332 - Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case Against Creation-Science

Is God a Creationist?
The Religious Case Against Creation-Science
Edited by Roland Mushat Frye
New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1983. $15.95.

In the early days of the "creation-science" renewal of the 1960s, the self-styled "creationists" often said flatly that their belief that the earth was created in six twenty-four hour days was based on the authority of God's Word. In recent court cases and efforts to require teaching their arguments for a young earth in the public schools, they have obscured the essentially religious origins of their views, claiming rather that these can be decisively supported on scientific grounds alone. Numerous scientists, ranging from conservative evangelicals to atheists, have challenged the scientific validity of creation-science arguments. Frye,

334 - Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case Against Creation-Science

however, has added a much needed dimension to the discussion by bringing together essays that focus on the more basic issue in so-called creationism. Is there adequate religious warrant, even for Bible believers, for insisting that the earth is only some few thousands of years old?

Since the American public and press seem easily taken in by the spurious claims of creation-scientists to represent the "biblical" view, this volume is worth bringing to the attention of any groups concerned with the current debates over attempted creation-science legislation. Frye assembles many of the best recent comments on the creation-science view, including those of Edwin A. Olson, Richard W. Berry, Langdon Gilkey, Bruce Vawter, Davis A. Young, and Conrad Hyers. These are supported by general comments on faith and science by Asa Gray, Owen Gingerich, and Pope John Paul II, and by analyses of the biblical meaning of creation by Nahum M. Sarna and Bernhard W. Anderson. Frye adds important insights in his introduction and epilogue.

Two themes resound most forcefully in this volume. First, a chorus of writers agree that literalistic scientific readings of the biblical statements about creation impose alien views on the text. Conrad Hyers, for instance, suggests that such literalism is modernistic since it accommodates the ancient texts to modern canons of meaning. Father Bruce Vawter, in one of the volume's most helpful essay, makes the point that a true literal reading of a text would deal with the meaning the writer actually wished to convey while a literalistic reading might, as in the case of creation-science, make the text mean something quite independent of the author's original intent.

No one will be satisfied with all the biblical interpretations in this volume, since they range from strict conservatism to views of the Old Testament reflecting little more than the evolution of ancient Hebrew belief. What is impressive for the current debate is, however, that such a wide range of spokespersons from among Protestants, Catholics, and Jews can agree that faithfulness to the text does not demand a belief that the earth was created only recently. Creation-scientists are apparently simply mistaken in their belief that they, are merely defending "biblical" Christianity. Moreover, their frequent suggestion, contained in many recent legislative proposals, that they are presenting the only alternative that would "balance" the teaching of atheistic evolutionism in public schools is a falsehood, however sincerely intended. Most of the important Judeo-Christian views of creation would be unrepresented by their arguments for a young earth.

The other major theme of the volume is that creation-scientists' attempts to advance religion by teaching science confuse the two books of God's revelation. Here again the contributors present a spectrum of views. Some talk as though the Bible or the realm of faith are in principle separate from the realm of science. Others, such as scientists Davis Young and Owen Gingerich, are open to finding harmonies of

335 - Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case Against Creation-Science

science and Scripture that might confirm faith; though they, find harmonies that differ from those the creation-scientists expect. Gingerich presents a particularly brilliant account of how current big-bang theory at least comports amazingly well with belief in a designer, even though arguments from design never work entirely. Still others, notably Vawter and Gilkey observe that creationists mistakenly confuse the methodological atheism of modern science with a metaphysical claim for atheism. As Gilkey points out, many scientists make the same mistake, excluding God a priori for methodological purposes, and then supposing that the resulting scientific theories show there is no God. Thus, as Gilkey remarks, evolutionists have their own fundamentalists point which suggests yet another dimension for understanding this dispute.

George M. Marsden
Calvin College
Grand Rapids, Michigan