What do you think?
Rate this book
Creation Unfolding: A New Perspective on Ex Nihilo
Over the last 100 years, scientists in various fields have persuasively argued that the Earth was formed by evolutionary processes operating over long periods of time. How is a Christian to reconcile these ideas with the Genesis creation account? Doesn’t the Bible teach that God spoke the Earth into existence fully formed just 6,000 years ago? Dr. Ken Coulson answers these questions by affirming the legitimacy of large-scale natural processes without denying a young-age view. This book will enable the Christian to authentically and passionately portray science in a positive light, while at the same time easing some of the tension that currently exists between modern science and a faithful interpretation of Genesis 1.Endorsements“This book helps those of us who long to take our faith seriously grasp a creationist model that is thoroughly equipped to deal with the available scientific evidence. The church has long needed such a tool.”Dr. Craig Lloyd, pastor of Grace Bible Church, Brisbane, Australia.“This book provides a much-needed reanalysis of creationism, creation apologetics, and a Christian philosophy of science. Readers will find their thinking challenged in a thoroughly Biblical way.” Dr. Matt McLain, Assistant Professor of Biology and Geology, The Master's University, California.
166 pages, Kindle Edition
Published February 14, 2020
74 people are currently reading
45 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 - 5 of 5 reviews
March 28, 2020
Dr. Ken Coulson is a friend and colleague of mine, so it is a special privilege to review his book. This book provides a new perspective on the Old Earth vs Young earth debate among Christian scientists and theologians. The back-cover claims that Dr. Coulson affirms the legitimacy of large scale natural processes without denying the young-age view. When I first read this, it sounded like it was saying Dr. Coulson was going to affirm the evidence for an old earth while affirming a young earth. My understanding was not far off, for this is, in essence, what he does. I was quite skeptical about whether this could really be done coherently. After reading the book, I believe that, against all odds, he does provide a coherent framework, but his conclusions and methodology leave me with many questions.
Science is the work of specialization, and, as Dr. Coulson observes within the book, every specialist relies on other specialists in most areas. Then there are those of us who are not scientific specialists of any kind. For the non-specialist, this book presents data in an understandable way. The difficulty comes when a non-specialist tries to filter counter-claims from different scientists who are saying very different things. I mention this because I want to admit at the outset of this review that I am not a scientist, and thus not the best judge of the relative rightness or wrongness of the scientific arguments. As to the science, I can say that the concepts are explained with clarity and well documented. But of course, this is a book about methodology. It is about methodology that I will primarily present my response.
First, Dr Coulson criticizes the sloppy apologetical methodology of many creation scientists and would be scientists. Creation apologetics, particularly online, is often the domain of people with no science degrees or real science background providing poor critiques of theories they do not really understand. Amongst the more scientifically qualified creationist apologists, they often use “silver bullet” arguments to “disprove” old earth theories without providing young earth explanations in their place. With these criticisms, I wholeheartedly agree.
As a six-day creationist, Dr. Coulson strongly defends the idea that the creation narratives should be understood literally, but he suggests that we should think of the creation in terms of hyper accelerated processes. Contrary to most young earth geologists, he argues that an old earth understanding of geological processes is essentially correct, and that this does present real evidence of an old earth. From a faith perspective, he argues that we must maintain that the biblical description is true. To balance this tension, he suggests that the same processes of geologic formation that we presently see were at work in the creation week were at work in the creation week, but things were happening a lot faster at that time.
Dr. Coulson suggests usual evidences presented against the old earth understanding of geological processes should not be given too much weight, because they are “anomalies” to the weight of geologic evidence. He points out that the use of these anomalies is not sound science, but it attempts to refute standard geological views without providing a comprehensive alternate understanding. Thus, they are “silver bullet” arguments.
For myself, I truly hope that this book will come to the attention of some of the well-known young earth geologists such as Humphries, Snelling or DeYoung. Dr. Coulson makes a compelling case, but it would be interesting to hear these men’s responses. As a non-specialist, it is difficult for me to filter the claims of this book fully. It is decidedly different from what one usually hears from young earth geology, but the firm commitment to literal interpretation of Genesis 1 makes it so that nothing is (or need be, at least) threatening to a biblical conservative.
Dr. Coulson is attempting to create a framework where creation scientists can do geologic research, using mainstream methods, while still adhering to a literal reading of the Genesis text. I think that he does provide such a framework. Therefore, if his science is indeed correct, then I think this book could be the beginning of a new era of creation research. My only critiques of the book are the following.
1. Dr. Coulson’s framework seems like a reworking of the catastrophic vs. uniformitarian debate in origins discussions. Creationists have always said that uniformitarian assumptions are the problem with mainstream geological research. Cr. Coulson seems to be saying the same thing. We would not consider the creation week processes a “catastrophe” exactly, but I think connecting his arguments with uniformitarian critiques would have provided more common ground with other young earth geologists, and thus might have provided a sort of “olive branch.”
2. I see a mild logical fallacy in the critique of some of the “silver bullet” arguments. Examples of these arguments are the presence of polonium halos in granite, the magnetic decay rate of the earth, and the rate of the moon’s recession. Dr. Coulson is quick to dismiss these issues as “anomalies” and seems to suggest that it is sloppy science to dismiss the weight of evidence for standard views of geologic processes. This is because those who use these silver bullets do not provide a comprehensive refutation for the mainstream views. The logical fallacy, as I see it, is the notion that one cannot prove something to be wrong without proving something else to be right. An illustration might help. Aristotle argued that heavier objects would fall faster than lighter ones. Galileo disproved this theory by dropping items of various weights and noting that they fell at the same speed. This experiment could disprove Aristotle’s theory to any child. One would not need to present a comprehensive understanding of gravity to say Aristotle was wrong. It is possible to prove (or at least provide strong evidence) that one theory is wrong, without presenting a comprehensive alternative. Of course, as Dr. Coulson observes, these anomalies have theoretical explanations. But without clearer evidence that these explanations are correct, I think the geologists should be more open to the possibility that the mainstream understanding of geologic processes might be missing something. Especially when we consider that old earth geology rests on uniformitarian assumptions, but when these anomalies are addressed, the uniformitarian assumptions are thrown right out the window. This seems like saying “things are working now the way they always have, except when that assumption works against us.”
3. Finally, Dr. Coulson seems overly hard on young earth geologists for using silver bullet arguments without providing comprehensive alternatives, when, as he admits, young earth geologists have virtually no funding for research. With such an uneven playing field, it hardly seems surprising that young earth geologists focus more on the arguments against an old earth than they do the research vindicating a young earth.
None of these critiques provide evidence that any of Dr. Coulson’s points are wrong. But these are what I see as the weak points in his argumentation, and the issues that merit a lot more discussion.
Overall, I believe this is a fantastic and informative book. I genuinely hope it will stimulate healthy discussions that will help to refine and improve the methods of scientists who are committed to the Bible as the Word of God.
Science is the work of specialization, and, as Dr. Coulson observes within the book, every specialist relies on other specialists in most areas. Then there are those of us who are not scientific specialists of any kind. For the non-specialist, this book presents data in an understandable way. The difficulty comes when a non-specialist tries to filter counter-claims from different scientists who are saying very different things. I mention this because I want to admit at the outset of this review that I am not a scientist, and thus not the best judge of the relative rightness or wrongness of the scientific arguments. As to the science, I can say that the concepts are explained with clarity and well documented. But of course, this is a book about methodology. It is about methodology that I will primarily present my response.
First, Dr Coulson criticizes the sloppy apologetical methodology of many creation scientists and would be scientists. Creation apologetics, particularly online, is often the domain of people with no science degrees or real science background providing poor critiques of theories they do not really understand. Amongst the more scientifically qualified creationist apologists, they often use “silver bullet” arguments to “disprove” old earth theories without providing young earth explanations in their place. With these criticisms, I wholeheartedly agree.
As a six-day creationist, Dr. Coulson strongly defends the idea that the creation narratives should be understood literally, but he suggests that we should think of the creation in terms of hyper accelerated processes. Contrary to most young earth geologists, he argues that an old earth understanding of geological processes is essentially correct, and that this does present real evidence of an old earth. From a faith perspective, he argues that we must maintain that the biblical description is true. To balance this tension, he suggests that the same processes of geologic formation that we presently see were at work in the creation week were at work in the creation week, but things were happening a lot faster at that time.
Dr. Coulson suggests usual evidences presented against the old earth understanding of geological processes should not be given too much weight, because they are “anomalies” to the weight of geologic evidence. He points out that the use of these anomalies is not sound science, but it attempts to refute standard geological views without providing a comprehensive alternate understanding. Thus, they are “silver bullet” arguments.
For myself, I truly hope that this book will come to the attention of some of the well-known young earth geologists such as Humphries, Snelling or DeYoung. Dr. Coulson makes a compelling case, but it would be interesting to hear these men’s responses. As a non-specialist, it is difficult for me to filter the claims of this book fully. It is decidedly different from what one usually hears from young earth geology, but the firm commitment to literal interpretation of Genesis 1 makes it so that nothing is (or need be, at least) threatening to a biblical conservative.
Dr. Coulson is attempting to create a framework where creation scientists can do geologic research, using mainstream methods, while still adhering to a literal reading of the Genesis text. I think that he does provide such a framework. Therefore, if his science is indeed correct, then I think this book could be the beginning of a new era of creation research. My only critiques of the book are the following.
1. Dr. Coulson’s framework seems like a reworking of the catastrophic vs. uniformitarian debate in origins discussions. Creationists have always said that uniformitarian assumptions are the problem with mainstream geological research. Cr. Coulson seems to be saying the same thing. We would not consider the creation week processes a “catastrophe” exactly, but I think connecting his arguments with uniformitarian critiques would have provided more common ground with other young earth geologists, and thus might have provided a sort of “olive branch.”
2. I see a mild logical fallacy in the critique of some of the “silver bullet” arguments. Examples of these arguments are the presence of polonium halos in granite, the magnetic decay rate of the earth, and the rate of the moon’s recession. Dr. Coulson is quick to dismiss these issues as “anomalies” and seems to suggest that it is sloppy science to dismiss the weight of evidence for standard views of geologic processes. This is because those who use these silver bullets do not provide a comprehensive refutation for the mainstream views. The logical fallacy, as I see it, is the notion that one cannot prove something to be wrong without proving something else to be right. An illustration might help. Aristotle argued that heavier objects would fall faster than lighter ones. Galileo disproved this theory by dropping items of various weights and noting that they fell at the same speed. This experiment could disprove Aristotle’s theory to any child. One would not need to present a comprehensive understanding of gravity to say Aristotle was wrong. It is possible to prove (or at least provide strong evidence) that one theory is wrong, without presenting a comprehensive alternative. Of course, as Dr. Coulson observes, these anomalies have theoretical explanations. But without clearer evidence that these explanations are correct, I think the geologists should be more open to the possibility that the mainstream understanding of geologic processes might be missing something. Especially when we consider that old earth geology rests on uniformitarian assumptions, but when these anomalies are addressed, the uniformitarian assumptions are thrown right out the window. This seems like saying “things are working now the way they always have, except when that assumption works against us.”
3. Finally, Dr. Coulson seems overly hard on young earth geologists for using silver bullet arguments without providing comprehensive alternatives, when, as he admits, young earth geologists have virtually no funding for research. With such an uneven playing field, it hardly seems surprising that young earth geologists focus more on the arguments against an old earth than they do the research vindicating a young earth.
None of these critiques provide evidence that any of Dr. Coulson’s points are wrong. But these are what I see as the weak points in his argumentation, and the issues that merit a lot more discussion.
Overall, I believe this is a fantastic and informative book. I genuinely hope it will stimulate healthy discussions that will help to refine and improve the methods of scientists who are committed to the Bible as the Word of God.
June 28, 2020
Whether you believe the Earth is over 4 billion years old or about 10,000 years old, this author will make you think. You may or may not change your mind, but you will ponder what you have read.
Editing oversights found in Kindle text:
Page 27, who had lived a couple decades / who had lived a couple OF decades ; 34, an enzyme that speeds-up cell metabolism / an enzyme that SPEEDS UP cell metabolism (omit hyphen) ; 52, while slow-growing plants ... sprung up earlier in the Day / while slow-growing plants ... SPRANG up
earlier in the Day ; 92, a conceptual Bing Bang cosmology / a conceptual BIG Bang cosmology ;
Page 109, and do good, predicative science / and do good, PREDICTIVE science ; 131, As Brand poured over many slabs / As Brand PORED over many slabs ; 131, Another similar passage that it is often likewise referenced / Another similar passage THAT IS often likewise referenced (omit "it") ;
152, from a University of California, Berkley, Museum / from a University of California, BERKELEY, Museum ;
Page 153, Multiple cultures, including the Greeks and Romans clearly held / Multiple cultures, including the Greeks and ROMANS, clearly held ; 173, Saturn's rings: a solar system that is a least 10 million years old / Saturn's rings: a solar system that is AT least 10 million years old .
Editing oversights found in Kindle text:
Page 27, who had lived a couple decades / who had lived a couple OF decades ; 34, an enzyme that speeds-up cell metabolism / an enzyme that SPEEDS UP cell metabolism (omit hyphen) ; 52, while slow-growing plants ... sprung up earlier in the Day / while slow-growing plants ... SPRANG up
earlier in the Day ; 92, a conceptual Bing Bang cosmology / a conceptual BIG Bang cosmology ;
Page 109, and do good, predicative science / and do good, PREDICTIVE science ; 131, As Brand poured over many slabs / As Brand PORED over many slabs ; 131, Another similar passage that it is often likewise referenced / Another similar passage THAT IS often likewise referenced (omit "it") ;
152, from a University of California, Berkley, Museum / from a University of California, BERKELEY, Museum ;
Page 153, Multiple cultures, including the Greeks and Romans clearly held / Multiple cultures, including the Greeks and ROMANS, clearly held ; 173, Saturn's rings: a solar system that is a least 10 million years old / Saturn's rings: a solar system that is AT least 10 million years old .
April 28, 2023
Coulson's take on the Mature Creation hypothesis is one of the best treatments. Instead of defending a mere "appearance of age" hypothesis - which seems to make God a creator of false histories - Coulson proposes a Supernatural Formation Process. That is, the same processes visible and occurring today took place in miraculously accelerated form during the creation week. In that way, the creation is simultaneously young and yet contains an actual history, which if extrapolated in uniformitarian terms, would give you vast ages. For accounting for geological processes, I think Coulson's argument may be the best Young Earth hypothesis.
When it comes to extra-terrestrial phenomena, Coulson posits something less attractive: a hypothetical universe, whose history existed in the mind of God and was then created with that mentally imagined history. Here I felt the argument lose its coherence. I was expecting a form of the same Supernatural Formation Process, but he went in a different direction, and it seems like the old appearance of age argument. Here I think Faulkner's dash theory is much more coherent.
When it comes to extra-terrestrial phenomena, Coulson posits something less attractive: a hypothetical universe, whose history existed in the mind of God and was then created with that mentally imagined history. Here I felt the argument lose its coherence. I was expecting a form of the same Supernatural Formation Process, but he went in a different direction, and it seems like the old appearance of age argument. Here I think Faulkner's dash theory is much more coherent.
January 5, 2021
Reasonably Thought Provoking
I appreciate the cross references and summary explanations of the science. I think it would be much better if written more succinctly, ie, half the length.
I appreciate the cross references and summary explanations of the science. I think it would be much better if written more succinctly, ie, half the length.
July 5, 2020
The author has obviously put a lot of time and thought into this one. He means well, but he's asking the Bible to be something it's never promised to be. It's not a science book, it's a book that tells us who God is and how we relate to him.
Many of the examples/proofs given in the book simply do not add up. No, polonium halos are not miraculous or magical. More importantly, Robert Gentry did not do his homework. His hypothesis about their origin has been refuted time and again.
This book will not do your faith any favors. If you're interested in a scientist's view of Scripture, I'd recommend Francis Collins' "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief."
Many of the examples/proofs given in the book simply do not add up. No, polonium halos are not miraculous or magical. More importantly, Robert Gentry did not do his homework. His hypothesis about their origin has been refuted time and again.
This book will not do your faith any favors. If you're interested in a scientist's view of Scripture, I'd recommend Francis Collins' "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief."
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews