about a concordat between the camps. His argument is built on evidence from orthodox Christian theology which the creationists seem to ignore. Still, Cunningham argues, with the creationists, that all the biblical evidence on creation is found in Genesis’ first three chapters.
Furthermore, I am fortunate to be writing this book as a companion volume to one by my colleague Edward W. H. Vick. In his book he takes a look at the Christian doctrine of creation within the framework of systematic theology. Thus, I can concentrate my study of creation on the evidence available in the biblical texts. Still, I shall preface my study by some general observations concerning issues that sometimes interfere with the study of the biblical materials.
To affirm that God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth does not require that creationism control what is taught in science classes. To characterize nature as creation is a theological statement. To study nature scientifically is to use the knowledge already attained by evidence objectively studied to predict possible scenarios in areas yet to be studied. On the basis of such predictions, and the theories that support them, scientists design experiments and carry on expeditions to gather evidence and test whether their predictions are correct.
Is it necessary to say that it is impossible to predict possible results and design experiments on the basis of creationism? Creationism is neither theology, i.e., an affirmation of creation as a theological statement, nor is it science. It is an ideology and, like all ideologies, only serves to distract the uninformed and hide the agenda of those who espouse it.
No scientific experiment has ever been designed using the conception of the universe as a three-story building with the earth in the ground floor and the waters in the basement and the upper floor. It is safe to say that none will ever be. Who with open eyes can affirm that the plant and animal species extant are the same ones that were created by God six thousand years ago? What can be predicted and which experiment that advances our knowledge of nature can be designed on the basis of such a postulate? To offer creationism as science is to ignore what scientific theories are for.
All science deals only with theories. Theories provide the structure with which to make predictions and design experiments to test them. That is their function and as such they work well. Of course, as new evidence obtained by such experiments multiplies and knowledge of a particular corner of nature increases, the theory that helped in the process is continuously being adjusted, modified, and perfected. If creationists understood this, they would not wish to offer the Genesis accounts as a scientific structure. Would creationists be willing to adjust the biblical “scientific theory” according to the results of the experiments that may be used to test it? It is precisely because science is this way that atheist, agnostic, Jewish, Moslem, Christian, and other kinds of religious scientists are able to work together harmoniously in the testing and the interpretation of the data made available as science continues its advancement.
Scientists who are Christian have found different ways in which to hold firm their faith in God as Creator while doing their scientific work. Some have decided that the theory of evolution is a frontal attack to the Christian faith and try to find ways by which to interpret the data to harmonize with the biblical accounts of creation. A few have tried to show that the biblical accounts are better scientifically than what is reported on the basis of the theory of evolution. Most observers agree, however, that those taking these views cease to be scientists and have become merely misguided believers.
The evolution of species was recognized by all scientists when Charles Darwin was a university student. The factors influencing the evolution of species were what Darwin studied and what scientists are still studying and will continue to study. On the basis of these studies science has made the advances that have made our lives today much more pleasant than those of our ancestors. As far as I know, no scientific advancement has been achieved on the basis of creationism.
Darwin’s main contribution was to note that nature carried on a labor similar to that performed by breeders of pedigreed domestic animals. By selecting members of a species with certain specific characteristics, and selecting their descendants with the desired characteristics over several generations, eventually breeders produce a generation in which all members have the desired characteristics. In this way breeders produce cows, dogs, cats and horses of different breeds. Darwin postulated that a similar process takes place in nature without human intervention. Darwin’s observations opened up a way of understanding how evolution takes place, they did not show that it happens — that was already known. Based on Darwin’s observations scientists have made innumerable advances affecting evolution in its multiple aspects. These advances, however, do not detract from the value of Darwin’s foundational work.
Every scientist considers Charles Darwin one of the greatest scientists in human history. The British nation, an officially Christian nation in which the king or queen is the head of both the state and the church, is so proud of him that it has placed his portrait in one of the bills of its currency. With humility I thank Charles Darwin for having made possible the scientific advances that allow me to have lived already seventeen years more than either my father or my mother. I think it is impossible to be a responsible, honest and grateful Christian and not recognize the contributions Charles Darwin made to science. All modern life scientists stand on his shoulders. To deny it is at best ingratitude and at worst either ignorance or hypocrisy. The church may harbor many faults within and survive, but it may not retain these two in these days.
Scientists do not have faith in evolution. Faith is faith, and science is science. Scientists work on the basis of evidence. Those who have evidence do not need faith. Scientific theories are not believed; they are tested. The science laboratories do not provide evidence of the work of God. Scientists who have faith in God the Creator affirm by faith that God is at work in the natural processes they observe in their laboratories. Faith is not the ability to conceptualize. If that were the case, then, as the biblical book of James says, the demons have faith in God, and creationists have faith in Satan. Faith has to do with our trust and dependence on a Creator God.
To believe is one thing; to have faith is something else. In practice, the difference between faith in God and scientific belief is that faith, even while standing over against conceptual insecurities, exhibits one hundred percent certainty. Scientists affirm conclusions on the basis of the preponderance of the evidence, never achieving one hundred percent certainty. The certainty of faith is neither grounded on scientific knowledge nor on theological beliefs, i.e., freedom of the will. Every statement by a scientist, like the posted price for an airline ticket, is subject to change without notice. No matter how many times they change their minds about specific scientific beliefs, scientists who have faith in God may continue to affirm their trust in The Creator. The same is true of theologians who change their minds about predestination or some other theological belief.
Often one hears creationists charge that evolutionists have faith in science. This means, according to them, that the issue rests on one’s decision as to whether to believe the Bible or believe science. The same creationists would also admit that faith and presumption are not quite the same, that in fact presumption is an abuse of faith. To have faith is to trust unconditionally. To have presumption is to assume power and test the one being trusted.
It is obvious that scientists do not have faith. They have presumption. They assume power over the objects of their study and test their theories about the way in which they would behave. Christians have faith in God. Scientists have presumptions on their theories. Creationists don’t have faith. Like scientists, they have presumptions. But while scientists can test their presumptions on their theories, creationists cannot test theirs on their ideology.
To learn from Darwin has nothing to do with faith. It only says that one participates in the intellectual life of the twenty-first century. The battle cries shouted by the fundamentalists who pretend to be arbiters of what can be believed or conceptualized by a believing scientist only confirm what accumulated Wisdom teaches: beliefs neither win nor die “with their boots on” in intellectual
