Vol. VII • 1984 http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v07n2p22.htm
Creation Science and Biblical Creation
John C. Whitcomb
Creation Science and Biblical Creation
John C. Whitcomb
Can scientific creationism be detached from biblical and theological creationism and made to function effectively in the hearts of men on its own strength? That is a major question that Creationists must face today. Two serious limitations must be faced. First. when Creationism is isolated from biblical theology it is reduced to a mere scientific theory which, in the very nature of science, offers no ultimately authoritative answers or assurances to men.. . Thus, "the creation/evolution debate can never be completely settled by scientific evidence alone. There will always be new evidence to investigate and new concepts to apply. Each generation will have to reevaluate its concept of origins in terms of current knowledge."1 . . . Probability, not certainty, is all that can be hoped for. Purely scientific cosmogony and cosmology would therefore seem to be locked forever into the ultimate frustration of "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 3:7). Second, creation science, when isolated from the wider context of special revelation in Scripture, is devoid of theological identity from a Christian perspective. One might just as well be a Jewish or even a Muslim creation scientist as far as this model is concerned
[This writer] suspects that many Bible-believing Christians who devote much time and effort to creation-science activities have not carefully pondered the implications of such statements as these. Can creationism retain its full power and beauty if it sheds its theological garments? By avoiding any mention of the Bible, or of Christ as the Creator, we may be able to gain equal time in some public school classrooms. But the cost would seem to be exceedingly high, for absolute certainty is lost and the spiritual impact that only the living and powerful God can give (Heb 4:12) is blunted. . . (Have) Christians in public schools. . . fulfilled their God-given responsibility as witnesses to Him when they promote and endorse a religionless two-model approach in the science classroom? Is this a truly spiritual achievement?
It is not essentially a question of biblical orthodoxy… The issue is not theological compromise but rather evangelistic methodology. Should our theological convictions be obscured temporarily and thus compartmentalized in order to reach the millions of students who are being systematically brainwashed in evolutionary humanism in public schools and universities and would otherwise be deprived of any exposure to creationism?
Or, should we rather view this tax-supported educational system as a vast mission field to be approached from the perspective and with the guaranteed resources of the Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20)? Can we really "reach" such an unregenerate community, a significant segment of Satan's kingdom, without the impact of the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27)? Are we wrestling here against mere "flesh and blood," or, rather, "against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Eph 8:121?.
When the unbeliever is challenged simply to "think" about the natural universe, with no Christ-centered and redemptive perspective being provided through special revelation in Scripture, the result is always negative. As a former unregenerate evolutionist, [the writer] bears personal testimony to the force of God's analysis of the dilemma of human depravity: "The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance, does not seek Him. All his thoughts are, 'There is no God"' (Ps 10: 4), Man's problem, then, is not a lack of thinking, but a reflection of Christ-centered thinking in response to his grace. .
The brilliantly illuminating creation message is a vital part of biblical revelation but it is an incomplete part in and of itself. Men desperately need the good news, not just more light, Without the gospel of the completed work of Christ upon the cross, the creation witness can only condemn sinful man, for he will always "suppress the truth [of the Creator God] in unrighteousness" and thus remain "without excuse" under "the wrath of God" (Rom 1:18-20).
Ultimately, ethical decisions in science, as in interpersonal decisions (such as a mother deciding whether or not to abort the unborn person within her womb), must rest upon the presupposition of God's design of the universe, not only physically, but especially morally and spiritually, Science and divinely revealed religion/ethics cannot be isolated without inviting long-range disaster (e.g., Nazi Germany, Communist Russia). God has commanded us to do everything (including our science) "to the glory of God" (I Cor 10:311. We are indeed commanded to conduct ourselves harmlessly (Matt 10:16), graciously (Col 4:6), and "with wisdom toward outsiders" (Col 4:51, not unnecessarily offending man with our manner and methods of presenting Christ's Gospel. Nevertheless, we are also commanded to "proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, that we may present every man complete in Christ" (Col 1:28).
Biblical theology, then, so far from being a hindrance and an embarrassment to scientific creationism, is actually its only source of final authority, power, and victory.
|
|
 |
|