What do you think?
Rate this book
40 Questions
40 Questions about Creation and Evolution
Biblically and scientifically informed answers to pressing questions about the creation-evolution debate
This accessible volume evenly addresses the issues of modern science and the scriptural texts. The conservative evangelical authors are well-informed on contemporary scientific views of the universe and also carefully exegete the biblical texts that pertain to creation. They irenically consider the various angles of the debate and make constructive suggestions to reconcile science and the Bible.
Those who are curious about the origins of life and the universe will want to read this book. Seminary students and serious college students will find this information critical, as an understanding of creation is vital to an effective apologetic in sharing the faith.
This accessible volume evenly addresses the issues of modern science and the scriptural texts. The conservative evangelical authors are well-informed on contemporary scientific views of the universe and also carefully exegete the biblical texts that pertain to creation. They irenically consider the various angles of the debate and make constructive suggestions to reconcile science and the Bible.
Those who are curious about the origins of life and the universe will want to read this book. Seminary students and serious college students will find this information critical, as an understanding of creation is vital to an effective apologetic in sharing the faith.
432 pages, Paperback
First published November 27, 2014
20 people are currently reading
169 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
April 16, 2015
Of the many contemporary debates pushing and pulling on the Church today, the Creation and Evolution debate is perhaps the most alarming. The New Atheists like Richard Dawkins try to lump any Bible believer in with the crackpots and loonies, while some of the most high-profile creationists spare no punches as they condemn the vast majority of Evangelicalism for any of a number of compromises on this question. For folks in the pew, the situation is tense: Science continues to raise large questions, and the Church often seems to provide few answers. Many of our youth are pressured to abandon the faith as they encounter new arguments against creation. With at least four major views in Evangelicalism, there is not a strong unified position to lean upon. Most books on the topic defend their particular view and often take aim directly on other sectors of Christianity. These books do more to perpetuate the polarized nature of the debate than provide a clear way forward. And meanwhile it seems that the scientific consensus only continues to become an even larger stumbling-block to Christian faith.
In this context, a variety of new attempts to integrate science and faith have been proposed. Yet for conservative Christians this only raises new questions. How far is too far? What are the limits of integrating faith and science? How important is the age of the earth? Are all forms of evolution out-of-bounds for Christians? What about the Flood – must it be universal? Could animal death have preceded the Fall? What are we to think about Adam and Eve?
These questions and more are addressed in an important new book from Kenneth Keathley and Mark Rooker, professors at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. "40 Questions About Creation and Evolution" (Kregel, 2015) charts a course through the debate, raising the right questions and providing many answers. A big burden behind this book is just to survey the positions that are being adopted by Evangelical leaders today. The authors carefully lay out the evidence (good and bad) for each of these positions. Keathley approaches the matter from a young-earth creationist (YEC) perspective, and Rooker adopts an old-earth (OEC) view, but each author takes pains to speak charitably of the other positions and honestly about the difficulties of his own view. Their irenic candor and careful grappling with the major positions makes this book a joy to read.
Overview
Each chapter functions as a stand-alone treatment of a particular question. These questions are loosely arranged by topic. The first two parts focus on the doctrine of Creation in general (and its role in Scripture), and then in particular about the exegetical details in Gen. 1-2. Following this is a section on the Days of Creation. Here the following positions are examined:
* The Gap theory
* The Day-Age theory
* The Framework theory
* The Temple Inauguration theory
* The Historical Creationism theory (or Promised Land theory)
* The Twenty-Four Hour theory
Following this is a section on the age of the Earth. Here the genealogies and the arguments for and against an old earth are examined. In addition, the question of distant starlight gets special treatment. Included here is an examination of the mature creation argument. The next section focuses on the Fall and the Flood. The image of God and the idea of Original Sin are fleshed out here. The final section focuses on evolution and intelligent design. A history of Darwinism is provided along with its key supporting arguments. Challenges to evolution are also presented (often from atheistic scientists who still hold to common descent). The question of theistic evolution is also addressed. Finally discussion of the “fine-tuning argument” highlights the special place our Earth holds in the universe.
Highlights
This book is over 400 pages long, so I only have time to point out some highlights.
Careful Analysis of the Debate: I was struck by the careful analysis of why Evangelicals disagree so much on this issue. Concordism and non-concordism are addressed, and so is the matter of presuppositions. The authors stress that old-earth creationists (OEC) share many of the same presuppositions as young-earth creationists (YEC), they do not share the view that a YEC interpretation of Gen. 1-11 is the “only interpretation available to the Bible-believing Christian” (p. 20). YEC adherents really do often hold this as a presupposition and so their position is basically fideism: “if one’s presuppositions are unassailable, then his approach has shifted from presuppositionalism to fideism” (p. 21). OEC proponents allow more room for empiricism, which “allows experience and evidence to have a significant role in the formation of one’s position” (p. 21). This philosophical difference lies beneath the OEC vs. YEC debate and recognizing this can help in understanding the mindset of each alternate view.
Helpful Discussion of Each Major View: The discussions of each view are extremely helpful. Careful arguments are presented for each view, and then answered. The authors show how most scholars have good reasons to reject the Gap theory today, but they point out the fascinating history of this position (which dates back to the seventeenth century). By the mid-twentieth century, Bernhard Ramm could say that the gap theory was “the standard interpretation throughout Fundamentalism” (p. 112). The Day-Age theory is dismissed as treating “Genesis 1 as though its purpose is to provide a detailed, scientifically verifiable model of cosmic origins,” which hardly seems in keeping with “its ancient context” (p. 126). The Framework theory doesn’t have “a single theological truth” dependent on its unique reading of the text (p. 134). The authors have an uneasy assessment of the Temple Inauguration theory. They seem to revel in the connections between Eden and the Temple, but think Walton’s particular view says too much without enough explicit textual warrant. I note the odd argument that it makes “more biblical sense” that the Israelites believed “God lived in heaven both before and after the creation week” (p. 145). This prevents us from seeing creation as God’s need for a physical habitat to rest in. But didn’t God create heaven in the creation week? The authors seem intrigued by John Sailhamer’s Historical Creation theory. They raise objections but imagine others finding satisfactory answers to them. The Twenty-Four Hour theory certainly is more clearly defended, but strong objections are also raised. A mediating view is also presented that may well be Rooker’s own view: that the 24 hour days are to be seen as literally 24-hour days, but used metaphorically in the text. This whole section is worth the price of the book – the debate is laid out and dispassionately treated in a clear manner that provides directions for further study in a variety of directions.
Excellent on the Age of the Earth: I also appreciated the discussion of the age of the earth. The authors point out that the young-earth/flood geology position has only recently become the predominant Evangelical view. Prior to "The Genesis Flood" by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris (1961), there had been over a hundred years of Evangelical Christians who held to an old earth. Some discussions of the history of the YEC position devolve into an all-out mockery of the YEC position. This book is honest about the history (and the large role played by George McCready Price, a Seventh Day Adventist and geologist), but does not smear the YEC position with “guilt-by-association.” The major arguments put forth in Whitcomb and Morris’ book continue to be widely repeated today, but many of them have been forsaken by modern YEC proponents: the water-vapor canopy, a “small universe” (to allow for distant starlight), the Fall causing the second law of thermodynamics (entropy), and even the human and dinosaur footprints in the Paluxy River (p. 196). The scientific arguments for a young earth are actually quite tenuous. On the flip side, the scientific arguments for an old earth seem quite strong. Having studied this issue in some depth previously, I still found new arguments and considerations presented here. The authors also quote YEC authors who are also honest about the weakness of the scientific evidence. As an example, John Morris (Henry Morris’ son and successor) has admitted “he knows of no scientist who has embraced a young earth on the basis of the empirical evidence alone” (p. 198). The Biblical case for a young earth, in contrast, is quite strong. Even though the genealogies in Scripture are by no means air-tight nor intended to be strictly chronological, “we still have the impression… that not an enormous amount of time has passed since the beginning of creation” (p. 176). The authors conclude on this matter: “The conclusion must be that, though a cursory reading of Scripture would seem to indicate a recent creation, the preponderance of empirical evidence seems to indicate otherwise” (p. 224).
Conservative yet Open on the Effects of the Fall: The book does draw hard and fast lines, and one of them is the historicity of Adam and Eve. This is ultimately a matter of “biblical authority” (p. 242), and it becomes a “litmus test” for Christians who would want to advocate some evolutionary position (p. 378). The question of the Fall and its impact is perhaps the most important question that divides the OEC and YEC views. They see the Fall as the historical moment of Original Sin, yet animal death before the Fall and the Fall’s impact on the natural creation are more open to reconsideration. The “notion of animal death existing prior to Adam’s fall does not appear to be, theologically speaking, an insurmountable problem” (p. 261). On the Fall’s impact on creation: “YEC proponents seem to be dogmatic about a position which, upon closer examination, appears to be more speculative than they have been willing to admit” (p. 269-270).
Critical of Evolution: As an eager reader of the book, I was challenged by this section, perhaps the most. The discussion on evolution will not encourage any simplistic acceptance of evolution. The authors’ introduce many of the problems to the standard Darwinian model that have been raised of late. Intelligent design is also carefully explained. More space could be given to scientific responses to these new challenges, perhaps, but the section does a good job pointing out the questions which still surround the mechanics of evolution. As for Christians wanting to embrace some sort of evolutionary model (not based on naturalistic Darwinian assumptions), the authors present three essential points that must be maintained:
* The uniqueness of the human race to possess and reflect the divine image.
* The unity of the human race.
* The historicity of the original couple and their disobedience. (p. 378)
Assessment
This book will prove to be helpful for those who want to survey the state of this debate in Evangelicalism today. The authors don’t sugarcoat the controversy and are at times painfully honest. They bring a wealth of research together, surveying the historical background to the controversy and marshal an impressive array of scientific arguments for and against each major position. Some may not appreciate how certain positions are embraced tentatively. Yet others will see this as a strength. Some will fault the authors for going too far, others will scoff at some of the attention drawn to what they consider obscure arguments for a young earth. The book will challenge those pushing the envelope and vying for unflinching acceptance of evolution in all its forms. It will also challenge those who pick and choose among the scientific studies – cherry picking anything that supports their YEC position and ignoring the rest. Above all, the book brings us back to the Bible and the text itself – what exactly does it affirm and how should that shape our consideration of these questions.
Ultimately this book calls for greater unity and charity in this debate. It is precisely here that this book is most needed. YEC proponents too often come across as abrasive, and their arguments seem to lack “tentativeness” or humility. OEC apologists can easily get caught up in the intramural debate and continue the caustic harsh tone. All of this is not only off-putting, but unhelpful. This book presents an alternative and a possible step forward. I trust it will make a contribution toward more light and less heat on this perennially thorny issue. I highly recommend it.
Disclaimer:
This book was provided by Kregel Academic. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.
In this context, a variety of new attempts to integrate science and faith have been proposed. Yet for conservative Christians this only raises new questions. How far is too far? What are the limits of integrating faith and science? How important is the age of the earth? Are all forms of evolution out-of-bounds for Christians? What about the Flood – must it be universal? Could animal death have preceded the Fall? What are we to think about Adam and Eve?
These questions and more are addressed in an important new book from Kenneth Keathley and Mark Rooker, professors at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. "40 Questions About Creation and Evolution" (Kregel, 2015) charts a course through the debate, raising the right questions and providing many answers. A big burden behind this book is just to survey the positions that are being adopted by Evangelical leaders today. The authors carefully lay out the evidence (good and bad) for each of these positions. Keathley approaches the matter from a young-earth creationist (YEC) perspective, and Rooker adopts an old-earth (OEC) view, but each author takes pains to speak charitably of the other positions and honestly about the difficulties of his own view. Their irenic candor and careful grappling with the major positions makes this book a joy to read.
Overview
Each chapter functions as a stand-alone treatment of a particular question. These questions are loosely arranged by topic. The first two parts focus on the doctrine of Creation in general (and its role in Scripture), and then in particular about the exegetical details in Gen. 1-2. Following this is a section on the Days of Creation. Here the following positions are examined:
* The Gap theory
* The Day-Age theory
* The Framework theory
* The Temple Inauguration theory
* The Historical Creationism theory (or Promised Land theory)
* The Twenty-Four Hour theory
Following this is a section on the age of the Earth. Here the genealogies and the arguments for and against an old earth are examined. In addition, the question of distant starlight gets special treatment. Included here is an examination of the mature creation argument. The next section focuses on the Fall and the Flood. The image of God and the idea of Original Sin are fleshed out here. The final section focuses on evolution and intelligent design. A history of Darwinism is provided along with its key supporting arguments. Challenges to evolution are also presented (often from atheistic scientists who still hold to common descent). The question of theistic evolution is also addressed. Finally discussion of the “fine-tuning argument” highlights the special place our Earth holds in the universe.
Highlights
This book is over 400 pages long, so I only have time to point out some highlights.
Careful Analysis of the Debate: I was struck by the careful analysis of why Evangelicals disagree so much on this issue. Concordism and non-concordism are addressed, and so is the matter of presuppositions. The authors stress that old-earth creationists (OEC) share many of the same presuppositions as young-earth creationists (YEC), they do not share the view that a YEC interpretation of Gen. 1-11 is the “only interpretation available to the Bible-believing Christian” (p. 20). YEC adherents really do often hold this as a presupposition and so their position is basically fideism: “if one’s presuppositions are unassailable, then his approach has shifted from presuppositionalism to fideism” (p. 21). OEC proponents allow more room for empiricism, which “allows experience and evidence to have a significant role in the formation of one’s position” (p. 21). This philosophical difference lies beneath the OEC vs. YEC debate and recognizing this can help in understanding the mindset of each alternate view.
Helpful Discussion of Each Major View: The discussions of each view are extremely helpful. Careful arguments are presented for each view, and then answered. The authors show how most scholars have good reasons to reject the Gap theory today, but they point out the fascinating history of this position (which dates back to the seventeenth century). By the mid-twentieth century, Bernhard Ramm could say that the gap theory was “the standard interpretation throughout Fundamentalism” (p. 112). The Day-Age theory is dismissed as treating “Genesis 1 as though its purpose is to provide a detailed, scientifically verifiable model of cosmic origins,” which hardly seems in keeping with “its ancient context” (p. 126). The Framework theory doesn’t have “a single theological truth” dependent on its unique reading of the text (p. 134). The authors have an uneasy assessment of the Temple Inauguration theory. They seem to revel in the connections between Eden and the Temple, but think Walton’s particular view says too much without enough explicit textual warrant. I note the odd argument that it makes “more biblical sense” that the Israelites believed “God lived in heaven both before and after the creation week” (p. 145). This prevents us from seeing creation as God’s need for a physical habitat to rest in. But didn’t God create heaven in the creation week? The authors seem intrigued by John Sailhamer’s Historical Creation theory. They raise objections but imagine others finding satisfactory answers to them. The Twenty-Four Hour theory certainly is more clearly defended, but strong objections are also raised. A mediating view is also presented that may well be Rooker’s own view: that the 24 hour days are to be seen as literally 24-hour days, but used metaphorically in the text. This whole section is worth the price of the book – the debate is laid out and dispassionately treated in a clear manner that provides directions for further study in a variety of directions.
Excellent on the Age of the Earth: I also appreciated the discussion of the age of the earth. The authors point out that the young-earth/flood geology position has only recently become the predominant Evangelical view. Prior to "The Genesis Flood" by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris (1961), there had been over a hundred years of Evangelical Christians who held to an old earth. Some discussions of the history of the YEC position devolve into an all-out mockery of the YEC position. This book is honest about the history (and the large role played by George McCready Price, a Seventh Day Adventist and geologist), but does not smear the YEC position with “guilt-by-association.” The major arguments put forth in Whitcomb and Morris’ book continue to be widely repeated today, but many of them have been forsaken by modern YEC proponents: the water-vapor canopy, a “small universe” (to allow for distant starlight), the Fall causing the second law of thermodynamics (entropy), and even the human and dinosaur footprints in the Paluxy River (p. 196). The scientific arguments for a young earth are actually quite tenuous. On the flip side, the scientific arguments for an old earth seem quite strong. Having studied this issue in some depth previously, I still found new arguments and considerations presented here. The authors also quote YEC authors who are also honest about the weakness of the scientific evidence. As an example, John Morris (Henry Morris’ son and successor) has admitted “he knows of no scientist who has embraced a young earth on the basis of the empirical evidence alone” (p. 198). The Biblical case for a young earth, in contrast, is quite strong. Even though the genealogies in Scripture are by no means air-tight nor intended to be strictly chronological, “we still have the impression… that not an enormous amount of time has passed since the beginning of creation” (p. 176). The authors conclude on this matter: “The conclusion must be that, though a cursory reading of Scripture would seem to indicate a recent creation, the preponderance of empirical evidence seems to indicate otherwise” (p. 224).
Conservative yet Open on the Effects of the Fall: The book does draw hard and fast lines, and one of them is the historicity of Adam and Eve. This is ultimately a matter of “biblical authority” (p. 242), and it becomes a “litmus test” for Christians who would want to advocate some evolutionary position (p. 378). The question of the Fall and its impact is perhaps the most important question that divides the OEC and YEC views. They see the Fall as the historical moment of Original Sin, yet animal death before the Fall and the Fall’s impact on the natural creation are more open to reconsideration. The “notion of animal death existing prior to Adam’s fall does not appear to be, theologically speaking, an insurmountable problem” (p. 261). On the Fall’s impact on creation: “YEC proponents seem to be dogmatic about a position which, upon closer examination, appears to be more speculative than they have been willing to admit” (p. 269-270).
Critical of Evolution: As an eager reader of the book, I was challenged by this section, perhaps the most. The discussion on evolution will not encourage any simplistic acceptance of evolution. The authors’ introduce many of the problems to the standard Darwinian model that have been raised of late. Intelligent design is also carefully explained. More space could be given to scientific responses to these new challenges, perhaps, but the section does a good job pointing out the questions which still surround the mechanics of evolution. As for Christians wanting to embrace some sort of evolutionary model (not based on naturalistic Darwinian assumptions), the authors present three essential points that must be maintained:
* The uniqueness of the human race to possess and reflect the divine image.
* The unity of the human race.
* The historicity of the original couple and their disobedience. (p. 378)
Assessment
This book will prove to be helpful for those who want to survey the state of this debate in Evangelicalism today. The authors don’t sugarcoat the controversy and are at times painfully honest. They bring a wealth of research together, surveying the historical background to the controversy and marshal an impressive array of scientific arguments for and against each major position. Some may not appreciate how certain positions are embraced tentatively. Yet others will see this as a strength. Some will fault the authors for going too far, others will scoff at some of the attention drawn to what they consider obscure arguments for a young earth. The book will challenge those pushing the envelope and vying for unflinching acceptance of evolution in all its forms. It will also challenge those who pick and choose among the scientific studies – cherry picking anything that supports their YEC position and ignoring the rest. Above all, the book brings us back to the Bible and the text itself – what exactly does it affirm and how should that shape our consideration of these questions.
Ultimately this book calls for greater unity and charity in this debate. It is precisely here that this book is most needed. YEC proponents too often come across as abrasive, and their arguments seem to lack “tentativeness” or humility. OEC apologists can easily get caught up in the intramural debate and continue the caustic harsh tone. All of this is not only off-putting, but unhelpful. This book presents an alternative and a possible step forward. I trust it will make a contribution toward more light and less heat on this perennially thorny issue. I highly recommend it.
Disclaimer:
This book was provided by Kregel Academic. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.
March 26, 2015
The discussion concerning the origins of the universe is a debate that seems to be without end. Even within Christian circles, there are a number of positions taken to include those who affirm the universe is young (YEC) and those who aver the universe is much older (OEC). Both sides claim to reject Darwinian evolution and both ends of the spectrum claim to adhere to sound biblical principles while also engaging in sound scientific discovery. So which view is correct? In an effort to shed light on the questions that are both asked and answered by those who adhere to the YEC and OEC constructs, authors Kenneth Keathley and Mark Rooker have provided a helpful book aptly called 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution.
As the title of the book suggests, it addresses 40 important questions that formulate the basis for discussion when it comes to origins and how those in the origins camps respond to Darwinian evolutionary dogma as well as how they interact with Scripture. This is not a decidedly pro-YEC or pro-OEC book or for that matter an anti-YEC or anti-OEC discussion. Instead the authors choose to provide the reader with the reasons both viewpoints give for their assertions.
While I am unquestionably in the YEC camp, I found the information and data provided by Keathley and Rooker to be honest. When it comes to something like the subject of origins, the position one takes is largely due to the lens they view the available data through. Furthermore, there are some inherent difficulties for both the YEC and the OEC adherent concerning providing evidence for events for which there were no eyewitnesses. The one eyewitness account of course is God the Creator of all things and He certainly has given us quite a bit of information in Scripture about creation. The difficulty has been how one defines terms such as the Hebrew word yom and how modern science and the purported evidence for what transpired at the dawn of the universe should be interpreted.
Keathley and Rooker present both sides of the argument quite fairly, noting when some arguments are strong for both positions and admitted areas of weakness, both concerning matters of scientific importance as well as how those positions interact with the Scriptural evidence. As a staunch YEC, I actually appreciated the author’s honest and balanced approach to each of the 40 questions they deal with throughout this book. There is a great deal of valuable information that will be of great use regardless of what side of the debate one resides.
Will this book put to rest the ongoing debate over origins? Absolutely not and that is not the intent of the authors. What his book does provide is insight into the debate, why the various positions approach the evidence the way they do, and why the subject of origins is so important to engage. Topics ranging from original sin, death before sin, the days of the creation week, the extent of Noah’s flood, and the Intelligent Design movement are all discussed by the author’s in an accessible and extremely helpful manner. At the end of the day and after reading this book I still remain a firm proponent of the YEC position. With that said, I have a greater understanding of the opposing viewpoint and a plethora of information from which to engage in further study on the topic of origins. This is a book I highly recommend.
I received this book for free from Kregel Academic for this review. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
As the title of the book suggests, it addresses 40 important questions that formulate the basis for discussion when it comes to origins and how those in the origins camps respond to Darwinian evolutionary dogma as well as how they interact with Scripture. This is not a decidedly pro-YEC or pro-OEC book or for that matter an anti-YEC or anti-OEC discussion. Instead the authors choose to provide the reader with the reasons both viewpoints give for their assertions.
While I am unquestionably in the YEC camp, I found the information and data provided by Keathley and Rooker to be honest. When it comes to something like the subject of origins, the position one takes is largely due to the lens they view the available data through. Furthermore, there are some inherent difficulties for both the YEC and the OEC adherent concerning providing evidence for events for which there were no eyewitnesses. The one eyewitness account of course is God the Creator of all things and He certainly has given us quite a bit of information in Scripture about creation. The difficulty has been how one defines terms such as the Hebrew word yom and how modern science and the purported evidence for what transpired at the dawn of the universe should be interpreted.
Keathley and Rooker present both sides of the argument quite fairly, noting when some arguments are strong for both positions and admitted areas of weakness, both concerning matters of scientific importance as well as how those positions interact with the Scriptural evidence. As a staunch YEC, I actually appreciated the author’s honest and balanced approach to each of the 40 questions they deal with throughout this book. There is a great deal of valuable information that will be of great use regardless of what side of the debate one resides.
Will this book put to rest the ongoing debate over origins? Absolutely not and that is not the intent of the authors. What his book does provide is insight into the debate, why the various positions approach the evidence the way they do, and why the subject of origins is so important to engage. Topics ranging from original sin, death before sin, the days of the creation week, the extent of Noah’s flood, and the Intelligent Design movement are all discussed by the author’s in an accessible and extremely helpful manner. At the end of the day and after reading this book I still remain a firm proponent of the YEC position. With that said, I have a greater understanding of the opposing viewpoint and a plethora of information from which to engage in further study on the topic of origins. This is a book I highly recommend.
I received this book for free from Kregel Academic for this review. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
January 15, 2021
Definitely the most helpful discussion I’ve come across on the topic of creation and evolution. The authors do a good job of including biblical and scientific perspectives throughout the book. And they approach the topic in a balanced and gracious way. The only downside was the number of typos in the edition I own.
April 24, 2015
The full version of this significantly abridged review may be found on the Pious Eye site (reviewer’s blog).
In 40 Questions about Creation and Evolution (hereafter, 40Qs), a fairly comprehensive survey of debated questions related to creation and evolution, particularly as those questions are addressed by evangelicals, authors Keathley and Rooker (hereafter, K&R) survey and assess extant opinions in a manner that attempts, more successfully in some chapters than others, to be fair rather than polemical. K&R’s efforts at fairness notwithstanding, reading the whole 40Qs does give one a clear impression of what views K&R prefer.
If the impression one gets is correct, K&R’s judgment is that, at present, the most natural reading of Scripture is still biblical creationism (BC). (This is the terminology I and others advocate because it places proper emphasis on what motivates BC: humble, childlike submission [Matthew 18:3, etc.] to the plain or natural sense of Scripture, even when considering historical and scientific questions. K&R, in agreement with dominant usage, call this young-earth creationism. In this review, I will use the terminology I advocate.) The only biblical difficulty they agree exists for this reading (i.e., the only one not easily resolved) is the great deal of activity that seems to have taken place on the sixth day of the creation week. Most alternative readings of the Genesis creation account show themselves, in the chapters (“questions”) that discuss them, to be fraught with more significant biblical difficulties than BC’s too-much-stuff-on-day-six issue. Though K&R commend the more Bible-centered of these alternatives, Scripture itself prevents them from claiming that any non-BC position fits Scripture so naturally and well as BC. Notably, however, a metaphor-for-literal-but-ineffable-pre-Fall-reality theory is not criticized, but only presented as a “mediating” view open to persons who are persuaded that the Genesis creation days must (given biblical wording and context) be understood as normal-length days (164). (What exactly does a metaphor communicate if the literal reality it is alleged to describe is wholly beyond verbal description?) Also notably, K&R, like such past opponents of BC as Gleason Archer, do sometimes call the BC reading “cursory” or such (I believe Archer said “superficial”), even though their own chapters studying the various approaches show that BC has strong biblical justification on close, not just “cursory,” reading. Since this is not a “Genesis debate” book, and since chapters are not specifically assigned to one author or the other, this inconsistency of tone is troubling. Readers are informed early-on (23) that each author “leans to” a different position, but nowhere is it suggested that either author disagrees with what they have chosen jointly to assert in their 40Qs collaboration.
While K&R generally (“cursory reading” inconsistency aside) seem willing to grant the Scripture-alone case to BC, they also believe that scientific support for BC is scarce to nonexistent: they think that BC is and (one gets the impression) should embrace being a fideistic position that is simply untestable because it relies on miracles like the global Flood and an initially mature creation. Old Earth Creationism (OEC), on the other hand, has (they believe) very strong scientific support (even if various systems offered to go with OEC don’t seem true on biblical grounds alone). Evolutionary Creationism (EC), while it can claim the support of most of the scientific data that K&R believe supports OEC, has considerably weaker biblical justification than non-evolutionary OEC. In fact, K&R seem to think that progressive creationism (God created intermittently over long periods, with limited “evolutionary” development of creatures occurring during times when God wasn’t creating) fits better with the scientific data than does full-on evolutionism (whether that of EC or Darwinism, the latter of which K&R judge an ideology unsustainable on either scientific or philosophical grounds). On related matters: (1) though they admit BC’s belief in a global Flood has good biblical support, they consider the local Flood theory rational and acceptable on biblical grounds, and they are unpersuaded by the scientific (geological) case for the global Flood; (2) they endorse the idea that the Genesis genealogies contain gaps of unknown duration, ruling out strict chronology based on those genealogies.
Clearly, a good deal of research and thought has gone into 40Qs. As a result, it does contain much useful information. Its identification by name of advocates of various viewpoints, and its references to key texts and articles promoting those viewpoints, are two examples that may alone make the book a worthwhile purchase for some readers and for libraries. Researchers will find the lack of a subject and person indexes annoying, I think. (These indexes are lacking in my complimentary review copy, at least.) Nevertheless, persons desiring a comprehensive survey of currently debated issues might decide that 40Qs serves their purposes nicely. I can only give the book a mildly positive rating (three stars on the standard five-star scale), however, because (1) a fundamental aspect of its overall approach is deeply flawed; and (2) its treatment of BC, and of the Bible-believing presuppositionalism (BBP) that often goes with it, is unsatisfactory (as to BBP and BC generally, and in failing to address a longstanding BC concern with terminology). (My rating is also based upon other shortcomings in the book that do not appear in this abridged review. See the full review for details.)
The deeply flawed fundamental aspect of 40Qs is K&R’s attempt to frame the differences between advocates of BC, OEC, and EC as disagreements over “apologetic approach” only. These three viewpoints, which all adopt very different approaches to God’s infallible written Word, are included in a list of “apologetic approaches” along with Intelligent Design (ID), which takes no position at all on God’s Word (nor on whether nature’s designing intelligence is the God of the Bible). Disagreements about how God created, or about what Scripture means when it touches on the subject, K&R maintain, are disagreements about “apologetic approach,” apologetic strategy, only. If it is a variety of “creationism,” it is apologetic approach, not doctrine. Only the question of whether God created is a matter of doctrine, “the doctrine of creation”; everything else is just strategy (“approach”). To be more precise, the “doctrine of creation,” as K&R describe it, includes the following propositions: God created the world out of nothing; only God is eternal, meaning creation began in, and includes, time; God is distinct from creation; God did not create out of necessity; God did not have to create this particular world, but chose of his own free will to do so; God created a world that is consistent with his nature and character; God is sovereign over the world; God continues to be actively involved with the world, being not only its Creator but its Sustainer.
Even on the expanded “to be more precise” description of “the doctrine of creation,” however, the idea that “everything else is just strategy” is neither persuasive nor plausible. Everything that Scripture teaches, all that is directly stated or “by good and necessary consequence” may be inferred therefrom, is doctrine. When people disagree about what Scripture teaches or implies, as when people disagree about whether or not God really did create absolutely everything in the space of six days of the sort experienced in a normal week (Exodus 20:9-11), their disagreement is doctrinal. If two BC advocates disagree with one another about whether they should (1) do an internal critique of an opponent’s worldview, pointing out how it takes for granted presuppositions that actually don’t fit with it but are “borrowed” from the Bible-believing worldview, or (2) draw upon ID arguments to show how the presuppositions that opponent takes for granted make God’s existence impossible to deny rationally, that is a difference over apologetic strategy. If one Christian thinks the Bible must be humbly accepted in its most natural sense and the data of science interpreted in light of that sense (BC), while another thinks the data of science has a natural (objective, worldview-neutral) sense in terms of which an unclear Bible must be reinterpreted (OEC, EC), that is a difference over doctrine.
Even so, I appreciate K&R’s effort to show that Christians who fail to embrace BC do still agree with biblical creationists on the doctrine that God created. (All aspects of the “to be more precise” description of the doctrine noted above may be seen as implicit in the “God” part of the identifier “doctrine that God created,” since it is understood in context that the God of the Bible is in view, and the “to be more precise” points simply unpack what being the God of the Bible entails.) Where they disagree is on the doctrine of how God created. It is misleading to call either of these separate doctrines “the doctrine of creation,” but that is what K&R have chosen to do. Perhaps this is longstanding usage, but that doesn’t make it any less misleading. By adopting the usage they do, K&R bias their presentation in favor of those who, in complete disagreement with advocates of BC, claim the Bible doesn’t mean to say anything about how God created, only that he created. This biased and misleading framing of the issue makes 40Qs, for all its wealth of information and critical reflection, a deeply flawed book.
40Qs is also flawed in its consideration of BC and BBP. K&R observe that “most” BC advocates are presuppositionalists, often to a degree K&R think verges on, or passes wholly over into, the “blind faith” of fideism. They write: “The presuppositionalist believes that the validity of one’s presuppositions must eventually be tested by using the laws of logic and be demonstrated by a consistency with the evidential findings. Fideism, by contrast, does not believe one’s presuppositions can be tested” (20). Were presuppositionalist pioneer Cornelius Van Til and his star pupil, Greg Bahnsen, available for comment, I think they would find this description objectionable. By insisting that presuppositions must be tested for “consistency with the evidential findings,” K&R disallow any form of “presuppositionalism” that is more than evidentialism with some presuppositional analysis thrown in. As for testing “using the laws of logic,” the stance of Van Tilian presuppositionalists (the only “real” presuppositionalists were one to ask the late Dr. Bahnsen) is that the Christian worldview with its BBP is the only belief system with which trust in the laws of logic makes sense, the only system that can account for those laws. Calling them “laws” or suggesting they be used to “test” anything before one has adopted BBP is, on Van Tilian grounds, nonsense.
Okay, I just used some terms I should probably clarify. First, I spoke of “the Christian worldview with its BBP.” Van Tilians will typically just say, “the Christian worldview,” and leave it at that, though the growth in popularity of that term among non-Van Tilians inclines me to think “with its BBP” must be specified. Words like “worldview” and “presuppositions” are used very freely in discussion of these issues, so perhaps I should clarify them also. Sometimes it sounds like the two terms are meant as synonyms. A worldview, however, is a comprehensive belief system: it includes and owes its existence and content to some set of presuppositions (or, as some, though not usually Van Tilians, put it, an unproven and unprovable set of axioms), of which adherents of the worldview may have little conscious awareness (prior to careful and uncomfortable reflection), but it is not limited to those presuppositions. The correctness of presuppositions cannot be tested by any worldview-neutral (“objective”) criteria because, simply put, there are no such criteria. All criteria express and function within worldviews. K&R’s suggestion that presuppositions must be tested for compliance with “evidence,” thus, misses a fundamental point of BBP. Presuppositions can be tested, but not by “evidence”: they can be tested for whether or not they cohere with the worldviews of which they are a part. When a worldview and its presuppositions cannot be brought into coherence, either through modification of the presuppositions to fit the rest of the worldview, or through modification of the rest of the worldview to fit the presuppositions, the worldview fails. The faith of Christians who advocate BBP is that every non-BBP worldview, including “Christian” worldviews that reject BBP in favor of the presuppositions of secular empiricists, Thomistic philosophers, or others, will fail upon analysis, whereas the BBP worldview will not.
Another term that requires comment is “evidentialism.” This is the term Van Tilians have typically applied to the approaches of those who reject BBP. This simple terminology doesn’t always satisfy those to whom it is applied since they, thinking solely in terms of apologetics, know approaches among them vary, from “minimal facts” historical apologetics, to basically Thomistic “classical” apologetics, to properly “evidentialist” apologetics that John Locke might have embraced. For Van Tilian BBP advocates, however, broader questions of epistemology, of how one can rightly claim to know anything at all and how one should go about managing one’s beliefs in view of this, cannot be placed in a separate compartment from one’s apologetics. When one adopts BBP, one cannot separate “doctrine” and “apologetic approach” in the way K&R do: doctrine is all that Scripture, rightly understood, teaches, and this is foundational to and determinative of one’s apologetics.
To highlight just how different BBP is from the empiricist-leaning way of thinking that is the automatic, seldom-questioned, default cognitive strategy in our post-Enlightenment culture, one only need survey K&R’s frequent use of phrases like “evidence indicates,” “evidence points in the direction of,” and “scientific data shows” in contexts of naïve acceptance, with no hint of uncertainty that data and evidence really do “indicate” and “point.” Such statements reflect what Van Til identified as biblically-unsound belief in “brute factuality.” This belief posits a realm of neutral or objective “facts” or “data” that “speak for themselves”: “data” or “evidence” that “points” in some direction. Adherents of BBP reject the idea that God’s creation contains any such brute facts. Facts and interpretations can be distinguished and talked about separately, but facts are never free of interpretation. Every fact, or datum, or evidence anyone perceives or thinks about will inevitably be perceived or thought about in terms of some interpretation or other, in obedient submission to God, in rebellion against God, or (most commonly in the non-idealized real world) in an inconsistent mixture of submission and rebellion. In terms of BBP, the previously quoted phrases must be reworded if they are to be accurate: “evidence, as I select and interpret it in accord with my believing or unbelieving or inconsistent presuppositions, indicates”; “evidence, as I select and interpret it in accord with my...presuppositions, points in the direction of”; and “scientific data, as I select and interpret it in accord with my...presuppositions, shows.” To drive the implication of these statements home more clearly, they may be reworded as follows: “my presupposition-guided selection and interpretation of evidence indicates” or “...points in the direction of” or “...shows.”
For BBP adherents, then, essential to both biblically correct doctrinal beliefs and God-honoring apologetics is the bringing of one’s intellectual life, in particular one’s presuppositional framework and the comprehensive worldview growing out of it, into conformity with—into childlike, trusting submission to—God’s verbally-expressed and infallible revelation, the Bible. On this view, the Bible is the ultimate authority, so the lesser authority of interpreted natural evidence (“natural revelation”) must always be understood in light of the Bible. (More precisely, the Triune God speaking in Scripture is the ultimate authority. Since in Scripture alone God speaks clearly, verbally to his people, it is Scripture alone that effectively functions as Christians’ ultimate authority.) For BBP adherents, to force upon Scripture any interpretation not evident from Scripture itself as its original believing recipients could have been expected to understand it would be to set up something other than Scripture as the ultimate authority.
K&R’s treatment of BC also proves unsatisfactory by failing to acknowledge an issue of terminology that many BC advocates consider very important. Though they identify Answers in Genesis (AIG) as the leading BC organization (16), K&R neither adopt nor comment upon that organization’s rejection of the terms “macroevolution” and “microevolution,” and in fact later adopt those terms (without mention of BC objections) in their discussions of evolution and ID (Questions 32-40, 313-407). To see why AIG objects to these terms and how K&R show bias in both their adoption of and definition of them, please see the full review. Do the same to see additional shortcomings that have influenced my rating of the book.
In closing, since 40Qs is an academic rather than popular or devotional work, I can only fault it for its failure to be as impartial as is might have been, for failure to present the BC perspective as well as it might have done, and for other imperfections I’ve noted in the full review on the Pious Eye site. Purchasers will find it interesting reading with quite a bit of useful information. Provided they read it critically, the book might also serve as a decent (though maybe not the best) introduction to the creation/evolution topic for persons new to the topic or new to books espousing views on the topic other than their own.
In 40 Questions about Creation and Evolution (hereafter, 40Qs), a fairly comprehensive survey of debated questions related to creation and evolution, particularly as those questions are addressed by evangelicals, authors Keathley and Rooker (hereafter, K&R) survey and assess extant opinions in a manner that attempts, more successfully in some chapters than others, to be fair rather than polemical. K&R’s efforts at fairness notwithstanding, reading the whole 40Qs does give one a clear impression of what views K&R prefer.
If the impression one gets is correct, K&R’s judgment is that, at present, the most natural reading of Scripture is still biblical creationism (BC). (This is the terminology I and others advocate because it places proper emphasis on what motivates BC: humble, childlike submission [Matthew 18:3, etc.] to the plain or natural sense of Scripture, even when considering historical and scientific questions. K&R, in agreement with dominant usage, call this young-earth creationism. In this review, I will use the terminology I advocate.) The only biblical difficulty they agree exists for this reading (i.e., the only one not easily resolved) is the great deal of activity that seems to have taken place on the sixth day of the creation week. Most alternative readings of the Genesis creation account show themselves, in the chapters (“questions”) that discuss them, to be fraught with more significant biblical difficulties than BC’s too-much-stuff-on-day-six issue. Though K&R commend the more Bible-centered of these alternatives, Scripture itself prevents them from claiming that any non-BC position fits Scripture so naturally and well as BC. Notably, however, a metaphor-for-literal-but-ineffable-pre-Fall-reality theory is not criticized, but only presented as a “mediating” view open to persons who are persuaded that the Genesis creation days must (given biblical wording and context) be understood as normal-length days (164). (What exactly does a metaphor communicate if the literal reality it is alleged to describe is wholly beyond verbal description?) Also notably, K&R, like such past opponents of BC as Gleason Archer, do sometimes call the BC reading “cursory” or such (I believe Archer said “superficial”), even though their own chapters studying the various approaches show that BC has strong biblical justification on close, not just “cursory,” reading. Since this is not a “Genesis debate” book, and since chapters are not specifically assigned to one author or the other, this inconsistency of tone is troubling. Readers are informed early-on (23) that each author “leans to” a different position, but nowhere is it suggested that either author disagrees with what they have chosen jointly to assert in their 40Qs collaboration.
While K&R generally (“cursory reading” inconsistency aside) seem willing to grant the Scripture-alone case to BC, they also believe that scientific support for BC is scarce to nonexistent: they think that BC is and (one gets the impression) should embrace being a fideistic position that is simply untestable because it relies on miracles like the global Flood and an initially mature creation. Old Earth Creationism (OEC), on the other hand, has (they believe) very strong scientific support (even if various systems offered to go with OEC don’t seem true on biblical grounds alone). Evolutionary Creationism (EC), while it can claim the support of most of the scientific data that K&R believe supports OEC, has considerably weaker biblical justification than non-evolutionary OEC. In fact, K&R seem to think that progressive creationism (God created intermittently over long periods, with limited “evolutionary” development of creatures occurring during times when God wasn’t creating) fits better with the scientific data than does full-on evolutionism (whether that of EC or Darwinism, the latter of which K&R judge an ideology unsustainable on either scientific or philosophical grounds). On related matters: (1) though they admit BC’s belief in a global Flood has good biblical support, they consider the local Flood theory rational and acceptable on biblical grounds, and they are unpersuaded by the scientific (geological) case for the global Flood; (2) they endorse the idea that the Genesis genealogies contain gaps of unknown duration, ruling out strict chronology based on those genealogies.
Clearly, a good deal of research and thought has gone into 40Qs. As a result, it does contain much useful information. Its identification by name of advocates of various viewpoints, and its references to key texts and articles promoting those viewpoints, are two examples that may alone make the book a worthwhile purchase for some readers and for libraries. Researchers will find the lack of a subject and person indexes annoying, I think. (These indexes are lacking in my complimentary review copy, at least.) Nevertheless, persons desiring a comprehensive survey of currently debated issues might decide that 40Qs serves their purposes nicely. I can only give the book a mildly positive rating (three stars on the standard five-star scale), however, because (1) a fundamental aspect of its overall approach is deeply flawed; and (2) its treatment of BC, and of the Bible-believing presuppositionalism (BBP) that often goes with it, is unsatisfactory (as to BBP and BC generally, and in failing to address a longstanding BC concern with terminology). (My rating is also based upon other shortcomings in the book that do not appear in this abridged review. See the full review for details.)
The deeply flawed fundamental aspect of 40Qs is K&R’s attempt to frame the differences between advocates of BC, OEC, and EC as disagreements over “apologetic approach” only. These three viewpoints, which all adopt very different approaches to God’s infallible written Word, are included in a list of “apologetic approaches” along with Intelligent Design (ID), which takes no position at all on God’s Word (nor on whether nature’s designing intelligence is the God of the Bible). Disagreements about how God created, or about what Scripture means when it touches on the subject, K&R maintain, are disagreements about “apologetic approach,” apologetic strategy, only. If it is a variety of “creationism,” it is apologetic approach, not doctrine. Only the question of whether God created is a matter of doctrine, “the doctrine of creation”; everything else is just strategy (“approach”). To be more precise, the “doctrine of creation,” as K&R describe it, includes the following propositions: God created the world out of nothing; only God is eternal, meaning creation began in, and includes, time; God is distinct from creation; God did not create out of necessity; God did not have to create this particular world, but chose of his own free will to do so; God created a world that is consistent with his nature and character; God is sovereign over the world; God continues to be actively involved with the world, being not only its Creator but its Sustainer.
Even on the expanded “to be more precise” description of “the doctrine of creation,” however, the idea that “everything else is just strategy” is neither persuasive nor plausible. Everything that Scripture teaches, all that is directly stated or “by good and necessary consequence” may be inferred therefrom, is doctrine. When people disagree about what Scripture teaches or implies, as when people disagree about whether or not God really did create absolutely everything in the space of six days of the sort experienced in a normal week (Exodus 20:9-11), their disagreement is doctrinal. If two BC advocates disagree with one another about whether they should (1) do an internal critique of an opponent’s worldview, pointing out how it takes for granted presuppositions that actually don’t fit with it but are “borrowed” from the Bible-believing worldview, or (2) draw upon ID arguments to show how the presuppositions that opponent takes for granted make God’s existence impossible to deny rationally, that is a difference over apologetic strategy. If one Christian thinks the Bible must be humbly accepted in its most natural sense and the data of science interpreted in light of that sense (BC), while another thinks the data of science has a natural (objective, worldview-neutral) sense in terms of which an unclear Bible must be reinterpreted (OEC, EC), that is a difference over doctrine.
Even so, I appreciate K&R’s effort to show that Christians who fail to embrace BC do still agree with biblical creationists on the doctrine that God created. (All aspects of the “to be more precise” description of the doctrine noted above may be seen as implicit in the “God” part of the identifier “doctrine that God created,” since it is understood in context that the God of the Bible is in view, and the “to be more precise” points simply unpack what being the God of the Bible entails.) Where they disagree is on the doctrine of how God created. It is misleading to call either of these separate doctrines “the doctrine of creation,” but that is what K&R have chosen to do. Perhaps this is longstanding usage, but that doesn’t make it any less misleading. By adopting the usage they do, K&R bias their presentation in favor of those who, in complete disagreement with advocates of BC, claim the Bible doesn’t mean to say anything about how God created, only that he created. This biased and misleading framing of the issue makes 40Qs, for all its wealth of information and critical reflection, a deeply flawed book.
40Qs is also flawed in its consideration of BC and BBP. K&R observe that “most” BC advocates are presuppositionalists, often to a degree K&R think verges on, or passes wholly over into, the “blind faith” of fideism. They write: “The presuppositionalist believes that the validity of one’s presuppositions must eventually be tested by using the laws of logic and be demonstrated by a consistency with the evidential findings. Fideism, by contrast, does not believe one’s presuppositions can be tested” (20). Were presuppositionalist pioneer Cornelius Van Til and his star pupil, Greg Bahnsen, available for comment, I think they would find this description objectionable. By insisting that presuppositions must be tested for “consistency with the evidential findings,” K&R disallow any form of “presuppositionalism” that is more than evidentialism with some presuppositional analysis thrown in. As for testing “using the laws of logic,” the stance of Van Tilian presuppositionalists (the only “real” presuppositionalists were one to ask the late Dr. Bahnsen) is that the Christian worldview with its BBP is the only belief system with which trust in the laws of logic makes sense, the only system that can account for those laws. Calling them “laws” or suggesting they be used to “test” anything before one has adopted BBP is, on Van Tilian grounds, nonsense.
Okay, I just used some terms I should probably clarify. First, I spoke of “the Christian worldview with its BBP.” Van Tilians will typically just say, “the Christian worldview,” and leave it at that, though the growth in popularity of that term among non-Van Tilians inclines me to think “with its BBP” must be specified. Words like “worldview” and “presuppositions” are used very freely in discussion of these issues, so perhaps I should clarify them also. Sometimes it sounds like the two terms are meant as synonyms. A worldview, however, is a comprehensive belief system: it includes and owes its existence and content to some set of presuppositions (or, as some, though not usually Van Tilians, put it, an unproven and unprovable set of axioms), of which adherents of the worldview may have little conscious awareness (prior to careful and uncomfortable reflection), but it is not limited to those presuppositions. The correctness of presuppositions cannot be tested by any worldview-neutral (“objective”) criteria because, simply put, there are no such criteria. All criteria express and function within worldviews. K&R’s suggestion that presuppositions must be tested for compliance with “evidence,” thus, misses a fundamental point of BBP. Presuppositions can be tested, but not by “evidence”: they can be tested for whether or not they cohere with the worldviews of which they are a part. When a worldview and its presuppositions cannot be brought into coherence, either through modification of the presuppositions to fit the rest of the worldview, or through modification of the rest of the worldview to fit the presuppositions, the worldview fails. The faith of Christians who advocate BBP is that every non-BBP worldview, including “Christian” worldviews that reject BBP in favor of the presuppositions of secular empiricists, Thomistic philosophers, or others, will fail upon analysis, whereas the BBP worldview will not.
Another term that requires comment is “evidentialism.” This is the term Van Tilians have typically applied to the approaches of those who reject BBP. This simple terminology doesn’t always satisfy those to whom it is applied since they, thinking solely in terms of apologetics, know approaches among them vary, from “minimal facts” historical apologetics, to basically Thomistic “classical” apologetics, to properly “evidentialist” apologetics that John Locke might have embraced. For Van Tilian BBP advocates, however, broader questions of epistemology, of how one can rightly claim to know anything at all and how one should go about managing one’s beliefs in view of this, cannot be placed in a separate compartment from one’s apologetics. When one adopts BBP, one cannot separate “doctrine” and “apologetic approach” in the way K&R do: doctrine is all that Scripture, rightly understood, teaches, and this is foundational to and determinative of one’s apologetics.
To highlight just how different BBP is from the empiricist-leaning way of thinking that is the automatic, seldom-questioned, default cognitive strategy in our post-Enlightenment culture, one only need survey K&R’s frequent use of phrases like “evidence indicates,” “evidence points in the direction of,” and “scientific data shows” in contexts of naïve acceptance, with no hint of uncertainty that data and evidence really do “indicate” and “point.” Such statements reflect what Van Til identified as biblically-unsound belief in “brute factuality.” This belief posits a realm of neutral or objective “facts” or “data” that “speak for themselves”: “data” or “evidence” that “points” in some direction. Adherents of BBP reject the idea that God’s creation contains any such brute facts. Facts and interpretations can be distinguished and talked about separately, but facts are never free of interpretation. Every fact, or datum, or evidence anyone perceives or thinks about will inevitably be perceived or thought about in terms of some interpretation or other, in obedient submission to God, in rebellion against God, or (most commonly in the non-idealized real world) in an inconsistent mixture of submission and rebellion. In terms of BBP, the previously quoted phrases must be reworded if they are to be accurate: “evidence, as I select and interpret it in accord with my believing or unbelieving or inconsistent presuppositions, indicates”; “evidence, as I select and interpret it in accord with my...presuppositions, points in the direction of”; and “scientific data, as I select and interpret it in accord with my...presuppositions, shows.” To drive the implication of these statements home more clearly, they may be reworded as follows: “my presupposition-guided selection and interpretation of evidence indicates” or “...points in the direction of” or “...shows.”
For BBP adherents, then, essential to both biblically correct doctrinal beliefs and God-honoring apologetics is the bringing of one’s intellectual life, in particular one’s presuppositional framework and the comprehensive worldview growing out of it, into conformity with—into childlike, trusting submission to—God’s verbally-expressed and infallible revelation, the Bible. On this view, the Bible is the ultimate authority, so the lesser authority of interpreted natural evidence (“natural revelation”) must always be understood in light of the Bible. (More precisely, the Triune God speaking in Scripture is the ultimate authority. Since in Scripture alone God speaks clearly, verbally to his people, it is Scripture alone that effectively functions as Christians’ ultimate authority.) For BBP adherents, to force upon Scripture any interpretation not evident from Scripture itself as its original believing recipients could have been expected to understand it would be to set up something other than Scripture as the ultimate authority.
K&R’s treatment of BC also proves unsatisfactory by failing to acknowledge an issue of terminology that many BC advocates consider very important. Though they identify Answers in Genesis (AIG) as the leading BC organization (16), K&R neither adopt nor comment upon that organization’s rejection of the terms “macroevolution” and “microevolution,” and in fact later adopt those terms (without mention of BC objections) in their discussions of evolution and ID (Questions 32-40, 313-407). To see why AIG objects to these terms and how K&R show bias in both their adoption of and definition of them, please see the full review. Do the same to see additional shortcomings that have influenced my rating of the book.
In closing, since 40Qs is an academic rather than popular or devotional work, I can only fault it for its failure to be as impartial as is might have been, for failure to present the BC perspective as well as it might have done, and for other imperfections I’ve noted in the full review on the Pious Eye site. Purchasers will find it interesting reading with quite a bit of useful information. Provided they read it critically, the book might also serve as a decent (though maybe not the best) introduction to the creation/evolution topic for persons new to the topic or new to books espousing views on the topic other than their own.
June 29, 2021
Well written answers to challenging questions.
I think your opinion of this book could very easily be a reflection of your opinion on this topic and not necessarily the quality of the book as a whole. If like me, you find it difficult to entirely discount the general revelation of nature as interpreted by science, but also feel like you can't entirely discount the Bible (or even just "Design") as having something important to say, then this book is for you.
On the other hand if your "faith" is a bit more blind: a committed naturalist who feels not at all troubled by some of the problems that creates both in the record of the earth or the philosophical challenges; OR you are a committed Young Earth Creationist who simply ignores large swaths of science, then this book is probably not for you and you will be annoyed by a lot of the articles and conclusions. To put it more simply, you may not like the book if your mind is made up.
I think your opinion of this book could very easily be a reflection of your opinion on this topic and not necessarily the quality of the book as a whole. If like me, you find it difficult to entirely discount the general revelation of nature as interpreted by science, but also feel like you can't entirely discount the Bible (or even just "Design") as having something important to say, then this book is for you.
On the other hand if your "faith" is a bit more blind: a committed naturalist who feels not at all troubled by some of the problems that creates both in the record of the earth or the philosophical challenges; OR you are a committed Young Earth Creationist who simply ignores large swaths of science, then this book is probably not for you and you will be annoyed by a lot of the articles and conclusions. To put it more simply, you may not like the book if your mind is made up.
January 7, 2018
A very helpful book to understand the areas of discussion in regards to creation and evolution and the arguments for and against. Even the areas way above my expertise and understanding were given in an understandable way. I would highly recommend. Also has a ton of resources listed throughout to reference.
March 1, 2020
Immensely helpful.
July 10, 2023
Covers multiple views while giving the strengths and weaknesses of each. Allows reader to make an informed decision to dig deeper or not on each subject.
March 19, 2024
An excellent one volume intro to the main issues.
For a single volume geared at non-academics they did exceptionally well. I would perhaps say that my only critique is that there seem to be times when the chapter conclusions, leaning more often in favor of YEC, seem dismissive of the actual content within. As the authors did so much with one volume it is also a small thing, but important for those researching this issue, that there are a large number of exegetical points which are never represented (and some too quickly dismissed) which point to a lack of consensus on the length of days, the framework and temple views of Genesis 1, the extent of the fall, and the extent of the flood.
Perhaps the introduction and overall tone of the book are worth mentioning as they do generally remain irenic in tone for all views. I believe this book helps us remember that Christians can hold different views on this topic.
For a single volume geared at non-academics they did exceptionally well. I would perhaps say that my only critique is that there seem to be times when the chapter conclusions, leaning more often in favor of YEC, seem dismissive of the actual content within. As the authors did so much with one volume it is also a small thing, but important for those researching this issue, that there are a large number of exegetical points which are never represented (and some too quickly dismissed) which point to a lack of consensus on the length of days, the framework and temple views of Genesis 1, the extent of the fall, and the extent of the flood.
Perhaps the introduction and overall tone of the book are worth mentioning as they do generally remain irenic in tone for all views. I believe this book helps us remember that Christians can hold different views on this topic.
February 23, 2015
Book Blitz gets deeply theological.
When it comes to the debate about the origin of humanity or the origin of the universe, one has two basic options. You can start with a belief in a supernatural possible origin, or you can start without one. If you start with a belief that there is no possible supernatural origin, then that’s where your search ends. The universe is what it is, it happened how it happened, and we’re done here.
If you start with a belief in the possibility of the supernatural, then you have further ideas to examine. For example, one must determine which supernatural accounting should be considered. One must determine how the supernatural interacts with the scientifically observed and tested. These are the questions that feed into Kregel Academic’s 40 Questions about Creation and Evolution.
The first observation on this work is that the authors are theology and Old Testament professors. This demonstrates that the work is aimed at answering questions based in the Bible account of the origin of the universe and humanity. I think the work would benefit from adding an author whose expertise is science, but the authors have well-researched and cited scientific issues where appropriate.
The second observation is that this is not really a book about science at all. It is more appropriately considered a book about whether or not the Biblical account can be interpreted in various ways. Is the “day-age” theory tenable based on the text? What of “intelligent design”? How much is “Darwinism” science and how much is it religious/philosophical? These are the questions treated here.
The third observation is that in the times where this book treats with science, it does attempt to present even-handed evidences. For example, geological examples are presented that defy easy explanation in the typical young-earth viewpoint as well as those that support that viewpoint. Overall, the science conclusion appears to come back to an undecided viewpoint. The authors promote the idea that science cannot give a fully conclusive answer and that one must find it in examining the Biblical account.
Where does this fit into the typical reading program? It’s a pretty serious read. 400 pages of theology, Biblical Studies, and science. Fortunately, it does include footnotes :) but overall, you’re not going to read this for fun on the weekends. (Unless your nerd-level is as high as mine.) However, for those trying to wrestle with how Christian Scripture and the origin of the world work together, this is worth your time. It’s also worth it for anyone preparing an in-depth study on Genesis 1 and 2.
Free book in exchange for the review.
When it comes to the debate about the origin of humanity or the origin of the universe, one has two basic options. You can start with a belief in a supernatural possible origin, or you can start without one. If you start with a belief that there is no possible supernatural origin, then that’s where your search ends. The universe is what it is, it happened how it happened, and we’re done here.
If you start with a belief in the possibility of the supernatural, then you have further ideas to examine. For example, one must determine which supernatural accounting should be considered. One must determine how the supernatural interacts with the scientifically observed and tested. These are the questions that feed into Kregel Academic’s 40 Questions about Creation and Evolution.
The first observation on this work is that the authors are theology and Old Testament professors. This demonstrates that the work is aimed at answering questions based in the Bible account of the origin of the universe and humanity. I think the work would benefit from adding an author whose expertise is science, but the authors have well-researched and cited scientific issues where appropriate.
The second observation is that this is not really a book about science at all. It is more appropriately considered a book about whether or not the Biblical account can be interpreted in various ways. Is the “day-age” theory tenable based on the text? What of “intelligent design”? How much is “Darwinism” science and how much is it religious/philosophical? These are the questions treated here.
The third observation is that in the times where this book treats with science, it does attempt to present even-handed evidences. For example, geological examples are presented that defy easy explanation in the typical young-earth viewpoint as well as those that support that viewpoint. Overall, the science conclusion appears to come back to an undecided viewpoint. The authors promote the idea that science cannot give a fully conclusive answer and that one must find it in examining the Biblical account.
Where does this fit into the typical reading program? It’s a pretty serious read. 400 pages of theology, Biblical Studies, and science. Fortunately, it does include footnotes :) but overall, you’re not going to read this for fun on the weekends. (Unless your nerd-level is as high as mine.) However, for those trying to wrestle with how Christian Scripture and the origin of the world work together, this is worth your time. It’s also worth it for anyone preparing an in-depth study on Genesis 1 and 2.
Free book in exchange for the review.
March 20, 2015
Sadly this book was not what I thought it would be, I was expecting an exclusive defense of a literal 24 hour day week of creation; but that is my own fault, if I had looked at the back cover more closely I would have seen that the book is not claiming to defend only one view of creation. There are four views presented, two are defended, those being the literal-24 hour day view and the Day-Age theory. In the very first chapter/question the suggestion is made that 'young-earth creationists' come "perilously" close to 'blind faith', but as I understand it, old earth creationists believe(as do YECs) that God ultimately created out of nothing, so why is taking God at His Word in the case of Creation out of nothing less 'blind faith' than believing that God created out of nothing in six literal days? Why is one more plausible than the other or less hard to believe? Aren't both ultimately above our reason? J. I. Packer is quoted in the book, "To say that he(God) created 'out of nothing' is to confess the mystery, not explain it." Only, in the case of the six day creation we are given an explanation as to how much time God chose to use to create…six days! So we actually have more information about the timing of Creation than we do about Creation out of nothing. So, I ask which view is, to use their term(which I don't even like), more of a 'blind faith'?
As you probably know by now, the universal flood is also defended and critiqued(though the global flood seems to be presented as the more biblical view) . I don't get the local flood view…wouldn't Noah and the animals just move to an area that wasn't going to be flooded instead of building an ark? They'd have plenty of time to do that…120 years! Or maybe a year doesn't mean a year…maybe it means an hour(I'm being sarcastic here)?
Overall, despite the authors being anti-Darwinian, and pro God created out of nothing, the book is just too inconclusive in dealing with the specifics presented in the Bible about the Creation. It just doesn't strike me as being a very edifying book for Christians.
Many thanks to Kregel Academic for sending me a free copy of this book to review!
As you probably know by now, the universal flood is also defended and critiqued(though the global flood seems to be presented as the more biblical view) . I don't get the local flood view…wouldn't Noah and the animals just move to an area that wasn't going to be flooded instead of building an ark? They'd have plenty of time to do that…120 years! Or maybe a year doesn't mean a year…maybe it means an hour(I'm being sarcastic here)?
Overall, despite the authors being anti-Darwinian, and pro God created out of nothing, the book is just too inconclusive in dealing with the specifics presented in the Bible about the Creation. It just doesn't strike me as being a very edifying book for Christians.
Many thanks to Kregel Academic for sending me a free copy of this book to review!
June 19, 2015
The 40 questions are about the doctrine of creation, Genesis 1-2, the days of creation, the age of the earth, the Fall and the flood, and evolution and intelligent design. For each of them, the authors present the case for and against each position, followed by a conclusion.
Regarding the days of creation, they devote a chapter each to the pros and cons of the Gap Theory, the Day-Age Theory, the Framework Theory, the Temple Inauguration Theory, John Sailhamer’s Historical Creation Theory, and the Twenty-Four Hour Theory. They then conclude by proposing a mediating position, suggesting that the word “day” not be understood in its normal way, that the six days of creation are not the same as human days, an approach that others have called the Analogical Day Theory.
In their discussion of the age of the earth, they pretty much refute all of the Young Earth Creationist lines of evidence and have good brief discussions of the numerous scientific evidences that the earth is old.
Their chapter on the geological evidence of the extent of Noah’s flood is a particularly good read. The two sides are represented by Davis Young and Ralph Stearley’s book “The Bible, Rocks and Time” (local flood) and Andrew Snelling’s “ “Earth’s Catastrophic Past” (global flood). They suggest that reading these two books side by side “is a surreal experience . . . that can give a person cognitive whiplash.” (p. 295)
In their discussion of Darwinism, they pretty much fail to distinguish between the scientific Darwinism, Darwinism as a belief system, and biological evolution, but their discussion of five current objections to Darwinism is very well done.
Despite its occasional shortcomings, I thought that the book was a surprisingly well-balanced discussion of the issues, considering that both authors are professors at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Regardless of whether one agrees with the authors’ viewpoints (old earth and local flood likely, historical Adam and Fall necessary, Darwinian evolution is an incomplete explanation), this book is worth reading for the wide scope of issues and views summarized and referenced.
Regarding the days of creation, they devote a chapter each to the pros and cons of the Gap Theory, the Day-Age Theory, the Framework Theory, the Temple Inauguration Theory, John Sailhamer’s Historical Creation Theory, and the Twenty-Four Hour Theory. They then conclude by proposing a mediating position, suggesting that the word “day” not be understood in its normal way, that the six days of creation are not the same as human days, an approach that others have called the Analogical Day Theory.
In their discussion of the age of the earth, they pretty much refute all of the Young Earth Creationist lines of evidence and have good brief discussions of the numerous scientific evidences that the earth is old.
Their chapter on the geological evidence of the extent of Noah’s flood is a particularly good read. The two sides are represented by Davis Young and Ralph Stearley’s book “The Bible, Rocks and Time” (local flood) and Andrew Snelling’s “ “Earth’s Catastrophic Past” (global flood). They suggest that reading these two books side by side “is a surreal experience . . . that can give a person cognitive whiplash.” (p. 295)
In their discussion of Darwinism, they pretty much fail to distinguish between the scientific Darwinism, Darwinism as a belief system, and biological evolution, but their discussion of five current objections to Darwinism is very well done.
Despite its occasional shortcomings, I thought that the book was a surprisingly well-balanced discussion of the issues, considering that both authors are professors at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Regardless of whether one agrees with the authors’ viewpoints (old earth and local flood likely, historical Adam and Fall necessary, Darwinian evolution is an incomplete explanation), this book is worth reading for the wide scope of issues and views summarized and referenced.
May 27, 2015
My church studied the book of Genesis last year. Knowing the controversies involved in the book of Genesis, I armed myself with books that I would read to keep myself updated with the issues raised in Genesis. But if I only have one book to recommend about the issue of creation, I would certainly recommend this book.
Ever since Darwin, evolution and creation has been debating about how man and the world has come about. And since then Genesis 1 and 2 has been re-interpreted several times over. Crucially the questions about creation lies in the way we understand Genesis 1 & 2. While I appreciate the amount of scholarship done in this area. I must say the scope of it has been rather staggering. There are at least 6 views to the days of creations, 3 views to the age of the earth, 2 views on Noah’s flood.
For one to be able to be thoroughly acquainted with all the nuances would mean one would have literally read through stacks of books. But now, this pertinent issue can be resolved by reading this book. Within this book, authors Mark F. Rooker and Kenneth K. Keathley presents all views as fairly as they can, and examine each of them against what the bible has to say. They raised the strengths and weaknesses of each view. Given the complexity of this topic, both authors also urge readers not to make quick judgement or be too dogmatic about their views.
While this book will not be a walk in the park, I have found this book to be very edifying in helping me understanding the different views and issues within Genesis 1 and 2. For another who intends to dive into the issue of creation vs evolution, the age of the earth, the days of creations or just wants to be familiar with the arguments within the book of Genesis, I would recommend them to turn to this book first. This will be an excellent introduction for anyone working on these topics.
Rating: 4.75 / 5
Disclaimer: I was given this book free from the publisher in exchange for an honest review
Ever since Darwin, evolution and creation has been debating about how man and the world has come about. And since then Genesis 1 and 2 has been re-interpreted several times over. Crucially the questions about creation lies in the way we understand Genesis 1 & 2. While I appreciate the amount of scholarship done in this area. I must say the scope of it has been rather staggering. There are at least 6 views to the days of creations, 3 views to the age of the earth, 2 views on Noah’s flood.
For one to be able to be thoroughly acquainted with all the nuances would mean one would have literally read through stacks of books. But now, this pertinent issue can be resolved by reading this book. Within this book, authors Mark F. Rooker and Kenneth K. Keathley presents all views as fairly as they can, and examine each of them against what the bible has to say. They raised the strengths and weaknesses of each view. Given the complexity of this topic, both authors also urge readers not to make quick judgement or be too dogmatic about their views.
While this book will not be a walk in the park, I have found this book to be very edifying in helping me understanding the different views and issues within Genesis 1 and 2. For another who intends to dive into the issue of creation vs evolution, the age of the earth, the days of creations or just wants to be familiar with the arguments within the book of Genesis, I would recommend them to turn to this book first. This will be an excellent introduction for anyone working on these topics.
Rating: 4.75 / 5
Disclaimer: I was given this book free from the publisher in exchange for an honest review
February 20, 2016
Interesting, broad overview from a theological perspective. The authors mostly get right the areas I know something about (physics/astrophysics), which is encouraging and gives me some among of confidence in the science I know much less about.
November 27, 2014
Excellent! Even-handed. Honest. This book does not attempt to bias anything. It merely presents facts, theories, reasons, and possibilities. Great book!!!
April 6, 2017
A very informative read. Keathley and Rooker are evangelicals writing to evangelicals. Both are theologians. As the title indicates, they address 40 questions pertaining to creation and evolution. Each question gets about 9 or 10 pages in which the authors provide an overview of the various views on the question, chiefly those views held by men and women who make a credible confession as Christians. They then offer a few concluding remarks on the question before proceeding to the next one. Each chapter also comes with a handful of review questions at the end. They note that among Christians there are primarily four approaches, 1) Young earth creationists, 2) Old earth creationists, 3) Evolutionary theists, and 4) Intelligent Design proponents. It's a bit of a puzzle to me why they include the latter as a class by itself, since they acknowledge that ID includes adherents of the three other groups.
The authors do a good job of trying to be evenhanded, and dealing with the various positions with respect and fairness, even when they appear to disagree with a view being discussed (which is more obvious at some points than at others). One of the authors (Keathley) claims to "lean" toward the old earth position, while the other (Rooker) "leans" towards the young earth position. It is curious, however, that though one of the authors favors the young earth position, the evidence marshaled and discussed in the book much more strongly favors the old earth position. Frustratingly, the authors do not provide an overall summary at the end, or explain why they "lean" to the position they do.
Though the authors are theologians, they obviously are well informed as to the status of modern science in a wide range of areas. They have clearly done their homework. The 40 questions they address are cataloged into six groupings: 1) Doctrine of Creation, 2) Creation and Genesis 1 and 2, 3) Days of creation, 4) Age of the earth, 5) The Fall and the flood, and 6) Evolution and Intelligent Design. They write in an understandable and accessible manner. Each chapter of the 40 is adequate without being either over-simplified or trite.
This book will serve well as a reference tool for someone wanting a handy, informative, balanced explanation of the primary questions at issue for Christians confronting the challenge of how their faith interfaces with modern science. Most readers probably won't agree with everything, especially those with a "my way or the highway" frame of mind. But even if the authors don't change the reader's mind on some issue, at least they've taught us how to dialogue respectfully and lovingly with those who hold views different from our own and yet who obviously want to love God and be faithful to His revelation.
The authors do a good job of trying to be evenhanded, and dealing with the various positions with respect and fairness, even when they appear to disagree with a view being discussed (which is more obvious at some points than at others). One of the authors (Keathley) claims to "lean" toward the old earth position, while the other (Rooker) "leans" towards the young earth position. It is curious, however, that though one of the authors favors the young earth position, the evidence marshaled and discussed in the book much more strongly favors the old earth position. Frustratingly, the authors do not provide an overall summary at the end, or explain why they "lean" to the position they do.
Though the authors are theologians, they obviously are well informed as to the status of modern science in a wide range of areas. They have clearly done their homework. The 40 questions they address are cataloged into six groupings: 1) Doctrine of Creation, 2) Creation and Genesis 1 and 2, 3) Days of creation, 4) Age of the earth, 5) The Fall and the flood, and 6) Evolution and Intelligent Design. They write in an understandable and accessible manner. Each chapter of the 40 is adequate without being either over-simplified or trite.
This book will serve well as a reference tool for someone wanting a handy, informative, balanced explanation of the primary questions at issue for Christians confronting the challenge of how their faith interfaces with modern science. Most readers probably won't agree with everything, especially those with a "my way or the highway" frame of mind. But even if the authors don't change the reader's mind on some issue, at least they've taught us how to dialogue respectfully and lovingly with those who hold views different from our own and yet who obviously want to love God and be faithful to His revelation.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews