Question RE: Dooyeweerd and Lever "Debate"

[Daniel Rudisill]

In my research I've become rather confused about why so many Reformational scholars refer to a "Lever-Dooyeweerd Debate" when no debate seems to have appeared in print anywhere I can find. The two of them did coauthor a series of three long essays on the history/philosophy of science forPR published 1948-1950 but (at least from what I've translated thus far) this was a collaborative project in which both appear to be of one accord (indeed, I can't really tell who wrote which section.) Lever does not seem to directly question Dooyeweerdian thought in his book Creation and Evolution (henceforth CE) although his evolutionary stance is an implicit critique of Dooyeweerd's typology. As we know, Dooyeweerd did issue what at times a scathing critique of Lever's book in his review for Philosophia Reformata in 1959, entitled Schepping en Evolutie (henceforth SE.)

I have not been able to find any essay in which Lever defends himself from the (sometimes egregious) charges Dooyeweerd lays at his door throughout SE. Perhaps this is because Lever felt Dooyeweerd was fundamentally off-base in his assumption that Lever aimed to write a book which was wholly consonant with the Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Law Idea. Certainly, Lever does reference it with approbation....but not until page 130 of  CE! It seems from D's critique that if he's off-base about this assumption, the rest of his criticism of the text falls by the wayside. 

So I ask you - why is this "exchange" more commonly characterised as a debate? Is there more to the story than I've been able to find so far? All the scholarship I've found on the "debate" has focused almost exclusively on Lever's text and SE with occasional references to a longer scientific treatise written by Lever as a textbook in the early 70's - but this is only referenced to explain Lever's later refinement of his views on evolution, not with regards to an implied rebuttal to Dooyeweerd. In fact, most of the scholarship I've found only uses the "debate" to open up discussion about Dooyeweerd's own views on evolution and typology - this is the way it is utilised by both Klapwijk in his book  Purpose in the Living World and in Bruce Wearne's 2011 review in Philosophia Reformata of PLW.  Any information you could pass along would be deeply appreciated.

Sincerely,

DWR