Stephen E. Jones
Creation/Evolution Articles
Pattle P.T. Pun, "A Theology of Progressive Creationism," in Perspectives on
Science and Christian Faith:
Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, Vol. 39, No. 1,
March 1987, pp.9-19. (part 1)
[Home page] [Site map]
[Update log] [Articles]
A Theology of Progressive Creationism
This is an incomplete work-in-progress.
PATTLE P.T. PUN
Department of Biology Wheaton College Wheaton, IL
601879
| By elaborating on a
Calvinistic system of revelation and providence, progressive creationism attempts to delineate
the immanence of God in His providential involvement in His Creation. Natural selection is
viewed as one of the processes utilized by God in His creative activities. However, God is
transcendent in that He is not dependent on the Creation for His completion. Evil is allowed
but not purposed by God. The human Fall affects God's creation in terms of its eventual
disintegration. Physical death existed before the Fall as necessitated by the food chain. Man
was maintained immortal by God's special sustenance. Man is separated from God after a
historical rebellious act. Physical and spiritual death entered the human race as a result.
However, God overrules all evils. |
Evaluation of Conservative Positions on the Issues of Creation and Evolution
| In the continuing
debate between theologians and scientists on the controversy about evolution, several
recurrent perspectives emerge among those who take seriously the Christian claim of sin and
the need for redemption by the blood of Christ. Among these views are those advocating a
recent creation, theistic evolution, or the "Creation Myth" of Neoorthodoxy. Each position
dwells on what it perceives to be the essence of Scriptural teaching and the scientific
explanation of the origin of life in general and of man in particular. However, there has been a
polarization between those who cherish a literal interpretation of the Scripture at the expense
of the validity of scientific explanation and others who accept the evolutionary paradigm
without seriously examining its implications for the foundation of the Christian doctrine of
original sin. We have shown previously that microevolution is well documented scientifically
while macroevolution remains speculative.1 We now attempt to present a theological
system that utilizes the strengths and avoids the weaknesses of these positions in the debate -
Progressive Creationism. The term "Progressive Creationism" was coined by Bernard
Ramm.2 However, Ramm did not
provide substantive theological content for this position. Indeed, some have charged that
Progressive Creationism is not substantially different from Theistic Evolutionism, which
allegedly compromises the exegetical integrity of the Book of Genesis.3 This paper attempts to define Progressive
Creationism through the development of five theological themes, given
below. |
1. Unity of God's Revelation in Nature and
Scripture
| John Calvin made
significant contributions to understanding the sovereignty of God and, in addition, delineated
the two distinctive modes of revelation from God. His entire monumental treatise, the
Institutes of the Christian Religion, was based on the two-fold revelation of God:
knowledge of God the Creator and knowledge of God the Redeemer. For
him, God's general revelation through nature and God's special revelation through Scripture
are complementary and necessary in order for men to have a saving knowledge of the Creator
and the Redeemer. Calvin describes the beauty of God's creation revealing the divine wisdom
as follows: |
There are innumerable
evidences both in heaven and on earth that declare his wonderful wisdom; not only those more
recondite matters for closer observation of which astronomy, medicine, and all natural science
are intended, but also those which thrust themselves upon the sight of even the most
untutored and ignorant persons, so that they cannot open their eyes without being compelled
to witness them.4 |
Calvin is clearly suggesting that the closer
observation of all natural science is intended to uncover God's wisdom in His creation. The
input to our understanding of the Creator offered by science is to be scrutinized and respected
in our holy meditation of God's inestimable wisdom:
There is no doubt that the Lord would have us
uninterruptedly occupied in this holy meditation; that, while we contemplate in all creatures,
as in mirrors, those immense riches of his wisdom, justice, goodness, and power, we should
not merely run over them cursorily, and so to speak, with a fleeting glance; but we should
ponder them at length, turn them over in our minds seriously and faithfully, and recollect them
repeatedly.5
|
| Calvin does not espouse a natural theology of
Universalism, that man can come to know God through general revelation apart from special
revelation. Rather, he stresses the importance of Scripture as a guide and teacher for anyone
who would come to God the Creator. But Calvin has definitely departed from the medieval
mindset which condemns science when it appears to be contrary to Scripture, as exemplified
by the Copernican controversy over heliocentricity. Calvin never suggests that we should
interpret God's creation from Scripture alone. He shows great respect for the natural scientists
who, by their close observation of nature, can bring us to a better understanding of God the
Creator. In other words, Calvin maintains that general revelation of God through nature is a
valid though incomplete avenue of knowing Him. Because of our depravity, we fail to know
and worship God the Creator, but with the aid of the Holy Spirit, Scripture reveals to us the
knowledge of God the Creator more intimately and vividly. Revelation in Scripture
complements revelation in nature to enlighten us in our efforts to understand our Creator.
Therefore, God, the final cause of the universe who is known through Scripture alone, can
also be partially revealed to us through the understanding of the secondary causation in nature
gleaned through science. |
2. Immanence of God in His Providential Control over
Creation
Calvin also had a wholistic
view of God's involvement in His creation, whereas popular deism glorifies reason instead of
revelation. Following the success of the Scientific Revolution, the creation is thought by deists
to be an elaborate machine governed by natural laws set up by a creator who is no longer
involved in the activities of his creation. As a result, humans have become the masters of their
own destiny and of that of the whole creation. Emile Brehier, a historian of philosophy,
summarizes the differences between deism and Christian theism as follows:
We see clearly that a new conception of man, wholly
incompatible with the Christian faith, had been introduced. God the architect who produced
and maintained a marvelous order in the universe had been discovered in nature, and there was
no longer a place for the God of the Christian drama, the God who bestowed upon Adam "the
power to sin and reverse the order." God was in nature and no longer in history; he was in the
wonders analyzed by naturalists and biologists and no longer in the human conscience, with
feelings of sin, disgrace, or grace that accompanied his presence; he had left man in charge of
his own destiny.6 |
In reaction to deism, Calvin stipulates
that creation and providence are inseparably joined:
Moreover, to make God a momentary Creator, who
once for all finished His work, would be cold and barren, and we must differ from profane
men especially in that we see the presence of divine power shining as much in the continuing
state of the universe as in its inception. ... Faith sought to penetrate more deeply, namely,
having found him Creator of all, forthwith to conclude He is also everlasting Governor and
Preserver-not only in that He drives the celestial frame as well as its several parts by a
universal motion, but also in that He sustains, nourishes, and cares for, everything He has
made.7
| | Pattle P. T. Pun is a Professor of Biology
at Wheaton College, Illinois. He received his B.S. in Chemistry from San Diego State
University, his M.A. and Ph.D. in Biology from SUNY at Buffalo, and his M.A. in Theology
from Wheaton Graduate School. He has published 30 technical or integrative articles or
abstracts. He is the author of Evolution: Nature and Scripture in Conflict? (Zondervan,
1982; Chinese edition by Christian Chinese Translation Center, 1984). He has lectured on
campuses in the U.S. and the Far East on the issue Of Creation/Evolution. His current
research interest is in gene-cloning. |
| 10 | PERSPECTIVES ON SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN FAITH | top of
page |
| THEOLOGY OF PROGRESSIVE CREATIONISM |
| In short, Calvin has
presented to us a world view that is consistent with God's revelation. It is based on the
assumption that the world and the universe were created by the Creator who sustains them by
His providence. The creation exists moment by moment only by the direct sustenance of God
the Creator. Both the creation and the Creator are part of an external reality rather than an
illusion in the mind of man. The deistic implication of Recent Creationism suggests that God's
involvement with His creation consists only of miraculous intervention. However, in the
context of the Scripture there is no distinction between supernatural or natural, since we are
to see His sustaining power in all things. A miracle is an extraordinary event which is
accomplished by God as a sign of some purposes of His own. However, God is equally
involved by means of His providential control which allows the probabilities determined by
natural processes to work for His purposes. |
The input to our understanding
of the Creator offered by science is to be scrutinized and respected in our holy meditation of
God's inestimable wisdom.
|
3. Scripture in General and
Genesis in Particular, a Historical-Theological Interpretation
| The bitter debate between the fundamentalist and
liberal camps in Biblical hermeneutics has led to the dichotomization of the scientific history
and the redemptive history in Biblical theology. According to Langdon Gilkey, many
theologians have "used Biblical and orthodox language to speak of divine activity in history,
but at the same time continued to speak of the same events in purely naturalistic terms."8 The emphasis on the existential encounter
with God through the Bible attempts to reestablish the relevancy of the Scripture for modern
man. Yet it does not succeed in recovering the theological dimension of the Bible. B.S. Childs
proposes a new Biblical theology to use the canon of the Scriptures as a context from which
to interpret the Scriptures in relation to their function within the community of faith that
treasures them.9 He returns us to
Calvin's emphasis on learning from both the Old Testament and the New Testament in
concert, where God unfolds more and more about Himself and His will for humans in the
course of Biblical history. The theological center of the Old Testament as revealed in the New
Testament is the testimony of Christ, The Messiah (John 5:39). However. this does not
necessarily imply that the Bible is to be interpreted by "the theology of the Cross," as George
Murphy, advocates.10 Luther, who
originated such a theology tends to propagate a theology of paradox.11 According to Luther, Christians live in
an earthly kingdom as well in a heavenly kingdom, and are accountable to both man and God.
Thus we are to live in perpetual tension. especially when the demands of these two kingdoms
clash. The emphasis on the existential nature of human evil without provision for an adequate
historical foundation of Theistic Evolutionism seems to perpetuate this paradoxical mindset;
that is, we have to deal with human evil although we are not sure how it came into being
historically. |
Therefore, a unifying
concept must be constructed in the context of both the Old and the New Testaments, since the
two Testaments are mutually interpretive. The methodology in Biblical hermeneutics must he
a historical-theological one. Hasel summarizes this method succinctly:
This is to say that the Biblical theologian engaged in
doing either Old or New Testament theology must claim as his task both to discover and
describe what the text meant and also to explicate what it means for today.... The Biblical
witnesses are themselves not only historical witnesses in the sense that they originated at
particular times and particular places; they are at the same time theological witnesses in the
sense that they testify as the word of God to the divine reality and activity as it impinges on
the historicality of man. Thus the task of the Biblical theologian is to interpret the Scriptures
meaningfully, with the careful use of the tools of historical and philological research,
attempting to understand and describe in "getting back there" what the Biblical testimony
meant; and to explicate the meaning of the Biblical testimony for modern man in his own
particular historical situation.12 |
| The unifying principle
throughout the Old Testament seems to be the self-revelation of God through the nation of
Israel. The beginning of the history of Israel was marked by the promise of a great nation to
Abraham through whom all the people of the earth will be blessed (Gen. 12:2-3). An
underlying theme in the Old Testament appears to be that God will raise up a deliverer for
men in general and for Israel in particular (Is. 7, 9, 11, 53, 61, 62; Zech. 6; Mic. 5; Mal. 3;
Psm. 8; Dan. 9, 12; Ezek. 34; Jer. 23; Job 19, etc.). The book of Genesis by definition is the
book of beginning. It centers on the beginning of the chosen nation of Israel through whom
God is to reveal Himself to the world. Genesis traces the history of man from the origin of his
rebellion from God through God's choosing of Abraham, through whom the people of the
earth will be blessed. The rest of the book is devoted to the preparation of Israel through the
lives of the patriarchs. God's sovereignty in the midst of man's rebellion is stressed throughout
the book. |
| 4. Natural
Selection As One of the Processes Utilized by God in His Creative Activities
Fred Van Dyke questions the validity of natural selection-which depends on resource
scarcity, competition, differential survival and reproduction-as a creative mechanism employed
by a benevolent God before the Fall of man.13 Before attempting to address this
charge, one has to clarify several presuppositions, discussed
below. |
Moreover, to make God a
momentary Creator, who once for all finished His work, would be cold and barren, and we
must differ from profane men especially in that we see the presence of divine power shining as
much in the continuing state of the universe as in its
inception.
|
| 1. One has to question
the extent to which we can impose human emotion or volition onto the non-human world. It is
true that man, as part of God's creation, is made of that same "stuff" of life which is traceable
to the most basic matter of the universe (i.e., "dust of the ground"-Gen. 17). But only man
was created in the image of God. Other than the devil himself, man is the only agent who
wilfully turned away from God. When Paul mentions the creation groaning in travail, awaiting
its deliverance from the bondage to decay when the sons of God are revealed (Rom. 8:19-22),
he apparently is using metaphorical language to describe the solidarity of man with the
creation. The redemption of the natural world from evil and decay is a corollary of the
redemption of the body of man which has been condemned as a result of sin. Paul does not
seem to teach that the non-human world has a will of its own which can turn back to God by
faith in order to be saved (Eph. 2:8). Scientific studies on the volition of animals are
inconclusive. |
| 2. Adam and Eve
were admonished to multiply and subdue the earth, and have dominion over the animal world
before the Fall (Gen. 1:28). This command seems to involve man's control over the
reproduction of other creatures and their utilization of natural resources. Death is certainly
one of the ways to control population growth. As one biologist put it, if animal reproduction
were not controlled, then even "a lone aphid, without a partner, breeding 'unmolested' for one
year would produce so many living aphids that, although they are only a tenth of an inch long,
together they would extend into space twenty five hundred light years."14 Having dominion over animals seems to
involve, in part, the subduing of their activities by selective breeding and elimination. In
addition, the word "subdue seems to mean more than to reign over. It seems to mean
"conquer and subject." The same word is used in contexts of conquest in the face of
opposition (Zech. 9:15; Josh. 18:1; 11 Sam. 8:11, etc.). It seems that some principle was
already at work in the earth which man was enjoined to conquer for God. The Bible is silent
about the source of this principle. It may have been due to the activity of Satan in his assumed
form of the serpent (Gen. 3). However, God's sovereignty seems to have overruled this
principle since the creation was pronounced good (Cf. Gen. 1:31; see also
below). |
3. Man is described in
his original relationship to the rest of creation as being an eater. Other life forms are also
introduced as part of a food chain:
I give you every seed-hearing plant on the face of the
whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it, they will he yours for food. And to the
beasts of the earth, and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground ...
I give every green plant for food. (Gen. 1:29-30,
NIV) |
Although carnivorousness, the eating of animal
flesh, is not mentioned here, this omission may or may not be construed as an argument for
vegetarianism. Animal sacrifice was needed for the skin garments for Adam and Eve (Gen.
2:21). Abel's animal sacrifice was accepted over Cain's offering of fruits by the Lord. It seems
that there is no compelling reason to justify the claim that animal killing is permitted only after
the Fall. Genesis does not provide a theological ground for differentiating between the
nature of plant and animal life. Biologically, the modern understanding of the cell
theory and the genetic basis of life has unified the living world. The biochemistry of digestion
and decay of food stuff made of plants or animals is quite similar, barring minor differences in
the varieties of digestive enzymes. Moreover, unless one completely abandons the fossil
record of life, one has to acknowledge the presence of carnivorousness long before man's
appearance. Even if one were to argue that man's eating was limited to the consumption of
only seeds and fruits, such consumption would necessarily decrease the reproductive potential
of the thing eaten since seeds carried by fruits give rise to new plants. Therefore, one may
postulate that the existence of physical death in the non-human world is necessary in order to
account for the operation of a food chain before the human Fall. As Wilkinson puts it:
A dying sun gives heat to a dying plant which gives food
to herbivores who die to feed carnivores, who are eaten before and after death by bacteria
who themselves die in incomprehensible numbers.15 |
| 12 | PERSPECTIVES ON SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN
FAITH | top of
page |
| (Pun P.P.T., "A Theology of Progressive Creationism,"
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith: Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation,
Vol. 39, No. 1, March 1987, pp.9-19) |
[part 2]
[part 3]
Copyright © 2002, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. This page and its
contents may be used for non-commercial purposes only.
If used on the Internet, a link
back to my home page at
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones would be appreciated.
Created: 19
September, 2002. Updated: 21 September, 2002.
|