Creator God, Evolving World

by Cynthia S.W. Crysdale, Neil Ormerod

Cynthia Crysdale and Neil Ormerod here present a robust theology of God in light of supposed tensions between Christian belief and evolutionary science. Those who pit faith in an almighty and unchanging God over against a world in which chance is operative have it wrong on several accounts, they insist. Creator God, Evolving World clarifies a number of confused assumptions in an effort to redeem chance as an intelligible force interacting with stable patterns in nature.

A proper conception of probabilities and regularities in the world's unfolding reveals neither random chaos nor a predetermined blueprint but a view of the universe as the fruit of both chance and necessity. By clarifying terms often used imprecisely in both scientific and theological discourse, the authors make the case that the role of chance in evolution neither mitigates God's radical otherness from creation nor challenges the efficacy of God's providence in the world.

Genres: Theology

184 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2013

Reviews

[B. Rule · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a decent rebuttal of process theology and contains an okay explication of the classical conception of theism (god as primary metaphysical cause rather than secondary cause, either as god of the gaps or as watchmaker starting the whole universe mechanism). They present a pretty distilled sketch, and maybe I found it adequate just because I'm filling in details from prior familiarity with these arguments. I'm not sure how I'd feel if this were my first encounter with the concepts.

Their primary project is showing that the god of classical theism is conceptually consistent with current scientific understandings of causality. This involves a lot of table-setting regarding deterministic vs. statistical causality, primary vs. secondary causes (including why process theology threatens to make god a second-order cause among others), and finding a place for teleology in a scientific worldview without a strong conception of Aristotelian final causes. They present a picture of the universe as a place of emergent complexity through recurrent patterns of self-organization which comes to fruition through statistical patterns rather than through a mechanistic procession of causes. They strive to explain that this conceptual model is consistent with a creator god as metaphysical ground of being, without requiring god to step in to nudge creation along a particular path outside of natural causes. Their methodology relies heavily (some might say slavishly) upon the thought of Bernard Lonergan.

While I agree that this conception of god is consistent with scientific thinking, it doesn't say anything about whether it's a plausible account. The project here is pretty modest, and I don't think they're willing to venture anything so bold. The authors simply want to show that their theological commitments can square with modern science, not that those commitments can be established with any certainty. Okay so far as it goes, but this isn't exactly a cri de coeur that will rally the people to the barricades.

The authors review a fair number of scientific concepts at a high level, primarily sourced from pop science books on evolution, cosmology, and physics. They don't get too deep, and it's probably for the best, as I'm not sure how deep their understanding goes. They include some analyses of particular scientific scenarios (finch beaks on the Galapagos islands, slime mold behavior, relativistic time dilation) to illustrate their theological position, but it frankly feels like play-acting as scientists. The examples are gleaned from other popular books, and their summaries here feel more like book reports than dynamic engagement with the ideas. Saying the observer-dependence of time means god must be outside time seems to me to confuse categories in a way that superficially resembles an explanation but is really just two separate conceptual categories correlated. It's certainly not a proof in any formal way.

The latter half of the book includes some discussions of the nature of evil and whether the idea of an interventionist god is consistent with their models. Frankly, these discussions are not well-developed and didn't add much to the book but page count. They never really answer definitively, and a mealy-mouthed sermon on how prayer changes us even if it doesn't change god doesn't really answer the hard question of whether god can or does intervene into secondary causality. I think the most logically consistent position is that he doesn't, but these authors seem quite nervous to accept that view as inconsistent with their prior commitments to traditional Christian theology.

A lot of the elements here are interesting, but it somehow adds up to less than the sum of its parts. The book is written in a very cautious academic tone, and there's not a lot of verve to the account. It reads like a position paper developed for an academic conference, where all the personality is intentionally bled out of it. I came into this expecting a bold take on some really hard questions, but instead got a more scaled-back and modest effort. I'd rather have more boldness, even at the risk of some errors (or heresy).

[Grace · Rating 4 out of 5]

In their book Creator God, Evolving World, Cynthia Chrysdale and Neil Ormerod argue that faith and science are not mutually exclusive but complementary. As my current course seeks to understand the relationship between faith and science, this book runs in tandem with course lessons. The book provides a digestable summary of the history of the large movements within science and how Christians over time tried to respond (or how they failed) to these innovations. The book does a proficient job of responding to hot topics on both sides of the aisle such as evolution, astronomy, and physics; meanwhile, some parts (specifically chapter four) were hard to comprehend for those without more than an average high school level of science education (which includes me).

There is no attempt to berate modern science or fundamentalist Christianity in this book, but rather to illustrate how both sides of the aisle lacks a comprehensive understanding of how science and faith are intertwined, particularly regarding biology and evolution, “There are scientists who love to portray religion as based on superstition and ignorance, and there are believers who cling to fundamentalist readings of Scripture; particularly of Genesis, and so reject modern scientific theories such as evolution” (Crysdale, Ormerod, 1).

[Jessica Woodd · Rating 1 out of 5]

so boring

[Tynan Brooks]

Standard Thomistic presentation of God and evolution/probabilistic change. Could be a good primer for someone totally new to the subjects, but it was rote to me.

[Alan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Short and accessible book on how to incorporate evolutionary biology into Christian theology. The issue is not the interpretation of Genesis, which many Christians (and most Catholics) do not find problematic. The issue is the randomness in evolutionary theories. How do we maintain a sense of order and meaning amidst this randomness? How do we affirm God the Creator in a way that respects the randomness of the world, while still providing a sense of meaning for the world? The authors do a good job explaining this problem and offering some solutions, drawing frequently on Bernard Lonergan, the Canadian Jesuit philosopher/theologian.

[Jacob DiNicola · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great analysis covering the overlap between science and religion, especially when they are often seen as separate. Highly recommend for anyone starting to get interested in theology, or those wanting a better understanding of their own faith.

[Ben Thurley · Rating 4 out of 5]

This short, but dense, work explores the compatibility of evolutionary science and classic Christian theism. Drawing on current knowledge in biology and physics, it outlines a view of the world as open to novelty and change, and responsive to deep underlying statistical laws. They invoke the work of Bernard Lonergan, particularly his notion of "finality" to describe this emergent world, as dynamic, upwardly but indeterminedly-directed, open-ended and including elements of both order and uncertainty.

The authors see, in the drive towards greater systematisation, and the emergence of human consciousness – able to both wrestle out the intelligibility of the universe and to act to bring goodness or beauty in situations where these qualities are lacking – hints of a purposive, creative God, but recognise that this is not an argument that will convince those who do not have faith.

Their discussion of evil, suffering, and the providence of God is necessarily short, but rich, and I found particularly stimulating their exploration of the differences between an ethic of control and an ethic of risk. In the latter, responsible action is taken "within the limits of bounded power", seeking to create new possibilities for the future in the face of oppression, but accepting that we cannot guarantee complete success for any moral action. "Central to such situations" the authors say, "Is the engagement in a community of risk takers, committed to the struggle over the long haul."

Rich and insightful.

[Goodthelife · Rating 4 out of 5]

Given to me as a gift, I found that the authors gave a no-nonsense, practical, clear, level-headed interpretation of the events that have unfolded in the realms of science and religion over the last few hundred years. They present the facts without bias, which is so rare, and so appreciated. The bottom line is there is NO conflict between science and religion when each is viewed in it's proper. full perspective. The problems come in when either oversteps their bounds. The Bible is not a book of science, and shouldn't be view that way. Similarly, the scientific method is unequipped to address questions about religion and it shouldn't attempt to do so. Scientists have historically been very religious people, and rightly so. There is no conflict between the two, and one illuminates the other.

[Hannah · Rating 4 out of 5]

They do a wonderful job of explaining very difficult concepts (i.e. Process Theology), but at times the flow can be discordant and confusing. Overall, I found it enjoyable and informing.

[Lee · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good discussion of issues relating science and theology. Not fully persuaded by their defense of "classical theism," but much food for thought.

[steds · Rating 4 out of 5]

Best for undergrads, good assessment of the Longerganian, largely Catholic (anti-Process), position. Good summaries, lots of fodder for discussion.