The biblical Genesis Account of Creation as set forth in the Bible is in contrast to that set forth by modern, modern science in the so-called theory of evolution. In the former, it is believed that God's Word should be accepted by faith; in the latter, it is believed through either abstract reason of ideas or by empirical sense perceptions, alone. The biblicist believes that reason is a valid form of knowledge, but that faith is a higher form of knowledge, equally valid. When the evolutionist requests that the Christian biblicist use facts, they are only referring to their kind of facts. The biblicist simply does not believe that science is acting honorably by requesting their own kind of facts to prove another kind of knowledge. It would be equally fitting for the biblicist to require that the scientist include in their theory the acknowledgment of the fact of biblical faith. Of course, in the latter request the scientist does not accept any kind of fact except by abstract reasoning and empirical sense, and yet they reprove the biblicist if he does not comply to his demand for the use of his fact.

In this inevitable gulf which has been fixed between faith and reason, and for many years, we would do well to go back and quote those who, themselves, and respected so, saw the statue of limitation between faith and reason.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650), upon graduating from "one of the most celebrated schools in Europe," in which he had expected to acquire "a clear and certain knowledge of all that is useful in life," found himself so involved with doubts and errors that he was convinced he had learned nothing but "the depth of his ignorance." He gave the following:

Languages are of course very important, but they do not guarantee the truthfulness of the books written in them. History is inspiring, but one cannot trust its accuracy. Mathematics, because of the certitude of its reasoning," being his favorite study, he was astonished that "on such solid foundations no loftier superstructure had been erected. Theology, a matter of divine revelation, is not subject to the impotency of reason." And "philosophy," he said, "cultivated for many ages by the distinguished men," contained "not a single matter within its sphere which is not still in dispute;" and "considering," he continued, "the number of conflicting opinions touching a single matter that may be by learned men, while there can be but one true," Descartes "reckoned as well-nigh false all that was only probable." As to the other sciences, he continued still, "inasmuch as these borrow their principles from philosophy," he "judged that no solid superstructure could be reared on foundations so infirm (Descartes' Discourse on Method; and The Meditations).

In contrast to Descartes, we turn to David Hume (1711-76) and his famous Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, as follows:

"If we take in our hands any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, `Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?' No. `Does it contain any experimental reason concerning matter of fact and existence?' No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion" (London, 1748; modern edition by C.W. Hen-del; New York: 1955).

Thus, Descartes, the father of Rationalism, rejects man's accomplishment with thought and reason, while a child of Rationalism makes reason the sole criteria for all things. The purpose of these two extremities of thought leaves us in the quandary that the facts of modern, modern science have something less than respectable within its own claims and peoples. Man, in all his fields of studies and disciplines of thought leaves his hypotheses, theories, and propositions in a refutable state. Science, today, is not able, with its so-called "facts" to bring itself to any irrefutable conclusions. Science must inevitably look to the future for some one else or whatever else may be refuted within the community of science before it is truly believable in the sense that it claims. Every area of life has its own problems, and so does science, even more so because of its "factual" and exact claims. Reason alone has only brought man to experimental, laboratory conclusions, through the eyegate of observation, and will still be refuted somewhere down the line. These claims can only be bolstered with abstract reasoning of their own ideas. It is not true that the carbon-14 test is infallible; it is only workable, and is still refutable; it is not true that the potassium-argon test is infallible, it is only workable, and is refutable; it is not true that the uranium-lead test is infallible, it is only workable, and remains refutable. Man has not created one, single living cell; science cannot produce eternal biological life. Science knows that there are two chemical ingredients in a cabbage seed, yet an invisible third element eludes the scientist. They can shape the essence of the seed, plant it in the ground, but it will not grow. Only organic chemistry has this invisible life; man-made inorganic seed cannot.

It is discourteous, unkind, and improper to request the biblicist to prove biblical creation by human, scientific fact in the very same manner that the scientist arrives at only refutable fact. The biblicist believes that the Bible remains the only irrefutable voice for man. But for the scientist much assumption is first accepted; that there has been a total uniformitarianism throughout past history when in reality there are exceptions of rule in the various strata around the world by which they measure their own geological ages. There are natural, exceptional laws in the universe for exceptional needs, and the scientist cannot explain them. Note a few: (1) why is the solid form of water (ice) lighter, or less dense than the liquid form, defying the usual law of contraction and expansion in the changes of temperature; or more simply why does ice float?; (2) concerning the law of gravity, why is that law broken with the heavier gases at the bottom of the atmosphere, the heavier carbon dioxide rise above the atmosphere, and if it did not, would all human life die?; and third, when temperatures are exceedingly low, when the chemical reactions slow down combustibility, and then when temperatures rise again and oxides form bringing combustibility, when why, at exceedingly high temperatures oxides do not form for combustibility? The scientist does not know why these three laws are exceptionally rendered different from what we have learned concerning these laws. These are exceptions of scientific law. We, as biblicists, believe these exceptions indicate the law of God's exceptional miracle, as presented in the Holy Scriptures, are always standing by, and this available exception was actually built into the physical system of creation. Until modern, modern science can solve these exceptions, or, put love, faith, and biblical faith into their testings and tubes and produce some facts, science should be more ethical and humble in the rejection of faith as another form of knowledge.

There is a problem that remains which could be illustrated in the following example. If we were take the acronym TSRA to represent Technology, Science, Religion, and Art, and give equal information to six different students, no matter how accurately rendered to each individual, it is possible that the six persons each could come up with six different conclusions without being dominated by the "facts" alone. Let us note these possibilities: (1)"Tsra," a word without English meaning (chaos, if you please); "Rats," "Tars," "Arts," or "Star;" or yet, if another piece of knowledge had slipped in from some outside source, possibly, "Barts." Scientists should humbly remember that it is not the facts that objectively dictate the conclusions; it is the way the individual spells the facts, through human and subjective testings, that bring about different conclusions of thought and schools of thought. When the biblicist accepts, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1), the very first words of the Bible, then Faith embraces that presupposition as a revelation from God to man, which is needed for the interpretation of the facts. Human subjectivity, scientifically speaking, uses objectivity to serve its own presupposed conclusions, thus yielding a subjective interpretation to the theory. Man is simply limited because of his own human limitation in relationships to the huge universe. I am simply amazed how a finite and puny man can, without laughing at himself, stand forth in a classroom and speak of the earth and the universe as being 4.6 billion years old, and then attack the biblical dating of only six or seven thousand years of time.

Faith, too, is a presupposition of the heart, but it does not reject Reason for the mind. However, the biblicist does not believe that human Reason can think or speak outside the immanence of man; whereas Faith, as a biblicist, with a different, but not contradictory knowledge, may reach into the revelation of a transcendent God.

There are many things on earth, even in the place of immanence, that science cannot deal with adequately with their facts. There remains the paranormal, the occult, and other, etc., although some are beginning to dabble into it through parapsychology and the New Age Movement. There is even the borrowing from Faith a kind of rational faith that the scientist speaks of in his experiments in order to reach the theoretical matters of ideas.

This writer does not accept or believe in "Creation Science," because the Bible is not primarily a science textbook. The Bible is God's revelation of His son, Jesus Christ, to a fallen world. However, the writer does believe that whenever the Bible speaks of some scientific fact, it is indeed true, on the basis of Faith. It may be rightfully said that the Bible does not reveal all the facts in earthly scientific things, but whatever the Bible does say, it is so. It may even take time for some scientists to ever see it, but that is what the biblicist takes by Faith. And it must be also rightfully said that science does not have all their need of facts, and many of its former theories, including its original geocentric theory versus the later heliocentric theory has had to change. I wonder if it is possible, in years to come, that both of these theories could be refuted in preference for a third theory? Both Ptolemy and Galileo were scientists, too. Whatever Roman papists did to the religious use of the theories, it was the scientist that initiated the presupposition for the problem. Not even Newtonian Law included everything, but we would not throw out his bathwater with his baby truth of God in the universe.

The era of history that came the nearest to believing in absolutes was during the classical times of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. But instead of calculating how old the earth was they settled for believing that the physical nature of things were both eternal and indestructible. Modern, modern science has rejected the possibility of absolutes and has chosen to measure origin with refutable tools but contemplates eternal physical life. Should it not also be presupposed that the biblicist may be right in his faith in a revealed absolute that God has given us that He created the earth old as He first did Adam and all life forms in the Garden of Eden, with their seeds within themselves? To the biblicist, there is no problem between Reason and Faith to believe that the chicken was first and then the egg.

The individual who has a proper respect for reason, in being reasonable, and who has faith in an outside, transcendent report, is in a more reasonable place to be reasonable in accounting for all the fact, physical and spiritual, than one who only speaks of physical, rational things through the two limited means of abstract reasoning of human ideas and empirical sense perceptions.

It is reputed to be said of Socrates, through his famous pupil, Plato, that "reason is the best raft for man in his stormy life unless God gives a more sure word." That is a reasonable statement and the biblicist believes God has given that "more sure word" (II Peter 1:19).

[This article was prompted of the president by the request from a graduate of Foundations Bible College doing a formal paper for a class in a college in South Carolina.]