Editors: J.P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds
Date: 1999
Publisher: Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan
ISBN: 0-310-22017-3
Reviewed by: Allan H. Harvey,
steamdoc@aol.com
Preliminary Comments
Books in Zondervan's Counterpoints series present several Christian views on controversial issues of the faith. Other titles include Four Views on Hell and Three Views on the Rapture. The series does not appear to be aimed at novices (such as the college freshman first realizing that there are other viewpoints besides that of her home church); instead, at least this book and the two I leafed through at a bookstore seem to be at a more advanced level.Three Views on Creation and Evolution presents views labeled "Young-Earth Creationism," "Old-Earth (Progressive) Creationism," and "Theistic Evolution." Following an Introduction by the editors, each of these is represented by an essay. Each essay is followed by a few pages from each of a set of four respondents, and then by a rebuttal from the author. Two brief essays from additional contributors close the book.
The Introduction is unusual in that the editors do not pretend to be neutral (though I am not suggesting they are unfair); Reynolds is in fact a co-author of the "young-Earth" chapter and Moreland is one of the four respondents and does not hide his "creationist" sympathies. While there is some good background material and explanation of the pattern of the book, much of the Introduction is an argument for "theistic science."
The presentation of "theistic science" illustrates what bothers me about that movement. Much of the argument is that theistic explanations should not be "out of bounds" in describing nature, and I have no major problem with that. Yet when the beliefs of theistic science are presented, principle #1 is:
God ... created and designed the world for a purpose and has directly acted through immediate, primary agency during the course of its development at various times, including prehistory .... [p. 18]Note the word "has," as opposed to "may have." Suddenly, rather than allowing God to act a certain way, they insist that he must have. The implied message is that, if God didn't work in a "direct" manner, he hasn't worked at all and theism is untenable. This bias that only certain types of actions "count" for God leads many of us to use the label "God of the Gaps" to describe the underlying philosophy that "natural" explanations exclude God. Moreland and Reynolds mention that phrase, but then merely offer another defense of invoking God (or an Intelligent Agent) as a hypothesis. This misses the point -- the problem is not the theistic explanation but the philosophy that God is diminished by natural explanations so that the truth of theism is dependent upon finding "gaps" where God has worked directly. Whether intentional or not, defenders of "theistic science" almost always avoid the real substance of the "God of the Gaps" complaint. Rather than elaborate, I will point readers to an essay I wrote on that phrase.
View One: "Young-Earth Creationism"
The phrase that comes to mind with this chapter is "bait and switch." It is co-authored by philosophers Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds, who are quite unrepresentative of the "Young-Earth Creationist" movement. Absent are the usual pseudoscientific arguments for a young Earth. Missing is the insistence that 144-hour creation and a global flood are absolute essentials, and that to reject these is to sell out to Satan. Nearly always, the young-Earth creationism one encounters takes the "believe our way or you might as well be an atheist" position. To their credit, Nelson and Reynolds do not go down that road, but that left me feeling like I hadn't really read a "young-Earth" chapter. It is as though I had tuned to a radio station that billed itself as "rock and roll" and got songs by the Carpenters. Perhaps technically eligible for that label, certainly less offensive to those offended by the excesses of rock and roll, but not at all representative of the movement.With changes in just a few sentences, this could have been the "old-Earth" chapter. They even say at one point that old-Earth creationism is "the more rational position to adopt" [p. 73], and make other conciliatory statements that would be considered heretical compromise by the mainstream young-Earth movement. The main reasons given for their lukewarm advocacy of the young-Earth position are because it is "more intellectually interesting" and because it would be a boon for the faith if shown to be true.
One can speculate on why these authors were chosen. Did the editors feel that the usual young-Earth view was so unhealthy that it did not deserve to be presented? [This may be implied in the Introduction, where Nelson and Reynolds are called "among the most responsible of a new generation of young-Earth creationists."] Did they want to promote these authors in order to influence the movement in a less destructive direction? Or perhaps representatives of typical young-Earth creationism were invited, but refused to participate in a forum that implied others were legitimate Christian views?
In some ways, I like the choice of authors. It is good to see a more reasoned presentation that does not deny the faith of those who disagree. If all young-Earth creationism were like that presented here, the church would have less trouble on these issues, and anything that steers the movement in a healthier direction is welcome. But the reality is that most young-Earth creationism today is quite unlike this chapter. Until videos by Paul Nelson replace those by Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, young-Earth creationism will continue to be a millstone dragging down the church’s witness. My fear is that a pastor might see this chapter and wonder what it is that has we scientifically literate parishioners so concerned. Those who make decisions on what is taught in the church need to be aware of the character of the whole movement, not just one unusually sanitary corner.
View Two: "Old-Earth Creationism"
Robert Newman’s presentation of old-Earth creationism (or "progressive creationism") is a bit unusual. Many times, the starting point for this position (not always explicitly stated) is the assumed incompatibility of evolution with Scripture. Newman, however, grants that Scripture actually allows room for quite a bit of (theistic) evolution, though he draws the line at the creation of Adam and Eve. His primary arguments concern the scientific evidence.Newman devotes several pages to the scientific evidence indicating great age for the Earth. He also discusses the compatibility of this great age with the Biblical text. This is material that should be familiar to most who study these issues, but it is presented well.
Newman’s anti-evolution arguments begin with the "fine-tuning" of the universe, which is not unique to his position. In arguing against "theistic evolution," he points to irreducible complexity, the origin of life, the Cambrian explosion, and alleged gaps in the fossil record. A weakness here is the lack of citation of any real science with the exception of Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box. Respondent J. J. Davis, while mainly agreeing with Newman, rightly takes him to task for giving short shrift to the fossil and anthropological evidence.
One welcome theme throughout the chapter was the necessity of honestly considering God’s revelation both in Scripture and in nature. Newman makes the point that it is not a simple matter of "the Bible versus science," because the Bible must be interpreted much as science interprets nature. Another theme was his desire to avoid "fictitious history." This is stated with regard to the "appearance of history" arguments that are increasingly resorted to by young-Earth creationists who realize the scientific evidence is not on their side; Newman cannot see God being a deceiver in this way. He also applies the "fictitious history" label to efforts to read parts of Genesis (particularly chapters 2 and 3) in a less literal way. I don’t think this parallel quite works, because we know that God actually does use "fictitious history" in Scripture on some occasions. For this to work, he would have to go into more detail as to why it is OK for God to use fictitious history in, for example, the parable of the Good Samaritan, but not in Genesis 2-3.
View Three: "Theistic Evolution"
I have come to dislike the phrase "theistic evolution." The word order makes it sound like the primary commitment is to evolution, with theism thrown in as an afterthought. I prefer "evolutionary creationism," which makes it clear that God's status as creator is the fundamental (shared by all Christians), and that the differences are in the secondary issues of the manner and timing of that creation. Howard Van Till protests the application of the "theistic evolution" label to his chapter, preferring "fully gifted creation perspective." The editors do not explain why they stuck with the prejudicial "theistic evolution" (though Van Till's term is arguably biased in its own way, implying that God's creation is somehow deprived in the other views); probably they just chose the label by which the position is most commonly known. While that is defensible, it creates the false impression that only two of the three views are affirming "creation."Before going in depth into his position, Van Till begins with a careful definition of terms and of what the issues really are (along with the harm of failure to do such careful definition at the outset). Regardless of whether one agrees with his subsequent viewpoint, these twenty pages should be absorbed by anybody wishing to grapple with this controversy. One is unlikely to find a clearer presentation of the theological and scientific issues, or of the ways in which sloppy thinking on these issues harms the witness of the Gospel and the health of the church. The clear distinction between the doctrine of creation (shared by all Christians) and the various pictures of how creation was carried out is particularly helpful, as is the repeated point that many of our problems are due to phrasing things in false either/or frameworks.
Van Till’s view is that God fully gifted his creatures at the outset with "creaturely capacities" sufficient for them to play out his will for creation without further miraculous input. Things are therefore framed as follows:
How can we best describe the character of divine creative action? By reference to occasional interventions in which a new form is imposed on raw materials that are incapable of attaining that form with their own capabilities? Or by reference to God’s giving being to a creation fully equipped with the creaturely capabilities to organize and/or transform itself into a diversity of physical structures and life-forms? [p. 175]Van Till opts for the latter answer, both on grounds of the scientific evidence (which indicates few if any "gaps" in the creaturely capabilities of the universe) and of theology (arguing for a God who does not have to intervene time and again in order to get his creation right). He recognizes that the idea that creation does not need special intervention by God is usually considered an argument against theism, but he asserts that the wondrous fine-tuning of such a creation argues for just the opposite:
[T]he most appropriate and effective response to the naturalistic challenge is to say that if there are no gaps in the formational economy of the universe, then that truly remarkable state of affairs should lead a person to recognize the universe as being a thoughtfully conceptualized and fully gifted creation that has been given its being by an unfathomably creative and generous creator. [p. 192]Many issues are covered in this long chapter; I will mention two other pieces I found especially well-done. The first was an exploration of the term "methodological naturalism," which can be an obvious statement about the way science works, but which sometimes gets additional meaning layered onto it and is wielded as a club by those arguing that mainstream science and a worldview of naturalism are inseparably entangled. The second was a section on Theology and Scripture which would be helpful reading for all who take the Bible seriously, not just those dealing with this particular issue, as a refreshing antidote to the overly simplistic (and sometimes borderline idolatrous) views of Scripture sometimes found in Evangelical circles.
In case my bias is not already obvious, I should state that, of the three views presented in this book, Van Till’s is the closest to my own. I am particularly in agreement with his insistence that we must not view "natural" processes acting under God’s sovereign will as inferior modes of operation to interventionist miracles, and with his commitment to consider metaphysical and scientific questions (and answers) individually, without assuming that they must be packaged in certain narrow combinations.
Still, there are aspects of the chapter I would not fully endorse. While I agree with Van Till that it is wrong to insist that God must have acted in interventionist ways in creation, I think it is similarly wrong to say that he must not have. Van Till does not say that, but one gets the impression that a God who acted in such a way would disappoint his expectations. I am leery of any efforts to discern the mind of God, whether it be creationist arguments that God would not have used a process like evolution or the argument that a God worth his salt would get things right from the beginning without needing additional tinkering. To the extent Van Till is presenting a plausible theological view of God’s action in creation I applaud the effort, but to whatever extent he is saying this is a better way for God to have acted I must demur. I also think Van Till must do more in the future to repel the charge that his view is too close to deism. While he has some good things to say to that in his rebuttal, the issue of deism is naturally going to come up with such a view. It is still a challenge for me to reconcile the idea of a God who has not "intervened" in creation history with one who does intervene in salvation history and in my own life.
Additional Pieces
Four respondents critique to each chapter, sometimes adding helpful perspective. Strangely, all four hold an old-Earth creationist position, though the two seminary professors (Vern Polythress of Westminster and John Jefferson Davis of Gordon-Conwell) show openness to at least some theistic evolution. Philosopher J.P. Moreland expresses some sympathy for the young-Earth view, so only engineering professor Walter Bradley is totally firm in his old-Earth creationist view.The first closing essay is by retired Stanford professor Richard Bube. While Bube does not explicitly endorse any of the positions, his sympathies probably lie closest to the views of Howard Van Till. Bube has a gift for clearing away the superficial issues and explaining the real points of conflict, defining terms carefully so as to avoid common misunderstandings. He also sees clearly the essence of the "God of the Gaps" criticism of some "theistic science," which is missed by several other authors in this book:
No more damaging confusion is caused than that which arises from assuming that calling something "natural" means that God is not involved, and that the involvement of God can be assured only by the treatment of specific phenomena as exclusively "supernatural." [p. 258]For more of Bube’s wisdom, I strongly recommend his book Putting It All Together: Seven Patterns for Relating Science and the Christian Faith (University Press of America, 1995), reviewed here.
The final essay, by law professor and noted anti-evolution crusader Phillip Johnson, is more palatable than I often find his writing to be. It is primarily an argument, reasonably made, for the admissibility of "design" as an explanation in science. Johnson's usual implication that the truth of theism is dependent on finding such design in nature (which, though he seems not to realize it, is the main problem many of us have with his views) is not apparent, and his usual attribution of unsavory motives to those who disagree with him, while not completely absent, is relatively mild. If all of Phil Johnson's writing were like this essay, the debates on these issues would be healthier.
Near the end, however, we see the tension between the reasonable side of Johnson that merely wants design arguments to have a place at the table, and the side that is unwilling to allow God to work through natural means. He writes:
Until we can separate the philosophy from the science and get an unbiased appraisal of what the evidence does and does not show, it is premature to try to come to any firm conclusions. When we do get an unbiased scientific picture, neo-Darwinism will collapse and we will be in the midst of a scientific revolution so profound that everything will be different. [pp. 277-8]He starts with a reasonable plea to separate the philosophy from the science. His contention is that the theory of evolution is held because of prior philosophical commitment to exclude theistic explanations. While I believe this to be overstated, it has some merit. An unbiased appraisal of the evidence should be desired by everybody. Yet in the next sentence, Johnson concludes what that appraisal must show. I believe this betrays his own failure to "separate the philosophy from the science." It may be wrong for metaphysical positions to constrain what science is allowed to consider, but it is also a philosophical (and theological) error to assume that certain findings of science negate theism. I believe that Johnson's scientific conclusions result from his philosophical presupposition that "natural" explanations exclude God. To be truly unbiased, he would need to separate that philosophy from the science, or preferably abandon it altogether since it is contrary to Christian theology.
Evaluation
First, I must commend all of the authors for being gracious. Too often, writing on this subject is lacking in humility and in respect for fellow Christians who hold other positions. In many cases there are illogical appeals to emotion and one can almost see the sneer behind the words. While the authors in this book stumble here and there (as I’m sure I do in this review), the overall tone of all the contributions in this regard is excellent.I think this is a useful book, provided the reader does not go in with the wrong expectations. It does not cover the complete spectrum of views; I have already mentioned the lack of a true "young-Earth" contribution; also missing is my own preferred view which is to make the primary point God’s ability to work through natural or unnatural means as he sees fit (making evolution theologically OK), and to treat the possibility of evolution as a secondary issue with little if any theological weight. A reader who wanted an exhaustive overview of the entire area with the chief arguments for and against all positions would have to go elsewhere (as far as I know, no such book exists). The positions that are covered are presented thoughtfully and reasonably. All authors have high regard for the Biblical witness; most (in my opinion the young-Earth chapter falls short here) also show high regard for the evidence in God’s creation.
This is not a book for beginners. The college freshman wanting an introduction to these issues would be better off reading Charles Hummel’s The Galileo Connection or Robert Fischer’s God Did It, But How?. For full-time Christian workers and interested lay people who are familiar with some basics and looking to begin a deeper investigation of these issues, Three Views on Creation and Evolution is a good resource.
| Disclaimer: The views expressed in this review are the opinion of the author of this review alone and should not be taken to represent the views of any other person or organization. |
Review originally written July 1999.
Page last modified September 2, 2000
