Review of the Book, Laying Down Arms to Heal the Creation-Evolution Divide

This book is written by and for those of us who were raised in the conservative, evangelical church. Specifically, for those who have been taught to believe that a literal, young-earth interpretation of Genesis 1-2 is the only appropriate interpretation of both scripture and science, and therefore perceive evolutionary theory as an enemy to faith rather than an ally.

I loved the respectful thoroughness of each chapter. In my recent review of Francis S. Collins’ book, The Language of God, I languished about his insolence as he engaged with young-earth creationism and the intelligent design movement. He was flippant in his denunciations. That approach is less-than-helpful in wooing the detractors.

This book takes a better approach. The entire book amounts to a slow, careful, nuanced, gentle, wooing defense of evolution from the Christian perspective. By the time I finished, I did feel like the weapons were finally pointing down. The author’s position is stated clearly on page 7:

“Simply stated, my position is that God, as the sovereign Creator of all things, utilized evolutionary processes to develop the diversity of life on earth. I uphold a solid biblical doctrine of Creation and its significant implications regarding God’s control and relationship to his creation, including humans.

I simultaneously understand that there have been complex evolutionary connections among organisms over very long periods of time. I perceive that God certainly created the physical parameters and processes of the natural world that have led to the evolution of various forms, but I also accept that his guiding hand has directed the course of these mechanisms.”

The rest of the book elaborates how all those beliefs can reasonably hold together without sidestepping either scripture or science. I learned the technical term for this is “dual causation” It is when someone comfortably embraces that God is the author and cause of events (through God’s ongoing activities) while simultaneously saying that natural processes also cause the same events. Like that between a playwright and a play.

Rather than choosing science or the bible, the author believes we need to wrestle with both. He recommends Christians be more studious to the consensus of science, and also recommends scientists be more sensitive to the metaphysical beliefs of Christians. Both are required and both are difficult. He especially calls Pastors to this task. He quotes Tim Keller who says,

“If I as a pastor want to help both believers and inquirers to relate science and faith coherently, I must read the works of scientists, exegetes, philosophers, and theologians and then interpret them for my people.

Someone might counter that this is too great a burden to put on pastors, that instead they should simply refer their laypeople to the works of scholars. But if pastors are not ‘up to the job’ of distilling and understanding the writings of scholars in various disciplines, how will our laypeople do it?’ (Page 230)

I think that’s absolutely right. This book has gotten this pastor running in that direction. Perfect reading for a pastor as this book is refreshingly pastoral – its method is a major catapult to its meaning. I haven’t found another book in this genre quite like it.

This isn’t simply a scholar talking to other scholars. Or even a scientist talking to scientists. While he is a scholar and he is a scientist, he has turned towards the church congregant to make his case. Yes, the author is making an argument and is trying to persuade, but he is conversing with his own people, his own family, his own faith community and therefore he does it with proper humility and care.

Fugle anticipates the conservative rebuttals, addresses the evangelical objections, and presents a persuasive case. Throughout every page, he does it with gentleness and respect. What a gift. This one is good not just for what it says, but especially for how it says it.

Review of the Book, The Language of God, by Francis S. Collins

This New York Times Bestseller (published 2006) is by now a classic within Christian circles. As regards the conversation about how faith and science interact, this is a must read. Dr. Francis S. Collins has been at the head of the Human Genome project and is one of the world’s leading scientists. Collins believes in both God and evolution. He believes we do not have to pick one or the other, but we can have both.

The central question of the book is the following: “In this modern era of cosmology, evolution, and the human genome, is there still the possibility of a richly satisfying harmony between the scientific and spiritual worldview? I answer with a resounding yes!” Later in the book, Collins describes this book as a reflection “upon the ways that modern understandings of science can be harmonized with a belief in God” (124).

This book is divided into 3 parts:

Part 1: The Chasm Between Science and Faith. These first two chapters include Collins’ personal story of going from atheism to Christianity, and then a wrestling with major philosophical questions such as “Is God a result of wish fulfillment?”, “Why have religions contributed to so much harm?” “How should I think about suffering?” and “Is it reasonable for modern people to believe in miracles?”

Part Two: The Great Questions of Human Existence. In Chapters three-five, Collins explains why evolution satisfactorily explains many aspects of the origins of the earth, of humans and the complexity of our world.

Part Three: Faith in Science, Faith in God. After discussing Galileo and Darwin (chapter 6), Collins dedicates four chapters to comparing his view with the views of atheists, agnostics, young earth creationists, and those who subscribe to the Intelligent Design Movement.

I was delightfully surprised by the first part of the book, really enjoyed the second part, and was frustrated by the third.

I was surprised to see a scientist tackle tough philosophical challenges to the Christian tradition. Typically experts will stick with their expertise. But not here, and it’s not all that bad! The presentation is simple, clear and thoughtful. I was surprised by how readable this entire book was, but especially this section. I was expecting the book to be much more technical and scientific-y (is that a word?) but not so much for part one. Before diving deep into the science, he splashes in the shallows of apologetics and philosophy.

In part two, Collins presents some current scientific consensus’ on questions such as the big bang, formation of our solar system and earth, anthropic principle, quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, cosmology (all of that in chapter three); the fossil record, Darwin, DNA (chapter four); and the human genome (chapter five). He concludes this section by clarifying that for evolution to be a “theory” doesn’t mean it isn’t true. When scientists use this term, they mean to refer to the fundamental principles underlying that particular field. For Collins, evolution is an undeniable theory in the sense that it is an underlying principle of how our universe works and came to be.

I found part three to be frustrating, lacking an irenic tone. I wasn’t surprised that Collins isn’t a young earth creationist, or atheist or agnostic or a part of the ID movement, but I wish he would have been more compassionate in his tone. In one sense, I get it: He believes these movements are being irresponsible with scientific information. But I felt like his presentation comes off as a bit dismissive to anyone who disagrees.

For example, in his diatribe against the ID movement and those who don’t understand how theistic evolution could square with a responsible reading of Genesis 1-2, what does Collins do? Simply quote one obscure scientist/theologian (Has anyone else heard of Theodosius Dobzhanksy? Because I certainly have not) who simply states that there is no conflict.

To be fair, Collins quotes Augustine previously to make the same point – but these pointers don’t consist of arguments. Pointing to others who agree with your viewpoint isn’t the same thing as showing how apparent discrepancies can be overcome.

To so flippantly disregard entire movements that have major sway within conservative evangelicalism seemed less than strategic. Besides being simplistic, this type of presentation potentially furthers the extremist and polarizing language Collins elsewhere laments. Yes, I get it, YEC and ID are a bit more fringy, but they should be handled with care and respect nonetheless.

I suppose that’s my biggest beef with this book: The shape of Collins’ presentation in part three is a bit pedantic and superfluous: First: refute the atheists and agnostics in chapter 7, then refute young earth creationism (chapter 8), then let’s bash the Intelligent Design movement in chapter 9 until finally, we’ll get to the superior interpretation – the one that Collins holds himself, all in a few pages or less! While I may not disagree with Collins’ conclusions, I wish he would have discussed the different interpretations of other scientists outside his camp (who are also looking at the same scientific data) a bit more respectfully…

While there are many subtle variants of theistic evolution, Collins holds to the version with the following premises (page 200):

• The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago
• Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
• While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time.
• Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required.
• Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
• But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.

In the end, I’d recommend this book to people looking to learn if modern science conflicts with Christianity. Of course, it doesn’t. Thank goodness! Claims to the contrary are simplistic and one-sided. But as a book for fairly evaluating other potential interpretations of the same scientific data, I wouldn’t even give Collins a passing grade.

A Review of the Book: Science, Creation and the Bible

I feel pretty neutral about this book which is another way of saying I didn’t love it. While I don’t have many extreme frustrations with it, I didn’t find much to be enthused about either. It was a bit of a yawner for me. But I appreciate that the authors are trying to help readers understand that the Bible and science (if utilized appropriately) aren’t necessarily contradictory.

This book reads more like an elaboration of the positions of the two authors (one a theologian, the other a physicist) than a comprehensive exploration of the topic from multiple perspectives. Since I’m currently more drawn to the latter I found the former to be a bit one-sided and lacking in nuance, but I guess that was kind of the point so it’s probably not a fair critique.

The authors believe science and theology are separate spheres. Essentially, science asks “how” while theology asks “why.” However, while scripture and science describe creation differently, both descriptions can be understood complementarily. Below are the highlights as I experienced them, as few as they were:

Highlights:

1. In chapter one, Richard F. Carlson describes the moments of the big-bang (when, “13.7 billion years ago, a cosmic fireball appeared from what seemed to be nothing”) and afterwards (pages 28-32). One would have to study for 25 years in order to understand all those technical processes described in those five pages. But man, it was a ride. I had never run into such a description before. Clearly, I don’t have enough physicist friends.
2. In chapter three the authors describe the process of faithful interpretation of Scripture. I appreciate that they tackled this topic and attempted to describe it in steps (also as on page 108). This is one of the more challenging aspects to explain. I was left wanting, but I’ll give them an “A” for effort.
3. In the same chapter, Longman discusses the power and importance of both story and myth (yes, there is a difference) when it comes to the search for truth. I’ve found it difficult to express the technical aspects of this conversation in an easy-to-understand way. But Longman does a phenomenal job. He utilizes Madeleine L’Engle, C.S. Lewis and Tolkien – and the description that emerges (of myth especially) was probably my favorite part of the book (pages 61-69).
4. In Chapters 4-5 the authors survey all Biblical creation texts (besides Genesis 1-2 – which they cover in chapter 6) which I appreciated, but failed to show the significance of those texts for the conversation. If they did, I missed it.
5. In Chapter 6, Longman and Carlson take a lot of time distinguishing the differences between Genesis 1-2. This is important and isn’t always done well. But again, why are the differences important? They failed to make that clear to this reader.

I don’t think I’d recommend this book to most people. Perhaps as an introduction to the types of questions we should ask when interpreting scripture appropriately, chapter three could be a beginning resource. Or, as another example of professionals who believe science and scripture aren’t necessarily contradictory, this book could be cited. But besides that, it’s mostly more of the same.

Review of the Book: Mapping the Origins Debate by Gerald Rau

Reading this book is reminiscent to taking a college course. I learned something new on almost every page. The author describes this book as “a map to help high school or college students find their way through hotly disputed territory, to guide their journey from the one-sided and greatly oversimplified arguments…to the depth of scientific, theological and philosophical literature that exists” (13).

It could have been titled, “An overview of just about all the relevant scientific information as it relates to the controversy over the origin of the (1) universe, (2) life, (3) species and (4) humans.” The six following interpretive camps are compared in their interpretations, inferences and philosophical presuppositions:

1. Naturalistic Evolutionists
2. Nonteleological Evolutionists
3. Planned Evolutionists
4. Directed Evolutionists
5. Old-Earth Creationists
6. Young-Earth Creationists

Since I have almost no previous experience learning in the fields of biology, geology, paleontology, astronomy, genetics, and other similar and inter-related scientific fields, I was helped by this sprawling presentation of the relevant data for the non-professional.

This is the fourth book I’ve read from the following stack, but it should have been the first because of how it lays out the lay-of-the-land so comprehensively and fairly. This book gives the reader an overall grasp of the scientific information currently in play. One of the values of this book is that the author is able to briefly explain tons of highly-technical information in a simple, careful, straightforward way. As a sort of introductory survey to the science, it is second-to-none.

The author spends 3/4 of the book presenting the relevant scientific evidence and various interpretations of the above six models, showing the logic of each position and how the arguments ultimately rest on the philosophical presuppositions undergirding each model.

As well as describing each possible model, Rau controversially demonstrates how our religious and philosophical presuppositions, rather than the evidence, dictate our preferences. Rau’s insight clarifies why this conversation is so difficult. It is impossible to do science without a foundation of underlying philosophical presupossitions. In his words, “In most cases our philosophy determines choice of model rather than the opposite” (37) and “what we see depends on what we expect to see” (127).

I appreciated Rau’s willingness to highlight how each camp uses scientific data in particular ways based on philosophical motivations. This level of analysis is difficult to find and further highlights the inter-disciplinary character of the debate. At the root of the origins debate is the question of WHICH presuppositions and WHICH principles, should guide scientific inquiry in our generation, “…a debate that cannot be settled based on the empirical evidence” (189).

Rau’s goal was to be as neutral as he could in the presentation of the material and to avoid unfair characterizations and polarizing language. After all, “the question of origins is a puzzle, and it is clear that no model has put the whole puzzle together yet. Moreover, no model even has all the pieces of the puzzle in hand” (153).

But, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to piece it all together! For someone who needed to see which pieces are on the table, and begin to get a sense of what each piece looks like, this book is gold!

A Summary of the Book: Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation

The essays gathered in this volume are the fruit of the Fall 2011 symposium with the same name as the title of the book, hosted in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The Bryan Institute for Critical Thought & Practice invited five evangelical Old Testament scholars who have done serious work in Genesis to enter into dialogue over important interpretative and theological matters issuing out of the creation narratives in Genesis 1-2.

The contributors are not scientists, they are theologians, and their contribution has everything to do with what theology Genesis portrays rather than how scientific findings should affect our readings of the Bible. I will summarize the five theological views below, in the order that they appear in the book:

A Literary Day, Inter-Textual and Contextual Reading of Genesis 1-2 (Richard E. Averback):

Averback argues that the six/seven pattern found in the creation account is a literary device that was common in Biblical (see Proverbs 6:16-19; Job 5:19; Prov. 30:15, 18, 21, 29; Exodus 24:16; 1 Kings 8:2, 65; 2 Chronicles 7:8-10; Ezekiel 45:21-25; 1 Kings 6:38, 8:31-53, etc.). and Ancient Near Eastern literature (Mesopotamian, Ugarit, and Egyptian sources).

This numerical device as it is worked out in Genesis Chapter One “is intentionally built off the widely distributed ANE three-level structure of the cosmos” (16) and serves as an “analogical pattern to exemplify and reinforce obedience to the Sabbath in ancient Israel” (27).

The author of Genesis is thus “meeting the readers where they are in their world, but is also taking them where they need to go…” (9). Averback takes Genesis 1:1 to be an independent clause serving as a title announcing the subject of Genesis 1, not the actual beginning of God’s creation work in the chapter.

Averback notes another analogy at work in the text – Ancient Near East temples were places of divine residence and rest. The same is true of Israel. The temple and the cosmos are reflective of each other. God not only creates the cosmos, he moves into it and it is on the earth that God “rests.”

For Averback, the point of Genesis 1-2 is that God is the only God, vs. the view of comparative societies who believed the gods were PART of creation. As well, the toledoth structure of the story reinforces the reality that the conditions before the fall were not the same as after the fall (29).

Averback’s view “has affinities with the so-called ‘framework hypothesis’ but also varies from it in major ways…by drawing heavily on ANE contextual sources as well” (31). The seven days are “not to be taken literally and are not intended to tell us how long God took in actually creating the cosmos or how old the earth is” (31).

Reading Genesis 1-2: A Literal Approach (Todd S. Beall):

Beall believes Genesis 1 should be read (along with all of Genesis 1-11) as historical narrative that is meant to be taken literally. After all, this is the normal reading of the account. We should be consistent in our hermeneutic throughout Genesis 1-11. Beall’s chapter asks and answers five questions to prove that the literal approach is the correct approach:

1. Should we use two different hermeneutics for Genesis 1-11 and Genesis 12-50? NO! The structure of the entire book is based on the phrase “oleh toledoth” (“These are the generations of” or “this is the history of”) and occurs 10 times in Genesis (47). It seems evident that the author intended both sections to be understood in the same way, as consecutive history.
2. Is there a separate hermeneutic or genre for Genesis 1? NO! This question follows logically from the first. Beall does not detect parallelism, but rather the normal prose structure. This is seen especially when comparing Genesis 1 to Psalm 104 which is decidedly poetic. Beall rejects classifications of Genesis 1 as “exalted prose narrative” (John Collins) or “literary-artistic representation of the creation” (Waltke).
3. Does Genesis 1 Represent an ANE Worldview? No! After summarizing authors who believe it does (Peter Enns, John Walton, Van Till) he disagrees because to admit this would be to “deny the uniqueness of the biblical record” (51). While Beall admits there are some similarities, he points out at the same time, “there are far more significant differences” including: There is only one God, not many gods; The Israelite God is eternal, not a created being; and he created the rest of the world in an orderly, purposeful way.
4. How do the NT writers approach Genesis 1-2 (and Genesis 1-11)? This author felt this question was Beall’s strongest. His argument is that the NT writers take it literally even as they refer “to the details, not just the concepts,” of Genesis 1-11.
5. Are the recent nonliteral views motivated by accommodation to current scientific theories? Yes, and that is not a proper reason for re-interpreting scripture in a non-literal way.

Reading Genesis 1-2 with the grain: Analogical days (C. John Collins):

C. John Collins examines Genesis 1-2 for what it aims to say and do. When trying to understand authorial intent, we should think about what the author of Genesis would be doing “with the needs of these people first of all in mind” (73). Collins spends about half of his article showing that we should read Genesis 1-11 as part of a coherent whole, because the story as a whole as well as the rest of the book of Genesis progresses smoothly and is united by the 10 toledoth sections as well as the “be fruitful and multiply” theme (see Genesis 1:28; 9:1, 12:2-3, 17:20, 26:3-4, 28:3; 48:3-4).

The shape of this biblical story assumes that all human beings have a common origin, a common predicament, and a common need to know God and have God’s image restored in them (75). In comparing the shape of Genesis 1-12 with the Sumerian King List, the Atrahasis Epic, and the Eridu Genesis, he shows how this overarching pattern from Mesoopotamia provides a literary and ideological context for God to speak in a way that the Israelites could understand.

Collins believes that Genesis shows us God begins each workday by saying something, expressing a wish, “let something happen” and the wish is fulfilled (which explains why day 7 is different since it is not pictured as a work-day). This tells us that the first day actually begins at 1:3 when God expresses his first wish. In other words, God’s initial act of creating all there is took place at some point before the first day began.

So, then, “the six ‘creation days’ are not necessarily the first actual days of the universe; they are not even necessarily the first days of the earth itself. They are the days during which God set up the earth as the ideal place for human beings to live – to love God, to serve one another, to rule the world with wisdom and good will” (85). Rather than describing the origin of the heavens and the earth, it celebrates God’s work of shaping the earth as an ideal place for human beings, and it honors God for God’s great achievement.

What Genesis 1-2 teaches (and what it doesn’t) (Tremper Longman III):

Longman’s view is that the main purpose of Genesis 1-2 is to proclaim in the midst of contemporary counterclaims that Yahweh the God of Israel was the creator of everyone. However, the biblical text is not at all interested in telling us how God created the cosmos and humanity. Since the Bible does not tell its readers how God created the world and humanity, it is perfectly acceptable and even reasonable to turn to the sciences to explore that question (103).

In order to ascertain meaning in a text, one must pay close attention to genre. In Longman’s words, “genre triggers reading strategy” (104). First, we note that Genesis 1-2 is narrative; it tells a story, actually, two stories (1:1-2:4a and 2:4b-25). This story is “filled with (pervasive) figurative language that signals that the writer does not intend the reader to take the description of creation of the cosmos or of humanity as literally true.” When we see the description of days, we know from the ANE context that this is a pictorial presentation of a normal work week followed by a day of rest. This means our text is a literary, not a literal description of creation.

The description is inspired by Babylonian creation stories and God is described in anthropomorphic terms. Rather than telling us how God made the first human being, the point was to show us the nature of humanity and important features of God’s relationship with humans. This work was not written against Darwin. It was written against Babylonian, Canaanite, and Egyptian claims. A main theological purpose is to show that there is no divine conflict because God has no rivals.

While both Genesis 1-11 and 12-50 have a “historical impulse” we may “also detect discontinuity in the precision of historical description between the two parts” (109). Longman was the only contributor to also survey other texts relating to Creation, including: Psalms 8, 19, 24, 33, 74, 104, 136; Proverbs 3:19-20, 8:22-31; Job 38:4-11. Longman agrees with John Paul II who stated, “Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes” (119). Longman subscribes to theistic evolution, but his point is not that the text teaches evolution; “my point is that the Bible does not address the issue” (121).

Reading Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology (John H. Walton):

Walton reminds us that the Bible, though written for us and all humanity, was not written to us. God was communicating to them, and we have the great privilege of listening in. The ancient Israelite text does not have evolution in mind to either accept it or refute it. To be competent readers of the Bible, we need to pay attention to the ANE cultural context, the genre of the literature, and the meanings of Hebrew words and phrases.

The earliest chapters of Genesis could be termed cosmology. A cosmology can be constructed in many ways, including poetic, narrative, mythological, scientific, etc. The intent of a cosmology is not so much to give the history of the cosmos or even to tell the story of the cosmos. The central intention of a cosmology is to give an explanation for the cosmos.

Walton proposes that in the ancient world, one’s cosmic ontology was oriented towards functions rather than materials, and therefore the cosmos was viewed as sacred space. To create something was more about giving it a function, rather than material properties. The words of Genesis are there to explain function, not material origin. Material questions were of very little interest to them, which is in many ways the opposite of modern cultures.

The starting point, or problem, is an absence of order and function (not of material objects). Therefore Genesis shows us God creating order and function out of chaos. Walton argues that the first three days of Genesis 1 provide the basis for the functions of time, weather and food. It’s a text about organizing, bringing order, and establishing functions (156). Since ancients thought of the cosmos more as a kingdom, God is described as resting because everyone in those days knew that the gods rest in temples.

Therefore in Genesis 1-2 the cosmos is viewed as sacred space in which God rests. This view makes day 7 as the most important part of the passage because it shows the ultimate act is God taking residence in the cosmic temple that he has just made. God makes this world His home! That had more ramifications for the ANE culture than just about anything else. Additionally shocking is that humans are not described as slave labor, but as vice-regents! This was completely revolutionary for that time period and shows us the original theological message of Genesis.

A Summary Review of the Book: Seven Days That Divide the World by John C. Lennox

I could see myself recommending this book to parishioners who are looking to begin thinking about the evolution debate. At only 5 chapters long (with 5 appendixes for those who want to go a bit deeper) and less than 200 pages of larger font, this book is readable and could be realistically completed by most interested readers of the topic. An excellent resource for entering into the foray.

Chapter One is only five pages long and works as an analogy. It details the ancient debate about the fixedness of the earth and the movement of the sun. The standard interpretations of scripture in the Middle Ages were challenged in 1543 when Copernicus published his famous work, “On The Revolutions of the Celestial Orbs, in which he advanced the view that the earth and the planets orbited the sun. Copernicus’ science threatened standard interpretations of passages such as 1 Samuel 2:8; 1 Chronicles 16:30, Ecclesiastes 1:5 and Psalm 19:4-6, 93:1, and 104:5. But eventually, the church was able to understand those passages in light of a heliocentric view. If the church was able to do that, why couldn’t we also do the same thing as it relates to evolutionary science?

I loved chapter two because it is an 18 page road-map for how to properly interpret scripture. It’s a manual for proper hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is an intimidating word, and an even more intimidating field. But it’s so foundational to this discussion. Lennox explains what it means to take a text “literally” and how to properly approach a text that also includes metaphorical language. The author reminds us of how important it is for us to “be humble enough to distinguish between what the Bible says and our interpretations of it” (35). I could see this chapter being very helpful to lay readers on how to approach scripture in light of the specific question on how science should inform our understandings of what Scripture is saying.

Chapter three includes a helpful summary of different interpretations of Genesis 1-2. While the author admits to holding to the “old earth creationism” perspective, his historical survey would be helpful for anyone to gain an overall sense for the main questions that emerge and the main answers that exist. The chapter gives a lay-of-the-land in a straightforward and simple way without divulging too far into tangential details or over-analyzation.

In Chapter four, Lennox covers the debate about the origin of humans. This is less of a survey, and more of a teaching about the implications of the text. Throughout the chapter, Lennox continues to remind us to pay close attention to the text of Scripture – what does it actually say, and what is left unsaid? A close reading of Scripture is of utmost importance. And lastly, Chapter 5 maps out the theological (rather than the potentially scientific) messages of Genesis 1.

In his recommendations for how to approach this topic, Lennox recommends we avoid two extremes:

1. We must beware of tying our exposition of Scripture so close to science that the former falls if the latter changes.
2. We would be very unwise to ignore science through obscurantism or fear, and to present to the world an image of a Christianity that is anti-intellectual. No Christian has anything to fear from true science.

So, what is the best way forward? Lennox has four salient considerations (p86):

1. Pay attention to the current scientific evidence for an ancient earth.
2. Recognize that young-earth creationists should humbly agree that their view is, at the moment, implausible on purely scientific grounds.
3. Embrace the fact that Scripture…does not require an interpretation of a young earth. Other interpretations do not compromise the authority of Scripture.
4. Admit we don’t know everything. Humility is often seen in the greatest scientists, and is also a Christian virtue.

On the last page of Chapter 5 Lennox refers back to the age-old adage: “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things charity.” His book is an admirable example of what that can look like in real life.

Throughout the book, Lennox employs an irenic tone, an admirable characteristic within a world of conflicting interpretations. My appreciation for this book therefore goes far beyond what it says and is centered more on how the author says it. A valiant example for how Christians should be able to approach and talk to one another when discussing this hyper-controversial topic.

A Summary of the Book: Four Views: Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design

In this article I will summarize the four different views on origin that are compared in this book, including:

1. Young Earth Creationism (Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis)
2. Old Earth Creationism (Hugh Ross, Reasons to Believe)
3. Evolutionary Creation (Deborah B. Harsma, Biologos)
4. Intelligent Design (Stephen C. Meyer, The Discovery Institute)

In this post I will not evaluate which argument I find most convincing even though one of my favorite aspects of this book was in reading the responses to each essay from the other contributors, and then the original contributor concludes with a response to the responses. I found those in-between comparative sections to be just as clarifying as the original contributions.

YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM (Ken Ham):

Ken Ham believes Genesis 1-11 is history – not poetry, parable, prophetic vision, or mythology. He claims this was the universal belief of the church until the beginning of the 19th century. Thus, Genesis describes when God created the earth, and how. For Ham, the days of the creation week in Genesis 1:1-2:3 are literal, 24 hour days, just like our days today. Since the order of creation events in Genesis 1 contradict the order of events in the evolutionary story of the universe and of life, evolutionary theory must be rejected.

Ham also believes the Genesis genealogies are strict chronologies and should be used to calculate the age of the earth. In Ham’s reading, the earth is about 6,000 years old because Abraham was born a little before 2000BC and Adam was created about 2000 years before Abraham. Since Adam was born on the sixth literal day of history, the earth is very young.

Ham is opposed to evolution. He views evolution as flipping the Gospel story. Concerning the flood, Ham believes it was global and catastrophic. The evidence of “billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth” (29) amongst other geological findings, confirms a literal reading of Genesis 6. Rather than trusting scientists, Ham would rather trust the eyewitness testimony of the Creator. The story of evolution is a story of compromise.

OLD-EARTH CREATIONISM (Hugh Ross):

Ross takes the Bible to be the book that informs us of redemption, and creation as the “book” that gives us detail on God’s creation – and both speak in perfect harmony. “Neither negates or undermines the other” (71). Old Earth Creationism (OEC) sees no conflict between the Genesis 1 order of events and mainstream scientific chronology. OEC differs from mainstream science only in identifying the means by which life progresses, not in the actual historical record.

While the OEC camp contains multiple interpretation of the days of Genesis (such as 24 hour days separated by long eras, “days” as a literary framework; 24 hour creation days following a time gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:3; “days” as “ages” or a combination of above), Ross defends the day-age interpretation (his nine reasons can be seen on pages 80-82). The day-age view considers the Genesis creation days as as six sequential, non-overlapping, long time periods.

While we see God’s providence through the processes that science can confirm, OEC’s also believe in 3 types of miracles:

1. Transcendent miracles: Acts of God that transcend the laws of physics and space-time dimensions of the universe. Examples include establishment of physical laws, humanity’s unique nature, creation of cosmic space-time dimensions, etc.
2. Transformational miracles: Acts of God in reconstituting or refashioning some aspect of the created realm. Here God interacts with what already exists to produce results far beyond what natural processes alone could reasonably be expected.
3. Sustaining miracles: God’s continuous action throughout history to sustain and ensure just-right conditions for existence and survival.

Ross believes the flood was not global. To say the flood was worldwide is not to say it was global since humanity was not yet globally dispersed. When II Peter 3:6 says “the world of the ungodly” was flooded, it means the flood’s extent was determined by how far people had spread. Another major question in this discussion is what to make of death – when did death appear, and to whom? Did all death (humans, plants, animals) begin to happen after Adam’s death?

Ross believes Romans 5:12 means that when Adam sinned, he inaugurated sin among humans, but that other types of death in the cosmic realm including with plants, bugs and animals could have existed beforehand as a good part of the normal cycles of life that are required for the earth to flourish. In Ross’s words, “the day-age creation perspective envisions far more divine engagement and far less natural processes than either the young-earth or evolutionary creation views” (89).

Another major question in this debate is when and how humans originated. Ross finds a biblical clue for humanity’s origin date in Genesis 2. The text mentions four known rivers that originally converged in Eden: Pishon, Gihon, Tigris and Euphrates. Though these rivers no longer converge, they did in the Persian Gulf’s southeastern portion during the last Ice age. By tracking ancient riverbeds, one could conclude that the first humans, Adam and Eve, came on the scene sometime during, perhaps early in, the last ice age (12,000-135,000 years ago). This date is consistent with the range of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome dates for humanity’s origin.

EVOLUTIONARY CREATION (Deborah B. Haarsma):

Deborah believes the Bible is true and evolution is real. She sees evolutionary creation (EC) as a faithful option for Christians and a reasonable option for scientists. EC is the view that God created the universe, earth, and life over billions of years, and that the gradual process of evolution was crafted and governed by God to create the diversity of all life on earth. Thus, evolution is not a worldview in opposition to God but a natural mechanism by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Each discipline naturally and helpfully provides correctives to the other.

EC’s search for natural mechanisms in the physical world, and celebrate the God of the Bible as the creator and designer of those mechanisms (132). A scientific explanation does not eliminate God. For the Christian, it glorifies God by revealing God’s handiwork. Natural laws are a testimony of God’s faithful providential care as he upholds the existence of all matter and mechanisms moment by moment. In this view, God is understood as a “composer writing a symphony” (137) and a God who “delights in working through systems” (138).

While Deborah was born and raised within a different paradigm, she began to see things differently. She sees genetics bringing a powerful line of evidence for the evolutionary picture. In fact, when she was first learning about evolution, this was the one she found most convincing.

Regarding the human origin question, Haarsma points to archeological studies of indigenous human cultures showing that the first homo sapiens left Africa around 100,000 years ago and had spread all over the world by 10,000 years ago (144). This timeline is inconsistent with the first modern humans living only in the Middle East 6,000 years ago. Therefore, Adam and Eve are not necessarily sole progenitors, but are ancient representatives of humanity, and recent representatives, at that. Regarding the question about death – she notes that both Genesis 2-3 as well as Romans 5:12 mentions human death, not animal death.

While Haarsma doesn’t try as hard to concord science with scripture, she doesn’t think we need to since the inspired authors of Scripture as well as the original audiences of the Bible lived in the pre-scientific era and simply never thought in such terms – so we shouldn’t place scientific questions on to a pre-scientific text. Since evolution doesn’t contradict scripture, we should allow each “book” speak for itself – both the book of redemption and the book of creation.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN (Stephen C. Meyer):

Stephen C. Meyer is one of the architects of the theory of intelligent design (ID) and is a director of a research center that supports scientists who develop this theory. It was first proposed in the early 1980s by a group of scientists who were trying to account for the mystery in modern biology: the origin of the digital information encoded along the spine of the DNA molecule.

ID is not based on the Bible. Instead, the theory is based on recent scientific discoveries regarding patterns of evidence in the natural world that indicate intelligent causes. As such, ID is an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origin and development that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution, also disputing the Darwinian idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.

Meyer points to the presence of functionally specific, information-bearing sequences in DNA represents a striking appearance of design, among other proofs. Most of the science-speak was over my head. Long-story short, his argument is that explaining the origin of genetic information poses an acute difficulty for scientists attempting to explain the origin of life (193).

Meyer is intriguing in this regard. He did his Ph.D. at Cambridge and studied the method of reasoning historical scientists use to make conclusions sometimes referred to as “inference to the best explanation.”

In his studies he found that the specified information in cells point to intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of biological evolution. Especially since every materialistic model during the last 50 years has failed to explain the origin of the functionally specified genetic information required to build a living cell. Thus, “intelligence, or what philosophers call, ‘agent causation’ now stands as the only known cause to be capable of generating large amounts of specified information” (202).