Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)

Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design,J. B. Stump, EditorContributors and the organizations that they lead: Ken Ham on Young Earth. YE. Answers in GenesisHugh Ross. Old Earth (Progressive) Creationism. OE. Reasons to BelieveDeborah Haarsma. Evolutionary Creationism. EC. BioLogosStephen Meyer. Intelligent Design. ID. The Discovery InstituteThe editor’s intent with this book is to provide a snapshot of contemporary evangelical thoughts about origins. It succeeded. He was hopeful that it would lead to greater civility in debate, but at least these capable communicators were willing to appear together in print. I would not term their dialogues as heated. Hopefully their discussion here will be a step toward an evangelical consensus on origins.My reading on this important topic stopped decades ago. I have a lot to learn, and I am glad to have spent hours trying to understand these pages. I feel somewhat unsettled about the questions, but at least I have more understanding than before I delved into this book.This is one in a series from Zondervan Publishing called the Counterpoints Series. There are at least 38 books in the series that deal with Theology and Bible.These writers are intelligent, genuine in their faith, well-read, gracious, good communicators, and seemingly honest. They seem committed to evangelism, and they claim to be committed to the Bible as God’s authoritative Word. They are leaders of their respective organizations, so we cannot expect them to give much ground in the debates.Here are brief thoughts about these writers’ views on matters related to the origins controversy.Bible Genesis 1. Authority of Bible. Inerrancy. Interpretation.The four authors and the editor all claim to be evangelical Christians. I see no reason to doubt them. The main issues they face in the origins controversies are the authority and interpretation of the Bible, specifically Genesis 1 and the Genesis Flood account. All said that they hold to the authority of Scripture. However, Meyer said that it was irrelevant to the Intelligent Design (ID) movement so they take no official stand, even though Meyer personally does hold to the authority of Scripture.Ham and the Young Earth movement are certainly most literal in interpreting Genesis. They give strong reasons for their positions which thoughtful believers cannot ignore. Ross and some Old Earth folks hold to a day age theory that identifies the days of creation as ages of indeterminate length, so they have a scheme that makes the earth old but with God acting supernaturally at the beginning of each age and on throughout it. They give thoughtful reasons for interpreting Genesis the way they do. They localize the Flood and seem to minimize its catastrophic impact. Meanwhile, Haarsma and the evolutionary creationists (EC) interpret the Genesis account as a strictly allegorical approach to teach that the Almighty did it all no matter how He did it. It seemed to me that EC ignored the Flood. I am not sure whether Noah was real to them. But Meyer and the intelligent design people avoid the matter because their only interest is in showing that intelligence and design are behind the development of the world as we know it. The Biblical account is not necessary for that endeavor. Ross of OE wondered out loud about Haarsma’s commitment to inerrancy.The Flood.Only the young earth position really takes it seriously, especially its geological and catastrophic impact. Ross and old earth clearly consider it a local event. Evolutionary creation seems to ignore it, as of course does intelligent design.Age of Earth.The other writers took turns dissing Ham’s young earth arguments from science, although I did not necessarily find them so convincing. Let’s face it, the positions are a LONG time apart.Evolution.In the book’s discussions, the problems with evolution in general--the lack of credible mechanisms for it to occur, the problematic fossil record, and genetic impossibilities--plagued both old earth and evolutionary creation positions and especially the latter. OE at least tried to answer fossil record problems. Young earth and intelligent design came out looking pretty good in challenging evolution and common ancestry, and old earth challenges it from the beginning.Creator’s involvement. Supernatural.Evolutionary creation basically says that whatever the science throws at us, we can just thank the Lord that that is what HE used to make what we have today. Rather than questioning the current dominant scientific culture in any way, EC seems to just adopt it, defend it, and say that is the Lord’s doing. It is not deism, but it is hard to distinguish. Genesis and other Bible passages become irrelevant except in the broadest of terms. The other viewpoints have God much more directly involved, especially YE. Perhaps that is a reason that it appeals to me.Civil debate.Ham and company are total contrarians. So they get a little abrasive and confrontational. He clearly questioned the others’ commitment to the authority of Scripture. They retorted that it was not Scripture but his interpretation of it that they did not submit to. He was the only one that did not state his hope that this civil debate would result in greater understanding and consensus. He calls the others back to the historical Christian faith.Science.Lacking adequate funding, creationists must mostly rely on studies published in regular scientific journals, books, etc., and many of those studies may have naturalistic biases. So one gets the feeling that perhaps creationists are forcing evidence from the studies.Nonetheless, these authors demonstrate their understanding of current dialogues in publications. As a layman, it was beyond me. Editor Stump reflected on the need to depend on experts, but we must remain humble, subjecting our views to criticism, demonstrating integrity. Haarsma put in this way on Page 175: “”For any of these scientific disagreements, the lay reader is put in the challenging place of judging between two expert authors who each assert that the other is wrong. It may come down to which voices a reader trusts; I encourage lay people to read more to help them decide.”The bias in the scientific establishment has been documented. Unfortunately, the fish don’t know what lake they are in. This book helps clarifying it. Haarsma and evolutionary creationism co-opt the science of naturalism and say that God is using it to accomplish His creative designs. That may be OK unless the bias against non-material causes rules out what may be THE cause of an effect. Wrong lake! Meyer did an admirable job of making this point.The discussion on radiometric dating was insufficient, so I will have to look elsewhere for more debate on this matter. Meyer made strong points about genetic evidence for design and not natural selection. Ross did the same with fossil evidence, especially discontinuities. I think that Haarsma’s use of the whale example flopped around on the beach.Theology.YE scored best here. Doctrines of sin, original sin, and consequent curse and death are easier to grasp with a very literal Adam, etc. Having a single head of the original race also parallels with Christ as our “second Adam”. Old earth allows more for this, but it wants Adam WAY back there, like up to 200,000 years! Ross said, “Personally, I see defense of a literal Adam and Eve… as crucial to the defense of biblical inspiration and inerrancy.” Page 166. He also made a strong case that all of God’s long work in creation was to bring us to this moment in the eons of time when He would call out a people to Himself, redeeming them and fulfilling His purpose through humanity and its Head, the Lord Jesus. So he scored well on the telos (purpose) argument, very important to Christian theology. Haarsma tried hard to clarify how the sovereign God can use random, undirected processes to accomplish His will. Page 175. Naturalism assumes no divine activity in the natural order, so creationists must be careful about getting in bed with them.Evangelism.All are evangelicals, so we would expect them to have evangelism as a priority. They do, but their assumptions about it, especially in regard to evangelizing the scientific community, vary. Ham and the young earth advocates want Genesis and the Bible as a strong part of their ministry because that is where the power is. Page 210. Ross and old earth people are soft sell, and Haarsma and company even more so. Intelligent design runs from it officially, although Meyer practices it on a personal level.So what would evangelical consensus look like? Evangelical consensus may not look so much like one of these positions, but rather like a more general statement about the fact that the Bible’s God created supernaturally and naturally. Man is the apex. OK to interpret Genesis very literally or not so literally—not a test of fellowship, but denial of a literal Adam may be problematic. Inerrancy will have to be clarified.The Evangelical free Churches of America have a statement which can be found at https://national-office.ministries.efca.org/theological-faq It affirms a historical Adam and Eve, the Fall, “very good”, not deism, imago dei, and ex nihilo. It does not speak to age of universe or a specific interpretation of Genesis 1.In their Baptist Faith & Message 2000, the Southern Baptists do not directly address the matter of creation mechanics, etc. except to say that man is a special creation and God’s crowning work.The Evangelical Presbyterian Church uses the Westminster Confession of Faith that says the Trinity created it all “in the space of six days, and it was very good.”I recommend this book to any Bible believer who wants to delve deeper into the origins controversy. It is college level reading, and for those new to these matters may be a bit overwhelming or unsettling. It demonstrates that the evangelical intellectual tent is much bigger than some Darwinists want to pretend and that we can keep up with them at least on a philosophical level, as well as making hamburger of evolution’s sacred cows.

My Rating - Put it on your listLevel - Medium length, moderately to highly (especially the last chapter) scientific/technical language (from three of the authors)SummaryThe format is the now standard Counterpoint Series - Essay/Argument, responses from the other three authors, then a rejoinder. Also, intro and conclusion from an editor (this time, from one that is affiliated with one of the other authors, which I don't think I've seen before, however, he does acknowledge this up front).The four views are Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth/Progressive Creationism (also often known as Day-age Creation), Evolutionary Creationism (also known as Theistic Evolution, but she explains why they is a weak and broader term than her view, which I found compelling), and Intelligent Design.My ThoughtsI was torn on how to rate this. Three of the authors made this a five star, must read, but the first author was just a disaster. I would give him a zero if possible. I've read probably 10 of the Counterpoint books and his essay was the weakest one I've ever read. He weakens not just this book, but the entire series.Ham has no education or training in either science or theology and it shows. He doesn't seem to understand how science works, and is unrelenting in his belief that his theological interpretation is the only valid one. His understanding of church history (claims that his view is the historical one, which is demonstrably false) and Hebrew is also lacking. His responses boiled down to 'na-uh', putting things in 'scare quotes' the he didn't agree with, and questioning the salvation of the other authors.The editor even pointed out in the conclusion that he refused to shorten his essay, due to be the only one to support Biblical authority (the editor also expressed dismay over the lack of charity). Obviously, this is incorrect as there are multiple conservative (SBC, PCA, etc.) pastors, theologians, commentaries authors, Hebrew scholars, and seminary professors that do not share his view. I assume when he said he wouldn't meet the standards everyone agree to, that he threaten to leave the project, and it is a shame that the editor and publisher didn't just allow this to happen and move on without him. The book would have been far superior with his absence.Now back to the good part. Ross was likely my favorite writer of the group. He made compelling arguments for the 'Day-age' view of creation. So, he uses the more general 'framework theory' of Genesis 1, not that they are literal days. He agrees with geology and physics that the world is Billions of years old, but not with biology that we evolved (explicitly reject the 'common descent' evolution). He sees God involving himself in the changes to species throughout time, creating new ones in history. He also had a fascinating argument that one reason there have been no new species since humans came on to the scene is because God rested from creation. Not sure if I believe it, but compelling and interesting nonetheless. He take the order of creation to be literal, so expects that science will prove that at some point. I generally agreed with his interpretive view, but I wonder about picking some science and not others. Haarsma took the Evolutionary Creation view, making the point that creation is the point and evolution modifies it, not the other way around, as with Theistic Evolution. Also, 'theistic' is no necessarily the God of the Bible. She accepts science on both age of the earth and evolution. She also takes the 'framework view' which is common among Evangelical scholars. She doesn't take the creation order as literal and supports common ancestry. Her organization (Biologos) seems to be focused on evangelism to those in the scientific field, so she starts with accepting science, and then moving to God and Christ. This is a different approach from Meyer. His group, The Discovery Institute, isn't focused on evangelism or apologetics, but instead focuses on the issues within the science, and the argument that the science itself calls for a creator. In that way, his group does not have faith statements for the God of the Bible or Christ and has other religious and non-religious people within his organization; though he himself is a committed orthodox Christian. His focus was entirely on the science of biological evolution, and did not make much of a theological argument (which is fine, that is how his organization works). He accepts all science on age of the earth and biology in regards to evolution, his point is to argue that is was directed by God (which is not really different than Haarsma essay). His article was maybe the most interesting, but certainly the most technical, so get ready, it might take awhile. Three of the authors have PhD's in science, and then there is Ham. Due to this, there are some technical aspects of the writing in all chapters. There is also the academic argumentation that occurs in, well, academic/scientific research, but for some reason it seems odd in this book. Maybe that was an editorial decision. It is also likely, unavoidable, though, were I the editor, I don't think I would allow arguments that use scientists who point out issues with evolution, yet still fully support it. That is just how science and research work, and the fact that these issues don't sway those scientist somewhat undermines the argument. Most of the authors cited widely, with the exception of Ham, who only cited himself (which is fine if you are published) or his organization (or their printing arm). He also labeled others who disagreed that were cited elsewhere as 'atheistic' regardless of what they actually believed, I assume in an attempt to scare people. Again, I would just cut him out entirely, so I'll ignore the other issues with him. Another editorial change would be to lock down some definitions. There seemed to be at least four working definitions for evolution alone, which sometimes lead to people talking past each other. I would have liked to see some more discussion of 'special creation' for those who support evolution, but I guess Haarsma mentions a few things that makes her views clear, while Meyer stuck to science and no theological arguments.I'm actually still torn on the inclusion of Meyer. His arguments were inline with the others, with huge agreement with Haarsma. It is just that his tactic is different. Ultimately, I think he brought a lot of value, but due to his nature, it didn't leave much for the others to interact with. Haarsma and Ross, agreed with him and his critiques of science, respectively. As I mentioned above, he article was maybe the best, but as he isn't really arguing a different 'view', it left the chapter feeling a little disconcordant. If you have interest on the science (mostly settled) and theology (all over place) of creation, this is a book to put on your list. As for age of the earth, if you are a committed young earth, this book will help you understand the old age arguments and show how it doesn't have to end your faith. If you are trying to understand young earth, you should probably look elsewhere, as Ham is a street corner preacher that yells at people as the pass bye. Certainly there are better sources out there. The strength of the book is evolution science (though Ross and Haarsma have PhD's/academic careers in the astro-physics realm, which does come up and is quite good), so if that is what you are interested in (while still maintaining a Christian belief, or if you don't want to see the Christian belief that discusses evolution seriously) then this book is a must read. If you interest is the theology of evolution, this is still good, but the Four Views on the Historical Adam is better. If you are trying to read everything you can about all these, put it on your list. More reviews at MondayMorningTheologican.com

Very happy to finally see a book where the proponents of each viewpoint are interacting with each other at length

Good book, summarises some of the current position.

This is an excellent resource for Christians contending with the issue of origins. The extensive research, the cohesive arguments and robust reasoning of all the 4 views/authors grants a great platform for Christians to dialogue and allow their views to be critiqued. This will only enhance our clarity on this very intriguing subject.

The four views provide an excellent overview of each position. Well worth the read.