Book review of Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique

Full disclosure first: I am committed to young-earth creationism, because I believe that is the best understanding of the biblical record. 

Theistic Evolution does not promote such a position. It is, rather, a tour-de-force of the best arguments of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. The ID movement leaves aside the question of the age of the earth and instead directly attacks the main vehicle of evolution: random change over time coupled to natural selection of the fittest. ID argues that the panoply of created things clearly displays the marks of design, and therefore the existence of a Designer. This is set in opposition to the notion of theistic evolution, in which it is argued that, yes, God is there, but his act of creation was limited to producing the initial cosmic conditions and the inherent properties of nature. From that point forward, God steps out of the picture and allows what he has created to coalesce randomly over time, eventually producing the world as we see it today. One of the arguments of many proponents of theistic evolution is that, other than the initial creation, any further act of God must be undetectable.

The authors of the essays in Theistic Evolution have compiled a compelling case, both negatively against the possibility of evolution and positively for the contention that the cosmos and all that is in it displays purpose and intention, and therefore is evidence of a Designer.

The book is composed of three major sections. The first section deals with the scientific critique of theistic evolution (and therefore evolution itself, since theistic evolution is built on it). Nine chapters virtually destroy the case for evolution, drawing from chemistry, information theory, DNA, and embryology. Seven more chapters attack the idea of universal common descent (the “amoeba to man” idea). The final chapter of the first section details how scientists are pressured to conform to prevailing theories.

Section two confronts theistic evolution from a philosophical standpoint. In nine chapters, the various authors address themselves to the philosophy of science, the inadequacies of methodological naturalism, the problem of evil, the origin of the moral conscience and more.

The last section, five chapters, addresses the failure of theistic evolution to deal with the biblical and theological data. For someone committed to Scripture, this is the best part of the book. The authors of the essays demonstrate that theistic evolution undermines twelve creation events and multiple important biblical doctrines, and does not comport with the clear statements of either the Old or New Testaments. Theistic evolution is held up against the historic positions of theologians over the last 2000 years and found wanting.

Do not expect the book to argue for young-earth creationism, because it does not. It appears that the authors of the essays (at least the majority) are more comfortable with an old-earth position (but one that clearly involves belief in an actual, historical Adam and Eve supernaturally created as the very first humans, and who fell into sin, becoming responsible for the advent of death). But young-earth creationists should not reject this book. It is a strong polemic against any form of evolution, and the arguments of the authors are, almost in their entirety, arguments that young-earth creationists will find equally useful.

Five stars, highly recommended.

Book Review: Searching for Adam: Genesis and the Truth about Man's Origin

 Searching for Adam: Genesis and the Truth about Man's Origin. Edited by Terry Mortenson.

This book explores a hot-button topic that should be a lot hotter than it is in some circles.

The question is: Was Adam an actual historical person? Was he indeed the first human, as Genesis indicates?

 This is not a peripheral issue and much theology, perhaps most of theology, hinges upon the answer. The book documents—with names and clear-as-a-bell quotes—the fact that when you turn loose of a historical Adam, some scholars will begin to turn loose of substitutionary atonement. Why? No Adam, no fall, no original sin, hence no sin nature, no need for atonement.

Mortenson employs an impressive array of fifteen legitimate scholars to bring a mighty challenge against any flavor of evolution, theistic evolution, or old-earth creationism. Heavily documented and using their opponents own statements and findings, Mortenson and colleagues demonstrate that there is a good case to be made, from science no less, that Adam was specially created, fully human, and having no ancestors. The case for an “evolved Adam” which Biologos builds largely upon genetics, is in fact both faulty and even shoddy when the actual data is examined. One of the great contributions of Mortenson's book is puncturing the illusion that the science is settled. Searching for Adam exposes the fact that a good deal of the science is considered to be controversial (and not settled) even among evolutionists themselves.

Beginning with an examination of the text of the opening chapters of Genesis, the book makes a solid case for the traditional, orthodox interpretation of the creation story. The New Testament is also mined for its perspective regarding the historical Adam. The authors then review how Adam has been regarded across the history of theology, including the recent departures from belief. A chapter is devoted to discussing when Adam was created.

Another chapter examines John Walton’s popular book, The Lost World of Adam and Eve and gives it a devastating critique. A chapter is devoted to examining the implications of Adam being made in the image of God if there was no historical Adam.

Except for the last chapter, the remaining chapters move from the textual and theological issues to the scientific ones, dealing with the fossil record, genetics, anatomy, and anthropology. A particularly fascinating chapter deals with ten skeletal issues that all have to be in place to support walking upright. The author makes the point that unless all ten changes happen simultaneously, their net effect on the creature would hurt not help survivability. Another great chapter considers the fact that for ancient man to have built the structures he did would require immense intelligence rather than a primitive mind.

The authors carefully document the role that Darwinism has played in eugenics and man’s brutal quest to selectively eliminate what were considered “inferior” human specimens. Some of the worst totalitarian societies in history are shown to have built their fundamental principles on Darwinian evolution. This is all carefully documented from original sources. The point is that there are wide-ranging societal implications when a Darwinian viewpoint reigns in a society.

In the final chapter, Mortenson exposes the obvious effect Darwinism is having on modern evangelical scholars. He makes a tight case for the assertion that many modern scholars are not being governed by the text in their interpretation of Genesis, but by the questionable claims of scientists that often have more to do with the scientists’ own philosophical commitments than with science itself.

Bottom line: this is an excellent book, highly recommended. If you have been wrestling with the early chapters of Genesis and how to understand them, read Searching for Adam before you make up your mind.

Fielding Age-of-the-Earth Questions Evangelistically - By Mark Thompson

What follows is a guest-post from Mark Thompson. I really enjoyed it and I trust you will as well.

Fielding Age-of-the-Earth Questions Evangelistically

Anyone who has gone through the public education system or listened to the national media cover what might be called “origins science” has been inundated with the idea that the earth is billions of years old.  Individuals whom the Spirit is leading to consider the claims of Christianity may have legitimate questions stemming from the assertions of evolution.  In answering their questions, we must always emphasize that when the scientific facts are seen in their proper light they will always agree with the Bible because the Bible is the ultimate source of truth.  Scientific evidences cannot be used to “prove” the Bible to an unbeliever because evidences may well change over time and, more importantly, fallen men consistently interpret evidences in light of their presuppositions (unproven starting assumptions, such as naturalism).

This said, I do believe it is appropriate and indeed glorifying to God to show how creation testifies to His infinite wisdom and might (Rom.1:18-22).  But the goal of our Christian witness always needs to be a respectful but authoritative presentation of the gospel (1 Cor.2:1-5).  Do not give up the bedrock of God’s Word to stand on the shifting sands of popular scientific opinion.  The following was my response to an age-of-the-earth question from a friend with whom I have already shared the gospel.  As disciples of Christ, we need to consistently elevate the authority of His Word in interpreting all of life and reality.

   

Mark, how many years ago did Adam & Eve arrive on earth?
3-4-5-6-7 Thousand years ago?

Hey my friend!

It’s good to hear from you!  Have you seen the planetary tango in the west?  Friday night I was able to put all three into a 5 degree binocular field of view.  It was a stunning sight!

Life has been a little crazy recently with our youngest graduating from High School (though he took his last two years at Edison Community College) and preparing for his open house this last Sunday.  There is nothing like having a whole lot of people over to motivate you to get those neglected projects completed!

As to the date of the first couple, I agree with many conservative Bible scholars who place their creation and that of the earth and cosmos a little over 6,000 years ago based on what is called a “strict” reading of the Bible’s genealogies and a normal reading of Genesis 1 and 2.  Some conservative scholars would allow for the possibility of missing generations in the genealogies (the term “father” could possibly mean “ancestor”, such as in our referencing “the founding fathers” or “our forefathers”).  They might push the beginning back as far as 10,000 years or so. 

Obviously God was the only one who was there in the beginning and so is the only One who could accurately tell us when that beginning was or what it was like.  As the Lord asked Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?  Tell Me, if you have understanding” (Job 38:4).  I do believe that there is a large volume of scientific evidence that would support the Bible’s chronological framework but I doubt whether you would ever hear it mentioned, let alone be given a fair hearing in secular publications. 

Part of the problem lies in the fact that none of us is unbiased.  We all look at facts with certain assumptions. My assumption is that an infinitely wise Creator, who was able to design such incredibly complicated things as DNA, was able to infallibly communicate truth about human origins and all other areas He deems important for humans to function as He designed us. There are three questions concerning any “clocks” that we might look to in nature that are particularly important: 1) what were the starting conditions, 2) has the rate of change been consistent over time or has there been factors that may have caused that rate to vary and, 3) has there been any “contamination” from outside?  These three assumptions play heavily in interpreting various radiometric clocks, which give dramatically varying ages for rocks. 

Interestingly enough, many geologists are resorting to catastrophes to explain the geological features of the earth and not gradual, uniform change.  This is much more in keeping with what would result from a worldwide flood as detailed in Genesis 6-8.  The theory of geologic uniformitarianism and the denial of the Genesis flood were predicted to be prevalent in the end times by Peter when he penned 2 Peter 3:3-7.

If you are really interested in checking out scientific evidences for a young earth, I would suggest exploring material published or offered for free online by Answers in Genesis or the Creation Research Institute.  I have a good bit of fascinating material by AIG.  Let me briefly mention several of the evidences that they detail in an article from their Answers magazine (see, www.answersmagazine.com/go/10evidences):

1) Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor.  If Sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for 3 billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep.  Yet the average thickness globally is less than 1300 feet.  This amount of sediment is easily explained by water draining off the continents towards the end of the Biblical flood but certainly not by evolutionary models.

2) Bent Rock Layers.  In many mountainous areas, rock layers thousands of feet thick have been bent and folded without fracturing.  How could that have possibly happened if layers were laid down separately over hundreds of millions of years and already hardened?  Hardened rock layers, including sedimentary layers, are very brittle (think about hardened cement).  Fossil-bearing layers in places like the Grand Canyon were laid down quickly and folded while still wet and, hence, are not fractured! 

3) Soft Tissue in Fossils.  Bone slices from the fossilized thigh bone of a Tyrannosaurus Rex recently found by Dr. Mary Schweitzer in Montana and reported in Scientific America (Dec. 2010, pp. 62-69) contain blood vessels with red blood cells and nuclei along with specialized lining cells.  The bone marrow contained flexible tissue, proteins and complex molecules.  There is no known way to explain these features from a specimen a supposed 68 million years old, but it has repeatedly been demonstrated by many studies of Egyptian mummies and other humans historically dated to more than 4,000 years old.

4) The Faint Sun Paradox. Evidence supports astronomer’s belief that the sun’s power comes from the fusion of hydrogen into helium.  As the hydrogen fused, it should change the composition of the sun’s core, gradually increasing the sun’s temperature.  If true, this means that the earth was colder in the past.  Indeed, it should have been below freezing 3.5 billion years ago when life supposedly evolved.  Evolutionists acknowledge that there is no evidence of this in the geologic record and even call this the “faint young sun paradox”.  Obviously, this is not a problem if the solar system is only thousands of years old.

5) Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field.  The earth is surrounded by a magnetic field that protects living things from solar radiation.  Without it, life could not exist.  The magnetic field around the earth has been measured since 1845 and consistently found to be wearing down at a rate that testifies that the earth could not be older than 20,000 years old.  “Reliable, accurate, published geological field data have emphatically confirmed the young-earth model” (Dr. Andrew Snelling). 

6) Helium in Radioactive Rocks.  Radioactive elements in rocks produce a lot of helium as they decay; and this gas quickly escapes into the atmosphere, especially when the rocks are hot.  Yet radioactive rocks in the earth’s crust contain a lot of helium.  The only possible explanation is that the helium hasn’t had enough time to escape.  Rocks mined in New Mexico show an average diffusion age of only 6,000 years (+/- 2,000 yrs.).

7) Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds. Carbon-14 (Radiocarbon) is a radioactive form of carbon that scientists use to attempt to date fossils.  Because its decay half-life is a mere 5,730 years none is expected to remain in fossils after only a few hundred thousand years.  Yet carbon-14 has been detected in “ancient” fossils – supposedly up to hundreds of millions of years old- ever since the earliest days of radiocarbon dating.  Diamonds supposedly 1 to 3 billion years old yield carbon-14 ages of only 55,000 years.  (This assumes that the earth’s magnetic field was not stronger in the past, which would have protected the atmosphere from solar radiation and reduced the radiocarbon production.  Hence, the amount of radiocarbon to begin with in every creature was less and their deaths occurred much more recently than reported.) 

8) Short-lived Comets.  (My friend), as you know, comets have little mass and each close encounter with the sun greatly reduces the comet’s size.  Given that the loss rates are well known, it is easy to calculate the absolute maximum age of comets, which is only a few million years (not billions).  Kuiper Belt objects do not correspond to the composition or size of comets and astronomer Carl Sagan said that there was not a shred of evidence for the Oort cloud.  This assessment has not changed since his death in the 80’s.  The Oort cloud was hypothesized without any evidence simply to cover this huge evolutionary problem. 

9) Very Little Sea Salt.  If the world’s oceans have been around for 3 billion years, they should be filled with vastly more salt than they are today.  Every year, the continents, atmosphere, and seafloor add 458 million tons of salt into the oceans but only 122 million tons (27%) is removed.  At this rate, today’s saltiness would be reached in 42 million years just from runoff.  Surely, God created the salty ocean for sea creatures He created on day 5 of Creation, and the Flood quickly added more salt.   

10) DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria.  In 2000 scientists claimed to “resurrect” bacteria discovered in a salt crystal conventionally dated at 250 million years old.  They were shocked to find that the “ancient” bacteria were very similar to modern bacteria.  If the modern bacteria were the result of 250 million years of evolution, the DNA should be very different from the “Lazarus” bacteria based on known mutation rates.  Because DNA normally breaks down quickly even in ideal circumstances, they were at a loss to explain DNA intact after a supposed 250 million years! 

11) The Recession of the Moon.  Currently the moon is moving outward from the earth because of the gravitational tidal force between the earth and moon.  The present rate is 3.82 cm/yr but would have been much greater in the past (the relationship is highly non-linear – gravitational attraction is governed by an inverse square law – if you cut the distance in half the attraction is 4 times as great; if you make the distance 1/3, the attraction is 9 times as much!)  If we extrapolate backward, gravity theory shows the moon in direct contact with the earth about 1.55 billion years ago.  The Roche limit shows that the moon would fragment into Saturn-like rings long before this time as the earth’s gravity force would overcome the moon’s own cohesive force. 

However, evolutionists say that life originated on the earth 3.5 billion years ago.  There are many ways in which the moon’s precise distance, inclination, orbit elongation, mass, etc. make life possible here on earth that would be drastically changed if the moon has been receding for millions or billions of years.  But, if the earth is only about 6,000 years old, the moon would have only been about 755 feet closer.  Clearly this is no problem for the young-earth creation position.

(My friend), I believe that it is much easier to see design and special creation in the universe as well as the human body than it is to see random chance and purposelessness.  Every single paragraph of a 2000 page Biology textbook screams “purpose, design, function” for everything it describes.  There is no purposelessness or randomness to all this intricacy that boggles the human mind.  What is amazing is that the Lord has given us the capacity to “search out His ways” through the disciplines of science which confirm His Word!  As the Psalmist said to the Lord, “I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well” (Ps.139:14).

This same God is who spoke everything into existence out of nothing (Heb.11:3 –this is the same thing that Big-bang cosmologists believe only without an Intelligent Designer), inerrantly communicated His will in written form, sent His Son to take on human flesh to die for the sins of rebellious creatures, and is able to receive a repentant sinner into the presence of His resurrected Son for eternity (Rom.10:9-10).  Apart from this God, nothing makes sense and surely has no meaning. 

Thanks much for your question.  I appreciate and enjoy your inquisitiveness!

Blessings,

Mark

Science, and the appearance of age

Okay, I am giving up on the promised spirit of inquiry/rebellion series. It’s created a writer’s block, and it’s clogging up the pipes. I’m leaving it and moving on.

[If you know me, you know that what really happened is that I forgot what I was going to say and simply can’t remember it. But I have to save face, somehow, so the writer’s-block dodge. Thankfully, most of you probably don’t know me, so you won’t know what really happened to my promised-but-non-existent short series on the spirit of inquiry/rebellion.]

What is the primary argument of those who do not believe the Creation and fall account of Genesis 1-3, but who do claim to be believers? It is not the so-called “figurative language” of Genesis 1-3. Believe me, the “figurative language” does not miraculously appear until science backs you into a corner. There’s not much more straight-forward narrative in Scripture than that of the first three chapters of Genesis. So what is the primary argument of believing unbelievers?

The science does not support the Genesis account of creation.

Please forgive me if I am unimpressed with this argument. It is the ultimate ‘well, duh!’ of the creation debate. Of course science doesn’t support the Genesis account, and what’s more, it never will! Science is not competent to pass judgment on the supernatural intervention of God, and whatever else the creation event might be, it is certainly that. One can not go from nothing—no matter, no space, no time, no dimensions—to something (space, matter, time) without a little divine assistance. And science by definition does not do divine assistance.

God’s intervention in space and time is not predictable, not repeatable, and not falsifiable. Never was, never will be. You can not use science to determine the age of the universe, because you are off the rails of science when you go there. A creation event stands in the way, one that science is incapable of detecting.

Unless, of course, matter is eternal and God is not. But if you believe that you can no longer truly claim a belief in the God of the Bible.

But what about the many features of the cosmos that demand eons of time, such as radiometric dating, light from distant stars, and the geologic column?

What about them? As believers, we clearly have two options: scientists are making assumptions about natural processes that are inaccurate, or at least, incomplete, and/or God created with the appearance of age.

God creating with the appearance of age? That’s silly! That’s special pleading!

Oh, really? Silly, is it? Let's see how this works. If you were creating Adam, would you create him as a newly fertilized embryo, or as a fully functioning adult? Oh, wait, if you made him as an embryo he would need a womb in which to develop. Oh, wait, if you need a womb, you need to create a sexually mature woman. So even if you don’t create Adam with the appearance of age (Adam is an embryo), you must create something else which will necessitate the appearance of age (an adult female—his momma). So you either create Adam with the appearance of age, or you have to create his momma with the appearance of age, or you have to drop the entire notion of creation and just admit that matter is eternal and God is not.

If you try to say that, well, God specially guided evolutionary events, including the development of the cell, all you have done is remand the problem to an earlier point in time, but you still ultimately wind up with precisely the same problem (especially regarding the mysterious bridge from the inanimate to the animate). You are still going to wind up with an appearance of age issue.

The point is that any special creation whatsoever, at the origin of life, will necessarily involve the appearance of age, even if it is on a simple cellular level. No freshly created matter, organic or inorganic, at the point of creation is going to look like freshly created matter. Rather, it is always going to appear as though it has a past, so unless you want to make the claim that God created nothing in order to get the current something, you are going to bump into the appearance of age problem.

This is even true in inorganics. For instance, suppose God creates any particle that has motion. We’ll call the time of creation n. Let’s suppose you were an observer who came on the scene an instant after creation, maybe at time n + 1. You could measure that particle’s motion and then predict with certainty its location at time n + 2. You could likewise predict with certainty that particle’s location at time n – 5. You’d be wrong, of course, and never know it. You would not know that the particle did not exist at time n – 5. Why? Because the very regularity of its motion gives it the appearance of age and erases any evidence of a beginning point.

Move with me from a philosophical argument to a historical one. Did Jesus feed multitudes from five loaves of bread? He did, in Luke 9. What was required to feed five thousand people bread and fish? Answer? Lots and lots of bread and fish. But He had only five loaves and two fish. So what did he do? He obviously was creating bread and fish as He handed it out. But wait! Bread has a history! Well, so do fish, for that matter, but we’ll ignore them and concentrate on the bread.

Where does bread come from? Krogers, right? A bakery, right? So you have to bake bread. It takes—wait for it—time to bake bread. And the bread has to be made from dough. Where do you get dough? Flour, yeast, and mysterious things only my wife understands (I don’t cook, sorry). Where do you get flour from? It’s ground-up wheat. It takes—wait for it—time to grind up wheat. And where do you get wheat from? Well, you have to plant a crop, and—wait for it—wait for that crop to grow over an entire growing season. More time. Do you see the point? We already know that many of Jesus’ miracles in the Gospels have the appearance of elapsed time, or age.

So unless you plan on throwing out Jesus’ miracles in the Gospels while you are trashing Genesis 1-3, you are going to have to admit that God has a clearly seen track record of making things with the appearance of age.

And once you admit that, the only problem with the Genesis account is your refusal to believe it.

The Secret of Running unveiled!!

I’ve just discovered the secret of running! Just read articles about controversial theological issues before you run. I became so angry that I knocked 45 seconds off my best 5K time, even though my recent faithfulness to my exercise program isn’t much better than the biblical faithfulness of the theologians I was reading.

Huh. Gonna have to read these guys before the next race.

Okay, let me tell you what I am babbling about. I think I have settled down sufficiently to communicate coherently. My sweet daughter-in-law emailed to ask my opinion of a recent Christianity Today article on Dr. Francis Collin’s work with the Human Genome Project. The article dealt with Collin’s theological conclusions that he felt were demanded by the results of science.

Among his conclusions was that Adam and Eve never really existed (or if they did, they were rulers of the humanity that existed at the time) and are used allegorically in Scripture. Collins believes (on the basis of his genome research) that there was a population in the neighborhood of 10,000 in the far-distant past (approximately 100,000 years ago), who constituted the earliest humans. Based on a claim of a 95-99% match between the human and chimp genomes (total gene sequences), he believes that humans indeed descended from chimps. By the hand of God, of course.

Collins is a theistic evolutionist, one who believes that the God of the Bible “got things rolling” billions of years ago, and carefully guided the mechanisms of evolution to produce the present biodiversity of the cosmos, including humans. In 2007, Collins founded BioLogos, an organization whose aim is to show that there are no fundamental incompatibilities between evolutionary science and the Bible. Collins professes faith in Christ.

As I read the CT article, I ran across names that I am quite familiar with: Pete Enns, from whom I took Old Testament Intro at Westminster Theological Seminary; Tremper Longman, from whom I took a class on Old Testament Poets at WTS. Both of these men are supportive of the Biologos work. I might add that Pete and WTS have parted ways, due to Pete's heterodox positions. Tremper now teaches elsewhere.

Richard Phillips, a classmate and good friend while I was at WTS, was quoted as warning against Collins conclusions (yay, Rick!).

What angers me is that Biologos and its supporters are jettisoning a vitally important part of Scripture, and doing it in two equally dangerous ways: they are exalting the authority of science under the fallacious moniker “all truth is God’s truth,” and they are employing an irresponsible and illegitimate hermeneutical principle that could be as readily applied against the blood atonement of Christ as it has been against a literal Adam and Eve. Both of these fallacies will be dealt with in later posts here.

This post is first in a series of about twelve on the topic, “What’s your source of authority?” Science really is not the issue here; source of authority is. I'll explain that in future posts. I am adding this series as a sidebar on the Thoughtspot to make it easier to locate the posts.

Pete Enns once explained in OTI the motives of German liberal theologians, who were employing destructive higher criticism against the Bible: they were trying to “protect the Bible from itself.” Pete, you’ve fallen into precisely the same trap; I am so sorry.