Creationism - National Center for Science Education

contradict the other.” Scientific truth, however, is relative and changing (remember the
Fall), while the Bible’s truth is absolute (although it may be misinterpreted). “From a
Christian point of view all forms of naturalism must be rejected,” says Wilbert Rusch in
the same volume. In a later volume edited by Zimmerman, Creation, Evolution, and
God’s Word (1972 [1966]), Richard Korthals concedes that Darwinism is correct if we
accept naturalism; as a Bible-believer, however, he must reject this assumption.
One prominent evangelical scholar, Bernard Ramm, criticized both strict
creationism and the fundamentalist Bible-science attitude as well as materialistic
evolution, arguing that the Bible is neither full of scientific error nor filled with modern
scientific predictions and theories. Ramm, who has a philosophy Ph.D. from USC and
studied under Barth, was active in the ASA, and led its resistance against the young-earth
creationism and Flood Geology espoused by Morris, Lammerts and other members
during the 1950s. In The Christian View of Science and Scripture (1954), written before
these ASA strict creationists initiated the modern creation-science movement, Ramm
points out the scientific naivete of their Flood Geology predecessors (Price, Rehwinkel,
Nelson, H. Clark) and other fundamentalist Bible-scientists.
Ramm’s book consists of lengthy chapters describing Bible-science and other
evangelical Christian interpretations of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology.
It is an excellent reference for various interpretations regarding the relations between
science and the Bible. Ramm himself argues that the language of the Bible is
“phenomenal,” using popular, not technical, terminology, expressed in the terms of the
cultures of the time in which it was written. The Bible deals with the appearance of
things and events, and eschews scientific theorizing. Making a distinction between strict
creationist fundamentalists and other evangelical Christians, Ramm emphasizes that not
all evangelicals believe in recent creationism. Though most oppose evolution, some
religiously orthodox evangelicals support theistic evolution. “It is not true,” he
continues, “that evangelicals believe that the last word on specific details of physics,
astronomy, chemistry, geology, biology, and psychology is to be found in the Bible.”
Contrary to fundamentalist Bible-scientists, Ramm says that “Christianity is a
religion and not a science.” Evangelicals believe that the Bible provides a supernatural
and historical background for all investigation, but this does not require that theologians
dictate to scientists what is proper science or not.
1. It is impossible to separate Christianity from history and Nature. The hope of some to relegate religion
to the world of pure religious experience, and science to the world of physical phenomena, may suit some
religious systems but not Christianity. The historical element alone in the Bible is too dominant to permit
this treatment, as is the repeated reference to creation. ... Creation and history are indispensable to a loyal
evangelical theology...
2. The Bible does not teach final scientific theory, but teaches final theological truth from the cultureperspective
of the time and place in which the writers of the Bible wrote. We do not expect modern science
in its empirical details in the Bible...
3. The Biblical statements about Nature are non-postulational or phenomenal; and its statements are free
from the grotesque and the mythological... It is free from the absurd views about Nature prevalent among
the Greeks and Romans. Scripture is committed to no theory of the solar system nor the structure of
matter... [1954:244]
“The Bible Is a Textbook of Science,” states Henry Morris in a chapter title of one
of his earlier works (Studies in the Bible and Science; or Christ and Creation, 1966). In
his recent 516-page compendium of Bible-science The Biblical Basis for Modern Science