Science in Christian Perspective

REACTION AND REBUTTAL
"ADAM AND ANTHROPOLOGY"
(See Journal ASA, 22, 88 (1970) )

Rolland D. McCune, Central Seminary, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Paul H. Seely, Portland, Oregon

From: JASA 23 (March 1971): 26 

Rolland D. McCune
I read with near amusement the article by Paul H. Seely in the September issue of the Journal. I say "near amusement" because the content of the article would be hopelessly ludicrous to a Bible-believing Christian had it not been written as sober truth and intended to be received as such. I must confess that it has been a long time since I have seen that much scientific and theological mish mash within the confines of one short article.
If Mr. Seely enjoys spinning his anthropological yarn that much, I would implore the Journal to spare its readers any implication that his views on man bear resemblance to those of the Bible. It is somewhat unpleasant to a student of Scripture to see the Word of God evaporate before his very eyes in the name of
"standard" hermeneutics, whatever on earth that may mean. If Mr. Seely has ever had so much as one class period in Genesis, Old Testament, Theology or Hermeneutics he has utterly discredited his teacher-or it could be that someone simply failed to wake him when the bell sounded.

While the content of such an article may be palatable to an enlightened anthropologist who has at long last expunged his theological prejudices based on the Word of the living God, it is repulsive to a Bible scholar who believes that the first Adam of Genesis one through four was just as historical as the "last Adam" of the New Testament who is none other than our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Such abysmal ignorance of Bible truth and interpretation as presented in Mr. Seely's article does not commend the Journal to serious acceptance.

Paul H. Seely, 

Mr. McCune, a graduate of Grace Theological Seminary, writes from the perspective of one who takes "flood geology" seriously ... as a satisfactory explanation of all pre-historic, scientific data. He, no doubt, finds any consideration of genuine science unworthy of "serious acceptance". Consequently, the readers of the Journal, who do not take the sciences cum grano sails as does McCune, will probably not take McCune's letter too seriously.

However, Mr. McCune's letter should serve as a powerful reminder (even to those of us who do not want to remember) that "flood geology" is an extremely popular and widespread delusion . . . and that, as Dr. Roger Cuffey said, 

I believe that it is very important to put the views of such men as van de Fliert before the Christian public, so that they are not so likely to be mislead by the erroneous view of people (like the flood geologists) ignorant of modern earth sciences. (Journal ASA 21, 71 (1969))

When I think of the years I spent fighting the sciences and defending the faith via Whitcomb and Morris et al ... til snatched like a brand from the burning by reading the writings of genuinely competent Christian scientists in the Journal, I am again impressed to call for more effort on the part of the members of the ASA to make the sciences as they really exist more widely known.

The Whitcomb and Morris delusion, mythology, or whatever one wishes to call such a well-meant, but ill-advised pseudo-science has captured literally hundreds of Christian high schools, Bible schools, and seminaries . . . and through the graduates of these schools, the minds of thousands of Christians. It spreads like a giant cancer . . . unfelt by the Church for a time, but in the end . . . making its obscurantism result in disillusionment, debacle, and spiritual death.

The ASA and its work are largely unknown to the evangelical world . . . especially to the carefully sequestered students and laymen. In times like these, this is a shame. I think it is imperative that every ASA member think long and hard as to how they can help in displacing pseudo-science from the evangelical world.

I would conclude with just one small proposal: that the article "Fundamentalism and the Fundamentals of Geology" (Journal ASA 21, 69 (1969)) along with the recent Symposium on The Relation Between the Bible and Science (Journal ASA 21, 97124 (1969) ) be reprinted as a separate booklet (or pamphlets) . . . for distribution to students and laymen. Or, at the very least, that permission be granted for reprinting these articles to anyone desirous of doing so.