CREATION AND CHANGE; DOUGLAS F. KELLY

This book appears to be an attractive and well-argued theological and scientific study of Creation. Any subscriber to acg will soon see the feeebleness of his so-called scientific arguments; circular reasoning, moon dust, non-Lyellian catastrophism at Mt St Helens (actually Lyell argued for such catastrophes in Principles of Geology). I will leave the “science”.

He seems to think that both YEC and ID demand a shift to a literla interpretation of Genesis. YEC does but ID does not in itself, but…….

It is surprising that Kelly should depend so much on Tom Torrance’s work, which in no way whatever adopts a YEC position. Torrance is very much old earth and evolutionary but critical of modernist theology. His theology is classical protestant and orthodox with an openness to Greek Orthodox thinking, strong on creation, incarnation and resurrection (a real one with an empty tomb). It is ironic to see Torrance used to buttress a YEC position when his theology is halfway between  Warfield and Barth and is to the left of centre of the ASA! He is accepting of science but opposed to extreme naturalism. To oppose extreme naturalism (as I do ) does not make one leaning to YEC.

p18 “Darwin confronted Genesis  - a usual misunderstanding as virtually no one by 1859 took Genesis literally  - Ted Davies and I can only think or 7 or 8 compared to hundreds who did not.

p30f Kelly misses the point on the rise of science. He needs to read Hooykaas on “The Principle of Uniformity” (1958) and Catastrophism (1970) which would destroy his YE thesis. All books he cites accept standard science and are not YE. He confuses the historic Christian faith on Creation which has never never been YE with his brand of Biblical literalism.

p35f The usual false dichotomy of empirical vs naturalistic science. This is standard Philip Johnson fare but of no substance.

p43  Kelly claims that Augustine took Genesis literally , Van Till claims otherwise. It is difficult to be certain but Van Till has a stronger case, especially when allegorical and non-literal views of other Church Fathers are taken into account. My superficial reading of the early church on Genesis results in some being literalist and some not. It was at worst an open question. However to claim that literalism was the historic position of the church until mid 19th cent is grossly inaccurate. From 1500 to 1650 most commentators were “literalist” but a chaos-restitution interpretation was growing and this became dominant from 1680 allowing a longer timescale. The chaos-restitution interp was later  - after 1870 – crudely modified into the Gap Theory.

p48f Cameron’s chapter on Genesis in the 19th century is skanty to the point of being grossly superficial and ignores most writers. To say “biblical commentators hastened to accommodate their interpretation to the latest orthodoxy in science “ is nonsense. Their basic interpretation was the Chaos –Restitiution one which was prevalent in the late 17th century 100 years before geologists were arguing for millions of years.
 
p57ff On an absolute  beginning simply reiterates what most Christians hold but then goes off on a ramble on thermodynamics.

p89. After a chapter one DAY ONE Kelly cites a poem by John Dryden a Song for St cecelia’s day on “the divine process of turning original chaos into the beauty of the cosmos. Whoa!!!! Dryden held the Chaos –Restitution interpretation; i.e. Creation of chaos followed by an indefinite pause and then re-creation in 6 days. Now this is the original for the Gap theory as held by the vast majority from 1660 to 1860. (I have more time for the Chaos-Restitution interp as the Gap Theory is often poorly argued with old lucifer coming to the fore.)

p94 Now for the Gap Theory of Chalmers. So much for being “an exegesis of desperation”  - all the essentials were in place well over a century before Chalmers suggested it to include millions of years of geology in 1802 (not 1814 as Monty White argued). Chalmers did not even put it forward as it was held with a long period for geology in the “Gap” before 1795 (Referred to in Richard Kirwan’s essays). I still have not found the original inclusion of vast geological time in the Gap, but it must be before 1790.
The myriad examples I have read from 1650 to 1790 allow an indefinite and undefined duration for chaos, this includes Wesley, J Edwards, author of O guide me thou great redeemer, John Ray, Whiston, Woodward John Gill. Matthew Poole etc etc etc etc  and for good effect Erasmus Darwin!!!!
Now I am not saying that this is the right interpretation but rather that it was the dominant one from 1660 to 1790 when it was slightly modified to include vast geological ages.
(I have a paper due in The Evangelical Quarterly later this year on this.)

p97 As far as the fossil record is concerned Kelly simplys looks for gaps and does not consider the time factor involved. It would come as a surprise to him how many of the early geologists were christians. E.G. I recently pointed out to Wheaton students at their science station that the station in the Black Hills was built on evangelical geological territory. One of the first geologists to do work on the Precamb was Rev John Henslow in Anglesey (1822), the Cambrian was put forward by the evangelical Adam sedgwick, who shared the Honours with Murchison for the Devonian. It was two evangelical clergy Conybeare and Phillips who gave us the Carboniferous (mistakenly divided into the Missip and Pennsyl in some parts of the world!) In Conybeare and Phillips Geology of England and Wales (1822) they (probably conybeare) have a good discussion of the interpretation of Genesis.
Now for some figures .
From 1859 to 1870 I have looked at what some 400 christians wrote about Genesis, with a little help from Ted Davies I have found about 6-8 literalists
From 1800 to 1855 I have looked at about 200 or more , about 15 % are literalist
From 1680 to 1799 I have looked several hundred and only found about 6 literalists.

This totally contradicts the common viewpoint that the historic position of the Church is biblical literalism. It most definitely was not, though since 1650 there has always been a minority of literalists but now that minority is a large one.

In his criticisms of Blocher’s superb book  In the beginning Kelly quotes a swiss-french scholar Jean-Marc Berthoud. He is associated with the Association Création, Bible et Science  based in Lausanne headed by Stuart Olyott a British reformed baptist pastor, who is the editor of Résister et Construire, which ought to be called Résister et Démolir  ( my french is not up to translation). Olyott and his friends are trying to oppose the “liberal” tendencies of people like the Geneva Bible Institute and the Baptist Association, who are in turn associated with the growing evangelical churches of France. This is distressing as the French evangelicals have made considerable headway in the last three decades and don’t need unpleasant sniping from what can only be called ultrafundamentalism. (My source for this is a friend who is pastor of a Baptist church outside Paris.) I don’t know Berthoud’s credentials or that of Hubert Thomas quoted on page 129 ff. There he cites many references of Genesis in the New Tetament which he claims demand a literal interpretation. There are 56 and only 3 could perhaps require a literal interpretation, and 2 are from Romans 5. That is not a good argument.

At the end of the book Kelly argues for no death before the fall, a common argument and ultimately the clinch one for accepting a young earth. After 6 short days does not give enough time for death  - at least for vertebrates

If I am allowed a commercial some of this is discussed in my chapter in The Discovery of Time
ed Stuart McCready - Sourcebooks or MQP . (Summer 2001)

Michael Roberts July 2001