Evaluation of Creationist Doctrine

An Evaluation of the Creationist Doctrine of Creation and Philosophy of Science

Taken from a lecture given by Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. in the University Community Church Seminar Series

Comments are welcome and encouraged. Please send them to ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu

Preface
But has it?
Hos does creationism affect the way that we view the world?
Philisophical views of science
So how do creationists view science?
Neo-creationism
Conclusion
Postscript
Notes

PREFACE

O
n June 22, 1633, after a lengthy interrogation that carried the threat of torture, a 70 year old man was made to kneel before a papal tribunal in Rome and to offer this forced confession of heresy,

"...whereas after an injunction had been lawfully intimated to me by this Holy Office to the effect that I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immobile, and that the earth is not the center of the world and moves...I have been judged to be vehemently suspected of heresy...Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of Your Eminences, and of all faithful Christians, this vehement suspicion rightly conceived against me, with sincere heart and unpretended faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies..."

Then, as legend has it, this man, Galleo Galilei rose to his feet and muttered under his breath, but just loud enough for a supporter to hear, "But I KNOW it moves" (1).

History shows that in this episode, the church misinterpreted the bible, particularly those verses in the Psalms which state that the earth has been formed and shall not move, as well as Joshua's command that the sun stand still. In this case, science provided a clearer understanding of the Creation than Biblical interpretation did. Surely in the last 300 years, the church and science have grown and learned from this experience so that this type of scene is only an historical anomaly. Surely the church would not convict someone of heresy over a disputable matter concerning issues of natural history that are not central to salvation or faith.

But has it?

Let us fast-forward to more recent times, in fact to August 4th and 5th, 1995, in which the Session of the Harvest Orthodox Presbyterian Church tried and found Terry Gray, a chemistry professor at Calvin College to be guilty of heresy for believing in human evolution. Professor Gray is what some would call a "theistic evolutionist", or as he prefers to be called, an "evolutionary creationist". Prof. Gray is a devout Christian, but because he and his church disagreed on whether the text in Genesis 2.7 allows a non-literal meaning of the single word "dust" (2), they decided to confront his heterodoxy in attempt to enforce upon him their orthodox viewpoint that really has nothing to do with understanding that Christ died in payment for our sins.

I have been keenly aware of the Christian antipathy to evolution since I was in graduate school in Texas in the early 80s. At that time and place, conservative Christians were very present in the public eye, perhaps partly a consequence of the Reagan revolution. The Institute for Creation Research and the issue of teaching creation science in public schools were in the news. The prevailing conservative Christian response to evolution became visible as an attempt to diminish evolution as a legitimate science while, at the same time, promoting the legitimacy of creation science--an attempt at scientific revisionism, if you will. Creationists claimed that they were left on the fringe of science because only secular scientists were able to define what is and what is not science. Notice, however, that the response of the Creationists at this time was an attempt to redefine science in a way that was favorable to their cause. Basically, they tried to marginalize evolution science as they claimed secular science had done to them.

Because the evolution/creation controversy continues and even fluorishes today, I want to examine some aspects of the issue. Last week R.J. (Sam) Berry, a professor of genetics from the University of London, spoke at this forum. In his talk entitled "Developing a Christian Mind: Integrating Faith and Reason", he pointed out that in order to develop a well integrated Christian viewpoint on important issues, one must consider the issue from the viewpoint of Christian Tradition, Scripture, and Reason. Today, I want to examine the Christian response to evolution from two of these perspectives, Tradition and Reason. In doing so, I will ask how does the anti-evolution viewpoint affect the way that we view the creation and what is the historical Christian tradition behind such a viewpoint. Then I will examine the Reason side of things and ask how does the anti-evolution viewpoint affect the way one looks at science.

I will not deal with biblical issues concerning the origin of life. Nor will I provide any critique of the merits or weaknesses of evolution science or of creation science since these areas have been dealt with ad nauseam by the various champions of both sides.

HOW DOES CREATIONISM AFFECT THE WAY THAT WE VIEW THE WORLD?

Or, posed differently, what are the underlying commitments of Christian faith that impel rejection of evolutionary continuity in the development of life on earth? The answer to this question does not come from scientific or philosophical considerations, but from specific beliefs about what Christians believe that the Bible requires of them. In this context, creationists of various stripes believe that:

the Bible teaches that God created by a succession of miraculous acts, and more importantly that
these special creative acts serve to bridge specific discontinuities or gaps in the developmental economy of nature.

Here, by the term "developmental economy" I mean the succession of developmental events that lead, over time, from the initial creation to final forms (3). For example, subatomic particles assemble into atoms which become become molecules. On one hand, molecules go on to become stars and planets, or on the other hand assemble into more and more complex bio-molecules that culminate in life. Such a developmental economy can be viewed as being complete and self-sustaining as an evolutionist would believe, or as understood by creationists, the developmental economy can be viewed as being incomplete and requiring special intervention to bridge certain gaps in the economy in order for the final forms to be fully realized.

Thus, the creationist viewpoint requires that, in the beginning, God purposively withheld certain developmental capabilities from the creation so that it would be necessary for Him to perform special miracles at certain times in its formative history in order to bring into existence those things, such as living beings, that GOD'S CREATION ITSELF WAS NOT EQUIPPED TO FORM.

In other words, creationists believe that certain developmental discontinuities were present at the moment the cosmos came into being. The leap from the absence of life to the presence of life, from simple to complex organisms, and from primates to humans are some examples of developmental gaps that creationists feel required God's special intervention because the creation itself did not have the capability to bridge them.

The modern creationist viewpoint further holds to certain corollaries of this discontinuous functional integrity of the creation. I just list these here and will not attempt to derive or explain them further.

First, creationists tend to believe that the developmental discontinuities are beyond the realm of natural explanation
Second, and related to the first point, creationists tend to hold that knowledge about HOW God went about filling these gaps remains forbidden to us.
And finally, that any scientific proposal, such as evolution, that is based on a gapless or a continuous developmental economy constitutes a threat to the Christian doctrine of creation.

Given this line of reasoning, it is easy to understand how, for Christians who believe in the doctrine of special creation, evolution is antithetical to Christianity. And as a result of the confrontation with evolution, creationism has assumed a position as a central tenant of Christian faith. By assuming this position, creationism becomes what Van Till calls an important "deliverance of faith" that must be defended in order to preserve the integrity of Christian tradition.

By "deliverance of faith", Van Till means that the central importance of creationist doctrine in our faith is assumed to follow a significant historical tradition. But is it safe to assume that this view of a discontinuous creation has been a central concept in the historic Christian doctrine of creation? In other words, is creationism a deliverance of faith?

To examine this point, let us look very briefly at the thoughts of two theologians who have figured prominantly in forming the historic Christian doctrine of creation (4). These include Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354-430) and Basil, Bishop of Caesarea (330-379).

St. Basil wrote a text entitled, "Homilies on the Hexaemeron" (which is interpreted as the six days of creation). In this he explained his belief that in the beginning, when God called the whole of creation into existence, He imbued it with the developmental capability to assemble, over time, into the myriad of final forms that God had in mind. All matter in its various final forms was the intentional product of God's INITIAL act of creation. In this view, the creation is OBEDIENT over time to God's primary will. Specifically, Basil wrote (5),

"God did not command the earth immediately to give forth seed and fruit, but to produce germs, to grow green, and [then] to arrive at maturity... so that this FIRST COMMAND teaches nature what she has to do in the course of the ages".

And elsewhere he wrote,

"Like tops, which after the first impulse, continue their (r)evolutions,....; thus nature, receiving the impulse of this FIRST COMMAND, follows WITHOUT INTERRUPTION the course of the ages, until the consummation of all things".

and finally that,

"Our God has created nothing unnecessarily and has OMITTED NOTHING THAT IS NECESSARY."

Basil believed that, from the beginning, nature was gifted with all things necessary for the continuity of its development. In other words, he believed that at the beginning, the creation had full functional integrity. Especially in the last phrase, "has ommitted nothing that is necessary", we see that Basil did not hold to a concept of developmental discontinuity that is required by the modern creationist viewpoint.

St. Augustine, in a treatise which title is translated as THE LITERAL MEANING OF GENESIS, commented on the first three chapters of the Old Testament book of Genesis. He also wrote extensively on the creation and about God's creative act in his CONFESSIONS and in a commentary on the Trinity. From these sources, we see that Augustine believed that the structure of the "days" mentioned in Genesis is intended to teach the ORDER in creation and not HOW LONG God took to create. Stated differently he believed that God created IN time, but not OVER time.

Therefore, like Basil, Augustine believed that God created all things instantaneously, but he did not believe that everthing was instantaneously created in its final form. Here he relied on Greek philosophy to resolve an exegetical problem--which is how to maintain that God's creative activity is truly completed in the beginning, yet taking full account of commonsense notions regarding the obvious development of natural things. Augustine believed that, in the beginning, many of the final forms of the creation existed not actually, but potentially as "causal reasons" or "seed principles", to use his own words. In the context of the evolution/creation debate, it is noteworthy that in his treatise on Genesis, Augustine also applied the doctrine of seedlike principles to the origin of Adam and Eve, saying that they arose from a created earth-substance he called "slime". Thus, Augustine believed that God created and imbued an unformed but formable cosmos with a full spectrum of "seed principles" necessary to, over time, give rise to all the final forms that FIRST EXISTED IN THE MIND OF GOD.

In the LITERAL MEANING OF GENESIS, he wrote that,

"...from the beginning of the ages, when day was made, the world is said to have been formed, and in its elements at the same time there were laid away the creatures that would later spring forth with the passage of time..."

And in a commentary on the Trinity, he noted that,

"...all...things were created at the beginning, being primordially woven into the texture of the world; but they await the proper opportunity for their appearance."

In CONFESSIONS, Augustine claimed that,

"...it is by your (God's) Word that all things are made which you say are to be made. You create them by your Word alone...Yet the things which you create by your Word do not all come into being at one and the same time..."

In THE LITERAL MEANING OF GENESIS, he observed that,

"...some works belonged to the invisible days in which He created all thinks simultaneously, and others belong to the days in which He DAILY FASHIONS whatever evolves in the course of time from what I might call the primordial wrappers."

So Augustine viewed the initial creative acts as happening in what he called the "invisible days" while God's continuing involvement in the creation belongs to His daily works.

Here, I need to point out that neither Basil nor Augustine envisioned a evolutionary model for the formation of life since this was an unknown concept in their day. But their view is that the creation is characterized by a COMPLETE FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY that is contrary to the viewpoint of modern creationism which disavows any sort of discontinuous integrity of the cosmos and, instead, requires God's special and miraculous intervention in order for the development of final forms to become fully realized.

So the question arises, if, as the examples from Augustine and Basil show, the basis for a discontinuous creation cannot be legitimately considered as an unchangeable "deliverance of faith" that has been handed down through the centuries, how did we get here?

THE ORIGIN OF THE MODERN DOCTRINE OF CREATION IN THE U.S.

It may surprise many that the modern doctrine special creation only gained prominence early in this century, peaking with the Scopes trial in 1925, then waning until the publication of the book, THE GENESIS FLOOD, which created a revival of special creationism that continues today. Basically, in 1859 when Charles Darwin published his book, ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, Christian scientists widely believed in an old earth and in a local flood that did not affect the general geology of the earth. By the end of the 19th century, evolution was even taking hold within the ranks of mainstream Christians. Furthermore, many theories of evolution had been proposed before Darwin's time and none of them attracted significant attention from the Christian community (6). In other words, it is only recently that the idea of a gapless developmental economy has been widely viewed as antagonistic to Christian faith, and only recently has creationism assumed the position as a central tenant of Christian faith.

In this country, between 1910 and 1915, in response to a growing challenge to Christianity from the rising influence of the so-called social gospel, and from the secularization of theology as a result of something coming from the German school of theology called, "higher criticism", a series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" was published. These pamphlets represented a compendium of the basics of Christian belief, and are the origin of the term "fundamentalism", and the beginning of the fundamentalist Christian movement.

However, it is important to realize that at this time, Christian fundamentalists were not generally hostile to evolution (7). They disagreed with some of the conclusions from evolution, but one of the Fundamentalist pamphlets even discussed the relatedness between humans and apes. It is also interesting to note that, William Jennings Bryan, the famous anti-evolutionist attorny in the Scopes trial, privately confessed that he had no problem with evolution, except for humans.

It was WWI that proved to be a watershed in this general accomodation of evolution by fundamental Christians. The immense carnage and destruction that had never before been encountered led people to search for an explanation of how such a horrendous thing could be perpetuated. People began pointing to the evolutionary concept that humans and apes share common ancestry--the result they believed was to teach that humans are mere animals and to ignore the fact that humans are also created in the image of God. It became popular to believe that this resulted in a social de-humanization that made possible the atrocities of WWI.

From this sentiment, a movement developed in the 1920's to completely outlaw the teaching of evolution. This movement culminated in the Scopes trial in 1925 in which a high school biology teacher, John Scopes, was convicted of teaching evolution. Bryan was called in to assist with the prosecution and in anticipation of arguments on the scientific merits of evolution, he sought the best scientific minds in the creationist camp to serve as expert witnesses. However,

>Howard Kelly, a physician at Johns Hopkins, who contributed to the section on creation in the "Fundamentals" pamphlets, declined Bryan's invitation and confessed that, except for Adam and Eve, he believed in evolution.

>Louis T. More, a physicist who wrote a book entitled THE DOGMA OF EVOLUTION also declined, replying that he accepted evolution as a reasonable hypothesis.

>Alfred W. McCann, author of GOD--OR GORILLA, lectured Bryan for trying "to bottle up the tendencies of men to think for themselves"

>and Henry Rimmer, a self-proclaimed geologist and ardent creationist in the Seventh Day Adventist Church was in England and not available; how-ever, he advised Bryan to stay away from issues of science.

The Scopes trial itself generated a great deal of negative publicity and the budding anti-evolution movement lost influence among Christians for the next 30 yrs. Yet, an ember of the movement continued among certain individuals and organizations such as the World's Christian Fundamentals Association, a pre-millenialist body founded by William Bell Riley, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Minneapolis. One creationist from this group, T.T. Martin, wrote that the German soldiers who, in WWI, killed Belgian and French children with poisoned candy were angels compared with teachers and textbook writers who, as he believed, corrupted the souls of children with false teaching, thereby sentencing them to eternal death.

Other leaders of what historian Ronald Numbers termed the "underground anti-evolution movement" included Seventh Day Adventists, Henry Rimmer, and George McReady Price, both of whom had little formal science education, but who billed themselves as scientists and published self-described REAL scientific texts of geology. There was also Helen G. White, a self-declared prophetess from the Seventh Day Adventist Church who claimed divine inspiration for her revolutionary view that a world-wide Noahchian flood accounted for the geologic column and the fossil record, a belief currently held by scientific creationists.

In the 1950s, a young theologian, John Whitcomb, attempted, with little success to publish a book on Genesis and geology that incorporated the so-called "flood geology" that was initially propounded by Helen White. In 1953, Whitcomb met Henry Morris who was working on a degree in hydraulic engineering and was, therefore, able to lend some scientific credibility to Whitcomb's viewpoints. In 1961, they published THE GENESIS FLOOD. Although the book did not present much that was conceptually different from what had been written previously by Rimmer and Price, the success of the book, according to Ronald Numbers, was due to the fact that it was produced in a scholarly fashion, complete with technical terminology, figures, diagrams and annotations similar to what is found in most scientific texts.

The GENESIS FLOOD had an enormous impact on the conservative church and ushered in a renaissance of flood geology among conservative Christians. Creationism grew from being a predominately Seventh Day Advantist doctrine to a doctrine widely held among fundamental and evangelical Christians. This led to the formation of the Creation Research Society which catered to scientists who were creationists. Also formed at this time was the Bible-Science Association, a predominately lay organization that published the "Bible-Science Newsletter" that vigorously promoted the White-Morris-Whitcomb flood-geology/creationist viewpoint. The Association also provided a forum for some in the creationist movement who did not believe that the sun was the center of the solar system, and who believed that Einstein's theory of relativity "was invented in order to circumvent the evidence that earth is at rest".

Eventually, Henry Morris from the CRS, and two housewives from the Bible Science Association, in affiliation with Heritage College in San Diego, formed the Creation-Science Research Center. After a couple of years, a difference in personalities and objectives caused the group to split and Henry Morris founded the Institute for Creation Research in 1972, which exists and thrives today.

During this period, a major shift in the tactics of the antievolution campaign came about. Rather than trying to have evolution outlawed in the public schools as attempted prior to the Scopes trial, the antievolution movement began efforts to legitimize creation science and to down play the Genesis story. Thus, scientific creationism was born. As I mentioned in the beginning of this talk, the legitimization of scientific creationism proceeded on two fronts. On one hand, they attempted to attack the scientific merits of evolution science and at the same time, to elevate scientific creationism to a status of legitimacy. By this time, creationism had become a central dogma in the Christian doctrine of creation.

To briefly summarize what has been covered this far: There has not been an unbroken historical "deliverance of faith" regarding the viewpoint of the discontinuity of the universe in Christian creation doctrine. Augustine and Basil left us with a vitalistic concept of the creation that was somehow overturned in favor of a view of creation as a discontinuous process that required God's special intervention at certain critical junctures. This creation doctrine is with us now in different forms such as the so-called young-earth creationism and progressive creationism. These different creationist positions basically differ in the way they view the six day creation account in Genesis, yet they attack evolution science from similar philosophical grounds.

Rather than deal with the nuances of the different creationist beliefs, I want to, at this point, address the question, how does creationism affect one' view of science and philosophy?

PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS OF SCIENCE

In order to examine what creation doctrine requires of science I first need to briefly explain some of the historic viewpoints held by philosophers of science. Science, like all other scholarly activity has its roots in philosophy. Science developed from a branch of philosophy that asked questions about the natural world. As such, science became a subdiscipline called "natural philosophy".

In the history of philosophy, one finds the common and recurring desire of philosophers to develop a totally rational, self evident philosophical method from which to objectively learn unambiguous truths of the world. According to the philosopher, Derek Gjersten, this desire for complete rationality and objectivity can be traced to the influence of Euclidian geometry on philosophy (8). If you remember from high school geometry, Euclid employed self evident axioms from which to determine absolute proofs of geometric phenomena. Philosophers have tried, without success, to achieve this level of rational and objective perfection in their broader exploration of the world.

The late medieval period ushered in an increasing emphasis on method in natural philosophy that first developed into what is called rational inductivism. Inductive logic has its origins with Aristotle, but it was Francis Bacon who took this to the extreme and developed a new approach to science called eliminative or Baconian Inductivism. The requirements of this new method of natural philosophy were as follows (9):

1. Science is completely RATIONAL.
In other words, when done properly, science completely eliminates human bias and subjectivism.

2. The scientific process is completely EMPIRICAL.
It only concerns itself with observational data that are neutral and universally shared between different observers.

3. Science is completely OBJECTIVE.
The results one arrives at are dictated only by nature.

So, the way that science is to be done according to Bacon, is for a completely rational observer to record observational data in some purely objective manner, totally free from all prejudices and having no prior preference concerning what theory should be correct. Data collected in such an objective manner are then organized by the logical process of induction, again without the influence of any presuppositions. From this, correct generalizations will emerge out of the organized data.

This means that

any preselection of the data that are recorded represents an unacceptable bias and
to make an hypothesis, is to inappropriately inject subjectivsm into the method.

This view of science is seriously inadequate for three reasons:

First, data are not simply collected as they come. This would result in a collection of bits of information largely unrelated and irrelevant to whatever is being studied. Even if such data were collected, it still requires one to sort the relevant from the irrelevant which requires some preconceived notion about the topic of study. In reality, data collection is, in fact, guided by an a prioi hypothesis and data are not collected in the absence of all presuppositions.
Second, data are not self-organizing. Rather, data are categorized and organized according to an a priori theory.
Finally, the logical inductive step is impossible because the theories and explanatory principles that arise from science are the products of human insight and creativity and are not simply the logical results of data. It takes imagination in order to go from a body of data to a theoretical account of that data.

So, contrary to the Baconian inductivist view, when scientists collect data, we do so with certain presuppositions about what data are likely to be relevant and irrelevant to the particular study. When scientists organize data, it is done according to previously conceived theories about how the data should fit together. Finally, conclusions that we make from empirical data are not simply the logical consequences of the data. Rather, they are the results of creative insights on the part of the observer.

With this backgound, let us now look at the how creationists view the scientific method. Let's revisit the classical creationist viewpoint that discontintuities existed in the functional integrity of the creation that necessitated God's special intervention and ask how does this comport with the philosophy of science.

First, the existence of such discontinuities implies that the UNIVERSE IS NOT UNIFORM. But, if you think about it, science works on the presupposition that the universe is, in fact, uniform. In other words, I am confident that when I do an experiment in my laboratory, identical results will be obtained if somebody else does the experiment under the same conditions. Furthermore, if the experimental conditions are constant, identical results will be obtained 1000 years into the future and would have been obtained 1000 years into the past. Thus, this uniformity principle by which science operates is clearly not compatible with the discontinuities of classical creationism.

So how do creationists view science?

Simply stated, the classical creationist position holds that the acceptance of uniformity in nature represents a philosophical presupposition that is inherently anti-theistic. Furthermore, according to creationists, since the uniformitarian view embodies a philosophical presupposition, they claim that it is unscientific to hold such a presupposition when doing science because this interjects an unacceptable subjectivity into science. If this sounds suspisciously close to the Baconian inductivist model of science, it is because creationism defines science according to the Baconian view. In numerous publications, the Institute for Creation Research defines science as follows (9):

"A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws which include trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truths within this domain."

With this Baconian definition of science, creationists can point to the fact that evolution is not a fact, but a theory, and since theories have no place in this inductivist view of science, creationists argue that evolution is not science. But they use an archaic Baconian version of science that, as I explained above, is really unworkable.

Briefly, other ways that creationism criticizes science:

Creationists also point out that evolution is not observable, so therefore, cannot be empirically tested (i.e., is not falsifiable). Strangely enough this represents a positivistic philosophy that has been used to argue against Christianity. Taken to an extreme, positivism is used by some to claim, for example, that atomic theory is false because no one has seen an atom. However, it should be pointed out that when dealing with theories, such as evolution theory, we deal with something that is not fully observed. That is, by definition, theories are ideas that have not been proven.
Creationists also point to anomalies of evolution science that appear to be inconsistent with the proposed model. This is certainly the way by which one scientific theory is eventually overturned in favor of another theory, and is in fact how Darwinian evolution overturned other models of evolution that came before (6). But the resistance of Darwinian evolution to change is a component of science that, according to Thomas Kuhn, is not unique to evolution (11).

NEO-CREATIONISM

Let's now consider what some call the neo-creationist viewpoint of science that seems to be rising in popularity. Proponents of what I refer to as "neo-creation doctrine" do not necessarily hold to a literal account of Genesis, especially regarding the young earth viewpoint and the literal six day creation. Rather, the neo-creationists are perhaps better thought of as those who reject evolution on scientific or philosophical grounds rather than on the basis of theology. The central component of this doctrine is that evolution science is not proven and therefore, false. Therefore, since we have no valid scientific explanation of creation, then the truth must lie in a non-scientific, or supernaturalistic explanation. The chief proponent of this viewpoint is Philip Johnson, professor of Law at UC Berkley, and the author of DARWIN ON TRIAL that came out a couple of years ago. More recently he published the book, REASON IN THE BALANCE.

As defined by Phil Johnson, the neo-creationist viewpoint is one of RATIONAL REALISM that does not put a priori limits on knowledge. Thus, what Johnson refers to as "theistic realism" is a willingness to embrace EITHER naturalistic or supernaturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. In contrast, those who Johnson lables as "methodological naturalists" (e.g., secular scientists) automatically exclude the possibility of the supernatural workings of God in nature and therefore exclude an important sphere of truth (12).

The potential intellectual advantage of the "theological realist" position is a willingness to consider all possible explanations for natural phenomona and then to settle on the one that is best supported by the data. By definition, this should place no a priori limits on the possible explanations for a phenomenon and seems to be very open-minded. Yet, Johnson and those who support of this neo-creation viewpoint too often succomb to a presuppositional acceptance of certain explanations over others. For instance, the prevailing viewpoint of those with whom I have talked goes like this: There are significant problems with Darwinian evolution and it remains unproven. Therefore, the only alternative to consider is a supernatural explanation of creation.

Lets look at the underlying logic behind this statement.

There is an attempt here to de-legitimize evolution science by pointing out that it has never been proven. But this doesn't distinguish the evolution model from any other theory. By definition, a theory is something unproven. Going back to the Galileo example, contrary to what we learned in grade school, Galileo never proved that the sun was at the center of the solar system. Yet he was a staunch proponent of heliocentrism because the movement of the planets fit this particular model better than the geocentric model. Because he never PROVED the heliocentric model, the Church summarily dismissed this model in favor of the view that the earth does not move which they thought was supported by the bible. Although heliocentrism was not proven, we clearly know now that it was not, therefore, false.
Why is the only alternative to evolution, a supernatural explanation? If some other naturalistic model comes along that provides a more compelling explanation of the data than Darwinian evolution, can't this model be entertained? A related question is: At what stage do we know that there is NO naturalistic explanation for observed phenomena? Here, the "theistic realist" succombs to a bias of supernaturalism that colors the way that he views nature in precisely the same way that he claims that naturalism represents a biased view of the world.
Finally neo-creationists point out that supernaturalistic explanations of observed phenomena are legitimate alternatives to the explanations provided by science. This is a valid point, but it must be recognized that the existence of alternative theories says nothing about the validity of ANY of the proposed theories. It is incorrect to assume that a valid theory will be the only one to fit a given set of data, since any collection of data can be explained by a variety of theories. This is a philosophical principle called "underdetermination of theory by data".

CONCLUSION

Going back to the Galileo example that I began with: It has been pointed out by historians that the church was wrong to convict Galileo of heresy since Galileo, by teaching geocentrism, did not violate church law as laid down by the Council of Trent. Nor did he violate any of the essential elements of the historic doctrine of Biblical authority in understanding the natural world (1). In other words, the church itself violated its own doctrine of justice in convicting Galileo. From this example we see the importance of knowing and understanding the essential elements of the historic doctrine of creation as handed down by our church fathers. These historic doctrines--what Prof. Berry refers to as Tradition, or what Prof. Van Till refers to as "deliverances of faith", aid our understanding of scripture, but unfortunately are too often not taught in the evangelical church. When did we decide to ignore the tradition that set down by Augustine and Basil?

POSTSCRIPT

I participate in an internet discussion group that was started by Prof. Philip Johnson and which now includes about 150 people world wide. Recently the following loaded question was posed by one of the anti-evolution participants: "Who is more interested in truth--the secular scientist who places her faith in incomplete and weak empirical data to support her belief in evolution, or the theist who believes in the biblical account of the creation?"

To which I replied that the one really interested in truth is not the one with the best apologetic argument, but the one who understands and admits the limits of what she believes to be true. This appreciation of truth is, I feel, often left out of both sides of the creation/evolution debate. It is my hope that through this paper, Christians, at least, will come to understand the limits of knowledge regarding the natural world and will, therefore, represent a more honest position than the secular anti-theist in this ongoing debate.

NOTES

1. I use the words, creation, cosmos and nature interchangeably. Unless I state otherwise, when I mention "creationism", I mean the general viewpoint that life, particularly human life, was created by God's special action in history. When I use the term evolution, I refer to the general theory of evolution which holds that all life arose from a process of progressive, self-contained change that took place over a great length of time and without the intervention of a creator at specific points along the way. With limited exception, I do not wish to distinguish between the subtle varities of the creationist and evolutionist viewpoints.

1. The subject matter pertaining to Galileo and his encounter with the Catholic church is taken from two sources here, including the book, GALLILEO SCIENCE AND THE CHURCH, by Jerome J. Langford, University of Michigan Press, 1992, and from the chapter, "Galileo and the Church" by William Shea, in the book, GOD AND NATURE, D. Lindberg and R. Numbers, eds., University of California Press, 1986. I recall seeing the quote from Galileo, "But I know it moves," but cannot find the source; therefore, I attribute it to legend.

2. Report from the Session of Harvest Orthodox Presbyterian Church on the heresy trial of Dr. Terry Gray, Aug. 4-5, 1995.

3. Here I am indebted to Howard Van Till, Professor of Physics at Calvin College, for the concept of the "developmental economy of nature" and how one's belief in a "gapless" economy as a "deliverance of faith" can affect the way one views the creation.

4. The basis for this line of thought comes from Van Till's Templeton Lecture, "Science and Christian Belief: New Structures on Old Foundations". Published first as "Is Special Creationism a Heresy?" in Christian Scholar's Review, XXII:4, June, 1993, pp. 380-95. And published in slightly modified form as a chapter in the book, MAN AND CREATION: Perspectives on Science and Theology, Michael Bauman, ed., Hillsdale College Press, 1993.

5. Quotes and viewpoints expoused by Basil and Augustine are taken from the following sources, The HEXAEMERON by St. Basil, the Great, in NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS; THE LITERAL MEANING OF GENESIS, by St. Augustine and translated by John Taylor in the series, Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982; CONFESSIONS by St. Augustine and translated by R.S. Pine-Coffin, Penguine Books, 1961; and from DE TRINITATE as quoted in an essay by David Lindberg entitled, "Science and the Early Church" in GOD AND NATURE (loc. cit.).

6. The "evolution" of evolutionary thought that preceeded the Darwinian model is nicely outlined in DARWIN DEFENDED, Michael Ruse, Addison-Wesley, 1982.

7. On the history of creationist belief in the U.S., I draw from the following works by Ronald Numbers; "Creationism in 20th-Century America," published in the journal, Science, 1982, 218:538-544; "The Creationists" in GOD AND NATURE (loc cit); and from his book, THE CREATIONISTS: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, Alfred A. Knopf, 1992.

8. Derek Gjersten, SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY: Past and Present. Penguin Books, 1989.

9. I am indebted to Del Ratzsch, Prof. of Philosophy, Calvin College for much of this critique of the Baconian philosophy of science and for pointing out its similarities with the Institute for Creation Research definition of science.

10. Del Ratzsch, PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE: The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective. Intervarsity Press, 1986.

11. Thomas Kuhn, THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS. University of Chicago Press, 1962.

12. Here I take from several sources including posts on the internet evolution reflector that was begun by Prof. Johnson, and from his most recent book, REASON IN THE BALANCE: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education. InterVarsity Press, 1995.

the important issue has to do with the way that we view naturalistic explanations vs supernaturalitic ones, or miracles. For a Christian, it would seem to me that one is no less wonderous than the other. In one case we see God's glory and in the other case we see His mystery. However, how one handles these two ways of understanding can profoundly affect one's view of God and of nature. Thus, Newton claimed that it was what his science FAILED to explain that proved the existence of God. Then, as scientists and philosophers began to view the world in a more mechanistic way, many of these things that Newton failed to explain and relegated to God's mystery, were gradually explained, causing no little consternation among Christians. As the "miracles" of earthquakes, reproduction of life, movement of the heavens, etc., became understood in naturalistic ways, it was viewed by some as an assault on God. In my opinion, the IMPORTANT QUESTIONS here are the following:

1. At what point does one accept that there are no naturalistic explanations for something? The problem here, is that one has to look to the future for things not presently understood.

Before I begin let me state where I stand in this area. I became a Christian in my second year of graduate school. Before that I received a BS degree in biology and was, therefore, fairly familiar with the basic claims of evolution. Frankly, I found Darwinian evolution to be a very attractive explanantion for the diversity and origin of life. I still think that Darwin's model represents one of the most creative intellectual accomplishments in the history of human thought. However, largely as a result of the criticism that has come from Christian circles, I also realize that the fact of evolution is far from proven and suffers significant holes. Yet, as a scientist, I also recognize science as a PROCESS of discovery--an exploration into the unknown. As such, science MUST be able to venture into areas that may ultimately prove to be wrong.

This is not an indictment of the pursuit of science, rather it reflects the reality of the process of science. We can only learn new truths about the natural world if we permit science the flexibility to be wrong. It is critical for Christians, who have been taught to be wary of science, to understand that by its nature, science is self correcting. For example, legend has it that after numerous failures to develop a light bulb, Thomas Edison was asked whether he was discouraged. No, he replied, because he had learned many ways not to make a light bulb. In other words, Edison's many failures did not prove that making a light bulb was impossible. Rather the failures were recognized as failures of specific ideas about how to make a light bulb and this caused Edison to modify his approach. He used a method of science that was self correcting. This is where I believe evolution science to be. It has tried several models, all of which leave something to be desired, but scientists, by and large, are not yet ready to discard all evolutionary notions. It is my understanding that evolution science is in a transition period which means that the scientific process is working.