Herman van Barneveld took me to use Bavinck in support of what he believes is my acceptance of the theory of biological evolution. However, I quoted Bavinck on the intent of Scripture in order to show my agreement with his view that the Bible was not written to serve as a source of information for the natural sciences. I wrote: “I refuse to use Scripture that way because it was not intended to provide information that satisfies the requirements of modern scholarship whether for history or for the natural sciences. This should not be misunderstood as rejecting its historicity. The crucial distinction was made by Dr. Herman Bavinck who stated:
Holy Scripture has a purpose that is religious-ethical through and through. It is not designed to be a manual for various sciences. It is the first foundation (principium) only of theology and desires that we will read and study it theologically. In all the disciplines that are grouped around Scripture, our aim must be the saving knowledge of God. For that purpose Scripture offers us all the data needed. In that sense it is completely adequate and complete. But those who would infer from Scripture a history of Israel, a biography of Jesus, a history of Israel’s or early Christian literature, etc. will in each case end up disappointed. They will encounter lacunae that can be filled only with conjectures…. Scripture does not satisfy the demand for exact knowledge in the way we demand it in mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, etc. This is a standard that may not be applied to it.[1]This crucial distinction refers back to my distinction between history as a scholarly discipline and history as presented in Scripture. That is the distinction Bavinck makes. I did not address the question whether Bavinck accepted the theory of biological evolution. I could leave it at that, but Herman van Barneveld uses the occasion to paint a one-sided picture of Bavinck’s views on science and faith. So, allow me to add a few observations.
Herman van Barneveld refers to Bavinck’s “Creation or Development” (1901). But Bavinck wrote additional works on faith and scholarship. They include: H. Bavinck (1887) “Dualism in Theology” De Vrije Kerk 13: 11-39, reprinted in Kennis en Leven. Opstellen en Artikelen uit Vroegere Jaren Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1922, pp. 145-64; H. Bavinck (1887) “Christianity and the Natural Sciences” De Vrije Kerk 13: 169-195, reprinted in Kennis en Leven. Opstellen en Artikelen uit Vroegere Jaren. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1922, pp. 184-202;
 |
| Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics |
 |
| Facets of Faith & Science, v. 2 |
 |
| Al Wolters |
Throughout his life, Bavinck opposed both the separation of faith and knowledge (dualism) and the use of Scripture texts as information sources in the scholarly disciplines (biblicism). But when everything is said and done, he does not offer a positive statement of his position. Wolters illustrates this with two quotations from Reformed Dogmatics. Bavinck starts with a saying of Cardinal Baronius to the effect that the Scriptures do not tell us how the heavens go, but how we go to heaven. In opposition to dualism, Bavinck points out that Scripture does have authority over scholarship:
It is precisely as book of the knowledge of God that the Scriptures have a good deal to say also for the other sciences. The Scriptures are a light unto the path and a lamp unto the feet also of science and art. They lay claim to authority over every area of life…. A great deal of the content of Scripture is of fundamental significance for the other sciences as well. The Creation and Fall of man, the unity of the human race, the Flood, the rise of nations and languages, and so on, are facts that are also of the highest import for the other sciences.[2]But in the same breath Bavinck registers his opposition to biblicism:
Yet, on the other hand there is also a great truth in the saying of Cardinal Baronius. It is true of all those facts as well that they are not communicated to us in and of themselves but with a theological purpose: that we might know God unto our salvation. Scripture never concerns itself with science as such…. The authors of the Holy Scriptures probably had no greater knowledge of all these sciences — geology, zoology, physiology, medicine, etc. — than had all their contemporaries.[3]Wolters concludes: “Throughout this pivotal section…we see Bavinck struggling to define his own position with reference to the two opposite extremes which he wishes to avoid. Unfortunately, he is clearer about the positions he rejects than about the positive position which he himself espouses. …It is not immediately clear what principles apply in deciding when it is appropriate to appeal to the authority of Scripture over science, and when such an appeal is not appropriate. To the best of my knowledge, Bavinck nowhere explicitly addresses that question.”
Nevertheless, Wolters discerns in Bavinck two ways in which Scripture provides guidelines, namely for the special discipline of history, especially that of Israel and the ancient Near East as well as for the development of a Biblical worldview. Thus, the quotes Herman van Barneveld selected to argue that Bavinck used the Bible as a source of scientific information paint a one-sided picture of Bavinck’s views. Herman van Barneveld overlooks the fact that Bavinck did not solve the problems associated with the relationship of Scripture and science. This has contributed to the fact that the Reformed tradition was left open to polarization between extremes.
Bavinck’s article was written in 1901 when there was little empirical evidence for Darwin’s theory of evolution. Thus, Bavinck was correct in his negative assessment of the empirical evidence for Darwin’s theory at the start of the 20th century. We are living more than a century later and the empirical evidence has drastically improved. Herman van Barneveld’s comments are not relevant to my post which dealt with current science.
Despite the scarcity of empirical evidence in the early 1900s, Bavinck did not always reject biological evolution per se. For example, in his “Evolution” of 1907 Bavinck acknowledged “the important elements of truth…in the theory of evolution and descent.” He concluded, “Provided that evolution is not understood in a mechanical sense, there is, therefore, no antithesis between creation and development” (p. 117). This was a common position at the time. The ‘mechanical sense’ likely refers to the Cartesian worldview with its notion that the universe came about by the random collision of atoms. Random here means without divine guidance. This was the worldview of evolutionism to which all Christians objected and still do. Thus we see Bavinck distinguishing between the worldview of evolutionism and the theory of biological evolution.
Bavinck was correct in his critique of the philosophies of evolutionism and materialism. From the first printing of the Origin, people interpreted Darwin in terms of earlier philosophies of evolution such as those by Lamarck and Haeckel. The general population made no distinction between the theory of biological evolution and the philosophy of evolutionism. When we look at Bavinck’s response, we see him objecting to the philosophy of evolutionism or materialism as he himself indicates in the 1901 article cited by Herman van Barneveld. This, however, has little bearing on the theory of evolution which has to be justified by empirical evidence.
Finally, I referred to Bavinck not because I think he should have the last word on the relationship of Scripture and scholarship. I referred to him because I believe no one in the Reformed tradition has improved on his views in this respect. If we want to improve on his views we should start with Herman Bavinck.
[1] Bavinck, H. Reformed Dogmatics, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003, vol. 1, p. 444.
[2] See “Herman Bavinck on Scripture and Science,” tr. Al Wolters, Calvin Theological Journal 27: 91-95 (1992), p. 92. This is a translation of Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (4th ed. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1928).
[3] Bavinck, “Scripture and Science,” pp. 92-93.
6 comments:
When I read Bavinck, especially his essay entitled “Evolution” part of which was quoted by Jitse van der Meer, I can’t help but notice the similarity between his views and the views of creation scientists. The quote by van der Meer makes it sounds like Bavinck has no problem with biological evolution as long as God directs it, but if you read the preceding paragraph in that chapter you’ll see that Bavinck is talking here about Evolution in the sense of small changes:
“That evolution exists…is after all proved throughout the history of peoples and humanity by every organism that comes into being and perishes. There is heredity but also variation, as appears from the difference in children born to the same parents, the races among humans, plant culture, and animal husbandry. The extent of this variation is unknown at this point. But it is not limited to the boundaries of the species…. The species that we accept today in the plant and animal world do not coincide therefore with those that God by his creative power called into being at the beginning. Most likely the latter were much fewer in number than Linnaeus could surmise in his day.”
In other words, when Bavinck talked about evolution, he agreed that there were observable aspects in these studies that were within the parameter of the Scriptures, like animal husbandry, heredity, variation, and the meaning of the word ‘species’. This is exactly what creation scientists have built on, studying relationships between similar organisms to try determining what the created kinds originally were. But notice that both Bavinck and creation scientists draw the line where the Bible draws the line. Both do not use the Bible as a good source to support certain scientific theories but use it as a parameter within which ideas can be explored. So, if God in the beginning called animals and plants into being by his creative power, then that is a baseline from which other ideas can be explored. So thus it is understandable that Bavinck did not solve the problems associated with the relationship of Scripture and science, as Jitse van der Meer says, because in both Bavinck’s mind and the mind of creation scientists, these problems are man-made. There is no problem with the relationship of Scripture and science. As Bavinck says in the same chapter, “It is true that when natural science limits itself to its own realm, it does not have to concern itself with this question (ie. question of origins). Standing on the foundation of what is, it cannot make a judgment about the genesis and the origin of things.” Jitse van der Meer does believe there is a tension between the two, but that is because he disagrees with Bavinck’s assessment of science’s reach, and even believes that empirical evidence for Darwin’s theory of evolution has drastically improved.
I had to read that sentence twice. I may not know a lot about genetics and patterns in DNA, but Jitse van der Meer must be aware that many dedicated evolutionists are hitting a brick wall in their search for a mechanism for Darwin’s theory and that they still have never found one example of information being added to the genome of an organism, unless we’re talking about the exchange of nucleic acid plasmids between bacteria (please check http://creation.com/mutations-new-information). And we’re not even talking here about the abysmal lack of transitional fossils. There is no need for tension between Scriptures and science, as many scientists, a number of them with PhD’s, have discovered as they converted from being unbelieving scientists to Bible-believing creation scientists. The one thing that is needed to see this is to peel off the many layers of interpretations that cover the actual facts, which in themselves always support the obvious reading of the creation and flood accounts. I’m thankful to God for these creation scientists who take the time to uncover the facts behind the interpretations.
Herman van Barneveld
Hamilton, ON
Herman van Barneveld writes: “When I read Bavinck, especially in his essay entitled ‘Evolution’ part of which was quoted by Jitse van der Meer, I can’t help but notice the similarity between his views and the views of creation scientists.”
Herman fails to consider this part of his Bavinck quote: “The extent of this variation is unknown at this point. But it is not limited to the boundaries of the species…. The species that we accept today in the plant and animal world do not coincide therefore with those that God by his creative power called into being at the beginning. Most likely the latter were much fewer in number than Linnaeus could surmise in his day.” Bavinck asserts that the extent of species variation was unknown in his day. Herman interprets this in terms of the wider species definition promoted by some scientific creationists and referred to as ‘Genesis species’ or ‘baramins’. But scientific creationists were not around in Bavinck’s time and it is, therefore, inappropriate to interpret Bavinck that way. Bavinck simply leaves the extent of species variation open.
Herman writes further that “Jitse van der Meer…even believes that empirical evidence for Darwin’s theory of evolution has drastically improved.” Comparison of the evidence provided in Darwin’s Origin of Species with the state of evidence in the twenty first century will show the improvement. Let me just mention a small selection of the many examples available.
Firstly, today the fossil record is sufficiently complete to be confident that there are strata with marine fossils such as corals that contain no fish because at the time there were corals, but no fish. This cannot be explained as the result of Noah’s flood, for instance, because it would have mixed up corals and fish.
Secondly, Herman has been misled by scientific creationists to think that there are no transitional fossils. The fossil record does include fish with legs, fish with lungs, dinosaurs with feathers, mammal-like reptiles etc. I don’t have the time to present the details. These may be found in any up to date textbook in evolutionary biology.
Thirdly, from the study of biogeography we know that there is a correlation between geographic proximity and anatomical similarity (biogeography). For instance, cave salamanders around the world have rudimentary eyes and no pigment. But there are more similarities between cave salamanders and seeing salamanders in the same location than there are between them and salamanders in another location. This is a pattern of geographical distribution which would be expected assuming common descent of the animals at one location, but not between locations.
Fourthly, there is the irreversible hierarchical structure of the classification of living things. If animals living today would have been created by fiat creation rather than by evolutionary creation, there would have been no hierarchical branching pattern unless the Creator would have wanted those who investigate such matters to believe there had been a history which never actually occurred. Since the Creator does not deceive us I am led to the conclusion that He created animals by means of an evolutionary process thereby giving us a real evolutionary history.
continued…
…continued
This needs a bit of explanation. Let us classify a collection of objects that are round, square and tetrahedral, red, green and blue, wood, lead and aluminum. A hierarchical classification can be produced by first selecting all square objects, then by subdividing them into green, red and blue, and, finally, by subdividing each colour into wood, lead and aluminum. Note that entities in a lower rank, say green, blue and red ones, do not subdivide the square object because colour is not a subdivision of shape. This can be seen from the fact that the hierarchy can be reversed. Another hierarchical classification can be produced by first selecting all red objects, then subdividing them into round, square and tetrahedral and, finally, by subdividing each shape into wood, lead and aluminum. We say that this is not an inclusive hierarchy because the objects of lower rank (the coloured ones) are not included in the object of higher rank (the square). It is an exclusive hierarchy.
Now a reversal of objects as in the exclusive hierarchy cannot be performed in biological classification. Take cat-like species such as Chinese mountain cat, wildcat and black-footed cat. They are grouped in the genus Felis (cat). Various cat-like and lion-like genera are combined in the family Felidae. The latter together with bears, weasels and such families are combined in the order Carnivora etc. To reverse this hierarchy one would have to combine bears, weasels, tigers, lions, hyenas etc. under the genus Felis, thereby making bears and hyenas count as cats. This obvious does not make sense. It is this irreversible hierarchical structure – called the inclusive hierarchy – that can be explained as a genealogy or phylogeny, that is, as a result of historical development.
Fifthly, there are anatomical similarities between body parts with different functions such as the human hand and the bird wing. This can be explained by common descent and modification (comparative anatomy).
Sixthly, independent lines of evidence from comparative genetics, radiometric dating, plate tectonics and biogeography converge on the same historical development of the earth and the plants and animals living on it. For an example, see van der Meer, J.M. “Ideology and Science” Reformed Academic, 16 August 2010 (link here).
Evolution as mechanism refers to the causes of evolution. I agree with Herman that there is no agreed upon mechanism for biological evolution. But that is no reason not to look for it or them. Personally, I think that adaptation by means of variation and natural selection applies to limited situations such as the development of new species. It does not apply in environments such as coral reefs and tropical forests which exert extremely constant selection pressures because environmental variables such as temperature, carbon dioxide concentration, salinity and light intensity hardly change. Yet there is a riot of variation in all organisms that live in these environments. I expect that deeper insight into the causes of the evolution of new body plans (jellyfish, worms, sea urchins, insects, mammals) will come from developmental biology – the study of embryonic development. Herman thinks that the absence of a known mechanism means that there is no mechanism. I take that as a good reason to look for one. It took about two centuries before there was widely-accepted and clear evidence for a heliocentric structure of our planetary system. It took more than 1,500 years before Galileo and Newton realized that motion is a state of being that does not need an explanation. Herman’s attitude is a science stopper.
continued…
…continued
Herman writes that scientists “still have never found one example of information being added to the genome of an organism, unless we’re talking about the exchange of nucleic acid plasmids between bacteria.” We do not have to talk about the latter so-called horizontal transfer. New information is added to the genome of plants and animals by duplication of existing genes followed by mutation of the duplicate as well as by duplication of entire chromosomes. An example of the latter concerns the homeotic genes that control overall body pattern. Insects have one set on one chromosome. Mammals have four sets on four chromosomes. It is generally accepted that they arose by two successive chromosome duplications and subsequent mutations in the duplicate genes.
There is, however, a far more serious problem, namely that of the origin of genetic information. There is strong evidence from polymer chemistry against a molecular mechanism that produces genetic information where there was none before. It is impossible to prove that something did not happen, but I think that it is extremely unlikely that such a mechanism will be found, but with the proviso that it may still be discovered.
continued…
…continued
Herman writes that “There is no need for tension between Scriptures and science, as many scientists, a number of them with PhD’s, have discovered as they converted from being unbelieving scientists to Bible-believing creation scientists. The one thing that is needed to see this is to peel off the many layers of interpretations that cover the actual facts, which in themselves always support the obvious reading of the creation and flood accounts. I’m thankful to God for these creation scientists who take the time to uncover the facts behind the interpretations.”
Herman does not mention those Bible believing scientists who have said their farewell to the scientific creationist movement. I myself used to be a scientific creationist and have given much thought to the development of creation science. I subscribed to the Creation Research Quarterly for thirty years and finally quit. One reason was the incessant critique of various natural sciences without ever producing any kind of fruitful science themselves. Herman’s response to me is an example of that attitude. Another reason was that they appeared to have no interest in developing a fruitful science. For them science is a means to show that the Bible is true, not a means to glorify God by studying his works. This became clear after various experiences with scientific fraud on their part for the sake of harmonizing science with Scripture. I am referring to their claim of having found human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock, known as the Paluxy River affair, their selective use of radiometric data in an attempt to undermine the credibility of an ancient earth, their claim that the observed exponential decay of the Earth's magnetic field proves that the Earth cannot be more than about 10,000 years old known as the Thomas Barnes affair [see this link].
There is also the habit of ridiculing ‘mainstream science’. As an example, I refer to Duane Gish: “Look at data for some proteins, said (Duane) Gish, and humans are indeed closest to chimps. But look at the data for other proteins, and humans are closer to frogs; look at still others, and we are most similar to chickens. Protein amino-acid sequences are thus unrelated to supposed evolutionary family trees. Evolutionists combed the scientific literature to find Gish's proteins, but they could not find them. During debates, they challenged him to document his claims…. Gish repeatedly promised to produce the documentation but did not, yet he continued to make his claim. After two years, he simply refused to reply to further requests for evidence.” Source: Eve, Raymond A., Harrold, Francis B., Creationist Movement in Modern America (Social Movements Past and Present). Twayne Pub (December 1990).
Herman, whether these people have PhDs is beside the point. They need to be honest. Christians should not associate themselves with dishonest scientists whether they are scientific creationists or mainstream scientists.
Jitse van der Meer
Hamilton, ON
Jitse van der Meer
You cite three examples of creationist dishonesty. I am only familiar with one, what you call the Paluxy River affair, in which creationists are said to "claim of having found human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock."
If that was true in the past, it is not true today. As Gary Bates writes, "No major creationist organization accepts the validity of these claims." (http://creation.com/knock-out-punch)
Jon Dykstra
Lynden, WA
Post a Comment