 |
|---|
DISCUSSIONS AROUND GENESIS 1-3 (V)
Dr. K. Runia
This is a six part series, the remaining articles follow on from April to August 1963. Alternatively the six articles can be read as one item by clicking here.
MAN THE RESULT OF EVOLUTION?
Last time we stated that we cannot agree with Dr. Lever, when he says
that the Bible does not give any scientific data but only reveals
ultimate realities, which escape all scientific investigation. Yet we
admitted that Genesis 1 indeed does not give us any exact description of
the 'hour' of creation. Does this mean that an evolutionary explanation
of the creation, including man, is possible, within the con-text of
Genesis 1 and 2? (see note 1 at the bottom of this article)
Dr. Lever answers this question in the affirmative. Personally we
believe that the answer suggested by Genesis 1 and 2 is No.
"AFTER ITS KIND"
It is striking that every time Genesis 1 speaks of
the creation of living creatures, it uses the expression "after its
kind". Vv. 11, 12: plants; v. 21: sea animals and birds; Vv. 24, 25:
cattle and other land animals. It is not repeated in the case of man,
but the very expression used (the image of God) clearly says that man in
particular is "after his kind".
Of course, we have to be careful in our interpretation of such an
expression. Dr. Lever has pointed out that these words have often been
misunderstood. In the 17th and the 18th century biologists and
naturalists generally believed in the absolute fixity of species.
Linnaeus, the father of the modern classification of species, believed
that the species now existing coincide numerically (as to their number
with those originally created by God. Christian theologians saga this as
a confirmation of the truth expressed in the words "after its kind". The
fixity of species became an orthodox 'dogma', and in particular over
against Darwinism it was vigorously maintained as a biblical truth. In
this case, however, Genesis 1 was read as a scientific report and "after
its kind" was given the value of an exact scientific term. This was
definitely wrong and it has done much harm in the controversy between
Darwinism and Christian theology. We may be grateful to Dr. Lever and
other Christian scientists that they have drawn our attention to the
untenability of such an interpretation of Scripture.
Dr. Lever, however, now goes too far to the other extreme and almost
completely ignores the meaning, of the expression. According to him it
only means that God.. "determined that these organisms should exist and
how (after their kind they should come into existence... We are not told
at all how the organisms came into concrete existence, indeed not even
in which way.... In short, Genesis 1 says nothing About what we could
call scientific data" (pp. 55, 57). In other words, the expression
"after its kind" has no significance at all for the scientist.
We cannot accept this as a correct exegesis of Genesis 1. However much
it may be true that the words “after its kind" should not be read as
exact scientific terminology, yet they clearly suggest - to say the
least - that the various large groups or classes (phyla) have a separate
origin and existence. To say that the expression permits a gradual
evolution of the one group from the other, seems tome to rob the
expression of all meaning.
Apart from this exegetical consideration, there is also the
palaeontological evidence (that is of the fossils) which points in the
same way. Oswald Spengler stated the matter in these clear words:
"There is no more conclusive refutation of Darwinianism than that furnished by palaeontology. Simple probability idicates that fossil hoards can only be test samples. Each sample, then, would represent a different stage of evolution, and there ought to be merely 'transitional' types, no definition and no species. In-stead of this we find perfectly stable and unaltered forms persevering through long ages, forms that have not developed themselves on the fitness principle, but APPEAR SUDDENLY AND AT ONCE IN THEIR DEFINITE SHAPE; that do not thereafter evolve to-wards better adaptation, but become rarer and finally disappear, while quite different forms crop up again. What unfolds itself, in ever-increasing richness of form, is the great classes and kinds of living beings which EXIST ABORIGINALLY AND EXIST STILL, WITHOUT TRANSITION TYPES, in the grouping of today".
In fact, Dr. Lever also admits that there are no
transitional or intermediate forms between the great orders. "Nothing is
known about the origin of the chief groups of organisms, the phyla.. For
various ... sub-groups the same thing holds true as for the phyla"
(p.80). An avowed evolutionist such as Dr. Simpson concedes that each of
the thirty-two known orders of mammals appears suddenly in the
palaeontologl-cal record. "The earliest and most primitive known members
of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case
is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another
known".
MAN, THE IMAGE OF GOD
But there is more. When we read Genesis 1, one thing in particular
stands out, namely, that man is altogether unique creature. Different
from the creation of all other beings, his creation is preceded by the
record of a special divine council: “Let us make man in our image, after
our likennes..." (p.26). This council contains the expression (repeated
in v.27, where the execution of the council is mentioned) "in our
image". This very expression clearly indicates man's uniqueness. It does
not deny that there is also a certain similarity and relationship
between man and the other living creatures. The Bible nowhere denies the
contention of science that biological-ly and chemically man is part of
the creation (cf.also Eccl. 3:19,20) And yet man is totally different
because of his being created in the image of God.
It does not only mean that man has a mind, a will, a conscience, etc.
However important these qualities may be, in themselves they do not yet
make man unique. He might only be an highly advanced animal! But the
uniqueness of man is that with all these qualities he stands in a
personal relationship with God. He lives consciously before and with God
and thus reflects the being of God in holiness, righteousness and
knowledge. For this very reason man is the crown of the creation.
Genesis 1 clearly shows that there is a climax in God's creative
activity: it all leads towards the creation of man, who is to have
dominion over all other living creatures.
The whole picture Genesis 1 gives does not point in the direction of a
gradual evolution of which man is simply a part, albeit the highest
part, but it rather points to a realization of the one eternal act of
creation in definite, separate stages.
SPECIAL CREATION?
Does Genesis 1, then, teach 'special creation', as it
is commonly called? We believe that it does. If we do not want to rob
the actual words of all meaning (and this is true of both. Genesis 1 and
2), only one conclusion seems to be possible: the various classes of
organisms were made by God in acts of 'special. creation'.
This does not necessarily mean that all living creatures were, as it
were, put by God on the chess board as complete pieces. In fact, Genesis
1 does not teach this, nor does Genesis 2. We are in no way compelled to
read Genesis 2:7 as a literal description of the creation of man, in the
sense that God first made a real doll of clay and then, subsequently,
breathed the breath of life into the nostrils of this doll. Even such a
conservative scholar as Dr. Aalders does not accept this. We should not
forget that Genesis 2 and 3 speak of God in strongly anthropomorphic way
(cf. also 2:8, 3:8,21). No more are we compelled to read our common
distinction of man as consisting of two 'parts', body and soul, in
Genesis 2:7. This whole terminology does not fit here. The only thing
Genesis 2:.7 says is that man is an animated being called to life by
God. And the result is that man becomes a 'living soul'. The soul is
here not just part of man, but the WHOLE man, body and soul, is called a
'living soul'.
We must admit that we do not know how exactly man (or any other
creature), was made by God. The only thing we know is that God did it.
Man is definitely not the natural product of a natural, autonomous
evolution, but God called him into existence by His divine, creative
word. A word, which was eternal as God Himself is eternal, but which was
realized in time in the appearance of man on the scene of the world. How
this realization took place, we do not know. We also believe that we
never shall know. But the idea that it happened via a gradual evolution
from the animal world (even if it is along a separate line, as most
modern scientists say; man does not derive from any of the existing
man-apes), is in our opinion not warranted by the creation account, but
rather excluded.
ALSO SCIENTIFICALLY INCONCEIVABLE
It is also
from the scientific point of view inconceivable how such an evolution
can take place. How can the uniqueness of man in any way be explained
from an animal ancestry? There may be a correspondence between man and
the higher animal in the lower structures of man's existence, but this
does by no means explain how gradually these lower structures are taken
up in higher structures. Whence do these higher structures come? For it
is these structures that determine man's being. "When we speak of the
'life of man' we do not think in the very first place about respiration,
growth of bones, about molars and jaws, but we think exactly about all
that in which man distinguishes himself from the animals" (Lever,
p.196).
But how can this "higher" develop from the "lower"? Can the unique be
explained on the basis of the non-unique? If so, the lower seems to be
creative of the higher. If not so, a special act of God seems to be
necessary, which, however, means that again a kind of special creation -
in the context of evolution - is accepted.
DOCTA IGNORANTIA
It
is at this point good to listen to what Dr. H. Dooyeweerd, the well
known philosopher of the Free University, Amsterdam, writes in
connection with Dr. Lever's book. "For him who, like Lever, rejects all
mechanical evolutionism, the hypothesis of the origin of man via an
animal line can, strictly speaking, have no real scientific value,
because it does not contribute anything to the scientific answer of the
question how the TYPICALLY HUMAN structure originated" (Philosophia
Reformata, Vol. 24, p. 156). Dr. Dooyeweerd himself prefers the attitude
of what he calls 'docta ignorantia' (scholarly ignorance). "It is more
justified to rest in the insolvability of the problems" (p. 156). He
freely admits that it is better to confess your ignorance than to take
refuge in speculative hypotheses.
We believe that this is a very wise word for all Christians in general
and the Christian scientists in particular. It is a permanent temptation
for a Christian to try and combine the hypotheses of unbelieving science
with the Bible. In so far as these hypotheses are of a purely
exact-scientific nature, there is no need to be afraid from the Biblical
point of view. The Bible, being the inspired Word of God, will never be
in conflict with pure facts of purely scientific hypotheses. But it is a
different matter when these hypotheses are of a
philosophical-speculative nature. Then a Christian has to be on his
guard and should, adhering to the clear teaching of the Bible, profess
his ignorance rather than succumb to speculations, which go beyond the
Bible or even do violence to the Biblical line of thought.
Note 1. For the purpose of the discussion of this
special point we take Genesis 2 al-so in consideration, because it also
speaks of man's creation, esp. verse 7. It is obvious that we have to do
with two different stories. We see these as belonging together, both
being the inspired Word of God about the origin of man. They are as two
pictures of the same event, but taken from a different angle.
Back to top
Back to March 1963 index
Back to 1963 Index
Return to Features Year Selector
All material on this site © 2004 Trowel & Sword