by Rev. Donald MacLean, Glasgow
The conflict between Christianity and Science arises from the various interpretations which are based on Scripture, in the former case, and on the facts discovered by Science, in the latter. The interpretation of these facts is further coloured by the pre-suppositions which professing Christians and working Scientists may hold in their own spheres. When attempts are made to reconcile views based upon Scripture as a divine revelation with views bound up with a denial of this revelation, the result is the loss of the distinctive light of the Word of God, especially in the sphere of creation.
This interesting book is written by two Professors of acknowledged scholarship who hold very definite views on the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Word of God. In seeking to ascertain exactly what the Scriptures say concerning the flood and related topics, they say “We do this from a perspective of full belief in the complete inspiration and perspicuity of Scripture, believing that a true exegesis thereof yields determinative truth in all matters with which it deals”. They fully realise that modern scholarship will be impatient with such an approach but point out that certain of the assumptions implied in evolutionary theory, for instance, are much farther removed from scientific actuality than the premises founded upon Scripture.
The foreword to the book is written by Professor J. C. Campbell, Ph.D., Professor of Geology in the University of South Western Louisiana. He states that as a professional geologist, he finds it difficult to accept the explanations and contentions given in this book. “Nevertheless,” he admits, “the authors have made a strong case and this volume offers a serious challenge to the uniformitarian position . . . In these days of intellectual and cultural conformity, real independent thinking seems to be becoming a lost art. A volume such as this offers us the challenge to begin to think carefully and creatively concerning the great issues with which it deals.”
The authors disagree with the view held by many, that the flood in the days of Noah was of a local nature. They believe it to have been universal and support with several convincing arguments the words of Peter, “Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished”. (2 Peter 3: 6). They also produce a full reply to the various arguments against the flood being of a universal nature. The hostility of modern scientists to the event of the deluge having taken place arises from their acceptance of the theories of uniformitarianism and evolution. Uniformitarianism can be defined as the belief that existing physical processes acting essentially as at present are sufficient to account for all past changes and for the present state of the astronomic, geologic, and biologic universe. Evolution in its broadest sense is the “theory that all organisms, man included, have been derived by gradual diversification from common ancestral forms of life through innate processes of variation and selection, forms which in turn originally were derived by spontaneous generation from inanimate matter.” It is obvious that those who adopt these theories must oppose the idea of such a universal catastrophe as the flood with its necessary attendant effects on the earth and its atmosphere. Consequently, geologic evidences for the flood are ignored and the possibility of such a cataclysm ruled out.
There is a sense, of course, in which the principle of uniformity in present processes is true and, apart from the flood, the principle has operated in the Universe since Creation. To use the principle to deny the possibility of past or future alterations of these processes by the Creator places such deniers in the category of the scoffers referred to by Peter, who said, “Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” Here the conception of uniformity is used as an argument against the second coming of Christ. Peter’s reply to this is remarkable for he points out that they willingly were ignorant of the flood which was a clear proof that all things did not continue as they were from Creation. Modern scientists who give the idea of uniformity an over-riding place are guilty of exactly the same fault.
After examining the various attempts to reconcile the Scripture with the various views of modern science on the subject of the flood, the authors reach this emphatic conclusion, “The Biblical doctrine of the Flood cannot be harmonised with the uniformitarian theory of geology”. They are convinced that a true historical geology will never be formulated until the Genesis Flood is granted its rightful and vital place in the thinking of Christian men of science.
Throughout the eighteenth and well into the nineteenth century most theologians and scientists believed that the Flood was responsible for the major strata of fossils in the earth. In 1830, however, Charles Lyell sounded the first blast of the uniformitarian trumpet and several geological theories began to be advanced through which scientists dismissed the Genesis Flood from their minds and began to interpret fossiliferous strata according to the uniformitarian principle.
By this means, rock systems of geology and the geological ages have been worked up in the form of a geological timetable which indicates a gradual progression of life from the simple to the complex, from lower to higher, and therefore implies organic evolution. The authors submit the outworking of these principles to a very critical examination and find that the geological time-scale is an extremely fragile foundation upon which to erect such a tremendous and unwieldy superstructure of interpretation. The book itself must be consulted to follow the scientific facts and discussion but there can be little doubt that to be speaking of the age of the earth in terms of four and a half to six billion years can receive little credit unless one is completely under the influence of the uniformity idea.
These calculations, the authors contend, ignore two factors. The first of these is Creation. The theories of “Theistic evolution” and “Continuous Creation” cannot be reconciled with the Biblical account of the Creation of this world. Those who attempt theories of evolution as an explanation of all things are exercising belief in an hypothesis which goes against all the evidence of the most basic and best-validated scientific laws and they are hardly in a position to sneer at such as believe the facts of Divine revelation.
In connection with Creation, the authors raise a point which does not receive nearly enough attention. They point out that Creation was completed at the end of six days. We are glad to see that they accept the six days as real days and neither “symbolic days” or “ages”. At the end of six days the creation while “new” was completely “grown”. It was complete and perfect: God pronounced it “very good”. Thus it had an appearance of age, being fully grown, while yet new from the point of view of time. A simple explanation may help to set light on this immensely important idea of a “grown creation”. When Adam was created he was created fully grown. In other words, when he was one minute old he had the appearance of a fully grown man of, say, 25/30 years of age. All that we would consider to be true of one who had been born and grown up through the space of 25 years or so was there at the moment of Adam’s creation. This was true of the whole creation and those who ignore this fact when preparing the time-scale of the age of the world must certainly be far out in their calculations. Yet modern man is determined not to accept the truth of creation. Any other idea, however unverifiable and unscientific, is preferable. Thus, George Walde, described as a careful and brilliant scientist, when discussing the complexity of even the simplest living organism, states, “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are — as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation” and then goes on to say “… the only alternative to some form of spontaneous generation, is a belief in supernatural creation”. This complete and absolute repudiation of the idea of creation certainly furnishes a solemn and new interpretation to the words of Scripture “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things”. (Rom. I: 22, 23). This is a true and devastatingly accurate description of those who put evolution in the place of the Creator.
The other event ignored by scientists is, of course, the Flood. The presence of a universal flood must undoubtedly have affected the atmospheric biologic, and geologic history of this earth. The strata claimed by uniformitarians and evolutionists to have been deposited over long ages of time were in fact laid down in the course of a year under the catastrophic conditions of the flood. Any scales which ignore this event and the results flowing from it obviously give a very inaccurate age to the earth. To ignore both the facts of creation and the flood only make the calculations so much the more inaccurate and untrustworthy. Once these two events are admitted there is no real conflict between the facts, as distinct from the theories, of science and the Word of God, as the authors show in a very full chapter entitled “Problems in Biblical Geology”.
The purpose in this review has been to call the attention of those of our readers who meet with these problems in their studies and employments, to this book, which is one of the most satisfactory we have read on this subject. The general run of evangelical scholars are only too willing to compromise. This is a disappointing feature of Bernard Ramm’s “The Christian View of Science and Scripture”. While the book is a mine of information on the subject, Ramm’s tendency to compromise makes many of his conclusions completely unacceptable. “The Genesis Flood” is in a different category and, in the words of another reviewer, a biologist, “This book clearly shows the fallacy of the uniformitarian interpretation of past history and in so doing strikes at the very heart of evolutionary thinking. In treating the various means of age-determination it seeks to find a solution in harmony with the Divine Word. It is a most valuable contribution at a time when uniformitarian interpretations of creation are generally accepted.”
The book, at present, is not in our Bookroom but interested enquirers should write Mr Mackintosh there, who will be able to help them, I have no doubt.
We live in the age of the scoffer who would like not only to deny the biblical facts of the past, but also the warnings concerning the future when the “day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night”, when the heavens shall pass away and the earth will be burnt up, and the solemnities of the Judgment Day proceed. Many console themselves with the idea that so many “thinking men” treat such a revelation with intellectual ridicule. The Word of the Lord will endure and be fulfilled and all who die a Christless death are destined to know the tremendous meaning of His own words — “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish”. The great need of the scientific world today is not a mere advancement in scientific knowledge but the raising up of men, regenerated by the grace of God, who will interpret their discoveries in the light of Divine Revelation.