Science in Christian Perspective
Letter to the Editor
Tone Down the Rhetoric
John M. (Kim) Battean
Westminster Theological Seminary,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
From: JASA 24 (June 1972): 75
Let me first say how much I have enjoyed the Journal ASA (reading it
here in our
library). It has provoked me and helped me. I particularly appreciate
your willingness
to let Christians with different views express themselves. This is a refreshing
change in a day of strict party lines.
I graduated from Harvard ('68) and am now a student here at Westminster. I've
had an interest in "science" (whatever that is distinct
from "truth")
for several years. I spent a year systems programming for I.B.M. in
Poughkeepsie
before coming to Westminster.
My concern in writing this letter is that of fearing that the ASA may
be lapsing
into a party linetheistic evolution. I realize that since the break-off of the
Creation Research People, you are more or less inclined to debunk
flood geology,
etc. but I do hope that as Christianc you will not close your minds to truth.
I perceive that in the tone of many of your contributing writers is a
superiority
("these idiot Morris-Whitcombites") which is far from a
Christian attitude.
Several essays indicated this to me. I believe you printed van de
Fliert's article,
"Fundamentalism and Fundamentals of Geology," (Journal ASA
21, 69 (1969))
from the original in the International Reformed Bulletin. Van de
Fliert's attitude
toward the flood theory and its proponents is, to say the least, haughty in its
assumed omniscience. Van de Fliert presupposes the absolute truth of
his position
in order to discredit the other! Thus his "disproof"
consists in spewing
back contemporary uniformitarian assumptions and "facts"-it
is unthinkable
ostensibly for him to even consider any other hypothesis. This is not Christian
thinking. Is tradition a sacred cow? (I realize he says science
changes, but how
much of a change is the question.)
In Journal ASA 23 No. 1 (1971) I find this same closed-mindedness in Seeley's
articles. He speaks of "flood geology" (p. 26) as a "widespread
delusion," "mythology", "pseudo-science," "giant
cancer," "obscurantism," etc. Where is Christian
courtesy in this
barrage of hostility? let alone "scientific objectivity"?
Name-calling, on either side of this issue, is uncalled for. I must say that I,
having studied this issue with some diligence, (for example I took a course at
Harvard in the History of Biology, criticized Darwin and Huxley in detail, got
an A in the course), see tremendous possibilities in this Flood theory. Am I an
obscurantist, cancer-ridden idiot?
Please tone down the rhetoric and turn up the real interchange of opinion.
Scripture must he incrrant in "science." It is God's Word,
His- interpretation
of creation, and thus needs no interpretation. However in correlating
the Divine
Word to the creation, pseudoproblems may arise (only in the creation) because
(a) man can never be omniscient and (b) the task of science is
subordinate to
worship, and when this is reversed (Humanism) everything becomes meaningless,
including the "I" of the scientific "investigator."