; and Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists. A few basic definitions are in order. The term "creationist" is a general term used for anyone who believes that God created the universe. It is, however, often used to mean YEC, so one must read carefully how a writer is using the term. I will use the term "creationism" to refer specifically to the position of those who want to reject the theory of evolution. Massimo Pigliucci may be more correct to label the position as "evolution denial."4 The position of YEC will be referred to as "creationism," a specific theological and philosophical ideology, especially espoused by those associated with the Institute for Creation Science and the Answers in Genesis, that opposes not only biological evolution, but also the theories linked to evolution by other branches of sciences as well. "Scientism" refers to the philosophical position that goes beyond methodological naturalism, claiming that only the physical universe exists. This is philosophical naturalism. Dawkins' book The God Delusion is an example of this belief, as well as is Carl Sagan's Cosmos series which began with the well-remembered mantra, "The cosmos; all that is and was and ever will be." The title of this lecture is "Creationism and Science: A Continuing War." Where does this idea of warfare come from? A model of two fortress towers at war has been commonly used to illustrate how YEC view what is happening in our culture. In the tower on the left men wearing bandanas, obviously pirates are firing their cannons at the foundation of the tower on the right, which is labeled, "Creation: God's Word Is Truth." The defenders on the right are asleep, aiming in the wrong direction, aiming at their own foundation, or aiming at the wrong target, the balloons being floated by the pirates. The foundation on the left tower reads "Evolution: Man Decides 'Truth.'" Its banner is humanism and the balloons display an assortment of cultural expression of sinfulness. Dr. Terry Mortenson of Answers in Genesis (AIG) states in the video "From the Dust" that evolution does not create the problems; sin does. But "the more people build their thinking based on evolution the more they use it to justify their sin."5 The various groups of Christian defenders will be described later. The Task and Presuppositions of Science Let us first briefly discuss how the lecture uses the term science. The task of science is to investigate the natural world and "to explain the world as far as possible without appeal to 4Massimo Pigliucci, Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2002), 2. 5Terry Mortenson, From the Dust: Conversations in Creation (DVD: Highway Media; Biologos), 2011. Dr. Robert Branson/ Creationism & Science, March 12, 2013 Page 2 special initial conditions."6 By "special initial conditions," Davies refers to factors which lie outside the "scientific-experimental method" which is based on methodological naturalism. This methodology asks three basic questions about the natural universe: what are its physical properties? What is the nature of its physical behavior? What is its formative history?7 Thus science is limited to the investigation of only the natural order of the universe; or as Pigliucci notes negatively, "Science cannot draw conclusions about things it cannot measure or manipulate experimentally."8 Thus by definition science excludes supernatural beings as effective causes. Science is not thereby atheistic, but rather agnostic. It makes no claims to the existence or non- existence of God, gods, angels, demons, ghosts, leprechauns, fairies, gnomes, pookas, succubi, boggarts, dementors, or any other supernatural, mythical, or literary characters or powers. In order to accomplish its purpose science is built on certain presuppositions. 1) The universe is real; it exists. 2) The universe can be known. Somehow the human mind is able to understand how the universe works. 3) The universe is rational in that it is dependable. It operates in a way that can be described by certain "laws" such as the laws of thermodynamics. While the laws are human descriptions of the way the universe functions, Davies notes that "the laws have been invested with many of the qualities that were formally attributed to … God." That is, they are universal, absolute, eternal, and omnipotent. Davies also asks the question, did the laws come into existence with the universe or are the laws independent from the physical universe? He opts for the later, that the "laws of initial conditions strongly support the Platonic idea that the laws" do transcend the physical universe.9 At this point we must recognize that Davies has moved from science to philosophy. Howard Van Till makes a distinction between investigating the physical behavior of existence, a legitimate endeavor of science, and inquiring about the governance of the universe, which is a philosophical and theological issue.10 If the laws are transcendent, then might one suggest that they operate as functions of God's governance of the universe? Again, this is a theological assessment, not a scientific one. 4) The universe is consistent and uniform across space and time. The same laws that function in our solar system also function throughout the universe. 5) There has to be a sufficient cause to produce an observed effect, which is the theory of causality. There is presently in the scientific community debate about this last assumption as quantum physics appears to undermine it.11 6Paul Davies, The Mind of God (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), 88. 7Howard J. Van Till, "The Character of Contemporary Science," Portraits of Creation: Biblical and Scientific Perspectives on the World' Formation (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 128-130. 8Pigliucci, 145. 9Davies, 82-92. 10Till, 133. 11Private communication from Dr. Lowell Hall, Professor of Chemistry, Eastern Nazarene College; iMonk, "Five Things Science Cannot Prove, But Are Necessary for Science to Work," online, cited October 18, 2012; Till, "The Presuppositions of Scientific Cosmology," Portraits of Creation: Biblical and Dr. Robert Branson/ Creationism & Science, March 12, 2013 Page 3 These presuppositions cannot be "proven" in the formal sense as assumptions in every discipline by their very nature are not intended to be proven, but they are necessary for science to function. One might object that since they cannot be proven, others might assume that there are forces or entities in the universe that operate differently than what these presuppositions state. That may be true, but until someone demonstrates that the presuppositions are invalid, or that these other forces or entities exist in the physical universe, science will continue to assume them as they work quite well. The Methods of Science "Science is not a body of knowledge;" however, that body of knowledge referred to as scientific "is a product of science." Science is more a method learned in the laboratory than a specific area of study. One can read about the history of science, its achievements, and its processes, but there are no "armchair scientists." Philosophers of science examine and debate the presuppositions and methods of science, but science itself is based on a careful examination of the phenomena of the physical universe. A scientist observes facts or phenomena, formulates first generalizations about the phenomena, produces causative hypothesis about them, and then moves to testing the causative phenomena by means of observation or experimentation.12 No one scientist observes all facts, only those in his or her discipline. The scientific endeavor is a community effort contributed to by individuals or teams, but all working together.13 The presuppositions described above combined with these practical procedures are known as methodological naturalism. It is a learned system as the next generation of scientists is trained by the previous generation in the methods, procedures, and scientific paradigms which Scientific Perspectives on the World' Formation (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 106-107. 12Pigliucci, 127-129; Karl W. Giberson, Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution (New York: Harper One, 2008), 157- 158. 13The Following quotation is a private communication from Dr. Max Reams, Professor of Geology, Olivet Nazarene University, on 28 February 2013. "Very few scientists are fully engaged (or engaged at all) in the whole ‘circle’ of what is described as scientific methodology. Many engage only the experimental aspects. This is very important because doing good experimental work requires excellent, specialized skills and creativity in order to provide sound information for hypothesis formation. Other scientists engage primarily in what is often called ‘theoretical’ methods. This aspect has its own version of creativity and is generally much more mathematical and often abstract. Others engage in finding creative ways to test the hypothesis. As a result, current scientific endeavors involve team work (cf. the recent revelations about the Higgs particle). In my current work on metabolite identification, ‘our team’ includes chemical experimentalists in more than one methodology: biologists, modelers (like myself and son, now called computational chemists), statisticians, computer scientists, robotic engineers, other computational chemists and computer scientists skilled in information management, etc. The result is pooled creativity and more rapid advancement." Dr. Robert Branson/ Creationism & Science, March 12, 2013 Page 4 have been found to be the most accurate and productive. Science does not produce truth, but discovers that which is true—for the present. Any hypothesis or theory may be rejected or modified by future investigation. However, they will be replaced by other scientific hypotheses or theories which more accurately account for the phenomena. The methods of science are grounded in logical processes, the history of which reaches back to ancient Greece. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) was interested in investigating the natural world and his books on natural history made a lasting contribution to Western society's development of science. While he was not the first to use deductive reasoning, he formalized the process. Although most all of Aristotle's conclusions about the natural world have been rejected, deductive reasoning forms an important component even today of the scientific method. The limitation of deductive reasoning is that the results are always enclosed in the basic statement. For example the following syllogism: All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Therefore Socrates is mortal. The conclusion flows from the primary premise, but it does not tell us anything about non-humans. It does, however, enable the scientist to identify what conclusions to which one is committed based on the premise or foundational assumptions.14 Several advances in the scientific method came relatively quickly after the founding of the first universities such as the Sorbonne in 1200, Oxford in 1220 and Cambridge in 1225. Francis Bacon (1561-1626) who entered Trinity College, Cambridge in 1573 advocated empiricism, the investigation of nature by observation and experimentation. By so doing he laid the foundation for the modern scientific method. His method has been characterized as taking buckets out into nature, filling them with whatever one finds and then drawing generalizations by means of inductive reasoning. For example, one observes that the sun rises each day. On the basis of continued observation one can generalize that it will also rise the next day. This process allows one to discover what is true about nature, but not necessarily the truth, what is always true. The limitation of empiricism is that the universe is so vast, no one scientist or team of scientists is able to comprehend the whole of the universe. Therefore, an additional approach is needed. That next step was taken by the philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650). In his Discourse on Method (1637) Descartes laid out an approach for raising questions about the natural world, the second of which is, "to divide each of the difficulties under examination into as many parts as possible, and as might be necessary for adequate solution." While Descartes was not discussing science specifically, his concept of subdividing complex problems into smaller units is followed by scientists. When enough smaller units have been examined then they "can be combined to yield broader generalizations."15 14Pigliucci, 119. 15Ibid., 121-122. Dr. Robert Branson/ Creationism & Science, March 12, 2013 Page 5 What Francis Bacon had foreseen, Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) developed, the practice of using controlled experiments by which he could test hypotheses and thus gain knowledge "by controlling and measuring what goes on during an experiment." Isaac Newton (1642-1727) realized what Galileo had foreseen, that mathematics was a powerful intellectual tool for tackling all sorts of scientific problems. As Pigliucci notes, "what distinguishes the scientific method from other ways of thinking about and investigating reality is a combination of the pieces that Aristotle, Descartes, Bacon, Galileo, and Newton—among others—have put together over the span of two and a half millennia."16 Admission to the Tower on the Right After this brief look at science, let us turn to the other tower and explore who is allowed entrance in order to battle the evils of evolution. As has been noted, Mortensen did not claim that evolution caused the social problems represented by the balloons, but that the problems arose out of sinful humanity's rejection of the word of God. Those who deny evolution view the war as being fought in Western culture, and especially America. The roots of this concern go back at least to the beginning of last century when the tragedy of the First World War with its modern weaponry took an enormous toll in human life. Many thought that Germany, the primary enemy, had lost its biblical foundation by accepting and advocating higher criticism in general and the documentary hypothesis specifically. The Bible was rejected and human reason was exalted. In addition, the rapid cultural changes in America that took place in the following decades produced a longing for a simpler lifestyle founded upon biblical principles. Fundamentalists were gripped by a fear that evolution had "undermined the basis of morality and the basis of purpose in life.17 America no longer was the beacon of light for the rest of the world. It had become apostate.18 Only those who hold to the belief that the Bible is absolutely infallible on every topic it addresses and who reject evolution are allowed into the tower. The most prominent group in the tower is the YEC, particularly those who identify with Henry Morris and the Institute for Creation Research. They maintain that a "plain sense" reading of the Bible leads to the acceptance that the earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. They are also the most influential group publishing a long list of books and articles in various YEC publications. Ken ham of the Answers in Genesis (AIG) organization located in Petersburg, Kentucky, is now probably the most influential leader of the YEC since the death of Henry Morris. Some Evangelicals who disavow the term Fundamentalist maintain a belief in an inerrant Bible, but are more flexible in their interpretation of the Bible. 16Ibid., 126-127. 17Robert T. Pennock, Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1999), xv. 18Arthur McCalla, The Creationist Debate: The Encounter between the Bible and the Historical Mind (New York: T & T Clark, 2006), 165. Dr. Robert Branson/ Creationism & Science, March 12, 2013 Page 6 The Old Earth Creationists such as Fred Heeren and Hugh Ross oppose the YEC. While they still reject evolution they do accept that the earth is billions of years old. Glenn Morton advocates that the six days of creation are literal days, but separated by millions of years. Two interpretations of Genesis One that arose centuries earlier are the day/age theory, each of the six days are of unlimited time, and the gap theory advocated by C.I. Scoffield which suggests that there is a gap of unlimited time between Genesis 1:1, God's initial act of creation and verse 3 when God reformed the earth after some disrupting event such as the fall of Satan from heaven. Another group of inhabitants of the tower are those who advocate Progressive Creation which accepts much of the scientific evidence of a developing universe, but holds that at strategic points God directly intervened to create new species. The newest group to demand admittance to the tower is those who advocate Intelligent Design (ID). They argue on scientific grounds that the complexity of the universe points to a Designer. Although they do not specifically state who that Designer is, they privately accept the belief in an inerrant Bible and would personally maintain that He is the Christian God. Since ID does not officially reject evolution, with Michael Behe being a committed evolutionist, there is some question as to their claim to admittance into the tower.19 The one group that is not allowed into the tower, because they accept that evolution has occurred are those who advocate Theistic Evolution.20 The 19th Century Princeton Theologians Our main focus now shifts to the YEC teachings concerning the Bible and science. In 1961 John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris published The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications. The book was well received by many Fundamentalists and Evangelicals and has become the basic text for those who maintain that the earth and the universe are recent creations. The authors maintain that what we see today is the result of three supernatural events that cannot be adequately explained by science: the Creation, the Fall of Humanity, and the Flood. While we will concentrate on the topic of creation, the other two events will be considered at appropriate points. In the introduction21 B.B. Warfield is cited once. This is the only citation to any of the Princeton theologians: Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, and Warfield. The 19Ted Peters and Marinez Hewlett, Evolution from Creation to New Creation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003), 103-106. 20For a fuller discussion of these various positions see Pennock, 8-31. Dr. Robert Branson/ Creationism & Science, March 12, 2013 Page 7 belief that the Bible is infallible in all it states concerning faith and practice was commonly accepted by Protestants after the Reformation. Many extended that belief to include every domain including history and science but restricted the concept of inerrancy to the original autographs.22 Their theological work, however, forms the basis of the doctrine of inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures that Whitcomb and Morris presuppose. It is probable that the doctrinal positions of the Princeton theologians were assumed to be common knowledge and that no further citations were necessary. However, their theological positions are so foundational to not only Whitcomb and Morris' work, but also many other YEC that it is necessary to briefly survey them. Archibald Alexander (1772-1851) in 1812 became the first principal of Princeton Theological Seminary. Alexander drew upon two sources for his theological work. The first was that of the Reformed scholastic scholar Francis Turretin (1623-1687)23 and second Scottish Realism or common sense philosophy. The latter assumes "that the universe possesses a rational structure that corresponds with the structure of the human mind. Through the use of reason, the Common Sense philosophers believed, human beings could ascertain the intimate workings and causal processes of the natural world."24 Dunning notes that by the use of common sense one is able to grasp "an adequate understanding of the meaning and significance of the observable external world." As applied to the study of the Bible, it is argued that the "plain sense" of the text25, as opposed to the medieval allegorical and spiritual interpretations, is to be taken as its proper interpretation. As such, the common person by the use of reason can apprehend its truth; that is, true statements which one can believe.26 Faith thus is not seen as "a personal relationship with God based on trust," but as "belief in or assent to true statements or propositions about God. 21John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications, 50th Anniversary Edition (Philipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2011), xxxvi. 22See John D. Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), for a comprehensive study of the development of concepts of infalliblity and inerrancy, particularly from the time of the Reformation to the modern Fundamentalist debate. Woodbridge critiques their work by maintaining that the shift from the Reformers' concept of Scripture to that of the Princeton theologians was not as different as Rogers and McKim propose. 23On Turretin see also Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (New York: Harper and Row, 1979), 100-116, 172-183. 24David N. Livingstone, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter Between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), 102. 25The Princeton Theologians based their work on the plain sense of the Hebrew and Greek texts, not translations, although the common person could understand the basic message of salvation in a translation. 26This point is compatible with Turretin's position that the Bible's teachings concerning salvation, "that they can be understood by believers without the external help of oral tradition or ecclesiastical authority," as quoted in Rogers and McKim, 182. Dr. Robert Branson/ Creationism & Science, March 12, 2013 Page 8 Christian faith becomes primarily assent to infallible biblical propositions."27 Dunning recognizes that on a practical level Fundamentalists stress "faith in Jesus Christ for salvation and the importance of Christian piety." However, among fundamentalist apologists or spokespersons, faith becomes dependent on rational arguments rather than person commitment to Christ.28 Alexander's most outstanding student was Charles Hodge (1797-1878) who became a professor at the Seminary in 1822, and its principal in 1851. In his Systematic Theology Hodge argues for the absolute inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture not only for faith and practice, "but extends to the statements of facts, whether scientific, historical, or geographical. It is not confined to those facts of importance of which is obvious, or which are involved in matters of doctrine. It extends to everything which any sacred writer asserts to be true."29 Hodge like Alexander was also "an admirer of the inductive Baconian ideal both in science and theology. Put simply, this approach assumed that true knowledge is based on fact gathering, on painstaking data collection without prior recourse to theory."30 Hodge rejected higher criticism of the Bible, such as denying the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, as it contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture. Hodge did accept the concept of evolution, but objected to Darwin's theory, for he thought that Darwin's concept of chance overthrows the argument of design, or teleology and thus leads to atheism. William Paley's Natural Theology, first published in 1802 was highly regarded by Hodge. Paley argued that the animals and plants of nature display "marks . . . of contrivance, choice, and design" which point to a Designer."31 As the 18th and 19th centuries saw the rapid development of science, Hodge, as did many other Christian theologians and scientists, viewed the discoveries of science as evidence of the providence of God who created all things. Darwin's theory of natural selection, however, was viewed by Hodge as inimical to design as it was "conducted by unintelligent causes"32 27See also Hall's statement, "many highly credentialed scholars and pastor/teachers . . . believe the Bible to be an objective propositional revelation, verbally inspired in every word, absolutely inerrant in the original documents" in Ken Ham and Greg Hall, Already Compromised (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2011), 108. Roger and McKim, 295. 28Dunning, H. Ray. "Comparing and Contrasting: Some Distinguishing Wesleyan and Fundamentalist Expressions of the Christian Faith," in Square Peg: Why Wesleyans Aren't Fundamentalists, ed. Al Truesdale (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 2012), 64-66. 29Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 Vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1889), 1:163. 30Livingstone, 102. 31William Paley, Natural Theology: Evidence of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature (Great Britain: Clays Ltd. 1802. Kindle edition based on Oxford World's Classics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 48. 32Livingstone, 104. Dr. Robert Branson/ Creationism & Science, March 12, 2013 Page 9