What do you think?
Rate this book
Defending Sin: A Response to the Challenges of Evolution and the Natural Sciences
The conflict between the natural sciences and Christian theology has been going on for centuries. Recent advances in the fields of evolutionary biology, behavioral genetics, and neuroscience have intensified this conflict, particularly in relation to origins, the fall, and sin. These debates are crucial to our understanding of human sinfulness and necessarily involve the doctrine of salvation. Theistic evolutionists have labored hard to resolve these tensions between science and faith, but Hans Madueme argues that the majority of their proposals do injustice both to biblical teaching and to long-standing doctrines held by the mainstream Christian tradition.In this major contribution to the field of science and religion, Madueme demonstrates that the classical notion of sin reflected in Scripture, the creeds, and tradition offers the most compelling and theologically coherent account of the human condition. He answers pressing challenges from the physical sciences on both methodological and substantive levels. Scholars, pastors, students, and interested lay readers will profit from interacting with the arguments presented here.
356 pages, Kindle Edition
Published May 28, 2024
9 people are currently reading
138 people want to read
About the author
Hans Madueme
6 books7 followersHans Madueme (PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is assistant professor of theological studies at Covenant College in Lookout Mountain, Georgia, and an adjunct professor at Trinity Graduate School, Trinity International University. He also serves as a book review editor for Themelios.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
June 29, 2024
It often feels weird to be part of something so old school as to actually believe that God specifically created all things out of nothing. Or that humankind is actually not part of a long and natural process of climbing upward out of a millions-of-years evolving framework. Especially when scientists assume it, academicians presume it, Psychologists accept it, and an increasing number of Christian scholars and theologians try hard to make it a suitable part of Christianity. Recently Hans Madueme has come to the aid of those of us who feel like we’re in the weird group with his 368-page paperback, “Defending Sin: A Response to the Challenges of Evolution and the Natural Sciences”. Madueme is professor of theological studies at Covenant College in Lookout Mountain, Georgia, and senior editor of Sapientia. This scholastic work studiously attempts to engage core Christian doctrines inside the tussle between the traditional doctrine of sin and the natural sciences.
The book “lays out a doctrine of sin that pays attention to the challenges from the natural sciences, especially biological evolution” which includes evolutionary psychology, genetics, and theistic evolution. “My thesis is that the classical notion of sin reflected in Scripture, the ecumenical creeds, and the Protestant confessions remains enduringly true, even in our post-Darwinian context, and offers the most compelling and theologically coherent account of the human predicament” (5). A reader should remember that this is the central focus of the book from start to finish, because the author will take up a number of subjects, theorists, and concepts that all try to make Scripture compatible to science. In fact, with each of these outlooks, science takes the lead and sets the pace for the team while religious concepts are only allowed to run along and try to catch up. “Tellingly, science can refute the empirical claims of religious traditions, but theology must never adjudicate scientific theories” (47). But, as the author clearly warns, theology “that marries science today will file for divorce tomorrow” (30).
Throughout the book Madueme helps readers to respect and appreciate science as a discipline. It is a valuation that includes what he terms “scientific fallibilism,” the recognition that scientific theories may often “work” even though later generations of scientists will prove that the theory itself is shown to be false. He gives examples of this by addressing the caloric and phlogiston theories. And he also reminds readers that science, as such, is fallible and shaped by human finitude, epistemic limitations and more. But the author brings to scientific fallibilism what he names as “biblical realism,” where the default idea is to accept the scientific consensus provisionally. The provisional is because “biblical realists are…warranted in believing that one or more unconceived theories exist that do explain the data and are compatible with Scripture, even if they presently have no idea what those theories are” (61). That may sound like “whistling in the dark” but it’s how science works as it reaches for better explanations of the facts, a better explanation that is not yet landed on.
The author especially addresses theistic evolution and how, by accepting evolutionary theories first, and then trying to make Scripture conform, it has created a conundrum. If creation was not originally good, but only “nature, red in tooth and claw,” then theistic evolution has driven a wedge between creation and redemption. They have pitted the God of creation who suffuses nature with suffering, pain, death, and catastrophe from the very beginning to advance the evolutionary process, against the God of redemption who vanquishes sin, death, and suffering in the new creation. “God’s work of creation contradicts his work of redemption” (157). In other words, theistic evolution sets up an ontological problem: “the God of creation is fundamentally different from God as revealed in redemption.” And with regard to sin, if there was no original goodness from which humankind fell, then sin was part of the original project from its conception.
The author moves beyond theistic evolution to also address genetics and evolutionary psychology, and how evolutionary notions impact ethics and morality, and can end up reducing human vice and virtue “to biological forces that long predate the dawn of humanity” (254). All told, Madueme’s observations should slow down the quick acceptance of evolution by Christians, give us pause, and bring us to reflect on how close we are being drawn to the murky waters of Gnosticism and Marcionism with their bad creator/good redeemer perspectives.
There is much more to “Defending Sin” than what I have highlighted. But hopefully this will give readers a good sense of the value of the work whether they agree with his conclusions or not. I think the concluding statement of the work actually guides the whole premise of his argument and gives us hopeful recognition that we’re really not as weird as it sometimes feels: “If Christians can embrace the reality of the resurrection, then nothing within this book should trouble the thoughtful believer. If this colossus of a miracle stands at the very core of biblical Christianity, then a full-throated doctrine of sin is not only what we would expect but precisely what we need – now more than ever” (323). I highly recommend the book.
I’m grateful the author and publisher sent me an unsolicited copy of the work. No demands were made on me; not even a request to write a review. Therefore, this evaluation is all mine, freely made and freely given.
The book “lays out a doctrine of sin that pays attention to the challenges from the natural sciences, especially biological evolution” which includes evolutionary psychology, genetics, and theistic evolution. “My thesis is that the classical notion of sin reflected in Scripture, the ecumenical creeds, and the Protestant confessions remains enduringly true, even in our post-Darwinian context, and offers the most compelling and theologically coherent account of the human predicament” (5). A reader should remember that this is the central focus of the book from start to finish, because the author will take up a number of subjects, theorists, and concepts that all try to make Scripture compatible to science. In fact, with each of these outlooks, science takes the lead and sets the pace for the team while religious concepts are only allowed to run along and try to catch up. “Tellingly, science can refute the empirical claims of religious traditions, but theology must never adjudicate scientific theories” (47). But, as the author clearly warns, theology “that marries science today will file for divorce tomorrow” (30).
Throughout the book Madueme helps readers to respect and appreciate science as a discipline. It is a valuation that includes what he terms “scientific fallibilism,” the recognition that scientific theories may often “work” even though later generations of scientists will prove that the theory itself is shown to be false. He gives examples of this by addressing the caloric and phlogiston theories. And he also reminds readers that science, as such, is fallible and shaped by human finitude, epistemic limitations and more. But the author brings to scientific fallibilism what he names as “biblical realism,” where the default idea is to accept the scientific consensus provisionally. The provisional is because “biblical realists are…warranted in believing that one or more unconceived theories exist that do explain the data and are compatible with Scripture, even if they presently have no idea what those theories are” (61). That may sound like “whistling in the dark” but it’s how science works as it reaches for better explanations of the facts, a better explanation that is not yet landed on.
The author especially addresses theistic evolution and how, by accepting evolutionary theories first, and then trying to make Scripture conform, it has created a conundrum. If creation was not originally good, but only “nature, red in tooth and claw,” then theistic evolution has driven a wedge between creation and redemption. They have pitted the God of creation who suffuses nature with suffering, pain, death, and catastrophe from the very beginning to advance the evolutionary process, against the God of redemption who vanquishes sin, death, and suffering in the new creation. “God’s work of creation contradicts his work of redemption” (157). In other words, theistic evolution sets up an ontological problem: “the God of creation is fundamentally different from God as revealed in redemption.” And with regard to sin, if there was no original goodness from which humankind fell, then sin was part of the original project from its conception.
The author moves beyond theistic evolution to also address genetics and evolutionary psychology, and how evolutionary notions impact ethics and morality, and can end up reducing human vice and virtue “to biological forces that long predate the dawn of humanity” (254). All told, Madueme’s observations should slow down the quick acceptance of evolution by Christians, give us pause, and bring us to reflect on how close we are being drawn to the murky waters of Gnosticism and Marcionism with their bad creator/good redeemer perspectives.
There is much more to “Defending Sin” than what I have highlighted. But hopefully this will give readers a good sense of the value of the work whether they agree with his conclusions or not. I think the concluding statement of the work actually guides the whole premise of his argument and gives us hopeful recognition that we’re really not as weird as it sometimes feels: “If Christians can embrace the reality of the resurrection, then nothing within this book should trouble the thoughtful believer. If this colossus of a miracle stands at the very core of biblical Christianity, then a full-throated doctrine of sin is not only what we would expect but precisely what we need – now more than ever” (323). I highly recommend the book.
I’m grateful the author and publisher sent me an unsolicited copy of the work. No demands were made on me; not even a request to write a review. Therefore, this evaluation is all mine, freely made and freely given.
September 17, 2024
Truly excellent. Really did his homework making this case. This has been my viewpoint for many years.
September 13, 2024
This was excellent. Madueme’s section on faith and reason/science is extremely helpful, and the discussion of the doctrine of sin in conversation with modern theologies that assume evolution is thorough and compelling.
Highly recommend!
Highly recommend!
May 31, 2024
I’ve kept up with the creationist debate in Christian evangelical circles for about twenty years. And I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that Defending Sin by Dr. Hans Madueme is now the gold standard for a systemic theological defense of the traditional creationist perspective.
As a disclaimer, I should admit that Madueme is a friend, fellow Elder in my church, and he lives just down the street from me and our children play almost every day.
However, I was wowed by the work of my friend and gospel co-laborer.
The breadth of this book makes it a tour de force as he covers every relevant topic (faith-science history, geology, original vegetarianism, human origins, the fall, imputation of sin, the role of biology with our sinful nature, etc). But that is equally matched the depth of discussion on this 350 page book - a depth marked by exegetical and theological argumentation and not by the rhetoric of creation science ministries.
Critics of the traditional creationist perspective need to wrestle with this book. And adherents of this perspective should make this book their go-to resource.
Yet, Madueme also has a pastoral and sympathetic tone for Christians who wrestle with claims of modern science and the traditional perspective. I have seen the shepherd’s heart of this man in person, and that same heart comes out in this book.
Take up and read!
August 23, 2024
In his book Defending Sin, Hans Maduame engages with modern science and classical Christian doctrines. He accomplishes this while possessing a background in medical science and theology.
Hans first interacts with different Christian positions regarding science in light of growing development. Hans puts forward a view that he calls Biblical realism, which is sensitive to science and gives priority to Christian scripture.
Hans finally proposes the essential nature of a historical Adam and Eve and its impacts on both hamartiology and soteriology. One’s reading of this narrative impacts one's approach to natural science.
Hans first interacts with different Christian positions regarding science in light of growing development. Hans puts forward a view that he calls Biblical realism, which is sensitive to science and gives priority to Christian scripture.
Hans finally proposes the essential nature of a historical Adam and Eve and its impacts on both hamartiology and soteriology. One’s reading of this narrative impacts one's approach to natural science.
February 25, 2025
Madueme challenges the idea that debates over the age of the earth and the origin of humanity can be "theologically triaged" into doctrinal indifference. Instead, he makes a dogmatic case for young-earth creationism, and argues that other views damage the doctrine of sin and reshape the biblical narrative.
Madueme lays out a case for "biblical realism." This view assumes an evangelical doctrine of Scripture, and proceeds to argue that nothing can have a stronger epistemological warrant than a truth that is "1) clearly attested in Scripture 2) central to the integrity of Scripture's redemptive-historical storyline 3) widely supported by the catholic tradition." He further argues for scientific fallibilism: the Christian worldview should expect science to produce reliable results, but should also recognize that it can err. He points to historical scientific errors, the possibility of unconceived alternatives, and methodological naturalism to demonstrate the relative epistemological weakness of science. In Madueme's view, it is genuinely possible for central Scriptural claims, affirmed by the tradition, to be in conflict with scientific consensus. In such a case, Scriptural claims are to be affirmed as enjoying a better epistemological warrant.
The second and third portions of the book can be seen as arguing respectively that young-earth creationism is 1) clearly attested in Scripture and 2) central to the integrity of Scripture's redemptive-historical storyline. He offers a rejoinder to those who would reinterpret Scripture in light of other ANE documents, he argues biblically for the descent of all humanity from a single couple (monogenism), and he contends that the world was created without moral or natural evil (original goodness). Finally, he seeks to show that denying original goodness and monogenism causes a fundamental alteration in the shape of the biblical storyline. Rather than the biblical "checkmark" (creation, fall, consummation), we are left with a "forward slash" (creation, new and improved creation). He also responds to challenges from the natural sciences regarding original sin and personal responsibility, making a philosophical and biblical case for humanity's dualism.
It's important to remember that Madueme merely makes a dogmatic case for accepting young-earth creationism. He does not claim to have resolved the scientific problems that he raises, nor does he accuse scientists of conspiracy in repressing the truth of YEC. This humility contrasts strongly with most popular-level advocates of YEC. He makes striking statements like "Rather than trying to relieve the conflict between a historical Adam and natural science by dropping monogenism, we should live with the tension." and "the doctrine of original goodness calls the scientific consensus into question at this point." He can be forgiven for not taking on the scientific questions involved, given that the book is already highly interdisciplinary. I think readers of this book will agree that, given an evangelical doctrine of Scripture, a very strong case can be made for the truth and doctrinal significance of young-earth creationism.
Madueme lays out a case for "biblical realism." This view assumes an evangelical doctrine of Scripture, and proceeds to argue that nothing can have a stronger epistemological warrant than a truth that is "1) clearly attested in Scripture 2) central to the integrity of Scripture's redemptive-historical storyline 3) widely supported by the catholic tradition." He further argues for scientific fallibilism: the Christian worldview should expect science to produce reliable results, but should also recognize that it can err. He points to historical scientific errors, the possibility of unconceived alternatives, and methodological naturalism to demonstrate the relative epistemological weakness of science. In Madueme's view, it is genuinely possible for central Scriptural claims, affirmed by the tradition, to be in conflict with scientific consensus. In such a case, Scriptural claims are to be affirmed as enjoying a better epistemological warrant.
The second and third portions of the book can be seen as arguing respectively that young-earth creationism is 1) clearly attested in Scripture and 2) central to the integrity of Scripture's redemptive-historical storyline. He offers a rejoinder to those who would reinterpret Scripture in light of other ANE documents, he argues biblically for the descent of all humanity from a single couple (monogenism), and he contends that the world was created without moral or natural evil (original goodness). Finally, he seeks to show that denying original goodness and monogenism causes a fundamental alteration in the shape of the biblical storyline. Rather than the biblical "checkmark" (creation, fall, consummation), we are left with a "forward slash" (creation, new and improved creation). He also responds to challenges from the natural sciences regarding original sin and personal responsibility, making a philosophical and biblical case for humanity's dualism.
It's important to remember that Madueme merely makes a dogmatic case for accepting young-earth creationism. He does not claim to have resolved the scientific problems that he raises, nor does he accuse scientists of conspiracy in repressing the truth of YEC. This humility contrasts strongly with most popular-level advocates of YEC. He makes striking statements like "Rather than trying to relieve the conflict between a historical Adam and natural science by dropping monogenism, we should live with the tension." and "the doctrine of original goodness calls the scientific consensus into question at this point." He can be forgiven for not taking on the scientific questions involved, given that the book is already highly interdisciplinary. I think readers of this book will agree that, given an evangelical doctrine of Scripture, a very strong case can be made for the truth and doctrinal significance of young-earth creationism.
October 25, 2024
This is probably the most robust and rigorous defense of biblical creationism available. Part one of the book was most interesting to me. It dealt with the relationship between science and theology and advocated for an approach of Biblical realism.
I think what is unique about this book is that Madueme is comfortable admitting that on some issues the actual "available" scientific data tips the scales of probability against the Bible. But available data is not all data and other considerations weigh upon Christians, namely Scripture.
Madueme is not a hard concordist so he does not maintain that scriptural views must be in perfect harmony with the current scientific consensus. This, at times, can be a strength because the more successful a harmonization is today the more trouble it causes when science moves on tomorrow.
Madueme creates space for biblical realism by talking about scientific fallibilism. Just because scientific theories can make testable predictions that are confirmed empirically does not mean it is true or approximately true. History shows many cases where theories were effective in their day but are mistaken by current standards. Based on what we know, we consider these theories to be patently false. Given this case, it is likely that our current theories, though seeming to work, will later be replaced and thus considered false as well.
Science is fallible, conditioned by human finitude (not being able to conceive of every alternative model) and human fallenness. This is especially true with scientific assessments of the primordial past where our epistemic limits are even greater.
He writes, "In the face of deep conflicts between science and theology, the biblical realist confesses that the physical data cohere with one or more scientific theories that we are presently unable to conceive-- and perhaps with theories that may be inconceivable until to the eschaton."
Christians can and should continue to affirm parts of Scripture that conflict with prevailing scientific witness even when we do not yet have a plausible alternative theory. Just because we do not have one, does not mean there is not one.
Whether a scientific theory refutes an interpretation of Scripture is determined by the weight of the scientific evidence weighed against the weight of the intrinsic warrant of the doctrine from Scripture. If a claim of Scripture or doctrine has a sufficient intrinsic warrant, incompatible scientific theories present no threat no matter how strong they appear.
He argues, however, not for hard discordance with science but rather a soft concordance. Christians should accept good science "provisionally" and recognize that scientific description of reality will ultimately harmonize with Scripture at the return of Christ.
I think what is unique about this book is that Madueme is comfortable admitting that on some issues the actual "available" scientific data tips the scales of probability against the Bible. But available data is not all data and other considerations weigh upon Christians, namely Scripture.
Madueme is not a hard concordist so he does not maintain that scriptural views must be in perfect harmony with the current scientific consensus. This, at times, can be a strength because the more successful a harmonization is today the more trouble it causes when science moves on tomorrow.
Madueme creates space for biblical realism by talking about scientific fallibilism. Just because scientific theories can make testable predictions that are confirmed empirically does not mean it is true or approximately true. History shows many cases where theories were effective in their day but are mistaken by current standards. Based on what we know, we consider these theories to be patently false. Given this case, it is likely that our current theories, though seeming to work, will later be replaced and thus considered false as well.
Science is fallible, conditioned by human finitude (not being able to conceive of every alternative model) and human fallenness. This is especially true with scientific assessments of the primordial past where our epistemic limits are even greater.
He writes, "In the face of deep conflicts between science and theology, the biblical realist confesses that the physical data cohere with one or more scientific theories that we are presently unable to conceive-- and perhaps with theories that may be inconceivable until to the eschaton."
Christians can and should continue to affirm parts of Scripture that conflict with prevailing scientific witness even when we do not yet have a plausible alternative theory. Just because we do not have one, does not mean there is not one.
Whether a scientific theory refutes an interpretation of Scripture is determined by the weight of the scientific evidence weighed against the weight of the intrinsic warrant of the doctrine from Scripture. If a claim of Scripture or doctrine has a sufficient intrinsic warrant, incompatible scientific theories present no threat no matter how strong they appear.
He argues, however, not for hard discordance with science but rather a soft concordance. Christians should accept good science "provisionally" and recognize that scientific description of reality will ultimately harmonize with Scripture at the return of Christ.
January 3, 2025
4.5/5 Stars: I thoroughly enjoyed this book, though for non-theology students it is a dense read. I am not a theology or philosophy student, though I took some Christian doctrine classes in college, and so this book took my awhile to parse through. Dr. Madueme writes to a theologically and philosophically sophisticated audience, so I often had to look up terms. However, I’ve been struggling to understand the relation between science and theology, evolution and creation, and I loved how deeply and thoroughly this book explored the topic. Dr. Madueme generally gave a survey of current Christian explanations and also historical Christian explanations about various topics related to sin (original goodness, historical Adam, historical fall, etc.), and then provides his perspective on the dogmatic interpretation. I found his approach extremely informative and helpful in framing how I want to discuss and engage with these ideas.
TLDR: dense theologically, extremely informative, worth the read.
TLDR: dense theologically, extremely informative, worth the read.
June 3, 2024
“Defending Sin” is more of a polemic against theistic evolution rather than an argument against science. The book does a commendable job of presenting the secular and scientific arguments against biblical creation, meticulously detailing various objections to the Christian story of creation. It is undeniably well-researched, but it ultimately falls short in providing substantial counterarguments. The author systematically dismisses theistic evolutionary arguments, finding flaws in each one. However, the core argument could be distilled to a single line: if it doesn’t align with scripture, then no matter what science says, it cannot be accepted.
While the book has equipped me with numerous arguments against the Christian story of creation, it has offered me very few effective rebuttals. If the author was intending to rebut theistic evolution though he was spot on.
While the book has equipped me with numerous arguments against the Christian story of creation, it has offered me very few effective rebuttals. If the author was intending to rebut theistic evolution though he was spot on.
January 5, 2025
I'm super torn on this one. I love the way he elevates the conversation to matters of philosophy, dogma and epistemology. It's much more fruitful than the typical polemic against evolution. He also really, really knows the science, and doesn't build straw men.
On the other hand, I ultimately wasn't convinced, even though this is certainly the strongest defense of a "young earth" view I've read. I'm a little troubled by the implications of his argument scripturally (especially the heavy reliance on the two genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11), and it just feels a bit like a "house of cards," just in another direction.....so it's hard to respond. But I will say I'm glad I read this, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in the tension between science, materialism, and faith.
Video review here: https://youtu.be/cg1fybk9OJQ
On the other hand, I ultimately wasn't convinced, even though this is certainly the strongest defense of a "young earth" view I've read. I'm a little troubled by the implications of his argument scripturally (especially the heavy reliance on the two genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11), and it just feels a bit like a "house of cards," just in another direction.....so it's hard to respond. But I will say I'm glad I read this, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in the tension between science, materialism, and faith.
Video review here: https://youtu.be/cg1fybk9OJQ
December 23, 2024
Overall, a 5-star read. I have some issues with his assertion style that sometimes fails to credit the statement he just made. He occasionally makes over-statements without evidence for his argument. However, it is a book worth picking up to read about his methodology. His method is what he calls 'biblical realism' and is a fantastic look at how to practice theology in relation to science without sacrificing sola Scriptura. While it seems as if sin does not need defending, Madueme's book makes it clear that sin in crisis of being gravely (pun) misunderstood. I especially like how he lands in a dualism of soul and body. I wish he was stronger here on embodiment within dualism, but it's a perspective-emphasis issue and not a real problem for me.
October 11, 2025
1.5 stars, round up to 2. i'm told this is the best YEC book, and one of the better apologetics books i've read, a low bar. not at all tempting or challenging. "science says this, but the bible says that, and the bible is the final authoritative word of god, also inner witness and special revelation are superior to evidence and mere human empirical science" thanks for saying the quiet parts out loud and making it a stark choice beween science and "the bible tells me so". references "deconversion" so aware that this is unconvincing to increasingly more and more people.
June 14, 2024
This is an important book. All who would attempt to conform Christian theology to the canons of Darwinism would do well to read this book and reckon with it's arguments. It prioritizes Scripture– and it's historic interpretation– over the ‘certain’ conclusions of science (which are so often tentative). Well researched, carefully argued, it is definitely not for the faint of heart.
January 8, 2025
Starts off wonderfully but it was hard to grasp his overall stance and direction with the book. Written for prominently theologians and other scholars, which can make it a difficult read for those unfamiliar with creationism and the doctrine of sin.
November 14, 2025
Incoming....
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews