Book Review - 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution

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 while 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 Genesis 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.

About the authors

Kenneth D. Keathley (PhD, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) is professor of theology and director of the L. Russ Bush Center for Faith and Culture at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He was previously professor of theology at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. Keathley is also the author of Salvation and Soverignty: A Molinist Approach.

Mark F. Rooker (PhD, Brandeis University) is professor of Old Testament and Hebrew at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He has previously taught at Moscow Theological Seminary, Criswell College, And Dallas Theological Seminary. Rooker is Author of several books on Old Testament and Hebrew language topics.

Discussion

We’re good.

[Mark_Smith]

We’re good.

Thanks. When you have time, can you interact with the question, “How is it you cannot do science if appearance of age is true because of miraculous intervention in the natural processes, but you feel you can still do science believing that God created everything miraculously intervening in the natural processes?”

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

[Bob Hayton]

BrianW wrote:

I have not read the book that is the subject of this review. I have read Hank Hanagraft’s book on Old Earth Creation and did not find it compelling at all.

I do own the book Untold Secrets of Planet Earth: Dire Dragons by Vance Nelson. The book has 135+ color photos of ancient artwork, pottery, cave drawings, building carvings etc of dinosaurs. I found the book incredibly compelling for this argument: Man and dinosaurs lived in the same time period.

The book seems in my mind seems almost irrefutable since the pictures speak for themselves. The book shows which country the artifacts have come from and the history behind them. There is no way these ancient people could have come up with these images (many of which seem almost identical to modern museum reproductions and fossil finds) without having lived among the giant lizards or “dragons”.

I’m not sure how the OEC would explain these since virtually all evolutionist say dinos died off millions of years before man. The book is VERY compelling.

Evidence for dinosaurs coexisting with man is virtually non-existant. We never find dinosaur fossils with human fossils - never. There is no good YEC explanation for that.

Here is Institute for Creation Research article admitting that the famous Paluxy river bed “human footprints” among dinosaur footprints is very likely not genuine - may very well be a different species of dinosaur prints. At the least they back away from using that evidence in their argumentation (almost no YEC authors today use this, even though The Genesis Flood continues to be republished and circulated with the misleading claims based on old interpretation of the evidence still there.)

I have also seen a “stegosaur” carving from a Cambodian temple floating around the internet as proof that man and dinosaurs co-existed - that dinosaurs are fairly late. This is debunked pretty clearly in this article. The same author debunks other claims of dinosaurs in ancient art, in this article.

Finally, I have heard on SI that there have been “soft tissue” discoveries in Dinosaur fossils which supposedly prove they cannot be millions of years old. This article at Reasons to Believe explains why this is not so.

As the book I reviewed points out, if one does appeal to the mature earth idea, then one cannot appeal to other evidences for a young earth. It is either mature (old-looking) or it is young, cannot be both. The thing that frustrates me in this debate is that YEC proponents feel completely fine with cherry-picking the evidence: ignoring hundreds of studies which point to an old earth and fixating on one that talks about soft tissue in dinosaur fossils. Ignoring the hundreds and thousands of dionsaur fossil finds with no human fossils anywhere near them, and pointing out obscure artwork which “proves” dinosaurs and man co-existed. This argumentation method is consistent with how King James Onlyists reason. Any possible proof for a reading in the KJV is accepted as proof enough for its legitimacy, never mind that you don’t like the Vulgate but if it is the only source for a given KJV reading, then at that point it must be preserving the Perfect Words of Scripture…..

Bob, I am sure you acknowledge that you cannot prove a negative, right? Even if there is no evidence anywhere of human/dinosaur contact, that does not prove it did not happen or, more importantly, that the universe is “mature.” As I have stated repeatedly, if we are dealing with facts, scripture trumps science every time, and we know from scripture that there was an appearance of age at creation when God formed fully grown, mature humans, animals and plant life. The only way around that fact is to rewrite scripture and/or reinterpret the plain understanding of Genesis 1-2 to make it fit better with science. This flies in the face of the sacred axiom sola scriptura.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Brother Bob, before you so easily dismiss the book by Vance Nelson I would recommend you peruse it. I know the feeling— so many books so little time:)

Seriously though. The book has 135+ color photos marked and footnoted. In addition, probably another 200 color photos making it a beautiful book. Whether you still agree with it or not, it is very thought provoking with the sheer volume of documentation and detail.

You mention fraud and such. I have a fairly strong scam antenna and am not easily swayed. I also am not a KJVO guy. Also, lean reformed, historic premillenialist, etc. All to say not a kool-aid drinker like some fundies are known to be. I do agree with the general arguments in the recently posted Al Mohler video which explains the old earth creation has some structural problems with Scripture.

I will also admit I am not a scientist. I am a business person and amateur church history buff.:))

[Mark_Smith]

And like I said in the above post, and a dozen times here at SI, if you assume a young universe with an appearance of age, you throw out the ability to learn anything about it. Measuring distances– you can’t do it. What powers a star– you can’t answer it. On and on. Just admit it. That is all I want honest YEC believers to do. If you accept YEC, you lose the ability to learn about the universe.

Will you do that?

I don’t think that’s true, myself.

My view is that the Universe and Earth are EITHER really old (billions), OR recent and created to look and act really old. Which it is doesn’t matter. Either way, we live in a universe that consistently shows us really-old-ness.

It could be 10,000 years. And, to push the point to the ridiculous, it could be 2300 years or even 2 seconds old. Everything before the point of creation created as history (in our memories and the universe). In the last case, creation would have occurred with this post mostly written and me believing that I had been writing it.

Obviously, neither 2300 nor 2 is consistent with what God tells us has happened. But 10,000 years would be. And if read in other ways, 14 billion is, too. But both can be consistent with doing science and cautiously believing what we learn.

I guess the major issue I have with the billions of years is Death Before Sin. I sincerely feel my faith in the Bible becomes wobbly if I believe death has occurred for millions of years. I have small children and sometimes when they ask me hard questions I have learned to say- I don’t know.

Could we say we cannot learn from the natural world of sickness and healing since Jesus healed people outside the normal laws of medicine and healing? Are not these supernatural interventions game changers for science?

To see a verifiable picture of a carving of a stegosaurus on a ancient temple column.

Google: Stegosaurus carved in a ten-foot column at the Ta Prohm Cambodian Temple

(then after initial google search hit- images icon to see pictures)

Of course, evolutionist pan it- it demolishes their argument. They say it is a rhino or a boar. You decide.

[BrianW]

To see a verifiable picture of a carving of a stegosaurus on a ancient temple column.

Google: Stegosaurus carved in a ten-foot column at the Ta Prohm Cambodian Temple

(then after initial google search hit- images icon to see pictures)

Of course, evolutionist pan it- it demolishes their argument. They say it is a rhino or a boar. You decide.

Brian, context is key. The link I posted earlier points out that two or three images down from the “stegasaurus” in the very same rock column, is another image with the same design on the back of the supposed dinosaur on a head of a humanoid. This suggests the ridge is not necessarily a literal feature (=spines on the stegosaur) but could be stylistic (like drawing a halo around someone’s head).

You suggest I read the book. Can I suggest you read the link I shared? It is shorter than a full book, and it is free…

:)

Here is the link — directly addressing the “stegosaur:” http://paleo.cc/paluxy/stegosaur-claim.htm

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Bob I will look at the article even though it goes against my cognitive biases. Haha.

Here is a short video by a tourist. If you want to skip to around the 2:30 mark a guide from Cambodia speaks about image a bit.

I read the piece in the Smithsonian where they are really flipped out that this cannot possibly be a dinosaur.

Who knows. It does look like the head of a rhino but the plates on back look legit, too. So, who knows.

I looked through the Vance Nelson book and I do not believe that carving is addressed. But, about a 100 others are.

Anyway, kind of interesting video. In any event this is my final post (in this thread). We have beaten this dead horse enough. Enjoy. One more thing. The image may be misinterpreted, but it clearly is not fake as someone from Smithsonian suggested. These guys will do anything to wiggle out of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJwKTRsaTaY

I’m a young earth/6 day literal creationist and videos like this make me cringe. IF it is a carving of a stegosaurus and not one of a lizard and IF it had a living subject, then all it proves is that dinosaurs may not have gone extinct according to the supposed time line.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan