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.

Review of Michael D. Aeschliman’s The Restitution of Man: C. S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism

While neither Aeschliman, nor the philosophers he quotes, possess Lewis' happy ability to clothe complex philosophical notions in the lingo of common man, nonetheless his defense of Lewis' concern about scientism is well done. Aeschliman describes scientism as a misuse of science that asserts "what is not in principle observable is not in fact in existence."

This is an excellent book for exposing the inherent contradictions in philosophical materialism. Reducing man to an object of study is fatally contradictory, because, as Aeschliman points out, the realm of scientific theory is limited to objects lower than man. But when man the observer of man the object assumes that one is higher and the other lower, it is but a short distance from there to the idea that the proper end of science is the manipulation of some men by others for the sake of maximum utility. Man becomes a means to an end, rather than the end itself. Brute facts having triumphed over values (the former being seen as objective and real, the latter as merely subjective), there is no longer any wisdom (what Aeschliman terms sapientia) to govern the use of technology--it may be as readily employed in eugenics or nuclear war as it is in delivering water to an African village.

“Modern scientistic doctrine," Aeschliman says, "holds all fact to be objective and all value to be subjective. To call it a ‘doctrine’ is to draw attention to the fact that its characteristic assumption that only factual statements have validity is itself nonfactual, speculative, and dogmatic; it is, in fact, a diabolically ironic article of faith” [74].

Note well: the book is not anti-science; rather it is a call for science to once again be the handmaiden of wisdom: the recognition that there are ultimate values that define right and wrong, anchored in God Himself. Highly recommended.

Have you met Jesus' wife?

A fragment of what is reputed to be a fourth-century Coptic document has been loaned to Dr. Karen King of Harvard University. Though it consists of just eight lines of about four words each, Dr. King believes that it could suggest that Jesus was married, and that it might inform the church on issues such as marriage and gender roles in the church. She believes that the fragment might be a translation of a second-century Greek text.

Here's a convenient summary of the fragment, including pictures and translation.

Here is a story about the discovery, and Dr. King, who is advancing the notions that she believes the fragment contains. Warning as you read the article: be aware that the concept of "authenticating" the fragment extends only to dating it. If it does date to fourth century, it is considered "authentic." "Authenticity" does not extend credibility to the ideas contained on the fragment, but just to the age of the fragment.

Notice also this line about Dr. King's beliefs regarding the fragment:

"She believes that the context of the eight lines on the front side of the papyrus reflects a discussion Jesus was having with disciples about the “the cost of discipleship,” or how becoming a Christian may affect bonds with one’s natal family, similar to passages in Matthew and Luke."

First, she is assuming that the fragment is in fact a translation from a Greek document written in the second century, even though she has not a scrap of evidence to support such a notion, other than the assertions that the church was already discussing gender issues in the second century.

Second, she is assuming that this "translation of a second-century Greek text" is an actual account of a discussion Jesus had with his followers, a very tenuous assumption especially when one considers the amount of spurious literature about Jesus produced between the second and fourth centuries.

Third, that she would allow this fragment (even if it were "authentic") to inform the New Testament's position on marriage, discipleship and gender issues says a great deal about her personal view of the infallibility of Scripture.

I have no problem with a theologian or an archaeologist chasing down the evidence to see where it will lead. I just don't care for them making these massive, largely unfounded assumptions and then trying to use them to inform a modern debate which is based on modern notions.

And frankly, because the Scripture is inspired and infallible, it needs to serve as the boundary of our conclusions, rather than being at the mercy of our conclusions.

Does this sound like fideism? May I remind you that if you believe in a literal resurrection of Jesus from the dead, as I do, you are already fideistic, because the resurrection involves a complete and total repudiation of scientific realities regarding death and the decay of a corpse? Any belief in the miraculous, or the supernatural, would be considered fideism in our secularized culture.

 Here's a good response to Dr. King by Dr. Thomas White of Southwestern Baptist Seminary.

And here's a question for you: is the foundation of your faith inspired Scripture, or is it connected to evidences and proofs? Why do you believe what you believe?

Thank You, Lord, for a reliable Bible that proclaims absolute truth!

Houston, Tranquility base here. The Eagle has landed!

Forty-three years ago today, Neil Armstrong made that small step for man which was a giant leap for mankind.

 Did you know that when the lander settled on the moon, it had but sixteen seconds of fuel left in the descent engine? 

Did you know that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were cleared to land, even though an alarm was going off repeatedly, telling them that the guidance computer had a problem?

What an incredible feat of innovation, engineering, science, and raw courage!

 

What an amazing creature is man! On the one hand, he is capable of conquering space and traveling to earth's satellite, the moon. On the other, he is capable of picking up an AR-15 and murdering total strangers, as we saw early this morning in Aurora, Colorado.

The latter demonstrates that we are fallen creatures; the former demonstrates that even as fallen creatures, the image of God persists in us and God continues to bless His creatures with common grace. 

But there is a grace far superior to common grace. Oh,  that men would hear of the cross, and the death of Christ, and of His resurrection for their sins, and believe! Forgiveness is available, and the regeneration of the Holy Spirit makes one a new creation in Christ. It is all available through repentance and faith in Christ.

There is a base of Tranquility, but it's not on the moon. It's at the foot of the cross.

[The pictures used in this post may be seen at http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/apollo.html and were paid for with your tax dollars, if you were old enough to be paying taxes in 1969.]

Political Science

When scientists start behaving like politicians, it's a sure bet that the "science" they promulgate has been thoroughly politicized.

Now that "Global Warming" has assisted in trashing the U.S. economy, and destroying all semblence of a rational energy policy, it is at least gratifying that the politics behind the "science" are finally being exposed: see Jim Lacey's article here.

Some of us have known for years that the "science" was junk. There is a reason why Greenland is so-named, and I doubt that the emissions of internal combustion engines were involved. Long live real science!

[added 11/29/2011] See also here.