A.C. Flipse

Against the Science–Religion Conflict: the Genesis of a Calvinist Science Faculty in the Netherlands in the Early Twentieth Century

Summary This paper gives an account of the establishment and expansion of a Faculty of Science at the Calvinist ‘Free University’ in the Netherlands in the 1930s. It describes the efforts of a group of orthodox Christians to come to terms with the natural sciences in the early twentieth century. The statutes of the university, which had been founded in 1880, prescribed that all research and teaching should be based on Calvinist, biblical principles. This ideal was formulated in opposition to the claim of nineteenth-century scientific naturalists that there was an inherent conflict between science and religion. However, despite their selection on the basis of their strict Calvinist beliefs, the first science professors attributed a certain independence to the domain of science. They agreed with the criticism of the conflict thesis, and tried to defuse the tensions between science and religion, although mainly at the level of philosophy and history, looking for example for harmony between science and religion in the past. Ironically, as a result of this approach, the Calvinist scientists mainly contributed to the acceptance of mainstream science in Dutch Calvinist circles, contrary to developments in other countries (notably the USA) where the conflict between science and orthodox Christianity has reasserted itself.

Four Books for the Price of One: A Second Look at Reijer Hooykaas, Natural Law and Divine Miracle

The first time I came across Natural Law and Divine Miracle: A Historical-Critical Study of the Principle of Uniformity in Geology, Biology, and Theology was during my study of the discussions about religion and science in Reformed (neo-Calvinist) circles in the Netherlands. Since the late nineteenth century there had been in those circles debates about themes likemiracles, causality, the relation between God and the world, and the influence of worldviews on science. A great deal of energy was put into opposing the view that religion and science were necessarily in conflict. On the other hand, some conservative theologians sympathized with Young Earth creationism, which instead reinforced the idea of conflict. In this environment Calvinist scientists organized, as late as 1950, a congress to convince their fellow believers that the Earth was really very old. In this context—and more in particular in reaction to that congress—Reijer Hooykaas, at the time a professor at the Calvinist Vrije Universiteit (Free University) in Amsterdam, began his study of the history of geology. He was convinced that the contemporary discussion would be improved by a clarification of the concepts involved and that the best way to achieve this was by acquiring more insight into their origin and historical use. During the following decades Hooykaas’s research would result in numerous publications on the history of geology, one of the first among them being the present book. When I first read the book I interpreted it primarily as part of the discussion in Calvinist circles. But it is muchmore than that. It actually played very little role in the discussion in the Netherlands, perhaps largely because Hooykaas had published it in English. It was certainly noticed internationally among historians of science, particularly among the first generation of historians

Jan Lever: Challenging the Role of Typological Thinking in Reformational Views of Biology

This essay analyzes the view of evolution of Jan Lever (1922–2010), founder of the biology department at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and compares his view with those of J.H. Diemer and H. Dooyeweerd. Together with Dooyeweerd, Lever wrote a series of chapters on the species concept in Philosophia Reformata (1948–1950) in which species were defined as constant types. In his book, Creatie en Evolutie (1956), Lever still subscribed to Dooyeweerd’s philosophy but also suggested that it is possible that biological evolution occurred, including that of human beings, and that scientific research can shed light on these processes. Influenced by his idea of individuality structures, Dooyeweerd criticized Lever and suggested that species are constant; that science cannot speak to the topics that Lever discusses. It is argued that Dooyeweerd’s views are influenced by the typological thinking of the time and that reformational thought would benefit from de-emphasizing this aspect of reformational philosophy.