Science in Christian Perspective
Letter to the Editor
Reply to Book Review of The Bible, Natural Science and Evolution
Russell W. Maatman
Department of Chemistry Dordt College Sioux Center, Iowa
From: JASA 23 (December 1971): 157-158
Two things about Dr. Bube's review I like. He does say some nice things. And I
do wish I could turn a phrase as well as Dr. Bube does. It isn't everyone who
can produce polysyllabic punches like "quasilogical, multi-hypothetical,
face-all-the-possibilities."
Time after time Bube does not reflect accurately what I said. It is
not practical
to quote my book as much as I would like in refutation of what he says. I do,
however, want to discuss four questions in connection with the review.
1. It would be very easy to discredit what I wrote if I implied (as
Bube suggests
I imply) that we must choose between "believing science"
and "believing
the Bible". In fact, I put heavy emphasis in the book on the
idea that conflict
between the Bible and science, both perfectly understood, is
impossible. Our understanding
is not perfect, and so the situation is just as Buhe says it is: We must work
with someone's interpretation of the Bible and (he seems to say)
someone's interpretation
of scientific data.
We cannot leave the matter at that point, as if we can never know anything. In
my book I discussed specific eases. I believe that each ease that arises should
be discussed on its own merits, and
that with each ease we should examine both the Bible and science. (Of course,
we are not to hold off all conclusions until all the evidence is in-at the end
of time-and we are to understand the context of questions being asked
in understanding
the approach I suggest. Furthermore, we might in the future have a
better interpretation
of the Bible and scientific data. Such a possibility can hardly he a reason for
saying nothing at the present time.) Such an approach is probably
seen by Christians
as the correct approach. Yet the method of examining both the Bible and science
is not used enough. Instead, we see over and over in the present discussion of
this question an argument that runs something as follows:
"Modern scientific
results have proved that [insert here: "the earth is not
flat", "the
three-story universe does not exist", "devils cannot
possess a person",
or another similar statement], and yet the Bible states that [insert
here: "the
earth is flat", "the universe consists of three
stories", "devils
can possess a person", etc.] Therefore, the Bible cannot be used
in scientific
questions. We must conclude that the Bible speaks to us only about our faith,
and not about our science."
In such an argument there is no serious attempt to examine both the Bible and
science. Instead, real or supposed scientific conclusions are used to
limit what
the Bible can tell us. In my book it is suggested
that there are answers to the argument given in the previous paragraph. It can
he shown that the Bible cannot state that the earth is flat or that
the universe
is three-storied. It can he shown that modern scientific results
cannot preclude
the possibility that devils did indeed possess certain persons. My disagreement
is with those who wish to discard either parts of the Bible by using science,
or parts of science by using the Bible. (For some reason, no one has
yet answered
my rather detailed discussion of the three-story universe question.) We ought
to discuss these matters, and we ought in all seriousness and good faith to go
forward in an effort to see the Bible in the light of science and
science in the
light of the Bible, with the belief that both are ultimately
infallible and without
error.
2. Buhe attempts to make quite a point out of the (correct) idea that Biblical
miracles have redemptive significance. lIe suggests that it is
therefore incorrect
to speak of miracles in connection with events some of us believe
took place instead
of the evolutionary process. In a sense he is correct. But what term should one
use if he wants to discuss the concepts of creationfrom-nothing and
the instantaneous
production of a living thing thing from something different? Surely
"miracle"
best approximates what is meant.
3. Bube implies that I admit "kind" is not an accurate
term, but that
I conclude the term is definite enough to preclude the possibility of evolution
of one kind from another. He gives only part of the story and thereby changes
the sense of what was said. I said, "Perhaps, given only our
present know/edge,
'kind' cannot be defined accurately." (p. 134) (I have for the
present purpose
italicized the words not quoted by Buhe.) The limitation concerning
"kind"
is only on our present knowledge. The quoted sentence occurs in a discussion in
which it was shown that "kind" was a definite, a precise, concept for
Noah and for the Israelites. This is part of the argument used to
show that kind-to-kind
evolution did not occur. Suppose someone read Bube's review but not the book,
Would he understand that in the book I offered Biblical proofs that
"kind"
was once a precise concept?
4. Bube may, of course, define theistic evolution in his own way. But surely he
is aware of the many discussions over the years concerning whether or not the
"dust" of Gen. 2:7 was organic (which means
"living" to many
people) or "inorganic". The question in these discussions would not
arise in quite the same way if theistic evolutionists generally identified, as
Bubo suggests, "dust" with the matter from which life evolved through
the various stages. In any event, the question of what theistic evolutionists
mean by "dust" is not essential to my argument.
It seems to me that Bube stumbles in one important place. One thing
in particular
he ought to explain. He says man's soul is produced "as a
continuous evolutionary
process." It would not be difficult to prove from Bube's writings that he
considers man, but not the animal precursers of man he thinks
existed, to be the
hearer of the image of God Man can sin; animals cannot. In holding
to this position,
Bube seems to believe that man is qualitatively different from
animals. Assuming
that we are to use the words "continuous" and
"qualitatively different"
in a precise fashion, I would like to know how a qualitative change
can take place
by a continoous process, a process which must be-if words mean
anything-a process
involving only a series of quantitative changes.*
In this connection, Bube ton easily discounts the interpretation I
gave to Gen.
2:7, describing the creation of man. lIe discounts my interpretation because of
other elements in the passage, such as the account of the talking serpent. In
Numbers 22-24 we are told how the Israelites were saved on the plains of Moab.
Are we to take the story as symbolic because in the story there is a
talking donkey?
Theistic evolutionists have the same problem here that they have with the idea
of the instantaneous creation of animals from non-living matter. They
are certain
such a creation cannot be the kind of creation referred to in Genesis 1, even
though such a rapid transformation is described in Exodus 4 as Moses'
rod became
a serpent. With both the talking serpent and the creation of animals it seems
better to the theistic evolutionists to put the first chapters of Genesis in a
category different from the rest of the Bible.
Dr. Bube and I know each other quite well, and we have discussed many of these
matters face to face. I am sure he has enjoyed these discussions as much as I
have. And so I shall be thinking not only of what he has said in
personal discussions,
but also of what he has written, I am afraid that I shall keep thinking of the
terrifying bull-in-a-china-shop which Bube describes. The reader of
Buhe's review
will note that his bull (which he discusses after he is finished with Anselm)
is much more dangerous than the usual kind of bull. His bull, as he describes
it, not only thrashes about; it also wields a sledge hammer.**
*Transformation of water to steam by continuous increase of
temperature? RHB
**We all get carried away. Forget the sledge hammer. RHB.