Is Creation Science Reformed? By Tony Jelsma Ph.D.

1

Growing up in the Canadian Re formed denomination, I too assumed the default position that the literal six day/twenty-four hour interpretation of Genesis 1 was the on ly correct interpretation. As I pursued a career in the biological sciences I was aware that my views w ould be challenged

, but I knew that evolution was wrong, God’s Word is true and

I had confidence that any new findings I had would simply confirm my view. After thirty years of biology research and teaching I have indeed been challenged in my views. These challenges have taken me back to Scripture, to Reformed principles of hermeneutics, to the philosophy of science and to the scientific evidence itsel f. It has not been easy and I still have many unresolved ques tions. I am still convinced, for both theological and scientific reasons, that the grand evolutionary scenario is incorrect. The mechanisms of Darwinian evolution ar e simply insufficient to account for the complexity and diversity of the creation around us. I also cannot reconcile human evolution with the Scriptural account of the creation and fall of man. However, in addition I am convinced, for theological and scientific reasons (some of which are outlined below), that the literal six day/twenty-f our hour interpretation of Genes is 1 is also incorr ect. This change in my views came only after a p ersonal struggle over a period of years, a struggle in which I was mostly alone, with few resources to turn to.

I’m sure there are many in

conservative Reformed churches who are undergoing the same struggle and possibly even a crisis of faith

. They don’t

feel competent to challenge the n aturalistic philosophy that masquerades as science and the y

certainly don’t wish to throw out portions of Scripture simply because “science” says

they’re

not

1