"But, when Scripture makes a clear distinction between the act of creation and the process of preservation, we cannot accept the idea of a progressive creation process"
About this Quote
Lang’s sentence is doing boundary work: policing which kinds of change are permitted in a religious worldview, and which kinds are smuggled in under scientific-sounding language. By leaning on “Scripture makes a clear distinction,” he claims not just belief but textual warrant, turning interpretation into evidence. “Clear” is the tell. It preempts debate by implying that dissent isn’t an alternative reading; it’s willful blindness or capitulation.
The key move is the hinge between “creation” and “preservation.” Creation is framed as a decisive, completed act; preservation as maintenance of what already exists. That distinction doesn’t just organize theology, it protects a cultural hierarchy: revelation over inference, certainty over hypothesis. “Progressive creation” is treated less as a theory than as a dangerous compromise, an attempt to give modernity a seat at the table without admitting it has rewritten the guest list. Lang refuses the middle term because the middle term concedes that divine action might look like process, contingency, or deep time - concepts associated with evolutionary science and, by extension, a modern intellectual establishment many conservative believers saw as encroaching.
Contextually, this kind of line fits mid-20th-century anxieties around evolution education and the growing public authority of science. As a “Director,” Lang isn’t speaking as a laboratory specialist; he’s speaking as a manager of institutions and narratives. The rhetorical “we cannot accept” recruits a community, implying that fidelity is communal discipline. The subtext: if you allow “progress,” you invite revision everywhere else.
The key move is the hinge between “creation” and “preservation.” Creation is framed as a decisive, completed act; preservation as maintenance of what already exists. That distinction doesn’t just organize theology, it protects a cultural hierarchy: revelation over inference, certainty over hypothesis. “Progressive creation” is treated less as a theory than as a dangerous compromise, an attempt to give modernity a seat at the table without admitting it has rewritten the guest list. Lang refuses the middle term because the middle term concedes that divine action might look like process, contingency, or deep time - concepts associated with evolutionary science and, by extension, a modern intellectual establishment many conservative believers saw as encroaching.
Contextually, this kind of line fits mid-20th-century anxieties around evolution education and the growing public authority of science. As a “Director,” Lang isn’t speaking as a laboratory specialist; he’s speaking as a manager of institutions and narratives. The rhetorical “we cannot accept” recruits a community, implying that fidelity is communal discipline. The subtext: if you allow “progress,” you invite revision everywhere else.
Quote Details
| Topic | Bible |
|---|
More Quotes by Walter
Add to List
