What do you think?
Rate this book
Should Christians Embrace Evolution?: Biblical and Scientific Responses
We are witnessing an aggressive attack on the credibility of the Christian faith. Christians are increasingly called to embrace Darwinian evolution—or acknowledge that they are altogether opposed to science.
But for the contributors to this volume, this is a false premise. Committed to the authority of Scripture, the need for careful exegesis, and the importance of rigorous scientific investigation, these thirteen scientists and theologians offer valuable perspectives on a controversial area of debate for concerned Christians who are determined to draw their own conclusions.
But for the contributors to this volume, this is a false premise. Committed to the authority of Scripture, the need for careful exegesis, and the importance of rigorous scientific investigation, these thirteen scientists and theologians offer valuable perspectives on a controversial area of debate for concerned Christians who are determined to draw their own conclusions.
225 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 1, 2009
9 people are currently reading
95 people want to read
About the author
Norman C. Nevin
2 books2 followersProfessor Emeritus of Medical Genetics, Queen's University, Belfast
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
June 26, 2011
I had hoped and expected this book to be a serious discussion of the relationship between science and religion, and how when approached seriously and openly, each can inform and enlighten the other. Instead, this collection of essays is an apologia for Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design, with the voices of believing Christians who are engaged with science nowhere permitted to speak for themselves.
Raised as a Catholic in the 1960s, I was taught from diocesan-approved textbooks that said the physical world is what God did, and that the Bible, whose purpose is to lead us to understanding of our relationship with God, could not validly be interpreted in ways that contradicted proven scientific fact. Several essays in this book make the point that scientific "truth" can change, sometimes rapidly. An example (not offered by the essayists) is the previous scientific case for gradualism vs. catastrophism--that all geological change takes place slowly, rather than as the result of sudden, dramatic events. This assumption changed and was abandoned in the face of mounting evidence that sometimes catastrophic sudden change does happen, Floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and meteor strikes can have dramatic effects, and even some of the slow processes involve things the gradualists had difficult imagining, such as the movement of continents. Thus one scientific "truth" was replaced by another.
It's a fair point. However, it overlooks the fact that every way in which we look at the age of the Earth--the geology of Earth itself, decay rates of radioactive elements, what astrophysics tells us about the size and age of the universe, etc.--gives us a planet over four billion years old, a sun about five billion years old, and a universe significantly older than that. In the face of that, it's not enough to point to genealogies in the Bible and say that Earth is "obviously" only about six thousand years old. Argue that Genesis 1-3 is literal and not a simplified version intended to help pre-literate pastoralists and farmers understand their relationship to the world and God, and you're stuck with explaining (away) God putting all this evidence of great age all around us.
Likewise, there is ample evidence of evolution from multiple lines of research, archeology, paleontology, and genetics among them. The argument is offered that the genetic evidence of evolution is based in "fossil DNA," the junk DNA that appears to serve no function, but that in fact we are gradually finding that this junk DNA isn't inactive and meaningless, is not merely "fossil" DNA. In reality, though, the strongest genetic evidence of evolution is mitochondrial DNA, passed on from mother to offspring, which has never been considered "fossil DNA." To a lesser extent, Y chromosome DNA, passed from father to male offspring, plays a significant role and is also anything but "junk" or "fossil" DNA.
This leads us to the argument that, if Adam and Eve were two Neolithic farmers who were blessed with the friendship of God, then we can't all be descended from them, and the inheritance of Adam's Fall becomes highly problematic--that in such a case, Adam is not the Head of the human family, we are not his children, and visiting the curse of the Fall upon us all is arbitrary. But this is confused and backwards.
If Adam and Eve were created ex nihilo, and were the sole ancestors of the entire human race, then we must immediately ask who Cain, as well as his siblings, married. Lower animals could happily mate with their siblings with no awareness of guilt, but it's a real problem if you have just one human family with fully developed moral sense. Despite repeated insistence on the importance of Adam as the direct ancestor of all subsequent humanity, the problem of who his children married is never mentioned by the essayists.
Evolution, on the other hand, does offer both mates for the offspring of Adam and Eve, and a clear path for all living humans to be descendants of Adam. In fact, the genetic evidence that the essayists dismiss so easily tells us that we are all descended from a genetic Adam, as well as a genetic Eve. How does this work when evolution also says there was never just one man or just one woman? Because their descendants were more successful. More of their offspring survived, and more of their offspring survived, and intermarried with other lines, and without any necessity for incest, over millennia all human beings are descended from these two early humans.
The Fall is also present in this understanding. Animals, even our closest relatives, the bonobos and common chimps, and our closest companions, dogs, do not have a moral sense. They feel emotions, they understand social rules, they are complex and intelligent creatures-- but they don't have a sense of morality, of Right and Wrong. Humans do. Chimps kill other chimps, dogs sometimes kill other dogs--but the first human being who possessed the ability to grasp that some things are not just inconvenient or inappropriate for social or pragmatic reasons, but wrong, was the first human being able to commit theft, or infidelity, or murder, in the sense that we understand these words. And as the first species to understand mortality, that we will die, we are also the only species for whom death is a part of our lives.
At some point humans, genetically just a third species of chimpanzee, made the breakthrough, or was gifted with, or was tempted into, the knowledge of Good and Evil--and chose to commit evil. There is the Fall, right there, the thing that makes us unable to make of Earth the Paradise it could be, the thing for which we need Redemption. I do not understand why this is less tragic, less hopeful, or less illuminated by the Grace of God, than reading Genesis 1-3 literally.
Where this book is weakest is in the essays in the latter part of the book, which attempt to grapple most directly with the science of evolution. Unfortunately, only one evolutionary scientist, Denis Alexander of the Faraday Institute at Cambridge University, is quoted more than once or twice, or in more than isolated single sentences shorn of all context. Alexander is himself an evangelical Christian, and is perhaps therefore a greater "threat" for Young Earth Creationists than Catholic, Jewish, or mainstream Protestant scientists. Unfortunately, quoting and arguing with only one party amongst the many who disagree, combined with the ability to choose what you quote and to represent its larger context, makes for a weaker argument, not a stronger one.
In addition, the various essayists, especially in the latter part of the book, which has all the form and structure of building towards a crushing conclusion, make statements about scientific fact that are just bizarre. For instance, on page 188, John C. Walton tells us that:
"the principle features characteristic of living things are: organization, metabolism, adaptation, response to stimuli and, particularly, reproduction. Viruses, which are intricate assemblages of proteins and DNA, are clearly excluded by these criteria, leaving single cell micro-organisms, lacking nuclei (i.e., bacteria and archaea) as the simplest forms of life.
There you have it; viruses are not life, a statement no biologist would agree with, but which is vital to the argument that life is too complex to have arisen by chemical means.
And on page 192, we find the following interesting statement:
For amino acids to form, the early atmosphere must have been without oxygen; but this seems improbable because oxygen is the most abundant element (47%) in the earth's crust and is overwhelmingly abundant in teh hydrosphere.
What's wrong with this is that oxygen is highly chemically reactive, and free O2 in the atmosphere is a product of life--specifically, the product of plant life taking in CO2 from the air and releasing O2 as a biological by-product. No life yet, no free oxygen in the atmosphere to prevent the formation of amino acids. With simple and obvious mistakes like this, it's hard to take the rest of the "science" in these essays seriously.
It's weakened further by the fact that all the essayists come back to asserting that evolutionary theory is wrong because Genesis says something different, and we need to read Genesis literally because, well, we just do. It's briefly mentioned, at page 118, that the Catholic Church has never favored Biblical literalism or regarded the Bible as the sole source of divine revelation--and that study of the natural world is regarded as another source of revelation. It's also noted elsewhere that the Fundamentals, the documents on which modern Biblical literalism is based, are documents of recent composition, not ancient Sacred Scripture.
Nor do I understand why our ancient, immense, complex and beautiful universe, with a slow unfolding of life towards the Image and Likeness of God, is less divine, less inspiring, less Awesome than creation ex nihilo in six days. The Bible was revealed initially to pre-literate farmers and herders, people who needed Divine Truth but had, in plain fact, no use for a science textbook laying out in detail a process of Creation taking billions of years, a textbook on genetics and paleontology and evolution. We have large and complex brains for a reason; we're supposed to use them. Rejecting our ability to study, investigate, and gradually increase our understanding of the beauty, wonder, and complexity of God's Creation is, at best, the ungrateful rejection of a marvelous gift. And on page 119 we find this breathtaking statement:
Of course, the 'Catholic' policy promotes considerable intellectual humility and interpretive generosity but at a high cost: namely, the loss of a unified sense of the truth that we might approximate through our own efforts as blessed by divine grace.
In other words, being comfortable that you have "a unified sense of the truth" based on your own personal reading of the Bible is more important than remembering human fallibility, limitations, and susceptibility to error in understanding the Divine. I am seriously not persuaded that we should be tossing out intellectual humility in favor of a "unified sense of the truth" that we create for ourselves.
For the most part, this is an intelligent, thoughtful, well-written book. I don't agree with the arguments, the reasoning, or the conclusions, but if you want a well-written defense of Young Earth Creationism and rejection of evolution, this is an excellent place to start.
I received a free electronic galley of this book from the publisher via NetGalley.
Raised as a Catholic in the 1960s, I was taught from diocesan-approved textbooks that said the physical world is what God did, and that the Bible, whose purpose is to lead us to understanding of our relationship with God, could not validly be interpreted in ways that contradicted proven scientific fact. Several essays in this book make the point that scientific "truth" can change, sometimes rapidly. An example (not offered by the essayists) is the previous scientific case for gradualism vs. catastrophism--that all geological change takes place slowly, rather than as the result of sudden, dramatic events. This assumption changed and was abandoned in the face of mounting evidence that sometimes catastrophic sudden change does happen, Floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and meteor strikes can have dramatic effects, and even some of the slow processes involve things the gradualists had difficult imagining, such as the movement of continents. Thus one scientific "truth" was replaced by another.
It's a fair point. However, it overlooks the fact that every way in which we look at the age of the Earth--the geology of Earth itself, decay rates of radioactive elements, what astrophysics tells us about the size and age of the universe, etc.--gives us a planet over four billion years old, a sun about five billion years old, and a universe significantly older than that. In the face of that, it's not enough to point to genealogies in the Bible and say that Earth is "obviously" only about six thousand years old. Argue that Genesis 1-3 is literal and not a simplified version intended to help pre-literate pastoralists and farmers understand their relationship to the world and God, and you're stuck with explaining (away) God putting all this evidence of great age all around us.
Likewise, there is ample evidence of evolution from multiple lines of research, archeology, paleontology, and genetics among them. The argument is offered that the genetic evidence of evolution is based in "fossil DNA," the junk DNA that appears to serve no function, but that in fact we are gradually finding that this junk DNA isn't inactive and meaningless, is not merely "fossil" DNA. In reality, though, the strongest genetic evidence of evolution is mitochondrial DNA, passed on from mother to offspring, which has never been considered "fossil DNA." To a lesser extent, Y chromosome DNA, passed from father to male offspring, plays a significant role and is also anything but "junk" or "fossil" DNA.
This leads us to the argument that, if Adam and Eve were two Neolithic farmers who were blessed with the friendship of God, then we can't all be descended from them, and the inheritance of Adam's Fall becomes highly problematic--that in such a case, Adam is not the Head of the human family, we are not his children, and visiting the curse of the Fall upon us all is arbitrary. But this is confused and backwards.
If Adam and Eve were created ex nihilo, and were the sole ancestors of the entire human race, then we must immediately ask who Cain, as well as his siblings, married. Lower animals could happily mate with their siblings with no awareness of guilt, but it's a real problem if you have just one human family with fully developed moral sense. Despite repeated insistence on the importance of Adam as the direct ancestor of all subsequent humanity, the problem of who his children married is never mentioned by the essayists.
Evolution, on the other hand, does offer both mates for the offspring of Adam and Eve, and a clear path for all living humans to be descendants of Adam. In fact, the genetic evidence that the essayists dismiss so easily tells us that we are all descended from a genetic Adam, as well as a genetic Eve. How does this work when evolution also says there was never just one man or just one woman? Because their descendants were more successful. More of their offspring survived, and more of their offspring survived, and intermarried with other lines, and without any necessity for incest, over millennia all human beings are descended from these two early humans.
The Fall is also present in this understanding. Animals, even our closest relatives, the bonobos and common chimps, and our closest companions, dogs, do not have a moral sense. They feel emotions, they understand social rules, they are complex and intelligent creatures-- but they don't have a sense of morality, of Right and Wrong. Humans do. Chimps kill other chimps, dogs sometimes kill other dogs--but the first human being who possessed the ability to grasp that some things are not just inconvenient or inappropriate for social or pragmatic reasons, but wrong, was the first human being able to commit theft, or infidelity, or murder, in the sense that we understand these words. And as the first species to understand mortality, that we will die, we are also the only species for whom death is a part of our lives.
At some point humans, genetically just a third species of chimpanzee, made the breakthrough, or was gifted with, or was tempted into, the knowledge of Good and Evil--and chose to commit evil. There is the Fall, right there, the thing that makes us unable to make of Earth the Paradise it could be, the thing for which we need Redemption. I do not understand why this is less tragic, less hopeful, or less illuminated by the Grace of God, than reading Genesis 1-3 literally.
Where this book is weakest is in the essays in the latter part of the book, which attempt to grapple most directly with the science of evolution. Unfortunately, only one evolutionary scientist, Denis Alexander of the Faraday Institute at Cambridge University, is quoted more than once or twice, or in more than isolated single sentences shorn of all context. Alexander is himself an evangelical Christian, and is perhaps therefore a greater "threat" for Young Earth Creationists than Catholic, Jewish, or mainstream Protestant scientists. Unfortunately, quoting and arguing with only one party amongst the many who disagree, combined with the ability to choose what you quote and to represent its larger context, makes for a weaker argument, not a stronger one.
In addition, the various essayists, especially in the latter part of the book, which has all the form and structure of building towards a crushing conclusion, make statements about scientific fact that are just bizarre. For instance, on page 188, John C. Walton tells us that:
"the principle features characteristic of living things are: organization, metabolism, adaptation, response to stimuli and, particularly, reproduction. Viruses, which are intricate assemblages of proteins and DNA, are clearly excluded by these criteria, leaving single cell micro-organisms, lacking nuclei (i.e., bacteria and archaea) as the simplest forms of life.
There you have it; viruses are not life, a statement no biologist would agree with, but which is vital to the argument that life is too complex to have arisen by chemical means.
And on page 192, we find the following interesting statement:
For amino acids to form, the early atmosphere must have been without oxygen; but this seems improbable because oxygen is the most abundant element (47%) in the earth's crust and is overwhelmingly abundant in teh hydrosphere.
What's wrong with this is that oxygen is highly chemically reactive, and free O2 in the atmosphere is a product of life--specifically, the product of plant life taking in CO2 from the air and releasing O2 as a biological by-product. No life yet, no free oxygen in the atmosphere to prevent the formation of amino acids. With simple and obvious mistakes like this, it's hard to take the rest of the "science" in these essays seriously.
It's weakened further by the fact that all the essayists come back to asserting that evolutionary theory is wrong because Genesis says something different, and we need to read Genesis literally because, well, we just do. It's briefly mentioned, at page 118, that the Catholic Church has never favored Biblical literalism or regarded the Bible as the sole source of divine revelation--and that study of the natural world is regarded as another source of revelation. It's also noted elsewhere that the Fundamentals, the documents on which modern Biblical literalism is based, are documents of recent composition, not ancient Sacred Scripture.
Nor do I understand why our ancient, immense, complex and beautiful universe, with a slow unfolding of life towards the Image and Likeness of God, is less divine, less inspiring, less Awesome than creation ex nihilo in six days. The Bible was revealed initially to pre-literate farmers and herders, people who needed Divine Truth but had, in plain fact, no use for a science textbook laying out in detail a process of Creation taking billions of years, a textbook on genetics and paleontology and evolution. We have large and complex brains for a reason; we're supposed to use them. Rejecting our ability to study, investigate, and gradually increase our understanding of the beauty, wonder, and complexity of God's Creation is, at best, the ungrateful rejection of a marvelous gift. And on page 119 we find this breathtaking statement:
Of course, the 'Catholic' policy promotes considerable intellectual humility and interpretive generosity but at a high cost: namely, the loss of a unified sense of the truth that we might approximate through our own efforts as blessed by divine grace.
In other words, being comfortable that you have "a unified sense of the truth" based on your own personal reading of the Bible is more important than remembering human fallibility, limitations, and susceptibility to error in understanding the Divine. I am seriously not persuaded that we should be tossing out intellectual humility in favor of a "unified sense of the truth" that we create for ourselves.
For the most part, this is an intelligent, thoughtful, well-written book. I don't agree with the arguments, the reasoning, or the conclusions, but if you want a well-written defense of Young Earth Creationism and rejection of evolution, this is an excellent place to start.
I received a free electronic galley of this book from the publisher via NetGalley.
September 15, 2020
This was a very good book that challenged theistic evolution based on theology and science. The authors were predominantly writing from a young earth perspective, but unlike typical books by young earth advocates, this one was objective rather than rhetorical and insulting. As a result, even though I would disagree with many of the authors, I really liked the book. They asked the right questions, and many of these are also challenges to my old earth perspective on creation. If Christians who disagreed on how God created were willing to have a low emotion discussion, this book would be a great place to start. From an old earth perspective, the main challenge is on (physical) death before sin (or was death a result of sin). This is certainly a potential theological weakness of my viewpoint where I need to have an good answer. There were additional challenges for evolution, for which I would agree with the authors perspective. This is finally a book that I can recommend, which supports a young earth perspective. The main weakness of the book was that it provided no answers to the weaknesses of the young earth view, but rather only challenged evolution. But, given this was the point of the book, it is difficult to be too disappointed with that lack.
July 31, 2025
A few good nuggets here and there. I found the biblical arguments thoroughly unconvincing, while the scientific arguments were mostly over my head. My field of study is showing I suppose. I certainly foresee more reading about evolution in my future.
December 26, 2011
This book is a really two brief books in one comprised of essays from various authors. The first half deals with biblical arguments against evolution and therefore theistic evolution. The second half deals with scientific issues in relation to evolution.
The concluding chapter and summary of book answers the question of the title this way: "Our answer is a resounding 'no'--absolutely not. Theistic evolutionists have failed to demonstrate a theology consistent with the supremacy of Scripture" (210).
Reasons to read this book:
1. Helpful introduction into the theological reasons to reject a "Christianized" evolution.
2. Helpful and up to date discussions over current scientific challenges to the theory of evolution.
Don't turn to this book first if...
1. You want a book that will explicitly argue for a young earth 6 day literal creation view. The focus is against theistic evolution. Most of the authors are interacting against Denis Alexander as a representative of that position.
2. You don't want to wade through scientific details that are challenging for someone without a science background. It was good for me to read through it, but I did feel that it was not written to be very accessible to those who don't have an up to date science background or interest.
One major concern I had when reading through the book was chapter 8 by Steve Fuller who seemed less than evangelical at times. He seemed to fall into the category of those who argue for intelligent design with no real moorings in a high view of Scripture. My concerns where explicitly justified when I read this in the concluding chapter: "Steve Fuller has no commitment to the Bible motivated by personal faith" (219). This knowledge would have been helpful to me as I read the chapter initially.
If you are reading several books on the topic of creation vs. evolution this is a good book to read among others. There are two situations that I would not recommend reading this book. First, if you are just starting to get into this topic. Second, if you plan to only read one book on the topic at this point.
The concluding chapter and summary of book answers the question of the title this way: "Our answer is a resounding 'no'--absolutely not. Theistic evolutionists have failed to demonstrate a theology consistent with the supremacy of Scripture" (210).
Reasons to read this book:
1. Helpful introduction into the theological reasons to reject a "Christianized" evolution.
2. Helpful and up to date discussions over current scientific challenges to the theory of evolution.
Don't turn to this book first if...
1. You want a book that will explicitly argue for a young earth 6 day literal creation view. The focus is against theistic evolution. Most of the authors are interacting against Denis Alexander as a representative of that position.
2. You don't want to wade through scientific details that are challenging for someone without a science background. It was good for me to read through it, but I did feel that it was not written to be very accessible to those who don't have an up to date science background or interest.
One major concern I had when reading through the book was chapter 8 by Steve Fuller who seemed less than evangelical at times. He seemed to fall into the category of those who argue for intelligent design with no real moorings in a high view of Scripture. My concerns where explicitly justified when I read this in the concluding chapter: "Steve Fuller has no commitment to the Bible motivated by personal faith" (219). This knowledge would have been helpful to me as I read the chapter initially.
If you are reading several books on the topic of creation vs. evolution this is a good book to read among others. There are two situations that I would not recommend reading this book. First, if you are just starting to get into this topic. Second, if you plan to only read one book on the topic at this point.
April 29, 2021
Interesting but not convincing
I read this book for my class on the Pentateuch. I was surprised at some of the arguments and how they seem to throw out opposing views without much discussion. It does present some good arguments for ID but it did not really address theistic evolution responsibly.
I read this book for my class on the Pentateuch. I was surprised at some of the arguments and how they seem to throw out opposing views without much discussion. It does present some good arguments for ID but it did not really address theistic evolution responsibly.
August 21, 2023
I was assigned this book as part of a seminary course on the Pentateuch. Having read a lot of literature on this subject, I was disappointed to find that this book suffers from all the major issues that plague many anti-evolution sources. The state of the public discourse around Christianity and science is not good, and there's a lot more heat than light.
The first half of the book centers on theological concerns, which is fair enough. It's worth thinking through the important questions! How do we conceive of Adam, sin, suffering, death, the goodness of God's creation, and the theology of "first Adam" and "second Adam" in the New Testament Pauline epistles? How do we avoid diminishing the authority of Scripture? These questions are not always easy to answer. At the same time, I'm not sure that ignoring and/or misrepresenting the science is the correct way forward here.
And this is the core problem. A lot of assertions in this book are either misleading or nakedly wrong. To cite a concrete example, one author says that the presence of "junk DNA" (or "pseudogenes," or "DNA fossils") cannot be an indicator of evolutionary change, because some of these DNA segments have been discovered to have beneficial uses for the organism (and thus cannot be "junk" in the strictest sense). However, that fact is universally and openly acknowledged. Yes, a gene can retain some vestigial use, or develop a new use later on. However, it's still strong evidence for evolution.
Most people who have been tasked with reading this book have, in all likelihood, never gotten the chance to read other sources--especially Denis Alexander's "Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?" which is the biggest focus of this book's attack. Alexander personally posted a large PDF file that goes through this book and responds to it on a chapter-by-chapter basis (I won't post a link here, but it can be Googled, and I highly recommend it). At any rate, many people who are unfamiliar with the literature will be overwhelmed by the "scientific" half of the book (the latter half). The book doesn't seek to meet the reader where he or she is, doesn't provide context, and doesn't educate about the basic issues (Alexander's book does, and so do most other pro-evolution sources). I couldn't shake the feeling that there was a rhetorical strategy at play here, as if to say, "Look at these big words I'm using. Is this hard for you as a layperson to understand? Don't worry about it. Just know that there are smart people who doubt Darwinism, and I'm one of them."
I suppose what I'd like to say is that if you can't understand the science portion of the book (and there are several reviews here that confess to that), it isn't because you're mentally deficient. It's because the author needs to do a better job of communicating. The pro-evolutionary authors (including, say, Richard Dawkins) have no problem reaching people at an 8th grade level. If the authors want to write about how "X" is wrong, but then they don't take the time to educate the reader about the background information regarding X, even at the most cursory level, then what's the point? The reader will stare blankly for a few seconds, admire the technical expertise of the author, give up, and move on. Again, I can't help but to feel that the purpose here is to obfuscate, not educate.
Finally, I kept encountering places where the contributors suggested (and at times just stated outright) that evolution is so absurd, so lacking in evidence, that the only motivation for believing it is cultural pressure, fear, or the desire to be liked by your smart friends. Not only is that laughably false, but it seems that before you say something like that, you would want to demonstrate that evolution is, in fact, absurd and lacking in any evidence. The book doesn't do that. So the "you're just a coward" argument really looks silly here. Additionally, the sword cuts both ways. Doesn't fear serve as a factor in fundamentalist circles for people who might consider evolutionary biology, but might get defrocked, get fired from a seminary teaching role, get condemned, lose social clout, discredit their life's work, etc., if they're open about it?
Surely, there has to be a better way forward in the science and faith discourse.
The first half of the book centers on theological concerns, which is fair enough. It's worth thinking through the important questions! How do we conceive of Adam, sin, suffering, death, the goodness of God's creation, and the theology of "first Adam" and "second Adam" in the New Testament Pauline epistles? How do we avoid diminishing the authority of Scripture? These questions are not always easy to answer. At the same time, I'm not sure that ignoring and/or misrepresenting the science is the correct way forward here.
And this is the core problem. A lot of assertions in this book are either misleading or nakedly wrong. To cite a concrete example, one author says that the presence of "junk DNA" (or "pseudogenes," or "DNA fossils") cannot be an indicator of evolutionary change, because some of these DNA segments have been discovered to have beneficial uses for the organism (and thus cannot be "junk" in the strictest sense). However, that fact is universally and openly acknowledged. Yes, a gene can retain some vestigial use, or develop a new use later on. However, it's still strong evidence for evolution.
Most people who have been tasked with reading this book have, in all likelihood, never gotten the chance to read other sources--especially Denis Alexander's "Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?" which is the biggest focus of this book's attack. Alexander personally posted a large PDF file that goes through this book and responds to it on a chapter-by-chapter basis (I won't post a link here, but it can be Googled, and I highly recommend it). At any rate, many people who are unfamiliar with the literature will be overwhelmed by the "scientific" half of the book (the latter half). The book doesn't seek to meet the reader where he or she is, doesn't provide context, and doesn't educate about the basic issues (Alexander's book does, and so do most other pro-evolution sources). I couldn't shake the feeling that there was a rhetorical strategy at play here, as if to say, "Look at these big words I'm using. Is this hard for you as a layperson to understand? Don't worry about it. Just know that there are smart people who doubt Darwinism, and I'm one of them."
I suppose what I'd like to say is that if you can't understand the science portion of the book (and there are several reviews here that confess to that), it isn't because you're mentally deficient. It's because the author needs to do a better job of communicating. The pro-evolutionary authors (including, say, Richard Dawkins) have no problem reaching people at an 8th grade level. If the authors want to write about how "X" is wrong, but then they don't take the time to educate the reader about the background information regarding X, even at the most cursory level, then what's the point? The reader will stare blankly for a few seconds, admire the technical expertise of the author, give up, and move on. Again, I can't help but to feel that the purpose here is to obfuscate, not educate.
Finally, I kept encountering places where the contributors suggested (and at times just stated outright) that evolution is so absurd, so lacking in evidence, that the only motivation for believing it is cultural pressure, fear, or the desire to be liked by your smart friends. Not only is that laughably false, but it seems that before you say something like that, you would want to demonstrate that evolution is, in fact, absurd and lacking in any evidence. The book doesn't do that. So the "you're just a coward" argument really looks silly here. Additionally, the sword cuts both ways. Doesn't fear serve as a factor in fundamentalist circles for people who might consider evolutionary biology, but might get defrocked, get fired from a seminary teaching role, get condemned, lose social clout, discredit their life's work, etc., if they're open about it?
Surely, there has to be a better way forward in the science and faith discourse.
September 8, 2020
An able response to (some) of the ideas formulated by theistic evolution, specifically as a rebuttal to a book written by a one Denis Alexander, “Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?”.
There isn’t a ton of interaction with the Alexander book, so it felt a little hatchety there. Also, there is no discussion of any Teritum quids out there such as progressive creationism.
Given that my field is in theology, the last part of the book where they get all science-y was mostly incomprehensible to me. The first half was more fruitful.
There isn’t a ton of interaction with the Alexander book, so it felt a little hatchety there. Also, there is no discussion of any Teritum quids out there such as progressive creationism.
Given that my field is in theology, the last part of the book where they get all science-y was mostly incomprehensible to me. The first half was more fruitful.
January 12, 2026
A series of articles by scholars analyzing Darwinian evolution through lenses of science and theology. It is a polemic against theistic evolution. The book argues that evolution accepts death as essential to the development of new life forms; therefore, it is antithetical to orthodox Christianity’s view of death. It also focuses on an essential question in evolution: where does new genetic information come from? Some of the articles are quite dense, particularly the ones heavily concerned with the science.
September 9, 2025
Another book for my seminary class!
I don’t read much about this topic. I’ve never really cared to.
The chapters discussing theology and Biblical examination were quite good, as they raised a lot of ideas I had not really considered before. Cherishing anything that stretches my brain these days.
The science chapters went way over my head and also I hate biology.
I don’t read much about this topic. I’ve never really cared to.
The chapters discussing theology and Biblical examination were quite good, as they raised a lot of ideas I had not really considered before. Cherishing anything that stretches my brain these days.
The science chapters went way over my head and also I hate biology.
December 13, 2018
I'm sure this book would be of interest for those who pay attention to the intersection of Christianity and science, but for the average reader this is both too technical and too specific in responding to one view of evolution.
March 13, 2019
The theology portions were decent in this work: they had some real good pushback against theistic evolution although they only really responded to Denis Alexander. Some of it came off as fighting a culture war.
The science portions were way too sciency for me to follow.
The science portions were way too sciency for me to follow.
March 10, 2023
Read for class. Some good parts but ultimately gets a lot of arguments mixed up. The science stuff also was not easy enough for a rookie to understand. The chapter arguing that “Christians just don’t have enough faith to not believe in evolution” should have been edited out.
Read
April 24, 2023I wish I cared more about this topic than I do
July 10, 2024
For seminary course - a boring read but great information.
September 23, 2017
Good, comprehensive collection of arguments as to why those who embrace Christianity should reject the theory of evolution. Written by both Christian and non-Christian experts, this collection of essays approaches the discussion from the biblical, philosophical, and scientific perspective.
My only critique is that while the refactor claims the work is accessible, many chapters require quite a bit of background knowledge in genetics. I often found myself looking up terms in order to follow the argument.
My only critique is that while the refactor claims the work is accessible, many chapters require quite a bit of background knowledge in genetics. I often found myself looking up terms in order to follow the argument.
October 28, 2016
The middling rating could be that I had higher expectations for this book. I expected an entry-level look into Biblical and scientific reasons to cast a skeptical look at the theory of evolution. However, the book was primarily a response to Denis Alexander's book on theistic evolution. Most of the authors did not interact, specifically with the theory of evolution but with the model of theistic evolution that Alexander brought forth. The theology section was, in my opinion, better than the scientific because it was much more reader friendly. It fleshed out many of the implications that theistic evolution brings and how the two cannot be complementary. In so many cases, it has to be one or the other. The scientific section was Very scientific with very little layman's explanation. It was refreshing, however, to hear respected scientists speak out against evolution.
December 14, 2012
While some of the scientific articles can be complex and technical, despite the obviousness that they tried to dumb it down to a lay level, there are still some helpful scientific chapters in here. The theological chapters are for the most part well-done. Overall, this is a helpful book, but I'm not sure if it would help the average lay church person. I think it would have to be further distilled by the pastor/elder to help the congregation better understand it. Apparently this book was written with a specific book in mind by a British evangelical (Denis) who argues that Christians should accept evolution. He is mentioned throughout several different essays and many essays seem geared to rebut his specific theological and scientific arguments.
February 2, 2015
I enjoyed the book. It was not an easy read. The chapters on the science problems, were technical. I am not strong in science. The writers and editors handled this subject carefully and thoroughly. They examine the theological issues of Theistic Evolution and the scientific issues with Neo-Darwinism.
The book challenges the ability to bring together Biblical teaching of Creation, Death, Adam and soteriology with Neo-Darwinian Evolution as God's tool of creating the universe. It also addresses the oft heard statement, "I don't believe in Evolution. I looked at the facts and accept it." It is not the facts that drive a person to accept Evolution, it is the interpretation of those facts. Interpretations of facts are always based on a belief or a system of belief.
The book challenges the ability to bring together Biblical teaching of Creation, Death, Adam and soteriology with Neo-Darwinian Evolution as God's tool of creating the universe. It also addresses the oft heard statement, "I don't believe in Evolution. I looked at the facts and accept it." It is not the facts that drive a person to accept Evolution, it is the interpretation of those facts. Interpretations of facts are always based on a belief or a system of belief.
December 28, 2011
Definitely geared more toward Christians and those who like to dig into some of the theological issues around evolution. It could definitely seem a little technical sometimes. Most of the book focuses on the theological difficulties of believing in evolution (Adam and Eve not the first humans which makes some of Paul's arguments less weighty, there was no real Fall as there was death in the world for a long time before the Fall even though the Bible calls it the "last enemy", etc.). The scientific essays against evolution answered one of main questions I had: the presence of retroviruses or similar chromosomal structures in all primates.
October 24, 2016
This was required reading for a course I took from a different seminary than the one I go to. It is a bit myopic and tends to straw-man alternate positions. The titular question is obviously rhetorical and the answer is negative. The responses come from some respectable scholars, but I thought the tone of the book was negative, the content unhelpful, and the conclusions unconvincing. I would not recommend this to most Christians and certainly hope a non-Christian wouldn't stumble across this.
December 13, 2014
Great read in this topic adequately demonstrating the untenable position of theistic evolution. I loved the combination of theology and science. You'll need a background in biology to get some of the chapters. The intro by Heiden is also great!
February 21, 2016
Some good chapters. Some bad chapters. The bad ones, I thought, were anti-scientific. At times it seemed that they were pitting God's general and special revelation against each other. Also, some chapters took a very low few of common grace. The good chapters were very good though.
June 28, 2011
The kind of book I've been looking for, one that teases out the theological implications of adopting an evolutionary framework for creation.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews