Wrestling With Scripture, Sin and Science

A Robust Defense of Young-Earth Creationism 

By Nicholas Boonstra 

Reading Hans Madueme’s book, Defending Sin: A Response to the Challenges of Evolution and the Natural Sciences, caused flashbacks of my seminary paper on the historical Adam. Attacking the intersection of faith and science for early seminarians is like giving a baby a samurai sword; it’s just harmful to all involved. But for Madueme, a trained physician and theologian, it’s a scalpel in a surgeon’s hand. Still, this is challenging work ––and many will disagree with Madueme––but I was helped as Madueme cast a vision for biblical realism.   

Biblical realism is the methodology that Madueme both outlines and uses within the book. The first aspect of biblical realism is supernaturalism. Against methodological naturalism, Madueme draws from Plantinga by saying that Christians should not limit their knowledge in the pursuit of science but use all they know from Scripture and the world (46).  

Second, the idea of dogmatic inerrancy gives Scripture a supreme position as it has divine authority. Doctrinal beliefs derived from Scripture have primacy over conflicting scientific theories (56). Third is scientific fallibilism, which reminds us that interpreters of scientific data are finite and fallen (59). Fourth, doctrinal confidence teaches that the warrant for central beliefs comes from Scripture and should not be changed in the face of new theories (45). Finally, Madueme argues for an eclectic method by engaging with scientific theories individually (46).  

In an age where scientists can seem to have papal infallibility, Madueme unapologetically prioritizes Scripture. This approach is consistent with many within the EFCA. The 2023 Doctrinal Survey showed that an overwhelming majority of leaders in the EFCA believe the Bible is authoritative in matters of history and science. In fact, much of what Madueme argues for is affirmed within both the EFCA Statement of Faith and the responses to the doctrinal survey. These affirmations include belief in the historical Adam and original sin. The survey results also highlight the majority see the importance of the age of the earth for a theological framework. 

Ministry leaders often help those who struggle with the relationship between faith and science. Today, many believe you can have either intellectual credibility or hold certain views on creation. Madueme says, “Academia has crowned young-earth creationism the inglorious antithesis of knowledge” (192). But Defending Sin offers a robust and sophisticated defense of young-earth creationism.   

Unfortunately, with its dense vocabulary, references to specific arguments, and need for a working knowledge of evolution, science and theological concepts, the intended audience is academics rather than laypeople. 

While the target audience limits how pastors and ministry leaders use the book, a pastor-theologian could help translate and work through the concepts with those in his congregation, sharpening all involved, whether fully agreeing with Madueme or not. 

The intersection of faith and science is always tricky terrain. Madueme helpfully surveys key areas, like the unity of the human race, original goodness, the historical fall and original sin. He admits his approach often lacks empirical confirmation, especially if one discounts Scripture from that domain (156). So, he encourages Christians of varying views on the relationship between science and Scripture to take up and contribute. More is better (321). 

We need more evangelical scientists and more ministry leaders equipped to lead their people well in this area. Treating theological concepts eclectically and science as a unified whole can be the default––especially when you are on the inside of one discipline and the outside of another. As I minister in a university town, there’s a twin temptation of leaning fully into antithesis or seeing every scientific theory as common grace. But the path forward is more complex and challenging. It’s common grace and antithesis. There will be disagreement on the proper application within churches that major in the majors and minor in the minors. But I pray we can dialogue within the bounds of orthodoxy in a way that sharpens one another for God’s glory and our neighbor’s good. 

––

Despite Quality Scholarship, I’m Not Convinced 

By David Buchanan 

Defending Sin by Hans Madueme is a 2024 entry into the many-decade narrative concerning faith and science. To summarize the book, in view of its title, I must mention Chapter 7, “Original Sin and the Biological Problem.”

Each of the previous chapters prepares the reader for this chapter’s premise that prioritizing science over theology has led us to redefine sin as simply a failure of biology. Madueme argues for the importance of prioritizing Scripture over science, even if evidence in favor of science is compelling. 

The level of scholarship is impressive with extensive and informative footnotes that demand attention. It may be the most heavily footnoted book I have ever read. There are more than 350 different authors referenced, including theologians, scientists and others who merit close reading. Unlike too much young-earth literature, Madueme accurately quotes many writers with differing views. It is exceptionally dense writing, and I was continually looking up the definitions of unfamiliar theological words. 

Despite the quality scholarship, he did not persuade me that I should always prioritize a surface reading of the biblical accounts of origins over well-established scientific ideas. At times, his position on inerrancy comes too close to saying that it is his interpretation of Scripture that is inerrant. His explanation of metaphysical versus methodological naturalism misses the mark.  

He uses a tactic that is common in young-earth literature by invoking discarded scientific theories, such as Phlogiston, to imply that today’s theories are also likely to be discarded. It’s unlikely current science will deteriorate to such a level that scientists would dismiss some type of evolutionary account and retreat to a seven-day creation a few thousand years ago. On several occasions, he constructs an elaborate defense of a scientific idea only to reject the idea simply because it conflicts with Scripture (or his interpretation of Scripture). 

Chapter 7 includes detailed explanations of how acceptance of evolution leads to intractable problems with the doctrine of original sin as well as Madueme’s lament of behaviors that were previously labeled as “sin” now becoming biological anomalies or, in some cases, biological norms. These are complex issues, but it seems counterproductive to dismiss scientific advances––even if they lead to conflict with traditional theological thought––rather than using the best science and the best theology together to reach reasonable accommodation.  

I intend to keep this book handy because of its diverse use of authors in the faith-science domain. It should provide many excellent leads to understand potential conflicts and find potential commonality. Despite my disagreement with many aspects of the book, I would recommend reading it, but I would caution potential readers to be prepared to examine complex ideas in a detailed manner. I've read many books from a young-earth perspective with poor scholarship. It was refreshing to read a book with that perspective that recognizes its position requires serious scholarly examination of the alternatives and their implications.