Edward B. Davis, ‘”The Word and Works: Concordism and American Evangelicals” in ”Perspectives on an Evolving Creation,” Ed. Keith B. Miller – quotes Bernard Ramm in his book ‘The Christian View of Science and Scripture’ saying, ‘unfortunately the noble tradition [of respect for science] which was in ascendancy in the closing years of the nineteenth century has not been the major tradition in evangelicalism in the twentieth century.’
This book was published in 1954 and accepted the fact that scientific knowledge might contradict previous understandings of what the Bible taught about the origin of the planet and of life.
‘The Words and Works’ article talks about various people in the 19th century who had no problem accepting advances in scientific understanding and either viewed the Bible as containing the same information in a different form, or else not really attempting to describe a cosmology in scientific terms. These represent the ”noble tradition” that Ramm supported but that he saw slipping away.
He says in a footnote that the tenth printing of Ramm’s book was published in 1976, when the text was altered to read ‘a narrow bibliolatry, the product not of faith but of fear, buried the noble tradition.’
In 1976 I was attending Dallas Theological Seminary, and did not even know of the existence of this book. Odd to think that in those days, where would you buy it? I am sure it was not in the Dallas Seminary bookstore, or at Christian Supply, the Christian bookstore in Portland. There was no amazon.com or internet.
Another question I ask myself is, what if I had read it in 1976, or even in 1954 when it was first published (when I was 6 years old)? Maybe I would have immediately rejected it anyway.
It reminds me of a quote I saved from an email:
‘ Yes, in fact I own a copy of Ramm”s book The Christian View of Science and Scripture. That book did so much to boost my faith. The main thing that kept me from the gospel was that science and the Bible just don”t agree. And we can see the results of science in everyday life. So who is right? Enter Bernie Ramm. Wow! When I was in Ethiopia at Durami somebody gave me a copy of Morris and Whitcomb”s Creation Science. I devoured it but there was so much in the book that just didn”t set well with me so I asked a professional geologist about it. He happened to be on our compound looking for a year-round source of water. I was very impressed with the methods he used (eventually he found a spring half way up the mountain, designed a dam and pipe system to get the water onto the compound). I”ll never forget his reaction when I asked him about it. He took me aside and told me to throw that book away. Then he cited example after example from the mountains and formations in Ethiopia. By now I”ve forgotten those examples except for folded rocks. It takes time and pressure to fold rock strata. Otherwise they break.
”But watch out, most evangelicals swallow Creation Science hook, line and sinker. The most recent example is when I was showing a fellow missionary the Andromeda Galaxy (2.5 million light years away – the furthest object visible with the naked eye). I expounded how we were actually looking 2.5 million years into the past since that”s how long it took the light to get here. He dryly answered, but the universe is only 10,000 years old ( in his tone I read – what are you an unbeliever or something, read your Bible).’
I am thankful for what we have available now and what I have run into through books, blogs, and various other sources. But I keep getting annoyed by my ignorance in earlier years. I accepted the standard line uncritically.
Of course the establishment is still keeping knowledge from the masses – see my previous rant on ”Tom Woodward on Darwin.” The Dallas Seminary Magazine could at least give their readers the titles of a few books like Kenneth Miller”s ”Finding Darwin”s God” or ”Only A Theory” or many other authors. Instead they refer the reader to the rinky-dink websites listed in that article. Such websites will provide a level of comfort to the choir, but for any serious reader will be laughable.
April 19, 2009 at 7:04am Tom Swift You are one of the few (maybe the only one) DTS grads that I have ever met that will admit publicly that they see flaws with their system. The concept of seeing light from stars that would have been sent 2.49 million years before they were created does bring questions to the preached theory of today.