Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, Universityof Wisconsin - Green Bay
First-time Visitors: Please visit Site Map and Disclaimer. Use"Back" to return here.
Each removal of a past imperfection is a prophecy of a future imperfection. The same is the case with exegesis. Archaeology, philology, and history are constantly enriching our knowledge of the Old and New Testaments. With this enriched knowledge attends a more careful and accurate exegesis. Thus exegesis, to a certain extent, is in a state of flux.2 We can at this point take the advice of Pratt
The Book of Nature and the Word of God emanate from the same infallible Author, and therefore cannot be at variance. But man is a fallible interpreter, and by mistaking one or both of these Divine Records, he forces them too often into unnatural conflict.3
The third cause for conflict is misinterpretation of the Bible by scientist or theologian. If the scientist affirms that the Bible teaches creation at 4004 B.C. he needlessly makes science and Scripture conflict through misinterpretation. If the first step toward truth is the removal of error, the Ussher chronology should at this point be abandoned. If the scientist insists that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat, or the heavens solid, or that there are pillars supporting the sky, or that the entire solar system came to rest at Joshua's command, then through his own misinterpretation he brings the Bible into conflict with science.
If the theologian teaches that the earth is the center of the solar system, or that man first appeared on the earth at 4004 B.C., or that all the world was submerged under water at 4004 B.C. and had been for unknown millennia, he is misinterpreting Scripture and bringing Scripture
2. Clay tablets from the ancient biblical lands have been the source of much new information - religious, political, and grammatical or linguistic. Even with reference to the famous virgin passage of Isaiah 7:14 there is information to be learned from the clay tablets. Cf. Cyrus H. Gordon, "Abash in Isaiah 7:14," The Journal of Bible and Religion, 21:106, April, 1953. 3. J. H. Pratt, Scripture and Science not at Variance (1872), p. S.
An Analysis o f the Conflict 51 into needless conflict with science. Both scientist and theologian must exercise unusual care in the interpretation of the Bible and it is just as mistaken to follow after improper interpretations of the Bible as it is to follow after unproved hypotheses in science. Mistakes peculiar to scientists. Just as there are certain mistakes that a theologian is susceptible to there are ones that the scientist is just as susceptible to in the relationship of theology to science. The first of these mistakes is to have an antireligious attitude. No system of knowledge can be learned without some sympathy or kindly feeling toward the system - something pointed out long ago by Augustine but never fully appreciated by educators nor epistemologists. Dogmatists study science as well as theology. The evangelical indicates that man is a spiritual rebel and his spirit of rebellion is reflected in all his activities. Unsaved man opposes the doctrines of creation, sin, redemption, and eschatology. A man may be religious and yet antichristian. Opposition to Christianity at the level of science is in many instances simply localized or vocalized opposition to Christianity in general. Therefore anti-Christian man takes pleasure in making the gap between science and Christianity as wide as he can make it, and will heartlessly ridicule any efforts at reconciliation. In this instance, the gap between science and Christianity is in reality the gap between faith and unbelief. However, Conservatives need to be careful that this is not exaggerated in their dealings with scientists. All science and all scientists cannot be dropped overboard on the sole grounds that they are not Christian. All of geology cannot be declared specious because geology has been developed principally by unsaved men. Truth is truth and facts are facts no matter who develops them. Man as a spiritual and intellectual rebel is part of the reason why there is tension between science and Christianity, but it is not the entire reason.
66 The Christian View of Science and Scripture If it is necessary to read lengthily in the tomes on philosophy of science to know what logical constructs or conventions or intervening variables are, it is also necessary to dig deeply to understand the precise nature of Biblical language. Much of Fundamentalist literature on the subject is extremely wooden in its approach. At times Fundamentalists have been accused of being too literalistic, but the trouble is deeper than that. The approach seems to rest on the unwritten assumption that if a record is inspired its meaning is always obvious, and if we seek any subtlety in the meaning or in the literary form of the narrative we are accused of trifling with the inspiration of the Bible. But after poring over the literature on the subject of Bible and science, the author is assured that no real grappling with the issues is possible till one has worked out his own theory as to the nature of Biblical statements about natural matters.
By popular, we mean what the etymology of the word implies, "of the people." Popular language is the language in which people converse. It is the language of the market place, of social gatherings, and of the chance conversation. It is that basic vocabulary and style which the masses use to carry on their daily communication. By scientific we mean that jargon (in the good sense of the word) developed in the history of science around the various sciences which enables men of each science to communicate more accurately, conveniently, and economically. Hence scientists use their terms without lengthy definitions of the terms each time they are used. Their fellow scientists know exactly what the terms mean. Both languages serve their purpose. The scientist writes his essay for his technical journal in the jargon of his specialty, and this jargon is a most valuable tool for the communication of his ideas. When he chats with his neighbor as they meet in some social gathering the scientist prudently recourses to the vocabulary of popular speech. The Fundamental Problems 67 The Bible is a book for all peoples of all ages. Its terms with reference to Nature must be popular. Perhaps in the medical and nautical language of Luke there are some tech nical terms, but most of the vocabulary of the Bible with reference to Nature is popular. It is therefore highly im proper for scientists to seek technical terminology in the Bible. It is also reprehensible for exegetes to try to find recondite references to modern scientific terminology in the Bible. The first is unfair in expecting a popular treatise to speak the language of science, and the second is undiscerning in making the Bible speak that which it does not propose to say.
By phenomenal we mean "pertaining to appearances." The Bible uses a language that is not only popular but restricted to the apparent. For example, it speaks of "the four corners [wings] of the earth" (Isaiah 11:12) because the bisection of something into quarters is a frequent human operation and a convenient method of indicating place. To this day it is not uncommon to hear in popular speech such expressions as "from every corner of the earth" or "from all quarters of the globe." Such expressions are neither scientific nor anti-scientific, but the popular and phenomenal expressions of daily conversation. Consider the language of Genesis 1. Astronomically, it speaks of the earth, the sun, the moon, and the stars. It does not mention asteroids, comets, nebulae or planets. The astronomical classification of Genesis 1 is phenomenal. It is restricted to that which greets the eye as one gazes heavenward. The same is true of the biological and botanical terms of Genesis 1. It speaks of fish, fowl, cattle, and birds; of grass, herbs, and fruit trees. It does not classify amphibians or sea-going mammals. Genesis 1 is the classification of the unsophisticated common man. The opinions of Pratt with which we heartily agree are so excellent, and so well stated, that we shall quote him at length in reference to the nature of Scriptural language:
70 The Christian View of Science and Scripture
tion. We cannot but agree with the judgment of W. B. Dawson when he wrote
A remarkable point in Biblical references to nature, is that we find no definite explanation anywhere of natural things. The writers of the Bible do not go beyond the description of what they actually see around them, and the correct way in which they describe what they do see is beyond praise ... The writers of the Bible show more than severe self-control, and must indeed have been divinely guided, in thus keeping to description and avoiding theoretical explanations of natural things.(5 )
This is one of the most important problems of the entire problem of Christianity and science though it is one of the least discussed. Does the Bible speak the language of science, or does it speak in terms of ancient cultures? Does the Bible speak truth in literal terms when it speaks of things scientific, or does it speak theological truth in the garb of ancient cultural modes? At this point two positions are wrong.
(i) The position of the radical critic or modernist is wrong who imagines that the Bible is filled with errors and mistakes of these ancient cultures, and so scientifically the Bible must be considered as filled with blunders.
(ii) The hyperorthodox is wrong who expects the Bible to contain modern science.
In that the Bible is inspired the modernist is wrong, because the restraint of the Holy Sprit upon the writers of the Bible preserved them from the errors of their day. In that inspiration came through the mold of the Hebrew culture, the hyperorthodox is wrong. It will be admitted by all that the Bible came to us in human languages written by human beings and employing familiar human concepts and symbols. If God spoke through Hebrew-speaking prophets and Greek-speaking Jews, what He had to say was to a degree colored by the natures of the Hebrew and Greek languages. Language cannot be disassociated from culture, for language and culture are profoundly intertwined. If God spoke through the Hebrew and Greek languages, He also spoke in terms of the cultures in which these languages were embedded. The eternal truths of the Hebrew-Christian religion are clothed and garbed not only in the Hebrew and Greek languages but also in the cultural molds of the times of the composition of the Bible. The radical error of the modernist is to write off the supernatural character of the Bible by a destructive theory of accommodation. The radical error of the hyperorthodox is his failure to see that there is a measure of accommodation. We believe that the true position is that the revelation of God came in and through the Biblical languages and their accompanying culture. Coming through these cultures it became meaningful and relevant; and being inspired of God, the writers were unrestrained from error. In view of what we know of prescientific cultures, ancient and contemporary, it appears miraculous that the writers of the Bible are free of the grotesque, the mythological, and the absurd. As Shields observes: Although scientifically the Hebrews did not make the advances that the Assyrians or Egyptians or Greeks did, nevertheless, the Hebrews were free from the grotesque absurdity which disfigures the astronomy or geology of their contemporaries as found in the sacred books of the East or even in the more artistic mythology of the Greeks (6) These remarks pertain to the form of revelation, but not its matter.
72 The Christian View of Science and Scripture Nor can the judgment of Smith be controverted without getting our doctrine of the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures into grave difficulty when he wrote:
We have thus seen it placed beyond the possibility of a doubt, that it is the manner of the Scriptures, and most copiously in their earliest written parts, to speak of the Deity, his nature, his perfection, his purposes, and his operations, in language borrowed from the bodily and mental constitution o f man, and from those opinions, concerning the works of God in the natural world, which were generally received by the people to whom the blessing of revelation was granted.?
Although we are not the first to broach such a view, it is certainly the key point of the entire approach to the problem of harmonizing the Bible and scientific knowledge, and the point at which the hyperorthodox will take most serious issue. We therefore need to strengthen our case.
1. The vocabulary for time in both the Old Testament and the New Testament is not strict scientific time but the time reckoning methods and units of the cultural period of the Bible writers (8) The light and darkness mark out the day ; the phases of the moon, the month ; and the cycles of the seasons with the movements of the stars, the years. The day itself is divided into watches or hours. For the general routine of life such measurements are adequate. The refined units of time as current in modern civilization were unknown to them. They repeatedly had to patch up their calendar as the period of the rotation of the earth around the sun involves a fraction, and they had no means of detecting nor accurately measuring that fraction. It would be impossible to perform the technical experiments of modern science with the popular time reckonings employed by the writers of the Bible. This does not argue that there is something radically wrong with the time reckonings of the Bible. The time reckonings of the Bible are the popular, accurate-within-limits methods of the people of ancient times. These methods are not comparable to modern scientific methods, especially with the atomic clock wherewith time is kept phenomenally accurate by the vibrations of electrons in certain crystals.
2. The psychological terms of the Bible are terms of ancient cultures and not the terms of strict scientific psychology (9). The Bible uses such terms as heart, liver, bones, bowels, and kidneys in its psychology, attributing psychic functions to these organs. It is a physiological psychology. Can the heart actually believe (Romans 10:9-10) ? Can our liver be greatly distressed (Lamentations 2:11) ? Does Paul actually have his spiritual love in his bowels (Philippians 1:8) ? Are the kidneys part of our psychical structure (Jeremiah 11:20, Revelation 2:23) ? Are we to gather from the New Testament that we each have a soul, a spirit, a mind, a heart, a strength, a body (soma and sarks) ? If we insist that the psychology of the Bible is to be taken in a strict literalistic sense then there is no other conclusion than to confess that the psychology of the Bible is not capable of rational defense. But if we agree that the truth of the Bible is expressed in terms of the prevailing culture of the times during which the Bible was written, then we have no problem. Our task is to decipher from the Bible its basic theological psychology. The heart and kidneys are physiological ways of representing our deep emotional and volitional life, experiences and feelings.
3. Consider next the medical language of the Bible. Much has been made of Luke's medical language being the medical language of the doctors of his day (10). But is the medical language of Luke modern scientific medical language? It was the medical language of the men of medicine of that place and period when Luke wrote, but it is not the language of modern medical textbooks. It would certainly be a rash effort to try to get modern medicine to use the medical language of the Bible on the grounds of its supposed inspired scientific impeccability.
4. The mathematics and measuring systems of the Bible are those of that prescientific era and not modern scientific methods of counting and measuring. Numbers were frequently used in the same way we use the words many, some, or few. Three stood for few; seven, ten, and one hundred stood for completeness; ten in other connections meant several ; forty meant many ; seven and seventy meant large but uncertain numbers. Round numbers were used for exact numbers. Any Bible dictionary will have a chart of the distance measurements of the Bible as well as weight measurements and liquid measurements. It is to be carefully noted that as the culture shifts from Old Testament Semitic to New Testament Graeco-Roman the systems change. Which is the inspired and infallible system-the one in the Old Testament or the New Testament? If we believe that the inspired truth of God came through cultural mediums we will affirm that the question is meaningless. God never gave infallibility to the measuring systems of the Bible. They were used in the Bible because they were the customary and familiar units of the people of that time.
5. The geographical terms of the Bible are the usual, customary terms of the culture of the time. It speaks of mountains, valleys, plains, rivers, streams, lakes, seas, and coasts. It has a theological geography of heaven, earth, and hell, but this is not to be converted into literal geography. The Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament used the terms common to their cultures to describe geographical matters." The opinions of E. C. Rust expressed in Nature and Man in Biblical Thought (1953) are of importance and offer a variant interpretation of what we have stated here. It is our position that the Biblical writers do not teach any cosmological system or follow any cosmogony, ancient or modern. Rather their writings are prescientific and phenomenal or non-postulational. As far as their vocabulary and method of speaking are concerned they use the culture terms and expressions of their time. The Spirit of God restrained them from any use of the polytheistic or fantastic. Rust believes that the writers of the Bible not only used the terms and expressions of their culture, but that they also entered into their erroneous ideas of cosmology and anthropology. He clearly says Biblical cosmology, zoology, and ethnology are not binding [upon Christian faith].(12 )
But the theological truths expressed in these outmoded scientific notions are inspired and part of the Biblical witness. The truth remains the same, GOD Is ALMIGHTY CREATOR, whether we picture the creation as the ancient Babylonians did, or as Copernicus did, or as Einstein did. Therefore Rust is willing to defend the theological world view of the Bible, if we may so define it, while admitting the erroneous nature of its scientific world view. This is certainly a great improvement over liberalism, but we feel the case has not yet been conclusively made, viz, that the writers of the Bible actually adopted Babylonian cosmology.
In conclusion, we note that the language of the Bible with reference to natural things is popular, prescientific, and non-postulational. It is the terminology of the culture prevailing at the time the various books were written. It is a matter of the Spirit of God speaking through these terms so that (i) the terms are not themselves thereby made infallible science, and that (ii) the theological content is in no wise endangered.(13). There are certain great advantages that accrue from this view of the inspiration of the Bible.
1. Because the language is popular and non-postulational it forms a meaningful revelation. Who, even today, would understand a book written in the terminology and concepts of final science? A man who objects to the Bible because it is not in the accents of the latest science knows not what he asks. If the Bible were in the language and concepts of final science it would not have been understood by the millions of readers in prescientific periods of the past and in prescientific cultures of the present. In that the Bible is in popular terminology it is adapted to man as he is. It is therefore understandable and meaningful.
The Fundamental Problems 77
2. Although the Bible is not in scientific language it is not in anti-scientific language. It is prescientific language. Men of science to this day speak of the rising and setting of the sun. To the human eye the sun does rise and set, and it does appear to move across the sky. A theory of the solar system attempts to account for our observations. We do not actually see the earth moving around the sun. As far as human observation is concerned, the sun rises and sets. We are not theorizing or postulating any theory of the solar system. Popular or non-postulational language, while not scientific, is not explanatory of Nature and is therefore prescientific, not anti-scientific. Or, as Shields well states it
In a word, it is because the Bible, though non-scientific, is not anti-scientific, that it is as true for our time as it was true for its own time, and is likely to remain true for all time to come.(14)
3. Because the Bible uses prescientific terms it is a Bible for all ages and is adapted to all stages of human progress. No better choice could have been made for the propagation of the Bible through the centuries of church history. Smith taunts those who would wish the Bible in scientific language. A Bible peppered with scientific jargon would be most inappropriate for the religious instruction of humanity. It would be cold, unattractive and most difficult to understand. Smith continues
[Try the experiment of using scientific language in religious matters on the peasantry] or even the best educated children of our own families. The style of a Moral Philosophy school would arouse no attention, would leave scarcely any impression : the simple imagery of Scripture is instinct with life, and touches every chord of feeling.(15 )
This is one problem remaining over from our
96 The Christian View of Science and Scripture pensations of God's judgment God could - and did - call to the service of judgment the earthquake or the plague or the hail or famine. The above exposition adds something to the plenitude-of-being theory which it needs, and which is overlooked. It is not a matter of having sheer good in the whole through evil in the parts. Why then, it is asked, could it not have been arranged with much less suffering for the parts? The answer is that Nature is also for (i) probation, and (ii) judgment. There is more to "evil" in Nature than sheer plenitude of being is invoked to explain.
5. W. B. Dawson, The Bible Confirmed by Science (n.d.), pp. 32-33. Italics are his. In agreement here are Pratt, op. cit., p. 24 ff; Shields, The Scientific Evidences of Revealed Religion (1900)18 pp. 27, 202-203; Bettex, Modern Science and Christianity (1903), pp. ; J. P. Smith, Genesis and Geology (1840), p. 225; J. W. Dawson, Nature and the Bible (1875), p. 22. Angus and Green, The Bible Handbook (1907), p. 130. James Orr, ("World, Cosmological," ISBE, 5:3108) writes that the Bible writes "without consideration of what the after-light of science may throw on its [the world's] inner constitution, laws and method of working."
6. Shields, op. cit., p. 27.
7. John Pye Smith, op. cit., p. 225. Italics are his. The point of these last few paragraphs is also made by a Christian anthropologist. Cf. Smalley's remarks in Everest, editor, Modern Science and Christian Faith (second edition; 1950), p. 159-160. Smalley too says that language and culture cannot be separated. 8. H. W. Robinson, Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament (1946), p. 120, contains a list of the terms used in the Old Testament for time measurements. For New Testament terms for time cf. K. Bornhauser, Zeiten and Stunden in der Leidens- and Auferstehungsgeschichte (1921), reviewed in The Evangelical Quarterly, 24:241 ff., Oct., 1952. See also articles in Bible dictionaries. Very informative is Horne's discussion of Jewish-time reckoning in his An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures (2 vols., 1848). The Jews had watchers on the mountains to signal the phases of the moon and so tell when the new month commenced. Cloudy weather made this difficult! Months were so regulated that periodically a whole month had to be added to their year to bring the calendar into alignment again.
9. Cf. Robinson, op. cit., p. 72, for remarks about the physiological nature of Biblical psychology.
10. Classically defended by Hobart, The Medical Language of St. Luke (1882); and attacked by Cadbury, Style and Literary Method of St. Luke (1920). Most scholars think the truth is somewhere between Hobart and Cadbury.
11. Cf. Angus and Green, Cyclopedic Handbook to the Bible (1907), pp. 296-297 for the peculiarities of terminology in Hebrew geography. Perhaps we can make our entire point clear this way: We expect theologians to conform to the theological truth of Sacred Scripture, and we expect Christian philosophers to create their systems within the confines of the Christian religion. But we do not expect physicists, chemists, geologists, and geographers to take the various systems of natural things taught in the Bible and teach all these sciences in these terms, concepts, and standards of measurement. Or to put it even another way: we believe in the inspiration of the Old Testament, but we would never take seriously the liquid measuring system of the Old Testament as the eternal standard for all time and ask all scientists and commercial activity to conform to the Old Testament system of liquid measurements. Why not? Because the message is in and through these matters; these matters are not themselves the message.
12. Rust, op. cit., p. 17.
13. Dana, in speaking of the fact that the Bible was a necessary accommodation to the situation of man, wrote: "Accordingly, the terms or word by which the ideas in the Bible cosmogony are expressed must necessarily, although these ideas were divinely communicated, bear some impress of want of knowledge or comprehension." James Dana, "Creation: or, The Biblical Cosmogony in the Light of Modern Science," BS, 42:206, 1880.
14. Shields, op. cit., p. 208.
15. John Pye Smith, op. cit., p. 212.
A. In discussing the Biblical cosmology we must return to our general position defended earlier in this chapter: the references of the writers of the Bible to natural things are popular, non-postulational, and in terms o f the culture in which the writers wrote. This principle applies directly to Biblical cosmology. The language of the Bible with reference to cosmological matters is in terms of the prevailing culture. Biblical cosmology is in the language of antiquity and not of modern science, nor is it filled with anticipations which the future microscope and telescope will reveal.30 We do not agree with over-zealous Fundamentalists who try to find Einsteinian and modern astrophysical concepts buried in Hebrew words and expressions. We also disagree with the religious liberals who object to Biblical cosmology because it is not scientific. We object to the Fundamentalists because it was not the intention of inspiration to anticipate modern science, and we object to the modernist because he sees too much in what is to us a truism. We concur with Calvin who taught that Genesis 1 is a record of the creation of the world in the language
30. Cf. James Orr, "World: Cosmological," ISBE, V, 3106. of the common man and from the viewpoint of common sense. His actual words are
For to my mind this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy and the other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere ... It must be remembered, that Moses does not speak with philosophical acuteness on occult mysteries, but states those things which are everywhere observed, even by the uncultivated, and which are in common use.31
B. The cosmology of the Bible is not systematized and is not postulational. It is neither for nor against any of the current and ancient theories of the universe except where they might be polytheistic or in conflict with basic Christian metaphysics. But the Bible does not support Aristotle or Ptolemy or Copernicus or Descartes or Newton or Einstein or Milne. Certainly, the Bible works as a negative criterion in telling us that dualisms and pantheisms and materialisms are wrong, but it gives us no positive cosmology. We must consider the efforts of radical critics to impose a cosmology on the Bible as an artificial, stilted and abortive effort. The pseudo-Biblical cosmologies will be found in various Bible dictionaries, encyclopedias, and com mentaries. The work of Schiaparelli has been of considerable influence. The radical view has been put in one paragraph by Fosdick
In the Scriptures the flat earth is founded on an underlying sea; it is stationary; the heavens are like an upturned bowl or canopy above it; the circumference of this vault rests on pillars; the sun, moon, and stars move within this firmament of special purpose to illumine man ; there is a sea above the sky, `the waters which were above the heavens,' and through the `windows of heaven' the rain comes down; within the earth is Sheol, where dwell the shadowy dead ; this whole cosmic system is suspended over vacancy; and it was all made in six days with a morning and 31. John Calvin, Genesis, I, 79 and 84.
1. The approach of the Bible to Nature is essentially religious and theological. The Bible tells us emphatically that God created, but is silent as to how God created. It informs us that the stars, and the flowers, and the animals, and the trees, and man are creatures of God, but how God produced them is nowhere a matter of clear affirmation in Scripture. God made the mountains and the oceans, but the Bible has not a chapter on geological processes. For man's religious and spiritual needs what the Bible says about Nature is ample. We need no more. There are two chapters in Genesis devoted to creation and more than a dozen to the life of Abraham. Religious experience needs more counsel from the life of Abraham than from the creation of the universe. For the construction of a philosophy of Nature we need more data about Nature than that which we have in Sacred Scripture. The straightforward theological perspective of the Bible is central in formulating a Christian philosophy of Nature, but it is not sufficient in itself for such a theory. 2. Science, rich in empirical findings, is unable to deal with the large problems of epistemology, metaphysics, and theology. If science is a Goliath on the how of Nature it is a Mephibosheth on the why of Nature. With all due honor and gratitude for the numerous empirical findings of science and the marvelous technological advances it has brought us, we must realize that science cannot handle the problems it suggests. These problems can be treated only by the broader disciplines of metaphysics and epistemology. A Christian philosophy of Nature, from our vantage point, is the discipline which can provide the solutions for the problems which science raises but cannot solve. 3. In agreement with Shields we believe that the domains of Bible and science need the umpirage of a philosophy of Nature.47 A Christian philosophy of Nature will incorporate into its structure all that the Scriptures say of God and creation. It will acquaint itself with the study of 47. C. W. Shields, The Final Philosophy (1877), p. 435 ff. The Fundamental Problems 97 the philosophy of science in its various departments. It will learn all it can of the empirical findings of science. The Catholic scholars working with the framework of the philosophy of Aquinas have a working basis for a philosophy of science. They have constructed a neo-Thomistic philosophy, and with it a Catholic philosophy of science and biology. Whether it is right or wrong does not invalidate the observation that they have been able to effect a reconciliation and harmonization of their theology and science. The author must do a measure of pioneering here and suggest such a solution for Protestants. The author is by no means the first to break brush on this problem but he feels that some good contemporary efforts are needed.48 Too many books on Bible and science have no remarks on this subject and the result is usually an artless product. The following suggested Christian philosophy of Nature is not offered in any spirit of dogmatism nor finality, but it is an explorative adventure, a heuristic adventure, to try to force evangelical Protestantism to develop a Christian philosophy of Nature. B. Elements of a Chrisian philosophy of Nature. The Christian commences with precisely the Christian perspective. In Christian theology and Christian philosophy he finds his first great affirmation for a Christian philosophy of Nature, namely 1. God is world ground to Nature. The relationship of God to Nature has received classic treatment in the writings 48. The author admits the most stimulating writer on this general subject has been the great Catholic biologist of the nineteenth century, St. George Mivart (Lessons from Nature as Manifested in Mind and Matter, 1876). It was a pleasure to note how much space Fothergill gave to Mivart in his epochal work. Fothergill considers Mivart a model for those who would mix biology and philosophy and remarks that "Mivart carried out a large amount of historical research on the subject and his views remain sound and lasting, in fact they have scarcely been improved upon." Historical Aspects of Organic Evolution (1952). Cf. also R. Voskuyl, "A Christian Interpretation of Science," Modern Science and Christian Faith (second edition; 1950) ; Abraham Kuyper, Calvinism (Fourth Lecture, "Calvinism and Science") ; and H. Bavinck, The Philosophy of Revelation (reprint, 1953).
144 The Christian View of Science and Scripture serts, the Bible is anti-deistic, anti-dualistic, and anti-pantheistic The creation is so closely linked to the conservation and control [of God] that all dualistic deism is irrele vant, whilst there can be no pantheistic absorption of such a Person in the immanent energies of Nature.8 In view of Hebrews 11:3 we feel bound to interpret Genesis 1 as creation ex nihilo. We are convinced that the ex nihilo doctrine is affirmed in Genesis even though some scholars believe that such an idea does not occur till 2 Maccabees 7:28 (eks ouk ooton epoiesen auto ho theos). As Burgon correctly reasons The word in the original does not indeed necessarily imply [creation out of nothing] ; but since there is no word in Hebrew (any more than there is in Greek, Latin, or English), peculiarly expressive of the notion of creating out of nothing, it need not excite our surprise that Moses does not employ such a word to describe what God did `in the beginning.'9 We reject the interpretation that is placed upon Genesis 1 making it teach either that (i) creation here stated is limited to part of the universe or even the earth, or (ii) that creation was from previously existing materials. Our question is this: what is the evidence from science to support the claims of Genesis 1:1 ? A. Proof from design. The argument from design is based on (i) the analogy from experience, and (ii) the repugnancy or irrationallity of chance. It is the common 8. H. W. Robinson, Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament (1946), p. 21. However, C. M. Walsh, The Doctrine of Creation (1910) argues that emanation is not incongruous with the Bible and is the only intelligible theory of creation, pp. 125-126. 9. J. W. Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation (1905), p. 25. Italics are his. Wilhelm Vischer has strongly expressed himself that the word bara means creatio ex nihilo, but is challenged by R. J. Wilson who cites to the contrary Skinner, Driver, Bennett and Peake. But Wilson et al. miss the point of Burgon. Cf. R. J. Wilson, "Wilhelm Vischer on `God Created,' The Expository Times, 65:94-95, December 1953. Astronomy 145 experience of men that if order exists it exists only by the concerted, intelligent effort of man, and if things are left to themselves they proceed to a state of deterioration. A beautiful picture, a lovely garden, a magnificent building, a complicated printing press or a cyclotron are the result of concerted effort and planning. At least in human experience machines, works of art or mansions are the willed and conscious productions of human intelligence. Machines left to themselves rust out, abandoned buildings decay, and neglected gardens become weed plots. The analogy of experience would indicate that the presence of design implies the prior existence of conscious will, mind, and purpose. Further, the argument from design is based on the repugnance of sheer chance to produce order. It is admitted that chance may imitate creation and a few such instances are used over and over again in the literature to refute the argument from design, especially Huxley's illustration of the sand, little rocks, and big rocks at the base of a cliff at the ocean shore. Such examples admitted by both sides are not sufficient to refute the entire scope of data presented in the argument from design. Nothing in these examples compares with the intricacy of a printing press or the complexity of the human brain. Would anybody believe a counterfeiter if he asserted that his bills emerged by chance, or would a murderer be let off because of a chance bullet flying through the air fired by no gun? Our civil laws definitely operate on the principle of the repugnance of chance. The opponents of teleological thought argue that the analogy from experience is invalid and that chance when divorced from sheer randomness is not repugnant. The way in which Nature creates and man creates are so different, they argue, that the transference of the principles of creation by man to Nature is improper. Man works as a creator on the outside and Nature works slowly from the inside and if this is true, the analogy breaks down.
272
The Christian View of Science and Scripture for the empirical determination of various facts. A multitude of biological facts now generally accepted by the biologists would remain unchanged. In progressive creationism there may be much horizontal radiation. The amount is to be determined by the geological record and biological experimentation. But there is no vertical radiation. Vertical radiation is only by fiat creation. A root-species may give rise to several species by horizontal radiation, through the process of the unraveling of gene potentialities or recombination. Horizontal radiation could account for much which now passes as evidence for the theory of evolution. The gaps in the geological record are gaps because vertical progress takes place only by creation. 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. Biology cannot be rendered totally meaningful solely in terms of progression. Both Genesis and biology start with the null and void, both proceed from the simple to the complex, and both climax with man. A series of guerilla fights with evolution showing its weaknesses and inconsistencies will not win the day. Convictions are surrendered only when a more unifying, a more integrating hypothesis is suggested and demonstrated. 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 evolutionary theory does for modern biologists, and something more besides. Until then we may sting the theory of evolution with some factual embarrassments here and there but we will never force a retreat. It is our hope that a theory like progressive creationism will form the basis of a new biological synthesis which will be to biology what relativity theory was to physical theory. Biology 273 D. Necessary restrictions on the theory of evolution. The author does not have the necessary learning in biology to attempt a refutation of the evidence of evolution. However, there appear to be problems in the evolutionary theory which are obvious to those who are not trained biologists. There as yet remains the proof of the inorganic origin of life. It may be assumed but it is not yet verified. There is the problem of the rugged species which have endured without change for millions of years. There is the problem of the sudden appearance of new forms in the geological record. There are as yet multitudes of missing links among the species. As yet biologists are not agreed as to the mechanism of evolution, and those mechanisms advocated do not as yet possess a high degree of verification. Our particular problem is this : what are the necessary limitations of evolutionary theory? There are limits beyond which the theory of evolution may not be pushed and we wish to examine those limits. 1. Evolution can never become the self-creation of Nature. By an actual cause we mean that which is the ultimate and final cause of a thing. By a mediate cause we mean that which is the tool of the actual cause. The carpenter is the actual cause of a house ; the hammer, nails, etc., are the mediate causes, or secondary causes. It is the firm teaching of Sacred Scripture, Christian theology, and Christian theism that the sole actual cause of the universe is Almighty God. God is the First Cause, the Actual Cause, and the world ground of all things. Without God matter could not be, laws could not be, processes could not be. The universe in every dimension and at every point depends upon God. Therefore, evolution cannot be conceived as actual cause. Nature cannot create itself. To give evolution the status of actual causation is the terrible mistake - from the perspective of theism - of naturalism, pragmatism, materialism, and positivism. The only possible status which evolution could have is that 260 fear of contravening scientific fact and without prejudicing the character of their judgment. Or, in the words of Short: We conclude, then, that science is still unable to put forward any satisfactory explanation as to how life arose in the first place. We must either accept the Bible doctrine that God created life, or go on making improbable speculations.lo III. Evolution Perhaps the strongest clash between theologians and scientists has been over evolution, at least in modern times. The sordid history from Bishop Wilberforce's disgraceful attack in his debate with Huxley to Bryan's miseries at the Scopes' trial and the extreme remarks of the contemporary hyperorthodox, we will not trace. Matching the extreme remarks of the Fundamentalists have been the equally dogmatic utterances of irreligious biologists, and dishonesty among biologists, e.g., Haeckel and Kammerer. The less said of this disgraceful chapter of the progress of both religion and science, the better. Nor shall we review all there is to say about evolution. To keep our task within limits of space we shall discuss principally the philosophical and theological aspects of evolution. A. Improper spirit of controversy. In that the evolution issue has become so emotionally charged it is difficult to discuss it with calm. A biology professor harassed by Fundamentalist students over a number of years might become bitter and sarcastic. Or he might judge all Fundamentalists by a few outspoken and cantankerous representatives. Or the teacher of biology might have a very limited knowledge of philosophy of biology, or epistemology, or logic, or of theology or Scripture, and accordingly make statements that are far more narrow or dogmatic than the facts in the case allow. Engrossed in biological matters year after year, he might become incompetent to make 10. A. R. Short, Modern Discovery and the Bible (1942), p. 33. dependable judgments in the larger areas of philosophy and theology. It is unfortunate when such an individual makes dogmatic statements about evolution and theology. The Fundamentalist who insists that all evolutionists are Satan-inspired or dishonest, or too stupid to see supposedly
obvious and grotesque flaws in evolutionary theory, is equally to blame. Certainly - and we say it with tears - the finer spirits in both science and theology will repudiate both gentlemen. Fundamentalists need a new calm, a new reserve, a new reverence for all truth so that they may sympathetically, intelligently, and honestly reconsider the relationships between orthodoxy and biological science. Biologists are to be under an equal moral and intellectual responsibility to carefully weigh the nature of biological science, and mark out its limitations and boundaries, and keep their generalizations within these bounds. Our own spirit in this matter is neither that of the religious dogmatist who refutes evolution by the simple recourse of damning it, nor the scientific idolator who thinks it impious to criticize anything in science and who looks upon evolution as a sacred cow. B. Types of evolutionary theory. The overwhelming number of Fundamentalist articles, booklets, and books on evolution which we have read set the scene for discussion of biology as follows: (i) a man believes in fiat, immediate creation; (ii) or he subscribes to atheistic, ungodly evolution ; or (iii), in a condition of mental weakness and intellectual confusion, he believes in theistic evolution. The facts of the case are not so simple. There are many types of evolution. We do not refer to such theories as orthogenesis or nomogenesis, nor to macromutations or micromutations, 11 but to the larger interpretations of the philosophy of biology. 11. For a rather complete history of theories of the mechanism of evolution see the epochal work of Philip G. Fotnergill, Historical Aspects of Organic Evolution (1952).
290 291 The Christian View of Science and Scripture
C. What is the real issue in evolution? It is this: is it in its essence antichristian? But this question is based upon a prior one of greater importance: when is any scientific theory antichristian? We cannot answer the former till we have worked out the details of the second. We must not so concentrate on evolution as to miss the essential structure of the relationship between any theory of science and Christianity. Evolution is contrary to Christianity only when it can be shown to be antichristian in essence, and that can only be shown when we can set forth the pattern by which any theory conflicts with Christianity. In order to do this intelligently we must pay some attention to the historical features of this problem 1. Many theories of science, once declared antichristian, are now held by millions of Christians with no evil effects on Christianity. It would be a very enlightening experience for many a hyper-Fundamentalist to read White's history of the conflict of theology with science, and note how many heretical beliefs of the past he now holds! Copernican astronomy was assailed with all the venom the Church theologians had. It was declared that if this astronomy is true, all the Bible is false and all its glorious doctrines! Today, the author has yet to meet an evangelical believer who crosses Copernicus. All the dire predictions about what would happen if Christianity admitted the truthfulness of Copernican astronomy failed to materialize! Another one of the violent debates was over the existence of the antipodes, the distant ends of the earth. That heresy of former centuries is now believed by all Christians! We now have missionaries at the antipodes ! Yet to believe in the antipodes at one time was to fly in the face of God's Holy Word, so we were told. It was not too long ago that surgical operations were considered as mutilations of the human body or wicked schemes to evade the curse of the Fall. Today there are hundreds of Christian surgeons, numerous medical missionaries, and thousands of evangelical Christians who yearly submit to operations. Vaccination was considered the work of the devil and a blasphemy against God, yet the arms of millions of Christians bear the telltale pattern of the needle. Pain-killers and anaesthesia were considered man's sinful devices of avoiding the curse of the Fall, yet morphine, aspirin, ether, etc., are administered daily to Christians and by Christian doctors. Open sewers were not closed up because that would be preventing plagues, and plagues were God's judgments upon man. Lightning rods were considered insults to God - holy bells in the towers were to keep lightning away. In all these cases dire predictions were made as to how Christianity would be dead or impossible of belief or that great apostasy would set in, yet these consequences have not followed. Millions of evangelicals believe today the terrible heresies of yesterday. Evidently there was a complete misunderstanding as to what was fatal to Christianity.
2. Further, many scientific theories of every kind are held today by evangelicals and that without controversy. Where is the anti-Einsteinian literature? the anti-Newtonian society? the anti-de Broglie booklets? The mass of evangelicals accept the mass of data in the mass of books of modern science. Why? Because nobody can find any point of friction between, say, the law of chemical valence, and Christianity. Most evangelicals accept modern dental and medical theory, and the same holds for atomic theory, chemical theory, and astrophysics. If there is danger in these theories it is not apparent as yet. Therefore, we acquiesce and permit these theories within the Christian fold. 3. The data of history drive us to the conclusion that a theory is antichristian when it denies something in Christian metaphysics, i.e., when it attacks the very roots of the Christian faith. The evolutionary theory of the origin of the religion of Israel is antichristian because it clearly
308 The Christian View of Science and Scripture
ological sense of the term. Differences among even the most diverging subgroups are not greater than those found between the manifold races of domesticated animals. On the contrary, as far as size, propor tions, and special features of the body or nuances of complexion or texture of the hair are concerned, the overwhelming majority of those differing features are much smaller in man than those encountered in animals which have been submitted to domestication.5 III. The Antiquity of the Human Race Warfield asserts [The antiquity of the human race] has of itself no theological significance. It is to theology, as such, a matter of entire indifference how long man has existed on earth. The reason for this assertion is obvious. The sin of Adam imputed to humanity depends on the unity of humanity, not on the antiquity of humanity. Theology is more concerned with the proof that man is one, rather than the near or far antiquity of man. polygeneticism is far more damaging to theology than any teaching of the vast antiquity of man. In order to clear the atmosphere about the antiquity of man certain notions very widespread among evangelicals must be corrected.
A. Incorrect notions about the study of fossil man. 1. It has been incorrectly asserted that the fossil remains of man are few and fragmentary. It is argued that from a small basketful of enigmatical bones an entire evolutionary history of humanity is constructed. This might have been the case a half century ago but it is no longer a valid objection. There are fifteen skulls or fragments of Sinanthropus Pekinensis, and of other prehistoric men there are as many as forty skeletons. For one Piltdown skull which must be given up there are one or two dozen to take its place. Dr. Broom has scurried around South 5. F. Weidenreich, Apes, Giants, and Man (1946), p. 2.
6. Warfield, op. cit., p. 238. Anthropology 309 Africa with great zeal, turning up numerous skulls. If a hundred Dr. Brooms were to work as diligently in all the world we might well fill a museum up with prehistoric human fossils. Evangelicals must seriously reckon with this as a real possibility and be prepared for it. The anthropologist cannot be discounted any longer on the grounds that all he has to work with is a basketful of controversial bones.?
2. It has been incorrectly asserted that the fossils are found in washes or other superficial places so that any vast antiquity cannot be deduced from where the fossils are found. Competent geologists now examine all fossil finds and such finds are held suspect until geologists have examined the site. We are now sure that there are fossils of man in places where they were not washed up nor covered up in some superficial drift but are part of a datable geological sequence. Smalley and Fetzer in their essay in Modern Science and Christian Faith present a considerable portion of this material ; and the total amount of material available is quite impressive. 3. It is incorrectly asserted that all these fossils are within distribution spreads of modern man. This cannot be maintained as some skulls are smaller than modern man and some are larger and some are more peculiarly shaped. Fetzer's judgment is: A careful study of comparative morphology shows that there are large differences between the struc ture of man today and the structure of many of the fossil men.8 7. Cf. the charts in Smalley and Fetzer, "A Christian View of Anthropology," Modern Science and Christian Faith (revised edition, 1950), pp. 169 ff. 8. Fetzer, op. cit., p. 161. Fetzer's charts and exposition are lucid summaries of anthropological knowledge of man's fossil history. They are worthy of careful study by any who wish to make a competent judgment about the antiquity of man. Most books on anthropology or physical anthropology supply pictures or drawings of fossil men so that with a careful eye and a little study their peculiarities may be noted.
310 The Christian View of Science and Scripture She observes that there is no evolutionary sequence demonstrable in these fossil finds of man. This observation coincides with the best of scholarship today among the physical anthropologists. 4. It is incorrectly asserted that geologists and anthropologists cannot be trusted in view of some of their stupid mistakes in the past. There is a collection of such mistakes that anti-evolutionary literature has been passing on from decade to decade. A scientist would say : "Yes, we made those mistakes. So what? All of the sciences have such a record. It is to be expected from the very nature of the scientific quest." The logic of the hyperorthodox is that if anthropologists have made same grave mistakes in the past we cannot trust them in anything they say of fossil men. The hyperorthodox create the impression that the study of fossil man is filled with guesses, surmises, and fanciful reconstructions to the degree that the entire procedure is very unscientific though carried on by scientists in the name of science. But it was the scientist who discovered his error and willingly rectified it. Science does have the self-corrective principle and over a period of time corrects itself. If science made the boner, science also made the correction. Since originally having penned the above paragraph the Piltdown hoax has come to light, and the facts of this case are a perfect illustration of the self-corrective principle in science. All of the dozen or so reports of the Piltdown hoax which we read in typical Fundamentalist journals missed the point of the entire affair. These editorials read for the most part as follows : (i) scientists admit the hoax of the Piltdown man; (ii) it shows how untrustworthy the entire evolutionary approach to anthropology is; and (iii) it proves that we must be suspicious of all finds. But what are the facts of the case? a) This hoax was discovered by scientists, not by the hyperorthodox. When the facts of the case were presented no scientist tried to cover up the facts, but they were Anthropology 311 freely admitted by all. To put it another way, if the scientists were hoaxed into the Piltdown affair by a scientist, they were corrected by scientists, and not by the hyperorthodox.
b) The Piltdown I find (there was also a Piltdown II find) was controversial from the first announcement of it, and there were two schools of interpretation. William Strauss says that the Piltdown man "evoked a controversy without equal in the history of paleontological sciences" ("The Great Piltdown Hoax," Science, 119:265, Feb., 26, 1954). Strauss gives a list of the scientists who said that the skull was human but the jawbone anthropoid.9 This find was not universally accepted by anthropologists as a genuine addition to paleontological knowledge. To cite Strauss again Certainly, those best qualified to have an opinion, especially those possessing a sound knowledge of human and primate anatomy have held largely .. . either to a dualistic [that the cranium and jawbone come from different creatures] or to a neutral inter pretation of the remains.io The clearing up of the hoax was due principally to two things : (i) the use of fluorine-dating of the bones ; and (ii) a discovering of the fact that the teeth of the jawbone had been artificially abrased and stained to give a human rather than a simian appearance. According to reliable anthropological and paleontological knowledge it seemed incredible that an anthropoid ape could be found in England in the Lower Pleistocene period. The history of fluorine-dating of bones commences with Morichini in 1802. More information was added by Middleton (1844) and Carnot (1892). Dr. Oakley in studying fluorine in connection with the last war decided that bones could be sorted by their fluorine content. Unnoticed by hyperorthodox journals, the Galley Hill skull was tested by Oakley's fluorine method in 1948 and redated from Middle 9. Strauss, op. cit., p. 266. 10. Ibid.
334 The Christian View of Science and Scripture history has been written under the terms of the Fall.42 The catalogue of human infamy, individual and corporate, is a sad, tragic, sinful, carnal murderous record, and at times who can doubt its being demonic and Satanic? What Bavinck says of the Fall and Scripture could be said of the Fall and history The Fall is the silent hypothesis of the whole Biblical doctrine of sin and redemption.43 The Fall is the silent hypothesis of human history. The curse fell upon the man, the woman, and the serpent. The two matters of the curse which have received the most attention have been the cursing of the ground, and the sentence of death. The answer to both is the realization that man was in a Paradise and that too frequently commentators have presumed that the same conditions obtained outside of the Garden as inside. Part of man's judgment was that he be turned out of that park and into the conditions prevalent in the rest of creation. Barrels of ink have been used to describe the effects of sin upon animals and nature. It has been categorically stated that all death came from man's sin. When Paul wrote that by sin death entered the world (Romans 5:12) it was presumed that the word world meant creation, not just humanity.441t was argued that before Adam sinned there was no death anywhere in the world and that all creatures were vegetarians. But this is all imposition on the record. Ideal conditions existed only in the Garden. There was disease and death and bloodshed in Nature long before man sinned. As we have shown in the chapter on geology, we cannot attribute all this death, disease, and bloodshed to the fall of Satan. Certainly the Scriptures do not teach that death entered the world through Satan! There is not 42. H. Butterfield, Christianity and History (1949). 43. Bavinck, loc. cit. 44. Kosmos, according to the lexicographers, not only means "world" but also "humanity." Anthropology 335 one clear, unequivocal, unambiguous line in the entire Bible which would enable us to point to the vast array of fossil life and state that all the death here involved is by reason of the sin and fall of Satan.
Life can live only on life. All diet must be protoplasmic. Are we to believe that the lion and tiger, the anteater and the shark, were all vegetarians till Adam fell, and that the sharp claws of the big cats and the magnificent array of teeth in a lion's mouth were for vegetarian purposes only? One might affirm that such a creation could hardly be called good, but that is prejudging what good means. The cycle of Nature is an amazing thing, and the relationship of life to life sets up a magnificent balance of Nature. Unless a very large number of certain forms of life are consumed, e.g., insects and fish, the earth would be shortly overpopulated with them. Some fish lay eggs into the millions and if all such eggs hatched the ocean would shortly be all fish. Carnivorous animals and fish keep the balance of Nature.
Outside of the Garden of Eden were death, disease, weeds, thistles, thorns, carnivores, deadly serpents, and intemperate weather. To think otherwise is to run counter to an immense avalanche of fact. Part of the blessedness of man was that he was spared all of these things in his Paradise, and part of the judgment of man was that he had to forsake such a Paradise and enter the world as it was outside of the Garden, where thistles grew and weeds were abundant and where wild animals roamed and where life was only possible by the sweat of man's brow (45). 45. For general confirmation of these opinions expressed here see B. P. Sutherland, "The Fall and Its Relation to Present Conditions in Nature," JASA, 2:14-19, December, 1950; and John Pye Smith, On the Relation Between the Holy Scriptures and some parts of Geological Science (1840). For example: "Some persons strangely affirm the contrary, and have supposed that, by persevering practice, lions and wolves and all carnivorous creatures might be brought to live on a vegetable diet. Every physiologist must smile at this monstrous absurdity," p. 242. The appeal to millennial conditions is a
336 The Christian View of Science and Scripture VI. The Origin of Races and Languages The derivation of all races from Noah is only possible if one accepts a universal flood or a flood as universal as man. It is pious fiction to believe that Noah had a black son, a brown son, and a white son. The derivation of the Negro from Ham is indefensible linguistically and anthropologically. The justification of slavery from Genesis 9:25-27 is one of the unhappiest examples of improper exegesis in the history of interpretation. If the flood were local and the judgment of God restricted to the wicked population of the Mesopotamian valley there is no necessity of deriving all races from Noah's sons. If the evidence is certain that the American Indian was in America around 8000 B.C. to 10,000 B.C., then a universal flood or a universal destruction of man, must be before that time, and due to Genesis and Babylonian parallels there is hardly an evangelical scholar who wishes to put the flood as early as 8000 B.C. to 10,000 B.C. An examination of the Table of Nations of Genesis 10 discloses that no mention of the Mongoloid or Negroid races is made4s Some anthropologists believe that it is impossible to make any racial distinctions among humans, others make two main divisions, but most accept with modifications and qualifications and exceptions the triadic Anthropology 337 division of Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid. As far as can be determined the early chapters of Genesis center around that stream of humanity (part of the Caucasoid race) which produced the Semitic family of nations of which the Hebrews were a member. The sons of Noah were all Caucasian as far as can be determined, and so were all of their descendants. The Table of Nations gives no hint of any Negroid or Mongoloid peoples. The Mongoloid and Negroids are not mentioned in the Bible till the times of the prophets (47). It is not our intention to try to identify all the peoples of the Table of Nations as that information may be gained from any good critical commentary. Suffice it to say that the effort to derive the races of the entire world from Noah's sons of the Table of Nations is not necessary from a Biblical standpoint, nor possible from an anthropological one. Genesis 10 contains a mixture of genealogical, ethnological, and geographical terms. It is a very important document of great antiquity. As Pinches reasons, it is limited to what could be gathered from travelers and merchants. Places where data could be readily had receive more attention than those where travel would be difficult or occasional. Dawson has examined this chapter too and records six observations which are very much in accord with the view expressed by Pinches. (i) The record restricts itself to the sons of Noah and says nothing about other peoples who might have survived the flood. Dawson believes in a local flood and that people outside the flood area would have been untouched by the flood. Genesis 10 says nothing of these people. (ii) This document is not a treatise on ethnological theory, but a factual, historical record of the migrations of men from a common center in Shinar in Mesopotamia. (iii) As such it refers just to the primary distribution of men from Shinar over certain districts, and does not attempt to teach us anything of subsequent migrations or subsequent history. (iv) It is not an effort
46. Cf. T. G. Pinches, "Table of Nations," ISBE, V, 2898-2901. non sequitur. We also have the support of the great Scottish scientist, J. B. Pettigrew in his monumental, Design in Nature (3 vols., 1908). After noting that life can only feed on life and that teeth and claws were given to carnivora for a good purpose he states: "Death, from the food point of view, was not therefore the outcome of disobedience and sin." I, 227. Later on he writes: "It must be added that if death became the punishment of disobedience in man it could not be so in the case of animals. As a matter of fact, death has from the first formed part of the great scheme of life." III, 1326. Dawson's opinion is that the statement in Genesis 1 seemingly restricting the diet of animals to herbs or vegetation is to be explained either as (i) a reference to those animals closely associated with man; or (ii) to the well-known biological fact that all animal life ultimately derives its sustenance from vegetation. J. W. Dawson, The Origin of the World According to Revelation and Science (1877), p. 241.
47. Cf. T. G. Pinches, "Africa," ISBE, I, 68.
Return to Pseudoscience Index
Return to Professor Dutch's Home Page
Created 21 January, 2003, Last Update 24 May, 2020
Not an official UW Green Bay site