When one hears or reads in the mass media about a creation-evolution controversy (as in the Kansas government school standards controversy), the parties to the debate are typically characterized in predictable ways. One side is said to support the so-called scientific theory of evolution, and the other to support a literal interpretation of Genesis. When you hear that, take a quick step to the side. Somebody is trying to put you on the horns of a false dilemma.

There are not one but two origins controversies. The first concerns the age of the earth: Is it relatively young, or very old? Let us call this the young earth v. old earth debate.

The second concerns the origin of Earth’s million different species of animals, plants, fungi, and microbes: Did they come about from a combination of blind forces, time, and chance? or did somebody make them? Let us call this the evolution vs. creation debate. These two questions do not logically depend on each other.

The evolution and age debates are separable, and it is to the advantage of our public witness to insist on this. The church should speak in no uncertain terms against evolution. The theological evidence against evolutionary theory is overwhelming, and the scientific evidence for it is being proven more and more dubious each clay. On the other hand, the church must do more work to become of one mind on the age controversy.

The Two Controversies Separated

To the first origins question there are two basic answers: young earth or old earth, with several varieties of each basic kind of answer. To the second question there are two basic answers: evolution or creation, with several varieties of each basic answer. Two independent questions, with two basic answers each, can be combined in the following four ways.

Old-earth evolutionist: These are, of course, the neo-Darwinists who dominate the academic world today. They include Carl Sagan, Stephen Gould, Richard Dawkins, and the national associations of government school teachers. This view is also a key element of today’s secular humanism.

Young-earth creationist: These include a large segment of orthodox Christians. This is the position of the California-based Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the Britain-based Biblical Creation Society (BCS), most self-identified fundamentalist Christians, and a large segment of the general American population. ICR and other organizations attempt to defend this position in the public square. The faculties of most secular universities despise them, and the science faculties of most Christian colleges try to distance them selves from this position. Work has been difficult, and they have been thoroughly marginalized in the academy.

Old-earth creationist: These are people who generally accept the conclusions of main stream geology, but deny that time and chance can explain the diversity of life. The proponents of the intelligent design movement (Philip Johnson, Michael Behe, William Dembski, and others) argue that macroevolution is scientifically impossible. All life forms were designed. Scientific investigation cannot tell you who the designer is.

Young-earth evolutionist: This position seems paradoxical to us, because the dominant evolutionary theory today (neo-Darwin ism) assumes that long times are required for the process to work. However, the origin myths of most pagan religions are evolutionary. For example, in Norse mythology, the friction between Niffelheim (the ice universe) and Musspelheim (the fire world) produced sparks from which rose the frost giant Ymir and a gigantic cow. The cow licked the ice world and from the licking came the grandfather of the gods. This is an evolutionary theory. It assumes that a combination of impersonal forces plus chance produced the world, or at least produced the gods, who then made the world.

The most solid evidence that the two main controversies of age and origin can be separated is that they have been separated throughout history. Although old-earth evolutionists and young-earth creationists are the most common actors on the public stage today, we also see old-earth creationists today, and young-earth evolution theories were very common in the past.

Implications for Christian Witness

The prestige of naturalistic science is so great in our society that even the church stands in awe of it. The scientific community today remains rigorously committed to the first theory above, old-earth evolutionism, and we are tempted to shrink hack. How ever, the defense of evolution is much weaker than the defense of the old-earth theory. The defenders of Darwinism, especially the government-school science teachers, frequently claim they have proved evolution when they prove the old-earth theory. They end up arguing like this, although of course they do not put it this simply.

Major premise: If there is enough time, life evolves.

Minor premise: The earth is old, so there is enough time.

Conclusion: Life evolves.

Does the conclusion follow from the premises? Yes. Is the minor premise true? Maybe. (We shall discuss this later.) Is the major premise true? Most certainly not.

Creationists are in a debate, and we want to persuade the audience. It is to our advantage to direct the focus of the debate where our case is strongest and the humanist’s case is weakest. Philip Johnson’s books are brilliant in that regard. By directing his readers to focus on the question of whether life forms are the result of design or chance, he has encouraged many Christians to examine evolution more critically, and lie has also greatly discomfited the dogmatic teachers of evolution in the universities and government schools.

Evolution or Design?

Theologically, this answer is obvious, since the Scriptures teach cosmic personalism: God personally created everything, and personally preserves and governs all His creatures and all their actions. Proverbs 16:33 teaches that, “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” We believe in providence, not fate or luck. Genesis 1:24 reads, “And God spoke, ‘Let the earth bring forth animals of every kind.” We are designed.

The scientific problem with evolution boils down to an information problem. Life forms are incredibly complex; they are information rich systems. It is hard to explain how to generate meaningful genetic information by chance.

Therefore, Darwinism is suffering a crisis in confidence. Darwinists are aware that life looks designed. Their mission is to explain that the design is only apparent, not real. This is why evolutionist Richard Dawkins has titled his book The Blind Watchmaker. A small number of Christian scientists have become more confident in attacking evolution on its scientific weaknesses.

Humanists embrace Darwinism, in spite of its shaky scientific foundation, precisely because it makes it easier to suppress the doctrine of creation. The religious implications of Darwinism are so attractive to the humanist that lie will go to amazing contortions to defend it. It is no anomaly that most pagan cosmogonies (origin myths) are evolutionary. Darwinism is just a variation on a theme.

Young Earth or Old Earth?

Theologically, the heart of the matter is whether Genesis 1 (and some other passages) can be interpreted figuratively, or whether a literal interpretation is the only appropriate one. Young-earth theologians have been growing in sophistication and confidence. They are getting better and better at arguing the importance of literal Genesis 1 interpretation to much of the church. However, they tend to ignore the findings of the geologists. These two camps (young-earth theologians and conventional geologists) are increasingly confident, yet are not talking to each other.

Scientifically, the geologists are not suffering any crisis in confidence that the earth is old, If the physical laws have not changed since creation, the earth most certainly looks old. For example, one can measure how fast sediment accumulates at the mouths of rivers, and offshore, and one can measure the thickness of similar sedimentary rock units. By doing the arithmetic, geologists concluded that some formations of sedimentary rock took millions of years to deposit. Furthermore. geologists do not need to be concerned with design. Rock units are not information-rich in the same way plants and animals are. Bear in mind that geologists are very successful in finding oil using the old-earth theory. It is hard to argue with results. The young-earth creation scientists (ICR, etc.) will impress people if they can do practical things using their theory. They should spend more money on exploration than on journalism, for example.

The young-earth creationists have their work cut out for them. It is the mission of young-earth creationists to convince others that the age is only apparent, not real, or that physical laws have changed in prehistoric time. Otherwise they have to find many hitherto unnoticed anomalies in the uniformitarian geological story which currently doesn’t support a young earth.

Old-earth theologians have their work cut out for them too. They are more successful in the academy (universities and seminary faculties) than in the church. Indeed, few laymen are acquainted with the particulars in any variety of the old-earth day-age theories or with Dr. Meredith Kline’s frame work hypothesis. To their credit, however, the old-earth theologians do interact with the findings of the geologists and astronomers. Dr. Robert Newmann’s variety of the day-age theory’ is particularly elegant. Still, they have been unable to shake the perception that their theories stern more from a desire to accommodate than from a primary commitment to the Scriptures. Too many of the people who hold these theories have been prone to leak in other areas of doctrine.

New Developments

The scientists who propose intelligent design have attracted serious attention. Enough attention, in fact, that the leaders of the evolutionary guild have chosen to attack the intelligent design movement rather than ignore it. Some conventional teachers of evolution have responded with honest debate. Others have responded in the more underhanded way of trying to get intelligent design teachers fired from their academic positions. (Baylor University’s demotion of William Dernbski is an example of applying negative institutional sanctions.)

In the age controversies, the Re formed community has seen an increased interest in literal six-day creationism. Some serious Reformed scholars (such as Ken Gentry and James Jordan) are publishing books arguing that the literal interpretation is the only sound one. Some presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church in America and Orthodox Presbyterian Church have placed obstacles to ordaining candidates for teaching elders who do not support the literal six-day position. One presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America has declared that denominational standards take the position of literal six-clay creationism (see sidebar article). Regardless of whether one agrees with the position. it is certainly the result of a healthy increase in doctrinal rigor. This is a welcome change from the previous generation, when theories of origins were not questioned, and the secular scholar ship was not challenged.

Which Side Are You On?

We need to stress the wrongness of Darwinism, and we need to vigorously oppose the idea that Christians should ever assume that the universe is a closed system. We also should not refuse to be called creationists. The world’s scholars have claimed to have refuted Christian doctrines since the clays of ancient Rome. And those scholars have all gone to the ashcan of history. I would further argue that any Christian who believes Darwinism is true, or that it is compatible with Christianity, either is thoroughly compromised or just does not understand. Such a person is not able to teach.

With respect to the age of the earth, we should not think the debate is settled. Both sides have good points to make, and both sides have serious problems with their argument. The defenders of six literal clays need to explain why the earth looks as old as it does. They need to interact with the scientists. The defenders of the old earth need to interact with the laymen in the church. The seminary professors who hold to old-earth teachings have been reticent in publicly defending their position outside of rarified grounds of the academy. That looks bad. In a culture where seminaries have historically been the leaders in introducing theological compromise to the church, any appearance of secretiveness will invite distrust.

I am a professional geologist. My training therefore has been preponderantly old-earth. There is almost no support among my colleagues for a young-earth view. In the past I joined with my colleagues in deriding young-earth creationists. I no longer do, and I now sit on the fence on this question. Young-earth theorists have been unable to explain why uniformitarian geologists are so successful at finding oil. Old-earth theologians have been unable to shake the taint of accommodation.

As a doctrinal and judicial matter, we should understand that the Westminster standards do assume “the space of six clays” (Shorter Catechism Question 8). The Westminster divines also denied that their confession is infallible. Let the old-earth school prove its case. Let them also disclose their disagreement with the Westminster standards at this point. It is something that laymen are entitled to know.

Both sides of the age of the earth debate must he prepared to think well of each other. This is not a controversy of “rubes versus infidels.” There are true Christian scholars on each side. Charity is in order.

Also, we ought not to be afraid of using the good ideas that come from the other camp. Six-day creationist Henry Morris has done yeoman work in exposing the philosophical and social evils of Darwinism. From the 1870s to the 1960s the church retreated in the face of Darwinism. We are indebted to Morris for stopping the church’s retreat. Old-earth creationist Philip Johnson has troubled the preachers of Darwinism more than anybody in the last hundred years. Finally, it is always important to remember 1 Corinthians 2:20, 27: “Where is the wise man, where is the debater of this age? Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world. hut God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong.’ The world’s scholarship will always oppose Christian scholarship. and Christians who want to debate in the public square must be prepared for the world’s derision, and resolve not to fear it.