Science in Christian Perspective
Letter to the Editor
Private Interpretation Dangerous
Donald C. Boardman
Department of Geology
Wheaton College Wheaton, Illinois 60187
From: JASA 23 (June 1971): 78
Thomas Key's letter (Journal ASA 22, 35 (1970)) chides the geologists
in the ASA
for not speaking up regarding the matter of flood geology. Actually, there has
been considerable response to Whitcomb and Morris' The Genesis Flood since the
time it was first reviewed in the March 1964 Journal. About 30 pages have
been devoted to discussions of the reviews and van der Fliert's article last
September. The
problem is not that geologists are unwilling to discuss the
relationships between
their discipline and the Scriptures but the fact that some persons are willing
to accept a discussion only if a certain interpretation of Scriptures
is accepted.
It is important for us to put the Scriptures in their proper place. The purpose
of the Scriptures is summarized in John 20:31 "But these are written that
ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that believing ye
may have life in His name." John 5:39,40 "You search the scriptures
because you think that in them you have eternal life; and these are they which
bear witness of me; and ye would not come to me that ye may have
life."
It is true many things are learned by accepting the instructions and
admonitions
of Scripture. However, the private interpretations of passages which
are not vital
to a person's belief in Christ can be dangerous. Professor Morris
writes: "The
real crux of the matter, however, is 'What saith Scripture?' In The
Genesis Flood,
as well as in other writings, Dr. Whitcomb and I have maintained,
with a considerable
number of straightforward Biblical arguments, that the Bible teaches a recent
special Creation of all things and a world-wide Flood, and that there
is no permissible
interpretation of the Bible which can accommodate evolution and the geological
ages. No one has answered these arguments to date."
You will notice that he says he maintains "that the Bible teaches a recent
special Creation of all things and a world-wide Flood, and that there
is no permissible
interpretation of the Bible which can accommodate evolution and the geological
ages." This is Dr. Morris' interpretation. When he says that no
one has answered
this argument to date, he means that no one has answered it to his
satisfaction,
not that no one has answered to the satisfaction of many Christians. Dr. Key's
account of Dr. Whitcomb's visit to Ball State indicates that the authors of
The
Genesis Flood are not interested in evidence because they already
have their minds
made up. Evidently some people at Ball State felt Dr. Whitcomb's arguments had
been met.
Dr. Morris is also mistaken in putting evolution and the geologic ages together
as if they were synonymous. It is quite possible for a person to
believe in geologic
ages and not believe in evolution, as well as it might he possible to believe
in evolution and not in geologic ages.
It is interesting also to notice in the letter from Mr. Wheeless (Journal ASA
22, 37 (1970) ), he criticizes van de Fliert because "his
arguments are what
you find in the average book on the subject". Again, there is a
misconception
in assuming the facts of the Scriptures and the facts of geology are
contradictory.