Creation Sunday School Series
Church History after Darwin
by Lee Johnson
We have examined how the church affirmed a literal 6 day creation view of the Bible up until the time of Darwin in the 1850's. Yet from the 1850's until the early 1900's Darwinism rapidly became the standard by which the Christian interpreted Genesis 1. The Scopes Trial showed the total triumph of Darwinism when the small town of Dayton Tennessee became the laughing stock of the country by putting on trial a school teacher for teaching Darwinism. The ridicule that the town took, and the chief prosecutor, William Jennings Bryan, endured showed that Darwin was now in control despite the guilty verdict that resulted only in a fine. How did this scientific scheme upset hundreds of years of history so quickly?
Darwin was accompanied by the recent geological transformation. Geology was beginning to teach that the earth was very, very old. Now Darwin was teaching that species evolved over ages, and soon would teach that man himself was descended from many other species, like apes. Of course this teaching brought the ire of those who first heard it, but it took little time to conquer the realms of Christianity. For example, Princeton the celebrated bulwark of Calvinism, took only the lifetime of Charles Hodge to fall completely under the spell of Darwin.
Charles Hodge himself opposed Darwinim. In fact, he wrote a book entitled, What is Darwinism, where he concludes that Darwinism is atheism because it denies a design by God. He extensively refutes the science involved and shows even through quoting religious followers that it consequently involves a denial of design by God. Yet, Hodge in his Systematics makes room for the days of the creation account to be long ages. This was a spot where he caved to modern science. He could answer Darwin on the grounds of science, but at that time was unable to answer the Geologists. This allowed for his future students to fall into out right Darwinism. B.B. Warfield avowed the modified Darwinism known as Theistic Evolution. Why the quick change? Why was the American stronghold of Calvinism so quick to fall, and take down denominations with it?
The other question that we must ask is, did all succomb to Darwinism? Do all after Darwin and modern geology admit a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1. The answer is quite clearly, no. Many continued to hold to the literal six day belief. The question now evolves into, Why did some hold to six day belief and others fall away?
The answer is complex, but I believe it can be boiled down to the views of science held at that time. Princeton and many others held to the Scottish Common Sense Realism. This belief system stated that Science was a pursuit of truth as well. The claims of science, they believed, would always match the Bible. They believed that man had a neutral if not good common sense that would be persuaded by the facts of nature as shown by science. Here they failed to apply the total depravity of man. They allowed for a neutral and objective part of man to remain after the fall. This was an inconsistency in their own position. This inconsistency ended their ability to defend the Bible from the onslaught of Darwin and the other sciences.
Yet a literal six day group remained. This orthodox side was lead by Abraham Kuyper. Kuyper believed too that Science was a valid pursuit and would turn up evidence that supported the Bible as long as another presupposition was held, that God existed and he created. This view realizes the effects of sin and draws a view of science that includes the drastic event of the Fall. Kuyper started a college, the Free University of Amsterdam, in 1880 and it stood as the citadel against Darwinism among other heresies. Here begins the rich tradition we now know as Presuppositionalism or Van Tilianism. In Abraham Kuyper's magnum opus, Encyclepedia Theological , Kuyper explores the idea that there are two kinds of people. The first are the converted, the redeemed, the godly. The second are the lost, the reprobate, the ungodly. He discuss the problem of sin and its corrupting effect. Kuyper then discusses the fact that there is therefore two kinds of science. The one that has God as its presupposition, and the kind that does not. This lays a foundation for Kuyper's entire life's work. The preaching of Christ in all areas of life. The idea of a Christian Worldview does not by any means start here, but does have its most able modern adherent in Kuyper. Kuyper went on to teach about the role of Calvinism as a worldview in government as prime minister, in journalism as editor of a major newspaper, in education as founder of the Free University of Amsterdam, and in science.
The two modes of thought, that of Kuyper and that of Princeton came into direct conflict in 1899 as Kuyper delivered the great Stone Lectures on Calvinism. One of Kuyper's subject during these lectures was Science. Warfield criticized Kuyper for Kuyper's idea that believers and unbelievers had two separate presuppositions when it came to science. Thus, they were building two separate structures from two foundations. Warfield believed that in the realm of science both believers and unbelievers were working together to build one structure of truth. Warfield was committed to the "Enlightenmnet idea of an emperically based rationality, without any sense that this might be inconsistent with their religious principles."
Princeton had always treated science as a friend and had built many defenses around the cooperation of science, but now that friend was the foe, and they were unable to defend themselves. So, they embraced the new foe as a friend. Kuyper held fast to the Bible as the only defense, and so did his followers.
Herman Bavnick, one of Kuyper's pupils, went on to become a well known theologian in his own right. He wrote a systematic treatment of theology known as Reformed Dogmatics. The beginning of this book treats creation, and can now be purchased as In the Beginning. In this book Darwin is taken head on and shown to be in conflict with the Biblical data for the age of humanity, the unity of the human race, and for removing mankind from being the image of God. Bavinck represents the continuity of thought in the Dutch circles from Kuyper. The idea of presuppositionalism and the differences of a believers presuppositions and an unbeliever dominates the thought of the Dutch world.
Herman Dooyeweerd and Louis Berkof help bring the Dutch thought of the Free University of Amersterdam to America. Dooyeweerd, who preferred to be known as a Christian philosopher rather than a theologian went to Canada and his influence is still felt in Canada. Louis Berkof came to America and taught at Calvin Seminary. Berkof and Dooyrweerd had a major influence on the Dutch population of America, but did begin to break into American thought especially in Berkof's Systematic Theology. Berkof again takes on Darwin in the view of the origin of man. His first objection is that it does not match up to Scripture. He is not substantially different from Bavnick on this point. Yet, Berkof also spends considerable time discussing the length of days. He often quotes Bavinck and Kupyer as well as several church fathers that treated the days as literal days. Berkof then goes on to show the exegesis of creation days. The Hebrew word Yom for day is usually a 24 hour period and in this case proceeded by an ordinal number, the second day, the third day. The adding of the phrase "evening and morning", the existence of the sun from day four on, and the sabbath law in Exodus 20. Berkof is clear that the days of creation must be seen as 6 literal 24 hour days. Then just to prove his point he includes the fact that Hodge and Dabney, two men advocating a day-age view for the sake of science indicate that it is exegetically doubtful if not outright impossible to come to their conclusion.
The 6 day view began to find its way back to Princeton with the hiring of Gerhodous Vos, a Dutch man who followed Kuyper, and then again one year before it was re-organized to remove all forms of biblical calvinism, the hiring of Cornelius Van Til. It is through Van Til that the 6 day advocates would again rise to mount an offensive in American thought. Van Til formalized what Kuyper had taught to his students with the Presuppositional apologetic approach. Van Til left with Machen and a few others to begin Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. This seminary was to continue the tradition of Princeton that had now been abolished by a thoroughly liberal General Assembly. Machen, however, would soon die, and the stronghold of Scottish Common Sense Realism was broken. Van Til then developed his Presuppositional Approach free from the strings of tradition at Princeton. He was joined at the seminary by his Dutch friend R.B. Kuiper, and the Dutch tradition and the Presbyterian tradition merge in a glorious way, with great results. The presuppositionalism of the Dutch claiming the final and original authority of the Bible rooted out the Scottish view and with it went the Theistic Evolution that had plagued Presbyterianism in the 19th century. The 20th century would find 6 day creation back in the forefront of religious thought. Along with the split off of the Bible Presbyterian Church the Orthodox Presbyterian Church became a stalwart defender of 6 day creation.
Westminster produced men like G. I. Williamson, who taught the length of the days is 6 literal 24 hour days in his study book on the Westminster Confession of Faith. Williamson a leader in the OPC shows the path the Orthodox Presbyterian Church took in the north, and not until recently has that church struggled with the creation account. Eventually Westminster even influenced the southern churches. The Presbyterian Church in America split off from the Southern Presbyterian church in the 70's. It contains many adherents to the Presuppositional theology. Douglas Kelly, a teacher at the original RTS and now the Systematic Theology professor at the branch in Charolette, NC., is one such example. Dr. Kelly has a book called Creation and Change where he discuss the importance and the truth of 6 literal 24 hour day creation. Also, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary stands for 6 day creation. They recently had a conference where they discussed and even debated 6 day creation. They too have published a book of the conference to inform the world of the truth of 6 day creation. Not coincidentally GPTS strictly holds to Van Tillian Presuppostionalism.
In conclusion, we see the church of Jesus Christ standing for 6 literal days with only a few slight waivers throughout the centuries. The church first protected itself from the philosophy of Greece and Gnoticism where the material world was thought to be evil. Yet, by holding to the word of God, the church with one voice affirmed God as the creator. It then fought with the idea of creation in an instant, another philosophy of the day. Some fell victim on account of a low view of Scripture and too high a commitment to philosophy. Yet, the church was not taken in and 6 day creation was the constant view. In the Middle Ages came about the idea of an eternally creating God that was entertained by some with similar problems with Scripture and philosophy. Yet even during the scholastic times the church held to 6 day creation. God in his providence renewed the church with the Reformation. With that renewal came a commitment to the Scripture as the foundation of all knowledge. Literal 6 day creation was again affirmed to be the biblical position and the position of orthodox Christians. Then came Darwin and the philosophy that threatened the church switched from the philosophy of the Greeks to the philosophy of the Enlightenment, science. Some again were caught with to low a view of Scripture and too high a view of the philosophy of science. Yet, God raised up more men to fight this battle, and 6 day creation never fell by the way side. In fact, it grows stronger every day as the faults in the philosophy of science grow and the truth of the Bible remains. What philosophy will next threaten the Bible is unclear, but what is clear is that 6 day creation has always been the position of the church because it is the position of the Bible. As long as the Bible remains the fundamental commitment of the church so to will 6 day creation remain a fundamental tenant of the Christian.
Sources:
Berkof's Systematic Theology
Herman Bavinck's In the Beginning
David Wells' Reformed Theology in America
Hart's Dictionary of Presbyterian and Reformed Thought
Reckoning with the Past multiple authors
Doug Kelly's Creation and Change
