Three Views on Creation and Evolution

Counterpoints

by Paul A. Nelson (Editor), Robert C. Newman, Howard J. Van Till

For Christians, the issues raised by the different views on creation and evolution are challenging. Can a "young earth" be reconciled with a universe that appears to be billions of years old? Does scientific evidence point to a God who designed the universe and life in all its complexity? Three Views on Creation and Evolution deals with these and similar concerns as it looks at three dominant schools of Christian thought. Proponents of young earth creationism, old earth creationism, and theistic evolution each present their different views, tell why the controversy is important, and describe the interplay between their understandings of science and theology. Each view is critiqued by various scholars, and the entire discussion is summarized by Phillip E. Johnson and Richard H. Bube. The Counterpoints series provides a forum for comparison and critique of different views on issues important to Christians. Counterpoints books address two categories: Church Life and Bible and Theology. Complete your library with other books in the Counterpoints series.

Genres: Theology, Science, Christian, Religion, Christianity, Evolution, Nonfiction

304 pages, Paperback

First published March 1, 1999

About the author

Paul A. Nelson received his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in Philosophy (1998). He is a philosopher of biology, specializing in evo-devo and developmental biology.

He has published articles in such journals as Biology & Philosophy, Zygon, Rhetoric and Public Affairs, and Touchstone, and chapters in the anthologies Mere Creation, Signs of Intelligence, and Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics. His forthcoming monograph, On Common Descent, critically evaluates the theory of common descent, and is being edited for the series Evolutionary Monographs. Nelson is also a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design

Reviews

[Emma Hinkle · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book gave a fantastic overview of the three views on Creation and Evolution while at the same time challenging what I think about science and how it is defined in my mind. I would recommend this to anyone who is curious into Creation and Evolution as it is extremely helpful in understanding.

[Phillip Hardy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Excellent intro. Above average for this series. The explanation of the prompt given to the essayists was refreshingly clear and the addition of "Susan" a theoretical student asking for help, is genius. Puzzling choice to have the respondents not be the other authors though.

YEC
No viable alternative to OEC or TE was proposed. No attempt was even made to disprove other theories. The main point of this essay was that we should keep an open mind because some day a theory might get invented that explains everything without giving up a literal reading of the text. Some day evolution might get disproved. It's been 25-30 years since this essay was written. There have been no theories and no disprovals. I suppose I agree with the idea of Open Science, but hypothesis get funding when they have a promise of success. No YEC model has yet been published with this quality.

OEC
Very clear and logical essay. Absolutely smoked the YEC position. Raised some doubts about Evolution via the Cambrian explosion, but generally this portion of the essay did not match what was said to discredit YEC. It felt like we were avoiding the obvious evidence for transition fossils including of hominids. Irreducible complexity is mentioned, as is the idea that there is evidence for God's miracles in things like evolution jumps. No examples are provided though.

TE
This essay started really slow, but grew very powerful. Van Till flipped the usual scales of this debate so that discoveries that eliminate gaps actually strengthen the case for God rather than weaken it. I haven't seen that before. There was not enough discussion of the specific evidence for an old earth and evolution. Also his refutation of concordism wasn't thorough enough.

The final reflection on the dialogue was amazing. Johnson should have been the representative for OEC. This was the best essay in the collection and made me respect the position.

Overall, this book was on topic and had the best editing of any book in the series. I recommend.

[Paul, · Rating 4 out of 5]

In general, I like books that offer a variety of perspectives, especially on controversial issues. I have to say that this volume in Zondervan's Counterpoints series is the best that I have read. For whatever reason, they allowed the author to respond to the critiques of his view (so he gets the last word), and they included critiques from representatives of a variety of disciplines. Normally, it is just three-five authors presenting a paper, and then responding to each others papers by repeating their original points. But the scope of the discussion in this book is enlarged and improved by including experts from various fields.

In addition, (and most surprisingly), Zondervan managed to round up thoughtful, well-spoken authors. This is so much better than the normal motley crew, which tends to include one good writer, one arrogant know-it-all, one raging lunatic, and one drooling idiot. (OK, I'm exaggerating a little bit. But the point is that the discussion is usually very uneven/unfair because of the extreme differencs in the quality of the authors). The addition of concluding essays by Buhe and Johnson is also a valuable contribution. The discussion rarely stoops to name calling, and the critiques are often written as if the critique-er actually read the article. Moreland does come out seeming a bit of a pedant, and Van Til is a bit overly technical. But it is a great book. Literally every author raises quality issues that deserve to be thought through, and that none of the other authors seem to be capable of answering. That should be sobering for all of the saber-rattling "I'M RIGHT, OBVIOUSLY!" people. Evidently it is not so obvious to the people who are most active and expert in defending your position. Young Earth Creationism seems kind of dumb to me scientifically. OK. But what about the problem of a universe created on the principle of death before the fall of man. If you aren't a young earther, you've got to figure that one out, and it's not easy.

I was greatly encouraged that all of the authors seemed to be on the same page regarding the importance of differentiating between creation theology and means of creation. All Christians are creationists, whether we believe it happened by miracle or evolution. Van Til basically says this, "You can't evolve something out of nothing." In other words, the point is that it is ridiculous to believe in atheistic evolution because evolution requires something to work from. God does not.

So, this book is worth reading for any thoughtful Christian. It's not heavy on science or even on biblical exegesis. That's okay. You probably aren't qualified to evaluate the scientific evidence (at least not all of it ... unless you have Ph.D.'s in theoretical physics, astrophysics, geology, evolutionary biology and genetics) and these guys aren't really the go to guys for exegesis. But they have thought a lot about it and they will help you think about it to.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great book that gives three potential theological stances in regards to creation, as described in the early chapters of Genesis. Three different views are presented, and they range from conservative, to middle-of-the-road, to liberal theology. The three views on creation and evolution described in these pages are:

-Young Earth Creationism
-Old Earth Creationism (also known as Progressive Creationism)
-Theistic Evolution

For each viewpoint, an expert holding that belief describes all the reasons that he feels this is the best theological point of view for creation. Then other theologians and scholars take time to respond and critique that viewpoint. Each person giving a critique is given their own "chapter" to defend their alternative point of view and state why they believe the given theological viewpoint is incorrect.

For clarity purposes, here is the structure of each section:
1.) Viewpoint on creation presented by an expert
2.) A critique of that viewpoint by an expert believing in a different type of theology
3.) A critique of that viewpoint by an expert believing in a different type of theology
4.) A critique of that viewpoint by an expert believing in a different type of theology
5.) A critique of that viewpoint by an expert believing in a different type of theology
6.) A closing essay, responding to the critiques, by the original expert

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book presents three different approaches to addressing the conflict between Creation and Evolution. The three views are Young Earth Creation, Old Earth Creation (or Progressive Creation), and Theistic Evolution (or, Fully-gifted Creation). The ideas were presented very clearly and the topics were discussed thoroughly through a well structured argument/counter-argument format. A representative of a particular view wrote a lengthy essay on their position. Following the essay was a response from several critics. Finally, the essay author had a final few pages for a response to the critics. After this format was repeated for each of the three views there were two "reflection" chapters which tried to come to grips with everything that was presented.

By definition, these three views disagree on major points. So it is no surprise that I didn't agree with all three. But each of the views was presented well enough that I was able to take away good information and ideas from each of them.

Overall, an excellent book.

[Alan · Rating 4 out of 5]

For those wanting to gather insight into the three big Christian theories of creation (young earth creationism, old earth creationism, theistic evolution), this is an excellent book to become familiarized with all three. While I do have familiarity with all three through my years of study, I wanted to primarily focus on the differences between old earth creationism and theistic evolution. While I knew the basic differences, I wanted to gain further insight from a theological point of view. Overall, it was an enlightening read.

[Randy]

An underlying theme in "Three Views" is that how one understands the nature of science is of primary significance for guiding where one ends up on the creation/evolution issue. Theistic evolutionists, along with secular and atheistic evolutionists, believe that methodological naturalism is a necessary component of science. Restricting science to natural categories of explanation, it is claimed, does not mean, however, that metaphysical naturalism as a worldview follows from that. The connection is supposedly spurious, the assumption being that the scientific theory of evolution is valid and supported by good, objective scientific evidence, and is not connected whatsoever to any form of evolutionism.



However, I believe that theistic evolutionists are mistaken about both methodological naturalism being a necessary part of science, and the separability of evolution from evolutionism. Science is not a strictly objective, metaphysically neutral, value-free activity: it operates, rather, as part of a paradigm, a way of looking at the world which includes a set of assumptions and questions that may or may not be asked. Currently a positivist (ie. materialist) paradigm reigns in biological science, with all the assumptions and limitations that we are told are part of the necessary nature of science itself. But prior to Darwin, biologists, or naturalists, as they were then called, practiced science within a paradigm of theistic science. In the former paradigm, it was entirely appropriate to integrate theological beliefs as part of scientific practice, and God's primary activity as part of an explanatory apparatus. Methodological naturalism became integral to biology only after the paradigm shift, and it would be wrong to say, in hindsight, that the previous generation of naturalists had not been practicing science because they had not adhered to that stipulation.



This new limiting of biology to the natural world was also not simply done to refine scientific practice and enable inquiry to go beyond the dead ends that sometimes occurred when scientists appealed to the mysterious purposes of God and would investigate no further, although there certainly was that element. The belief was also that if biology was to be a true science on par with chemistry and physics, it too had to be a closed system. There had to be the a priori working assumption that there was a physical explanation for everything in biology, and that God could not be active in the physical world. Darwin himself was very frustrated, not so much that there was resistance to his theory, but that many of those who embraced it thought that God guided the process. This indicated to him that they just didn't understand his theory: natural selection became superfluous as a driving force in evolution if God was actually in control of it.



Darwin wasn't promoting atheism per se, just atheism in the practice of biology. But the implications of this, even if not overtly raised, were clear. Theistic evolution was acceptable to secular biologists only if the theistic content was understood as consisting of no more than mere belief and subjective feelings, because an objective God would surely be objectively involved in the world, and positivist science disallowed that. Evolution, from Darwin himself and right on down to today, was and is understood by the scientific community to be a blind, purposeless, material process which did not have us in mind. In this sense "evolution" and "evolutionism" are indistinguishable.



So for theistic evolutionists to say that evolution is God's way of creating is to miss the process of reasoning to the Darwinian conclusion. Darwin's theory did not win out over its competitors because it better explained the facts of the natural world; it won because it most completely removed God from biology, and thus best fit the new positivist paradigm that biology had adopted. Critics who recognize this see how spartan the actual evidence is for evolution when it is precisely stated, that is, as a theory accounting for biological complexity solely by the mechanism of mutation and natural selection. That theistic evolutionists are comfortable with the scientific evidence is not surprising when they define "evolution" in a much more vague sense, such as "an observed increase in complexity of organisms over time." Furthermore, they insist that the scientific theory of evolution, strictly speaking, has no metaphysical implications, and, as I have explained, this is just false.



The attempts by theistic evolution to reconcile theism with evolution are too costly, for two reasons. First, it must redefine the word evolution. And second, the cognitive content of theism must be greatly limited. Richard Bube is comfortable that we are still "provided with evidence of God's activity when seen through the eyes of Christian faith" (p. 254) but in a culture that equates only science with reason and knowledge, this is mere personal belief and is therefore nothing to be taken seriously.



The positivist paradigm shift was a mistake for biology because it lacks the resources to deal with information, and information is the key to biology. Other nineteenth-century figures, namely Marx and Freud, who like Darwin attempted to explain reality in positivistic (materialistic) terms have since been discredited. A century and a half after Darwin it would seem it is time for a wholesale revision in how we view biology.



Intelligent design advocates are calling for another paradigm shift, one that does not rule out supernatural agency a priori. Notwithstanding the warnings of theistic evolutionists, we need not fear the "god-of-the-gaps" fallacy. For one thing, a gap existing in a closed system may disappear when we do not limit scientific explanations to the material world. Furthermore, John Mark Reynolds is confident that "even without the constraint of methodological naturalism, empirical inquiry will...govern itself. We need only trust that nature will talk back to us when we try to make her say something that isn't true" (p.59). If God has indeed spoken to us not only through Scripture but also through nature, then we should be able to apprehend this in an objective, verifiable fashion.

[Patrick Couch · Rating 2 out of 5]

To be honest, I was hoping to read a book which explained how old earth creationism, young earth creationism and theistic evolution justified their theological positions by discussing just how they settled for those positions. Instead, the contributors do not justify themselves by appealing to their understanding of the science. They write (at great length) about almost everything else!
In other words, if you want to read a book describing the three positions, don't read this one.
On the back cover the reader is invited to 'consider the strengths and weaknesses' of each stance. I'm not really much the wiser as to what these are after reading the book. Maybe I'll have to give it another go.

[Landon Lockhart · Rating 5 out of 5]

Clear, informed views on the three different interpretations of creation. I am a Christian geologist wrapping up my PhD, and this book challenged my belief (Young Earth Creation). While I still consider myself a Young Earth Creationist, coming into this book, I only had thought about Young Earth Creation vs. Old Earth Creation from a Christian point of view. This book strengthened my understanding of Old Earth Creation, and introduced me to the Christian perspective of evolution. I highly recommend this book, and you don't need a scientific background to understand it.

[Eliza Fitzgerald · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was a hard book for me. It's not my area of expertise by any stretch. I think the arguments have left me with more questions then answers (mostly because I didn't fully understand what all the questions were to begin with).
I'll be ordering more books soon out of the bibliography in the back of the book.

[jacob van sickle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read in college but recently flipped through it again and read my highlights and notes. Good introductory, yet academic resource.

[Patrick Hoppus · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great for all believers in Jesus to strengthen their understanding on the origins debate. Also great for atheists and anti-theists simply for understanding opposing views. Must read!!

[Phil Whittall · Rating 3 out of 5]

Three Views on Creation and Evolution is another in Zondervan's excellent Counterpoints series (I've several of them on my shelves although only reviewed one other on this blog on remarriage and divorce).

It's the closest to a debate format that I've found in print. Advocates state their position and then the others each have a turn to respond to the points made. This book was slightly different in that after the three positions were stated, four other writers were invited to respond to each chapter from a different viewpoint and two further writers summarised the debate at the end, giving a total 10 contributors!

Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds spoke up for Young Earth Creationism, Robert Newman for Progressive (or old earth) creationism and Howard Van Till for The Fully Gifted Creation (or theistic evolution) view. Then after each view Walter Bradley, John Jefferson Davis, JP Moreland and Vern Poythress weighed in with comments and at the end Richard Bube and Phillip Johnson summarised.

The beauty of the format is that allows the proponent to advocate, and then you immediately follow that up with alternate views - the 'what about this?' retort. I find this helpful because an argument may seem compelling until you've heard the rebuttal. In most books there is no rebuttal. So it's excellent for allowing you to form a view.

It seemed to me that a majority of contributors held the Progressive (old earth) view and supported some form of Intelligent Design all with varying views as to the limits of biological evolution, but overall there was a greater advocacy for this view.

The introductory chapter by JP Moreland was quite hard going and dense with concepts and arguments that weren't easy to grasp. Not one for the laymen but after that the book had greater pace and was more accessible to the non-scientist like myself. This is one of the greatest challenges on this debate is to how to have any kind of discussion that involves the non-expert given that it can be incredibly technical. The book largely avoids technical discussions and when it does engage in it, there is some help at hand.

In my view, the weakest arguments and case were put forward by the Young Earth Creationists, the Biblical argument was disappointingly brief and I have heard others put forward more compelling arguments. My sense was that others holding this view would be disappointed by the quality of the defense. It failed to convince me, and as the authors themselves recognised, of all the positions young earthers have the greatest amount of work to do to offer convincing science in the widest number of areas - cosmology, physics, geology, biology and not to mention theology.

I thought the case for Progressive Creationism (old earth) was much stronger, bolstered as it was by the various proponents of Intelligent Design. I was also impressed by the Fully Gifted Creation argument, it has, I think, the harder time of making good Biblical interpretations but it certainly isn't an impossible task.

The issue is for a Christian, given that the doctrine of God creating the universe is of fundamental importance, is what sort of creationist are you? I am now clearer as to what I am not and some steps along the way to being clearer about what I am. I have some more reading to do but I recommend this book for the thoughtful reader as a starting place of investigation into this important but complex issue.

[Corrie · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a great book! My husband and I have at times had downright unpleasant conversations with people in our church and each other (!) about creation, and we read this book together to try and get a handle on the controversy. It was hugely helpful. Each of the three views (young earth, old earth, theistic evolution) are presented by extremely intelligent, articulate Christians, who all make very good cases.
After reading, I landed somewhere in the old earth/special creation camp and I think my husband landed more in the theistic evolution/fully-gifted creation area (with some reservations). However, other people I know who read this felt that young earth science was clearly the most persuasive. And this is a good thing!
The fact is that all three views have many smart people behind them and if you've never heard an argument for one or the other that made you pause and question yourself...then you've only heard a straw man view of that argument.
The book layout is great: full explanation, five responses/ objections, then the first author responds to the objectors. The responses were often the most helpful in understanding where the big issues are.
The language was sometimes a little too philosophical for me to follow easily, but I muddled through and learned a lot. I HIGHLY recommend this if you're serious about understanding the (sometimes) violent conflicts Christians get into with other Christians about creation.

[Jeremy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book barely gets three stars as I felt that the arguments that were made by two of the authors were not really very well done. The argument of the third position was, by contrast, well done (and it was the view I was least sympathetic to!), which was frustrating because it left the book very unbalanced, in my view. One of the strengths of the book was the approach that the editors took of letting a panel of authors who were not arguing a particular position weigh the merits of each argument. Of these, Moreland and Poythress were my favorites. These essays, as well as the conclusion essays, were the high point of the book. If the book was more balanced, I think it would have been far more helpful. Note: this is not the go-to book if you want to hear people hash out the finer points of biology, geology, astronomy, etc. as they are brought to bear on the argument. This has more to do with the theological/philosophy of science angle on things which was less helpful for me personally.

[Ahn, Hang San · Rating 5 out of 5]

By far the best book I’ve read on creation vs. evolution debates.

The unique format of this book, incorporating vying views into one continuous book, letting the scholars debate and then kindly and briefly tell an imaginary little girl about their position, make this a must read for all christians and non-christians.

[G Walker · Rating 1 out of 5]

Boo... what a waste of time... There are many books (even if you aren't a conservative six day kind of guy) that are infinitely better than this. Don't waste your time. Again I say, booooooooooooooo!

[Don · Rating 5 out of 5]

Talbot Course: Systematic Theology 2: Works of God, Angels, Man & Sin

EXCELLENT SERIES! Any of these perspectives book are worth a read!

[Kyle Deming · Rating 2 out of 5]

http://www.skepticalchristian.com/br_...

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

The definition of science is up for grabs. (that should be obvious) and every theory has weaknesses. (I've said that before)

[Anthony Lawson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Presents three perspectives on creation and evolution, good debate.

[Jeffrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great introduction into three views on the origins of biological complexity.