God and Nature Summer 2021
Bernard Ramm’s Influence on Young-Earth Creationism |
|
By Terry Defoe
INTRODUCTION
Bernard Ramm (1916-1992) was a respected Baptist theologian whose ideas continue to influence the science/faith discussion. His best-known work, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (1), was published in 1954. This book is a critique of the “hyper-orthodox”—Ramm’s characterization of individuals whose negative appraisal of science, particularly biological science, he considered a serious liability to the church. Ramm was labeled a “New Evangelical,” an individual who stressed the importance of responsible scholarship and positive relationships with those espousing differing points of view.
In the first half of the twentieth century, most evangelicals were willing to consider what science had to say. In our day, many evangelicals do not know that young-earth creationism (YEC) represents a departure from the long-standing Christian practice of taking science seriously. In the 1920s, The Fundamentals (Part IV), an influential summary of evangelical doctrine, left open the possibility of theistic evolution (2). Organized creationism was not a major force at that time. But things were about to change, and The Christian View of Science and Scripture would be a major catalyst. Ramm’s views fell outside the boundaries of evangelical orthodoxy and eventually prompted a vigorous (and negative) response.
INTRODUCTION
Bernard Ramm (1916-1992) was a respected Baptist theologian whose ideas continue to influence the science/faith discussion. His best-known work, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (1), was published in 1954. This book is a critique of the “hyper-orthodox”—Ramm’s characterization of individuals whose negative appraisal of science, particularly biological science, he considered a serious liability to the church. Ramm was labeled a “New Evangelical,” an individual who stressed the importance of responsible scholarship and positive relationships with those espousing differing points of view.
In the first half of the twentieth century, most evangelicals were willing to consider what science had to say. In our day, many evangelicals do not know that young-earth creationism (YEC) represents a departure from the long-standing Christian practice of taking science seriously. In the 1920s, The Fundamentals (Part IV), an influential summary of evangelical doctrine, left open the possibility of theistic evolution (2). Organized creationism was not a major force at that time. But things were about to change, and The Christian View of Science and Scripture would be a major catalyst. Ramm’s views fell outside the boundaries of evangelical orthodoxy and eventually prompted a vigorous (and negative) response.
"He asserted that pointing out weaknesses in someone else’s theory does not thereby make one’s own theory correct." |
From the earliest days of the scientific revolution, science has been subject to constructive criticism. Christians were part of this process but rarely considered science to be an enemy of the faith. Copernicanism was problematic at first but was eventually accepted. Aspects of science that initially caused concern included surgery (said to mutilate the body), vaccination (declared the work of the devil and blasphemy against God), as well as painkillers and anesthesia (considered ways of avoiding the curse of the fall into sin) (3). The vaccination issue, of course, lives on, albeit for different reasons.
NOBLE AND IGNOBLE
Ramm was a conciliator. He advised Christians to be charitable in their dealings with one another and especially with those outside the faith. He advocated respectful conversation. The Christian View of Science and Scripture speaks of two very different approaches to science, a “noble” and an “ignoble” one (4). The ignoble approach is marked by hubris. It is hyper-critical, self-assured, self-righteous, ill-informed, spoiling for a fight. A well-known example of a combative approach is that of Ken Ham and the organization he founded, Answers in Genesis. Berating people, however, doesn’t work—it only encourages individuals to hold on to their views more tenaciously. No one appreciates having their intelligence impugned. Aggressive negativism builds walls of resentment. On the other hand, an irenic approach, with its emphasis on dialog rather than debate, builds bridges.
Fundamentalistic all-or-nothing thinking is not limited to YEC. A small minority of scientists and other public intellectuals—individuals like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Jerry Coyne, and the late Christopher Hitchens, the so-called New Atheists—share a perspective called scientism, according to which science is the only legitimate method of ascertaining truth. The New Atheists use science to attack faith and religion, but their criticisms are often simplistic and ill-informed. When scientists like Dawkins step outside mainstream scientific methodology and hold forth on issues of religion, they have entered the realm of philosophy (5).
YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISM
The roots of modern young-earth creationism can be traced back to Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) prophet Ellen G. White (1827-1915). In 1874, White had a vision in which—she claimed—the true impact of Noah’s flood on the earth’s geology was revealed. Fossil evidence, White argued, demonstrates the global impact of the flood. Another Adventist, Canadian-born self-taught geologist George McCready Price (1870-1963), popularized White’s claims, which came to be known as flood geology. Largely due to Price's zeal, the so-called gap theory (6), which had been the dominant theory with regard to the age of the earth among evangelicals, was quickly replaced by young-earth creationism. Flood geology remains a core concept in YEC today.
PROGRESSIVE CREATIONISM
Ramm’s position is, from today's perspective, hybrid or eclectic. Some of his views are consonant with young-earth creationism, others with theistic evolution, and still others with intelligent design (ID). Bernard Ramm was not a theistic evolutionist (or evolutionary creationist) but a proponent of progressive creationism. He believed that creation took place by means of many separate divine interventions—an initial instantaneous creation followed by a series of successive creations—and that this sequence of events took place over a very long period of time. As evidence, Ramm argued that the fossil record shows evidence of jumps and saltations. These can be seen as miraculous works of God programmed in advance, a point of view called orthogenesis. Ramm’s progressive creationism, however, failed to win the support of the majority of evangelical scientists (7).
Progressive creationism, it turns out, is a major component of contemporary intelligent design creationism. Berkeley lawyer Phillip Johnson (1940-2019) played an important role in the formation of ID. Johnson argued that a creative intelligence caused critical mutations to arrive right on schedule. Johnson, like Ramm before him, claimed that “the single greatest problem which the fossil record poses for Darwinism is the ‘Cambrian explosion’” (8). Thirty-five years before Johnson’s challenge, Ramm had argued that the sudden appearance of animal forms in the Cambrian argued strongly for God’s creative intervention. Ramm also anticipated another ID concept called the anthropic principle. The strong form of the anthropic principle states that the fundamental physical constants of the universe must be just what they are for life—and ultimately sentient, intelligent life—to exist. Years before, Ramm had argued that “… conditions necessary for life are not accidental but purposed” (9).
Ramm argued, as do numerous contemporary young-earth creationists, that there are no transitional forms among fossil discoveries. And again, along with today’s young-earth creationists, he claimed that the Scriptures possess scientific credibility: the Scriptures contain no scientific errors because God kept the authors from making them (10). Again, Ramm was not a theistic evolutionist—he explicitly denied the possibility of evolution by natural selection. Ramm did, however, advocate some views characteristic of theistic evolution. He argued, for instance, that descriptions of the natural realm in the Scriptures are phenomenological. In other words, those descriptions pertain to appearances, using common-sense understanding to explain natural phenomena. With theistic evolutionists, Ramm rejected the claim that there was no death before the fall into sin. He also raised a few eyebrows in the evangelical community when he argued that Noah’s flood was local, not global (11).
CRITICISM
Because of his departure from traditional evangelical beliefs about creation and the flood, Bernard Ramm was persona non grata among many evangelicals. Despite the points of agreement we have just seen, Ramm was strongly critical of YEC, both for the content of their arguments and for the methods they used to communicate them. Here are a few examples drawn from The Christian View:
Ramm was prepared for the criticism he knew would come his way. He once said, “All the criticism I ever received was worth it, just to know that there would never be a student of mine who, after studying with me… lost his or her faith because I never allowed them to wrestle [with the issues]” (16). He asserted that pointing out weaknesses in someone else’s theory does not thereby make one’s own theory correct. He reminded YECs that a perspective which needs to be supported by threats and intimidation is sure to fail because it unwittingly gives ammunition to the enemies of Christianity. Ramm argued that spiritual qualifications do not exempt a person from learning science. He encouraged evangelicals to engage with science rather than attack it.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
The Christian View of Science and Scripture was strongly critical of George McCready Price and his flood geology, and it elicited a strong pushback. Evangelical theologian John Whitcomb was particularly incensed by Ramm's criticisms. As far as Whitcomb was concerned, Ramm’s efforts were accommodationism pure and simple—that is, a blatant capitulation to atheistic science that would sound the death knell of traditional evangelical theology. Whitcomb lined the margins of Ramm’s book with critical comments—seed thoughts for what would become one of young-earth creationism’s most influential works. Whitcomb, a theologian, was advised to recruit a scientific co-author for his proposed book. He chose hydraulic engineer Henry Morris (1918-2006). Their book, The Genesis Flood (17), changed the landscape, and certainly not in the way Ramm had hoped. It made assent to young-earth creationism a litmus test of evangelical orthodoxy—a litmus test that stands largely unchanged to this day (18).
The Genesis Flood is essentially two long arguments. It is, first of all, a spirited defense of flood geology. Interestingly, Morris and Whitcomb chose to downplay their debt to Adventists White and Price. Secondly, it presents arguments highly critical of Bernard Ramm (there are forty references to Ramm in the index). Largely due to this one book, an entire generation of evangelicals fell under the spell of flood geology. Advocates intimated that anyone who disagrees with what they had to say would be disagreeing with the Bible’s inspiration and authority.
SUMMARY
Bernard Ramm unintentionally provoked creationists into mounting a massive campaign in defense of their views, and that campaign has been remarkably successful. The Genesis Flood, with its particular young-earth interpretation of Scripture’s creation accounts, opened the door to pseudoscience and the kind of science denial that has seriously hampered efforts to contain Covid-19. Ironically, after the publication of The Christian View, the ignoble point of view gained, rather than lost, momentum. The Christian View presented YEC with an invaluable gift— an enemy to attack, a perspective to denigrate. It gave young-earth creationism a reason to promote flood geology as a God-given defense of scripture’s inspiration and authority. Karl Giberson summarizes the current state of affairs this way: “The evolutionists have won the academy…The creationists have won the grass roots and created a self-sustaining (pseudo)scientific subculture with its own standards” (19).
In Ramm’s day, the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) was a rare place where evangelical scientists could discuss the theory of evolution. Bernard Ramm’s views certainly provided grist for the mill. Many contemporary evangelicals are unaware that Billy Graham supported Ramm, advocating a view of biblical inspiration “along the line of the recent book by Bernard Ramm” (20). Ramm’s courageous stance paved the way for the majority of Christian biologists to accept evolution. He said: “…we are not interested in being popular, but in being fair and factual” (21). It is important to point out that the majority of mainline denominations, including the Roman Catholic church, have come to terms with biological science. Bernard Ramm helped open the door for a widespread reconciliation with evolution by people of faith but stopped short of stepping through that doorway himself.
NOTES
1. Ramm, B.L. (1954). The Christian view of science and Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
2. Ramm, The Christian View, p. 200.
3. Ramm, The Christian View, p. 203.
4. Ramm, The Christian View, p. 8.
5. Giberson, K., & Artigas, M. Oracles of Science: Celebrity Scientists vs. God and Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 100.
6. The Gap Theory proposes that the days of creation were literal 24-hour days, but that there was a time gap of unknown length between two separate creations, the first recorded in Genesis 1:1, and the second in Genesis 1:2-31. Some gap theory proponents claim that a race of humans existed before Adam but was destroyed before God re-created the world in six days. Gap creationism rejects the theory of evolution.
7. Numbers, R. (2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Expanded Edition. London: Harvard University Press. p. 211.
8. Johnson, P. (1991). Darwin on Trial. Lanham, MD: Regnery Gateway. p. 54.
9. Ramm, The Christian View, p. 56.
10. Ramm, The Christian View, p. 55.
11. Ramm, The Christian View, p. 162.
12. Ramm, The Christian View, p. 22 (referencing Sir John William Dawson’s comments on “slipshod Christianity” in his 1877 work The Origin of the World According to Revelation and Science).
13. Ramm, The Christian View, p. 22.
14. Ramm, The Christian View, p. 23.
15. Ramm, The Christian View, p. 9.
16. Mouw, R.J. “Safe Spaces.” (2016). How I Changed My Mind About Evolution: Evangelicals Reflect on Faith and Science. Edited by Applegate, K., & Stump, J. Kindle Edition. Downer's Grove, IL.: IVP Academic. loc. 2349.
17. Morris, H. M., & Whitcomb, J. (1961). The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications. Phillipsburg, NJ.: P and R Publishing.
18. Giberson, K. (2008). Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution. New York: HarperOne. p. 138.
19. Giberson, Saving Darwin. p. 141.
20. Numbers, The Creationists. p. 209
21. Ramm, The Christian View. p. 219.
Educated at Simon Fraser University, the Lutheran theological seminary at Saskatoon Saskatchewan, and the Open Learning University, Terry Defoe has served Lutheran congregations in Canada’s three Western provinces for almost 40 years. His ministry included time spent as a chaplain at the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University. Pastor Defoe seeks to assure people of faith that evolutionary science, rather than being destructive to their faith, has the potential to enrich it in many ways.
NOBLE AND IGNOBLE
Ramm was a conciliator. He advised Christians to be charitable in their dealings with one another and especially with those outside the faith. He advocated respectful conversation. The Christian View of Science and Scripture speaks of two very different approaches to science, a “noble” and an “ignoble” one (4). The ignoble approach is marked by hubris. It is hyper-critical, self-assured, self-righteous, ill-informed, spoiling for a fight. A well-known example of a combative approach is that of Ken Ham and the organization he founded, Answers in Genesis. Berating people, however, doesn’t work—it only encourages individuals to hold on to their views more tenaciously. No one appreciates having their intelligence impugned. Aggressive negativism builds walls of resentment. On the other hand, an irenic approach, with its emphasis on dialog rather than debate, builds bridges.
Fundamentalistic all-or-nothing thinking is not limited to YEC. A small minority of scientists and other public intellectuals—individuals like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Jerry Coyne, and the late Christopher Hitchens, the so-called New Atheists—share a perspective called scientism, according to which science is the only legitimate method of ascertaining truth. The New Atheists use science to attack faith and religion, but their criticisms are often simplistic and ill-informed. When scientists like Dawkins step outside mainstream scientific methodology and hold forth on issues of religion, they have entered the realm of philosophy (5).
YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISM
The roots of modern young-earth creationism can be traced back to Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) prophet Ellen G. White (1827-1915). In 1874, White had a vision in which—she claimed—the true impact of Noah’s flood on the earth’s geology was revealed. Fossil evidence, White argued, demonstrates the global impact of the flood. Another Adventist, Canadian-born self-taught geologist George McCready Price (1870-1963), popularized White’s claims, which came to be known as flood geology. Largely due to Price's zeal, the so-called gap theory (6), which had been the dominant theory with regard to the age of the earth among evangelicals, was quickly replaced by young-earth creationism. Flood geology remains a core concept in YEC today.
PROGRESSIVE CREATIONISM
Ramm’s position is, from today's perspective, hybrid or eclectic. Some of his views are consonant with young-earth creationism, others with theistic evolution, and still others with intelligent design (ID). Bernard Ramm was not a theistic evolutionist (or evolutionary creationist) but a proponent of progressive creationism. He believed that creation took place by means of many separate divine interventions—an initial instantaneous creation followed by a series of successive creations—and that this sequence of events took place over a very long period of time. As evidence, Ramm argued that the fossil record shows evidence of jumps and saltations. These can be seen as miraculous works of God programmed in advance, a point of view called orthogenesis. Ramm’s progressive creationism, however, failed to win the support of the majority of evangelical scientists (7).
Progressive creationism, it turns out, is a major component of contemporary intelligent design creationism. Berkeley lawyer Phillip Johnson (1940-2019) played an important role in the formation of ID. Johnson argued that a creative intelligence caused critical mutations to arrive right on schedule. Johnson, like Ramm before him, claimed that “the single greatest problem which the fossil record poses for Darwinism is the ‘Cambrian explosion’” (8). Thirty-five years before Johnson’s challenge, Ramm had argued that the sudden appearance of animal forms in the Cambrian argued strongly for God’s creative intervention. Ramm also anticipated another ID concept called the anthropic principle. The strong form of the anthropic principle states that the fundamental physical constants of the universe must be just what they are for life—and ultimately sentient, intelligent life—to exist. Years before, Ramm had argued that “… conditions necessary for life are not accidental but purposed” (9).
Ramm argued, as do numerous contemporary young-earth creationists, that there are no transitional forms among fossil discoveries. And again, along with today’s young-earth creationists, he claimed that the Scriptures possess scientific credibility: the Scriptures contain no scientific errors because God kept the authors from making them (10). Again, Ramm was not a theistic evolutionist—he explicitly denied the possibility of evolution by natural selection. Ramm did, however, advocate some views characteristic of theistic evolution. He argued, for instance, that descriptions of the natural realm in the Scriptures are phenomenological. In other words, those descriptions pertain to appearances, using common-sense understanding to explain natural phenomena. With theistic evolutionists, Ramm rejected the claim that there was no death before the fall into sin. He also raised a few eyebrows in the evangelical community when he argued that Noah’s flood was local, not global (11).
CRITICISM
Because of his departure from traditional evangelical beliefs about creation and the flood, Bernard Ramm was persona non grata among many evangelicals. Despite the points of agreement we have just seen, Ramm was strongly critical of YEC, both for the content of their arguments and for the methods they used to communicate them. Here are a few examples drawn from The Christian View:
- ‘Slipshod Christianity’ … rests smugly in dogmatic theology, and has the most contemptible estimation of geology” (12).
- Sad has been the history of the evil that good Christian men have done in regard to science (13).
- … pedantic hyper-orthodoxy must not be allowed to speak for all evangelical Christians (14).
- A narrow bibliolatry, the product not of faith but of fear, buried the noble tradition (15).
Ramm was prepared for the criticism he knew would come his way. He once said, “All the criticism I ever received was worth it, just to know that there would never be a student of mine who, after studying with me… lost his or her faith because I never allowed them to wrestle [with the issues]” (16). He asserted that pointing out weaknesses in someone else’s theory does not thereby make one’s own theory correct. He reminded YECs that a perspective which needs to be supported by threats and intimidation is sure to fail because it unwittingly gives ammunition to the enemies of Christianity. Ramm argued that spiritual qualifications do not exempt a person from learning science. He encouraged evangelicals to engage with science rather than attack it.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
The Christian View of Science and Scripture was strongly critical of George McCready Price and his flood geology, and it elicited a strong pushback. Evangelical theologian John Whitcomb was particularly incensed by Ramm's criticisms. As far as Whitcomb was concerned, Ramm’s efforts were accommodationism pure and simple—that is, a blatant capitulation to atheistic science that would sound the death knell of traditional evangelical theology. Whitcomb lined the margins of Ramm’s book with critical comments—seed thoughts for what would become one of young-earth creationism’s most influential works. Whitcomb, a theologian, was advised to recruit a scientific co-author for his proposed book. He chose hydraulic engineer Henry Morris (1918-2006). Their book, The Genesis Flood (17), changed the landscape, and certainly not in the way Ramm had hoped. It made assent to young-earth creationism a litmus test of evangelical orthodoxy—a litmus test that stands largely unchanged to this day (18).
The Genesis Flood is essentially two long arguments. It is, first of all, a spirited defense of flood geology. Interestingly, Morris and Whitcomb chose to downplay their debt to Adventists White and Price. Secondly, it presents arguments highly critical of Bernard Ramm (there are forty references to Ramm in the index). Largely due to this one book, an entire generation of evangelicals fell under the spell of flood geology. Advocates intimated that anyone who disagrees with what they had to say would be disagreeing with the Bible’s inspiration and authority.
SUMMARY
Bernard Ramm unintentionally provoked creationists into mounting a massive campaign in defense of their views, and that campaign has been remarkably successful. The Genesis Flood, with its particular young-earth interpretation of Scripture’s creation accounts, opened the door to pseudoscience and the kind of science denial that has seriously hampered efforts to contain Covid-19. Ironically, after the publication of The Christian View, the ignoble point of view gained, rather than lost, momentum. The Christian View presented YEC with an invaluable gift— an enemy to attack, a perspective to denigrate. It gave young-earth creationism a reason to promote flood geology as a God-given defense of scripture’s inspiration and authority. Karl Giberson summarizes the current state of affairs this way: “The evolutionists have won the academy…The creationists have won the grass roots and created a self-sustaining (pseudo)scientific subculture with its own standards” (19).
In Ramm’s day, the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) was a rare place where evangelical scientists could discuss the theory of evolution. Bernard Ramm’s views certainly provided grist for the mill. Many contemporary evangelicals are unaware that Billy Graham supported Ramm, advocating a view of biblical inspiration “along the line of the recent book by Bernard Ramm” (20). Ramm’s courageous stance paved the way for the majority of Christian biologists to accept evolution. He said: “…we are not interested in being popular, but in being fair and factual” (21). It is important to point out that the majority of mainline denominations, including the Roman Catholic church, have come to terms with biological science. Bernard Ramm helped open the door for a widespread reconciliation with evolution by people of faith but stopped short of stepping through that doorway himself.
NOTES
1. Ramm, B.L. (1954). The Christian view of science and Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
2. Ramm, The Christian View, p. 200.
3. Ramm, The Christian View, p. 203.
4. Ramm, The Christian View, p. 8.
5. Giberson, K., & Artigas, M. Oracles of Science: Celebrity Scientists vs. God and Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 100.
6. The Gap Theory proposes that the days of creation were literal 24-hour days, but that there was a time gap of unknown length between two separate creations, the first recorded in Genesis 1:1, and the second in Genesis 1:2-31. Some gap theory proponents claim that a race of humans existed before Adam but was destroyed before God re-created the world in six days. Gap creationism rejects the theory of evolution.
7. Numbers, R. (2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Expanded Edition. London: Harvard University Press. p. 211.
8. Johnson, P. (1991). Darwin on Trial. Lanham, MD: Regnery Gateway. p. 54.
9. Ramm, The Christian View, p. 56.
10. Ramm, The Christian View, p. 55.
11. Ramm, The Christian View, p. 162.
12. Ramm, The Christian View, p. 22 (referencing Sir John William Dawson’s comments on “slipshod Christianity” in his 1877 work The Origin of the World According to Revelation and Science).
13. Ramm, The Christian View, p. 22.
14. Ramm, The Christian View, p. 23.
15. Ramm, The Christian View, p. 9.
16. Mouw, R.J. “Safe Spaces.” (2016). How I Changed My Mind About Evolution: Evangelicals Reflect on Faith and Science. Edited by Applegate, K., & Stump, J. Kindle Edition. Downer's Grove, IL.: IVP Academic. loc. 2349.
17. Morris, H. M., & Whitcomb, J. (1961). The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications. Phillipsburg, NJ.: P and R Publishing.
18. Giberson, K. (2008). Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution. New York: HarperOne. p. 138.
19. Giberson, Saving Darwin. p. 141.
20. Numbers, The Creationists. p. 209
21. Ramm, The Christian View. p. 219.
Educated at Simon Fraser University, the Lutheran theological seminary at Saskatoon Saskatchewan, and the Open Learning University, Terry Defoe has served Lutheran congregations in Canada’s three Western provinces for almost 40 years. His ministry included time spent as a chaplain at the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University. Pastor Defoe seeks to assure people of faith that evolutionary science, rather than being destructive to their faith, has the potential to enrich it in many ways.