K. J. CLINTON, graduated from the Federal College of the Bible and the Melbourne University in 1951. Ministries at Castlemaine-Harcourt and Hampton followed and in 1957 he commenced lecturing at the College of the Bible. In 1957 he also received the degree of B.D. and the Diploma in Religious Education from the Melbourne College of Divinity.

      It is important to have a clear understanding of the relationship between science and scripture. Some people in their zeal make wild claims for the Bible as though it were a scientific text-book. Others who do not believe in God or the Scriptures claim that a naturalistic evolutionary theory in biology dismisses God and disproves the Bible.

      (a) I was asked by a University student who is a member of one of our churches "Why do many Christians seek to disprove the theory of evolution, especially as there is no conclusive proof either way recorded in the Scriptures?" My reply was that many Christians seek to disprove the theory of evolution through failure to have an adequate view of Science and Scripture. They believe that if an evolutionary theory is held then the Bible record is disproved and our faith is vain. They are in fact defending a harmony made by 18th century Christians between the Bible and 18th century Science. (Scientific theory.)

      (b) I have reports of instances where teachers in primary schools and secondary high and technical schools have taught a naturalistic biological evolutionary theory. The young mind tends to conclude that it must either believe the Bible or its science teacher. Actually there have been many Christian scientists in the past and there are many today even in active membership in our churches. Young people should know that many teachers just have not caught up with contemporary findings and allow their philosophy of life to influence their teaching of science. Kenneth Walker in his book "Meaning and Purpose" (A211 in the Pelican Books) gives a helpful analysis of the main scientific theories of the last hundred years and their impact upon religious thought and belief and shows that this subject has not remained static.

      (c) A Grammar School Chaplain who taught biology as well as scripture told me that at one time in his experience as a teacher, he was dismayed to find that many young men who matriculated and went to the University lost their faith in God. They fell victim to lecturers who propounded naturalistic theories of evolution. He revised his approach to the subject of biology and sought to show his students that although a large percentage of scientists accept some variety of evolutionary theory this did not need to destroy faith in the God of Creation. If they are right then this theory is only a description of the method God used in creation. With this approach his students ceased becoming spiritual casualties when they went on to study at the University.

      Bernard Ramm has an excellent book on this subject, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," printed by The Paternoster Press, London 1955. I would recommend it for further reading without committing myself to agreement with all his views. Both the scientist and the theologian, as well as the laymen or non-specialist in both fields need to approach this subject with humility and reverence and with a sincere desire to know the truth and to avoid the trap of speaking as the expert in another man's field of study. Each one needs the other.

I. THE OCCASION OF THE CONTROVERSY.

      The study of the natural world really began during the 18th century. when men began to observe

closely and to classify the plants and animals around them. A number of different kinds or species of living things were observed and each was held to be unchanging and basically unchanged since first created. This idea of the fixity of species became a part of contemporary scientific thought and many theologians accepted it.

      Charles Darwin a young English naturalist was aware of a belief among some scientists that life had been slowly changing over long periods of time. Early in the 19th century, he went on a voyage through the South Seas in order that he might investigate the plant and animal life in this area. He observed the variety and distribution of plant and animal and became convinced that the great variety of living things he found had developed from common ancestors by a process he called "natural selection."

      In 1859, he published the results of about 20 years of very thorough investigation in a book called "The Origin of Species." He stated that man had evolved from some apelike ancestor. In this way he cut across a widespread scientific theory of that time of the fixity of species and gave the impression that there could be creation without God. No doubt the pride of many people was hurt by suggesting their descent from apes.

      T. H. Huxley publicly supported Darwin's theories and so aroused considerable opposition. At a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in Oxford in June, 1860 the issue came to a climax. The meeting proceeded quietly until the Bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce attacked Darwin's theory of evolution. He ridiculed Darwin's work and then turning to T. H. Huxley asked him "whether it was through his grandmother or grandfather that he claimed descent from a monkey." Huxley replied first by attacking the Bishop's arguments and then shouted that he would prefer an ape to the bishop as an ancestor. At this insult to the clergy, the crowded room was thrown into confusion. Lady Brewster fainted!

      It should be noted that Darwin expressed the hope that his views would not be regarded as being irreligious. In the preface to "The Origin of Species" he wrote, "There is a grandeur in this view of life with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator in a few forms." Many theologians found themselves able to accept Darwin's account of the origin of species. However, Darwin was readily pressed into the service of those who wished to eliminate the supernatural from their ideas of the Universe.

II. TYPES OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.

      Those who have rejected an evolutionary theory have generally interpreted the Genesis account of creation as teaching a fiat, instantaneous creation. It is then, either sudden creation by God or a mechanical evolution without the need of God. But some Christian scientists and philosophers have put forward theistic evolutionary theories. They accept some variety of evolutionary theory but they believe that this is the method God used in His creative process. Some others who do not believe that fiat creationism or evolution are adequate explanations of the evidence available propound the theory of PROGRESSIVE CREATIONISM. They claim that biology and geology evidence development and progression and therefore must be admitted.

      Let us list the various theories.

1. Fiat Creationism.

      God uttered His creative word and instantaneously the universe came into being. God created the universe out of nothing (ex nihilo). The obvious weakness of this view is that it equates divine causation with sudden creation and does not admit that God could continue His creative

work as a process over a long period of time. This view treats the Genesis account in a literalistic way.

2. Atheistic and Naturalistic Evolutionary Theories.

      It must be stated that many non-Christians hold various atheistic or mechanistic theories of evolution which deny the existence of God and of His activity in creation. They use a theory of evolution based on the observation and study of the data available and attach it to a philosophy or world-view which does not accept the existence of God. The explanation that is given is that nature has the power within itself to come into being and develop without the need of God or His Spirit. Such a naturalistic philosophy sees the universe as a self-perpetuating closed system governed by inexorable laws which cannot be broken and progressively by an evolutionary process which is self-developing.

      Strauss greatly rejoiced over evolution in that Darwin released him from creationism. "Miracles are gone forever!" he claimed. He turned Darwin's theory in to a naturalistic or materialistic philosophy and thereby ruled out everything spiritual or ethical. Rudolph Otto wisely asserted in an article on "Darwin and Religion," "to this EXPANDED Darwinism not an inch of ground can be yielded from the side of religion, nor from the side of any idealistic conviction, nor from the side of spiritual knowledge in general."

      It cannot be denied that evolutionary theories have aided anti-Christian systems of thought, but they have also been turned to other purposes.

3. Theistic Evolutionary Theories.

      Many Christians hold theistic theories of evolution. Bernard Ramm in "The Christian View of Science and Scripture" pages 185-6 traces some of these theories.

      (a) The modern THOMISTIC interpretation of evolution is constructed on the philosophy of Aristotle as formulated by Aquinas. God, as the cause of all motion is the spiritual and intelligent force behind evolution and evolution occurs solely because there is a God and because Nature is constituted in the terms described by Aquinas. In this way evolution is fitted into a theistic scheme of things and is completely deprived of its so-called anti-spiritual force.

      (b) AUGUSTINE makes clear that he thinks that the Christian must take into account the best views of science in making his interpretation because if a Christian ignores what can be learnt by means of the senses and as a result teaches foolish doctrines about nature, he can hardly expect unbelievers to listen to what he has to say about spiritual matters when in matters about which they have knowledge he makes himself an object of ridicule.

      Augustine suggested that God sowed seminal principles in nature or matter and they taking root developed the world of animals and plants. God did not create things directly but created them in seminal form. From seminal form under the guidance of God the final creatures were realised.

      (c) The theory of EMERGENT EVOLUTION has been developed by men who reject the crass materialistic interpretation of evolution. These men believe that life arose miraculously and that mind appeared miraculously and that from original life to mind, life kept emerging in higher and higher levels. This was due to the God-imparted nisus (impulse) within Nature.

      (d) HENRI BERGSON in his theory of creative evolution endeavoured to re-think evolution in a spiritual context. He was a philosopher and scientist and looked upon reality as a ceaseless becoming, a continuous movement, not as something which changes but as

change itself. He pictured evolution as a creative process driven on by a spiritual force.

4. Progressive Creationism.

      Many Christians through the years, with a high view of inspiration believed in theistic evolution, including James Orr, A. H. Strong and Benjamin Warfield. Ramm sums up the position in this way: "These various interpretations indicate that the dilemma of fiat, immediate creationism versus atheistic evolution into which some try to force the issue is not possible. It is not fiat creationism or atheistic evolution but there is also progressive creationism and evolution interpreted in the larger framework of a theistic or spiritualistic or idealistic metaphysics." He presents a theory of progressive creationism or developmental creation, God created by law and that law is developmental and progressive. He claims that creation and development are both indispensable categories in the understanding of geology and biology. The fiat creationist can be embarrassed by a thousand examples of development. Progression cannot be denied geology and biology. The chasms in the order of life can only be bridged by creation. The Christian approach to evolution cannot consist of snipings at the theory; but it must supply an interpretative theory of biology which will do all that the evolutionary theory does for modern biologists and something more besides.

III. AN EVALUATION.

      J. B. S. Haldane sums up the opinion of many biologists in "Possible Worlds,"--"No competent biologist doubts that evolution and natural selection are taking place, but we do not yet know whether natural selection alone, acting in chance variations, will account for the whole of evolution. Darwin's theory of evolution is retained because scientists have found nothing more satisfactory to put in its place."

      It seems then, that both the dogmatic evolutionist who calls evolution a theory proved beyond doubt and the dogmatic fundamentalist who brands it as a mere theory are both wrong. We cannot speak of the theory of evolution as possessing a certainty which belongs only to formal logic.

      We need to see how the scientist arrives at his scientific laws. Scientific laws are generalisations which are drawn from numerous observations and experimentation of particular instances. From countless tests it has been established that if an object heavier than air is not supported, it will fall to the ground. The law of gravitation is discovered or rather is observed. The human eye observes the phenomena of nature and the human mind posits the hypothesis (something assumed for the purpose of the argument or an intelligent guess) and the techniques of experimentation and logic tell us if the hypothesis is true or not.

      If the principles of the nature of scientific law are applied to evolution it is clear that evolution is not a perfectly nor infallibly verified law. No theory of science can be said to have that status. We have already noted Haldane's comment. In terms of the philosophy of science, the theory of evolution is a PROBABILITY statement. "It is based on a great number of observations geological, biological, embryological and psychological. From these observations certain limited generalisations are made about individual species or families. Increasingly larger generalisations are made as to the broader laws of heredity, embryology, tissue structure or reproduction. Finally the great bulk of the data of life is summarised by the most universal generalisations possible which is some form of evolution. No one has seen evolution at work over the hundreds of thousands of years of geological time. What we have is a vast collection of data of almost

every conceivable sort. "We must distinguish then a vague theory which is the belief of scientists that evolution has occurred and a precise theory which is the hypothesis as to how evolution actually works. There is no known satisfactory and clearly demonstrated precise theory." Ramm. Pages 188-90.

IV. THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS OF CREATION.

      The biblical accounts of creation consist of two prose accounts, a general account in Gen, 1:1-2:3 and a complementary account of the creation of man in Gen. 2:4-25 and two poetic accounts in Psalm 104 and Job 38.

      It, should be clearly noted that:

      (a) the language of the Bible when describing natural things uses popular language and not scientific language. It is the language in which people converse.

      (b) it is what might be called phenomenological, that which pertains to appearance. e. g. Isaiah 11:12 refers to the "four corners of the earth."

      (c) the language of the Bible employs the culture of the times in which it was written as the medium of revelation.

      (d) the accounts of creation are given not to satisfy man's curiosity about how the world was made, but rather to assert WHO created the world and man.

      The early chapters of Genesis are a prologue to the great acts of God which begin with Abraham and enunciate the unifying theme of the Bible. They are an introduction to the history of revelation and salvation. God makes Himself known in order to redeem man back to Himself. The aim of the writer is to make a theological statement--a truth about God and man and his world and not to present a scientific statement.

1. The Lord of Creation.

      "In the beginning GOD." Gen. 1:1. This does not confine us to Ussher's date of 4004 B.C. given in the margin of some Bibles, but leaves it open to permit the geologist to estimate by radio active techniques that rocks over 3,000 million years old exist on our earth. What matter if the earth be 5,000 million years old? How great is the Eternal God Who is our Creator and Who through Jesus Christ is our Heavenly Father.

      He stands at the beginning of all things as their Creator. He is not a capricious deity or a blind force or a mere "principle of order," but He is a person, who created a good and beautiful world which reveals His glory, power and love.

      In the centre of this marvelous creation is man, the climax of God's work, created in His image, entrusted with the world, but responsible to his Creator.

      Genesis gives a unique version of creation when compared with Babylonian and Canaanite mythologies, where creation is conceived as the result of strife among the gods. These gods are the forces of nature. But God stands above the world as Lord of all He made.

2. Creation in Six Days.

      God's creative acts are carefully organised within six days in the account in Gen. 1:1-2:3. What meaning should we attach to the "day" (Heb.-yom)?

      1. In the O.T. it is commonly used of a. period of twenty-four hours, or the hours of daylight. But it can less definitely mean a period of time in which something happens as in Gen. 2:4 "In the day when the Lord God made the heavens and the earth" or Psalm 90:4 "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past" or the prophetic expression "the Day of YHWH" (the LORD).

      2. The recurring expression "there was evening and there was morning" for each day, Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31 leads some to consider the day to be simply twenty-four hours. This view leads to three interpretations.

      (a) The entire universe was made in six days only a few thousand years ago and all geological phenomena is attributed to a universal (Noahic) flood, but this is absurd.

      (b) The Catastrophe Theory supposes that the original creation lasted for millions of years (covering the ages of geological theory). This is described in Gen. 1:1. Then all was destroyed (Gen, 1:2a) and reconstructed in six days only a few thousand years ago. But the text shows no sign of a break between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2 and science knows nothing of any such universal disaster.

      (c) The Visionary Hypothesis draws attention to the fact that a day of activity might be characterised by "morning and evening," but that "evening and morning" point to a night's sleep. On six successive nights God revealed to the author the phases of his creative work. This leaves the problem of correlation with science quite open.

      3. If the phenomenological language of scripture is recognised in this passage, then its pattern may be taken as schematic only. Neither the duration nor the succession of creative acts is in view; but rather the fact that God made all things. The great stress is upon the creative word of God, "And God said", as the Psalmist sings "By the word of YHWH (the LORD) were the heavens made." Psalm 33:6.

V. THE VALIDITY OF OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE SPIRITUAL.

      In this scientific age many have felt that we have outgrown the superstition of religion.

      Sir James Fraser used to assert that first there was the age of magic and then followed the age of religion, but we have developed to a further stage and now live in the age of reason. We might go further and say that we have reached the scientific age--the age of technology. Science can do things for us that religion could not do. We have developed a superstition about "science." It is the new magic word. The fairy godmother or for some the object of their worship and devotion. Modern science and technology have made a wonderful conquest of nature and we must all be thankful to God for it. But there is the danger that it will assume the functions that philosophy and religion used to perform. As Dr. R. Hooykaas writes in his monograph on "The Christian Approach in Teaching Science." "The great success of scientific method and the enormous achievements of technology have not only blinded many scientists to the limitations of their discipline, but they have excited the admiration of the man in the street who is willing to believe anything if it is announced in the 'Name of Science.'"

      A philosophy known as "scientific humanism" or "positivism" or "the scientific attitude" affirms that any truth which can be known to be true must be capable of verification by the scientific method (the method of observation, hypothesis, experiment and verification which is conducted impersonally and permits no personal feelings to influence the judgment as one seeks to make an objective description.) This is only an assumption. It is itself incapable of verification by the scientific method and therefore according to the theory itself cannot be known to be true. This theory is very attractive to those who desire to banish "superstition" about God and the realm of the spiritual.

      But the existentialist philosophers have asserted that there is another kind of knowledge which is highly personal and individual.

      It is this person's distinctive knowledge or apprehension of things which came from his involvement in a situation, and which is not communicable as scientific knowledge. The fact that "all men die" is a scientific generalisation but the fact that "I shall die" is of immense personal interest to me because it makes me aware of my own existence as an individual 'thou' having a significance to me far beyond any scientific interest. In this "I-Thou" awareness I confront God and my fellows as an individual responsible for my own actions and attitudes before the Other which is God.

      We believe that in the final analysis truth is one and every particular truth coheres with all other truths. It is a necessary assumption of thought that truth is a unity and that we live in a universe--a systematic whole whose parts cohere, so that every seeming contradiction between two kinds of truth must be due to defects of our knowledge and not to the nature of things themselves. Scientific knowledge (objective) and existential knowledge (subjective) consists of two theoretically distinguishable modes of apprehension, but in real life they are indissolubly interwoven. For further reading Alan Richardson's "Science and Existence" is helpful.

      The Bible then conveys truth of a different kind from that which is discovered and systematised in the natural sciences. It is existential or religious communication. It does not claim to be a scientific text book. It is a record of revelation and redemption. God making Himself known in the history of His people Israel so that through them He might redeem all men unto Himself. In the fulness of time Christ was born and God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. It is through our experience of Christ through the witness of the Bible and in the fellowship of the Church that we know God.

      This scientific age desperately needs to know that God is in control of nature and history. Every individual needs to acknowledge the claims of Jesus Christ on his life if he is to find the purpose and meaning of his life in this depersonalised age. If we see the true relationship of science and scripture, we have made the first step in this direction.