Doug, you did a lot of work, I guess over 20 years ago,
when you published your book, Creation and Change. And you recognized
that something was happening. What was that? What did you see going on? I saw that so much of the evangelical
community felt it necessary to make common cause
with some form of evolution, usually called
theistic evolution, and thus not to interpret
in a clear, historical, literal reading the first
11 chapters of Genesis, particularly the first two. And I knew that if that were continued
to go unchallenged and people simply felt there was no alternative but to be
a theistic evolutionist, then you're tearing up
the foundational doctrine of Scripture, namely Creation. And then that meant that the culture
would have the final say in what you believe about that and the rest of the Bible
so I had to address it. So, what you're saying is
when you look at Genesis 1-11, for example, you see
that as real history. Is that correct? That's correct. Because the rest
of the Old Testament does, the prophets do, the law of Moses does, the New
Testament writers of Gospel, Epistle, all see it
as serious history and that it is the foundation
of Fall, Redemption, and Consummation. So, you’re saying there is this internal evidence
from the rest of the Scripture that looks back
at those chapters and says this is real history. Exactly and that explains
the basis of reality. And so if you play fast
and loose with that, you have very severe problems in the whole structure
of biblical truth and of church theology. Well, your expertise is really
in the whole area of the history of church as well. What about the church fathers? Is this controversy new or has it existed for hundreds
or thousands of years. I would say in general
the controversy was not inside the healthy
orthodox wing of the church. But there were people who were of heretical view
trying to take over the church like the Gnostics
who resented material reality. They didn't deny there
had been some kind of creation, but they said
that was by a bad God, an inferior God, the Demiurge. And so they wanted
to spiritualize everything. And they would certainly
not have taken seriously the first few chapters of Genesis in the interest
of their theology which came from the east. So the church fathers
are often addressing them and saying, No, there's one God who made the entire world
and not a plurality of gods. And He spoke these
worlds into existence. He is in charge of them. He's preserving them. He allowed them to fall and then He sent His son
to redeem the world. And that will be carried out
to the salvation of the elect and the complete beautification and restoration of
the entire cosmos. So, most of the times
they're addressing creation in the earlier years, like the apologist Justin Martyr
and people like that, it's fighting heretical ideas
which would have put paid, as it were, to the whole structure
of salvation and to the clear reading of Scripture. Now, a little bit later
by the 4th century, then you have people writing
on Creation itself. Usually the name of the book
would be Hexameron, namely Work of Six Days. And you had Basil
the Great in the 4th century, one of the Cappadocian fathers,
wrote a marvelous Hexameron, going through the work
of the six days and, surprisingly, dealing with some
of the very issues that we face since that time. And then you had
the great Ambrose of Milan who was so influential in the life of St.
Augustine of Hippo. He preached through Creation
and it's known as Hexameron. And it's very close to
what we would say today. From a perspective that these were
literal six days? Literal historical truths and that they're essential
to appreciate redemption and make some sense of it. And so when it was addressed
in a more systematic way and, you know, Cyril of Alexandria wrote
Contra Imperatorum Julianum — Against Julian Apostate — he deals a good bit
with why Creation is right. And Julian wanted
to take the empire back to paganism with many gods. So, as a general rule, wherever you see
Creation addressed, say in Irenaeus of Lyon, who would be writing maybe
before the year 180, he doesn't do a specific work
on Creation but in his book Against Heresies —
Adversus Haereses, also a smaller demonstration
of apostolic history — any time it's addressed, he's saying the Gnostics
are wrong to say that God didn't make it
or it's unimportant. No, God created
material reality. He loves it, He redeems it. It is essential to know Creation in order to appreciate who
Jesus Christ is and what He did. And so it goes all through
the ages — Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Middle Ages,
Peter Lombard before that, Calvin, Luther. Now, there are one or two
exceptions of note. One was the person who's not considered
a church father because he was listed as
heretical on a number of points. Origen. And he basically takes
a form of Neoplatonism and eastern thought — I think he probably
personally was a Christian, I would say that he was — but when he gets through
with the received text and the creeds
in the Christian faith, he has so merged it with
the different eastern theories, you wonder what's left. He was a Christian, but he spiritualizes
everything away. So, you wouldn't look
to Origen for very much on what the church thought about
a serious doctrine of Creation. I mean, in his book
Contra Celsum, Against Celsus, you'd find some things are
pretty good and some that are off the wall. Well, I know that St. Augustine
is often pointed to by those who would try
to allegorize Genesis. How do you read Augustine? Let me say I love and appreciate St. Augustine
and use his teaching regularly in my classes all
these 30 some years. And preaching before that. And in most
cases he's excellent. Very solid. However, there's a little bit of problem with one or two
views he had on Creation. Before we go to that, let me say I recommend
everyone that’s interested in this matter to read
his De Genesi ad Litteram, Literal Interpretation
of Genesis. And there was a new edition came
out maybe 25 years ago, translation notes by a Roman
Catholic writer John Taylor, I believe. And it's beautiful,
it's wonderful. I would say in most cases what St. Augustine does
in that literal interpretation of Genesis is just
right down the line, addresses issues of his culture
which come to our culture. However, he has
one major peculiarity. And that is he says he believes that God created everything
in one split moment of time rather than
taking six actual days. But there is a six day structure
of different things happening and he doesn't deny that. And he believes that was in order
to accommodate the angels and angelic knowledge. The six days is the way
the angels could contemplate it and then he goes
into the matter of six days is because of the aliquot parts
of six — in other words, you take one plus two
plus three, that’s six. Then what's even
more unusual than that, I think he is trying to put together certain
elements of Neoplatonism that remained in him. I mean, he's a profound
Christian but he did have some elements of this that… we never totally come
out of what we were brought up in intellectually. And he didn't, although he did a marvelous job
for the most part. He's trying to combine
Neoplatonic theories of angelic intelligences and how they would have come
at this with something that cannot be
combined with it — Hebraic view of Creation being
spoken into existence by God and then it working in
a developing series of six days. And so, he's not entirely
successful there because, I think, he's trying to work together two essentially
incompatible systems, namely some theories of Neoplatonism and
straight Hebraic teaching on physical reality. Well, as we move forward
in time then from Augustan, where do you see all of a sudden the thought
beginning to work its way in that there is something
less than the historical record found in Genesis? I think Dr. Nigel Cameron, who used to be Warden of
Rutherford house in Edinburgh, now he's in various ministries
in this country, he did a book a number of years
ago which unfortunately is out of print — Evolution
the Authority of the Bible. In which, he shows
that the whole church, as far as commentators and creeds on
into Protestant confessions, held straight Six
Day Creation until the European Enlightenment. And particularly two
things happened — well, many things happened
in the European Enlightenment — two things in particular
reference to Creation. One is there was
the introduction of the thought of vast geological
ages being evidenced by geological structures. That was happening
in the late 18th century. And then in the 19th century, of course, we
have Charles Darwin. It was not that theories of
evolution were totally novel — they weren't — because if you go back to certain of
the pre-Socratic philosophers, Democritus, Lucipus and others, they held some
kind of evolution. But Christianity had purged that
out and said it's ridiculous, and it goes way underground. It’s able to come
back to the surface by the European Enlightenment, geology first and then with particularly Darwin —
whose grandfather was teaching, Erasmus Darwin — but Charles Darwin's
major work came out in 1859 and sold out in about two days because people were
so desperate to find an intellectual alternative
to Divine Creation. Well, Cameron shows
that in about five years, five or six years after Darwin's
book became popular, i.e. by the late 1860s, there was scarcely
a Protestant commentator, Protestant commentary that didn't accept some form
of evolution or at least say, “ This is a matter best left
to the scientists, let's deal with spiritual. ” It happened that fast? It happened that fast,
within six or seven years. Now, there were exceptions. Good Bishop Wilberforce
resisted it and there were a few that resisted it. But, let's say, three or four resisted it
and in the English, French, and German speaking worlds
a hundred gladly accepted it or at least refused
to deal with it. So, that's how
quickly it happened. So, is that the point, as we now move forward
from the 1860s to our present day, that we then have
that continued belief in evangelical Christianity that leans more and more
towards the notion that Genesis is not history? Yes. I heard a distinguished
professor from Holland when I was studying at University of
Edinburgh — Hooykaas. A very good man, I don't in any way wish
to say anything against him. Was giving some lectures
and what became a book, Religion and the Rise
of Modern Science, and much of it is so good. But I raised my hand as
a student, asked him, “What do you think
about Morris and Whitcomb? ” See, he was a scientist. “ What do you think
about Morris and Whitcomb, the Genesis Flood? ” And he said, “ Well, I can tell you I
was asked by publishers, should it be translated
into Dutch and publish. And I said absolutely not. It will be offensive. ” He said, “If we take a” — literary
what he said — “if we take a stand on a literal
interpretation of Genesis as do Morris and Whitcomb, it is very likely to make
the Gospel incredible to intellectuals and
particularly to young people. If we do what they did and say that the evolutionary scene
for the last hundred or more years is to be challenged
on a scientific basis, we will lose respect
for the Gospel of Salvation. So, we cannot do it. ” That was his answer and I think he's a good man. I don't agree with
his point of view. But I think he would be speaking
for the vast majority of those who feel you have to be
a theistic evolutionist or you will make the Gospel
incredible to our culture which has for whatever… 150 years… accepted
some form of evolution. Is that a fair answer? Yes. But what you're saying is
that position is not the historical
position of Christianity. It's more recent. Yes, it is post
1750s, post 1760s. It was that recent. Right, but especially
post Darwin in 1860. Particularly post Darwin. It was a major collapse of Christian
intellectuals before it. Somebody wrote an article…
was the man's name Livingston, I think I referenced
him in that book, challenging the theory
that many hold that when Darwin's
material was published and starts sweeping the field, particularly as
his quote “bulldog ” Thomas Huxley is barking
at everybody scaring them back, the church mounted
a serious resistance and the conservative theologians
did battle with him. He shows that is
not the case at all. The whole church, nearly the whole
church collapsed. Particularly the conservative
theologians collapsed before it, you know, Shedd and very great men
like Warfield and others felt that you would be so out of line
with what their colleagues in various universities thought
was proper scientific procedure that they had to make some kind
of common cause with it, although they
remained Christian. So, the church
did not fight Darwin. Bishop Wilberforce did. One can name two
or three others, but hundreds gave
in immediately. The church did not
mount a resistance. The only resistance is beginning
to come since the 1960s with Whitcomb and Morris. And now it's picking up tempo, which may be why some of the more recent
organisations to push theistic evolution have felt
it necessary to rise up. Because they see us as
a threat to what they think is the acceptability
of the Gospel in the culture. I do not put a bad motivation
onto these people. That I refuse to do. I think they're mistaken
in how they assess. And most of all,
here's the issue, you and I will stand for God. We must not answer whether something was
pragmatically helpful but whether or not it was true. And I truly agree with that.
