Customer Reviews

Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, and Evolution

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book is for Christians who are seeking a better understanding of the spectrum of views that Christians hold on how to relate the findings of science with interpretation of the Bible. In presenting and discussing the spectrum of views, "Origins" makes a useful distinction, not often seen, between "Interpretations of Genesis" and "Views on Origins," and includes nice summary tables of each.

Under Interpretations of Genesis, the Haarsmas (professors in the Physics and Astronomy Department at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan) present and discuss Young Earth, Gap, Day-Age, Appearance of Age, Visionary Day, Proclamation Day and Ancient Near East Cosmology interpretations, along with "Creation Poem" and "Kingdom-Covenant" interpretations. The latter two interpretations both seem to be virtually identical to the Framework Interpretation of Meredith Kline et al., yet there is no reference to the Framework Interpretation, either in the text, the table or the bibliography, which I find surprising and unnecssarily confusing.

Under Views on Origins, the Haarsmas present and discuss Young Earth Creation, several flavors of Progressive Creation, and several flavors of Evolutionary Creation, as well as Intelligent Design.

The book has questions for reflection and discussion and a brief bibliography at the end of each chapter, but no index. It contains numerous references to short supplemental articles or additional examples located on a particular web site. Personally, I would have greatly preferred that this material be included as sidebars or additional appendices.

Overall, I found "Origins" to be a good introduction to the wide spectrum of Christian views, although, compared to other books on the same subject, it does have a relatively weak treatment of the implications of original sin on the various views presented.

This book summarizes the various positions that Bible-believing Christians take on such questions as creation, evolution, common ancestry, Intelligent Design, human evolution, and Adam and Eve. The authors attempt to present an unbiased survey of all sides of the debates, but it becomes clear by the end what their positions are on certain issues. They are "evolutionary creationists," referring to the belief that God worked through ordinary, natural means to produce the diversity of life (including humans) on earth.

They establish very convincing arguments for an old earth, common ancestry, and (perhaps most controversially) the evolution of humans from primate ancestors. I must admit that I found their case extremely persuasive. As a Christian, I was initially reluctant to entertain the possibility that we humans have descended from apes, since it goes against centuries of theological teaching. But the science that the authors present--including such evidences as hominid fossils and genetic comparisons--is solid enough to make me change my mind.

My one reservation about their position is over how evolutionary creationism would affect natural theology. The Bible teaches that God's existence and power are clearly and inexcusably evident in creation (Rom. 1:20). In other words, on the Day of Judgment, no one can plead ignorance, because there is sufficient evidence for God in the natural world. Evolutionary creation seems to undercut that biblical teaching by presenting a view of creation that looks indistinguishable from an atheistic view. Although the authors address that very question (pp. 234-236), their response is rather unsatisfying. They almost make it sound as if we Christians have no choice but to retreat into fideism.

On the other hand, their critiques of the Intelligent Design theory are valid. We need to be careful not to fall into "god-of-the-gaps" arguments, which try to prove God's existence from everything that science can't yet explain. But I still think that a strong case can be made for ID, if it is framed appropriately. After finishing this book, I find myself mostly in the "progressive creationist with common ancestry" camp.

Christians--especially those in preaching/teaching positions--need to read this book. Science had radically changed our understanding of origins over the past several decades, and theologians need to keep up with these developments, so that we can reach a coherent and integrative understanding of God's Word and God's world.

This book is recommended reading for anyone interested in the debates in contemporary Christian circles over the origins of the cosmos. It is highly readable, informative, and gracious. The authors have managed to touch nearly every view and not be vacuous. Indeed, any reader should be able to appreciate their deep commitment to Theism and science, and their desire to harmonize a clear and articulate reading of Scripture (the book of Revelation) with what 3500 years of research and investigation have given us (the book of Nature). Step aside Ken Ham, you have met your dialectical better.

ORIGINS is a refreshing and thought-provoking look at the often controversial topic of how the cosmos began. Being written by two physics professors, who are scientists and Christians, gives the book a hefty helping of validity. The book gives both science and Scripture the respect they deserve and, using scientific and scriptural examples, builds a logical case for the reconciliation of the two.
We found the text to be well written, but dense, and almost too scientifically technical for our adult ed. class. There are discussion questions at the end of each chapter, but it would be very helpful to have a leader's guide that could help the leader guide the class through the material.
All in all, excellent book.

I wish this book had crossed my path years ago!

The authors' standpoint is clear: God, the Creator of this universe, world and man, reveals himself through his Word as well as his world (creation). Therefore, God CANNOT contradict himself in his Word and his world - their revelation of God MUST be in harmony: man's interpretation of the Bible and man's study of God's creation (the outcome of the scientific process) must eventually say the same thing. And, no, it does not mean we have to compromise God's word, and that "science must win" - in fact the authors warn against such reasoning. The authors are first and foremost followers of Christ and God's Word, although they are scientists in their own right.

The book categorizes and puts every worldview and model on the theme of biblical "origins" in the right place, explains what they all mean - as well as why some are more viable than others - and then leaves you to come to your own conclusions. It does not attempt to "lead you down a garden path", and even suggest that you take time to make up your mind. It also contains a lot of additional reading on its web site, as well as a comprehensive list of additional reading material - from all ends of the scale.

There are so many contradicting Christian views and literature on the theme of biblical origins today, and all of them have their academics or so-called intellectuals who try to convince why their view is correct. From Young Earth Creationists to proponents of Intelligent Design to Evolutionary Creationist. Even I, as a technically-minded, reasoning and logical person (I am a graduate Electronics Engineer), struggled to find my way through this Christian quagmire. Through persistent reading and discernment, I starting making some headway recently - but this book came along and put everything in perspective. What a blessing!

For the first time, I understand why the various groups believe what they believe, as well as why they honestly feel so strongly about their views and defend it so vehemently. This book also helps clarify the flaws in some groups' reasoning, but does so in a very humble and non-derogatory way.

No matter what your current view may be, do yourself a favour and read this book to get an understanding of the lay of the full landscape - even if it is merely to see where your view fits into it. You may end up gaining a lot more insight than you bargained for!

I recently gave a talk at church on the relationship between Faith and Science, and was asked afterwards if I had read the Haarsmas' book. So I borrowed it from the church library to find out why. Origins is subtitled A Reformed look at Creation, Design and Evolution, so it obviously relates both to the topic of my talk and to the church I was speaking in. The authors are professors in the Physics and Astronomy Department at Calvin College in Grand Rapids Michigan, so very well qualified. And their thesis is that no one should feel they have to choose between faith and science.

If I were re-teaching my class in a series of talks, I might almost use this book as a template. Each chapter ends with thought-provoking questions for discussion and suggestions for further reading. And the evidence in the writing is illustrated and emphasized by well-drawn tables and boxes.

The authors are writing for Christians, but point out that non-Christians might use the book to learn how Christians think about science, rather than just believing what the media says. While their main thrust is that there's no inherent conflict between faith and science, they point out that world-views can collide: the scientist who says evolution proves there's no God is just as flawed in his statement as the Christian who says the Bible proves evolution didn't happen. Common ground requires common respect and common experience, but respect is frequently absent from debate.

The authors present many of the same arguments as I used to show how the Bible and science are not at odds. I particularly liked their suggestion that before debating creation vs. evolution we'd do well to ask if studying the weather and water-cycle is anti-faith, since the Bible frequently declares how God controls the rain. They present many alternative view-points on key Bible stories, such as Adam and Eve and the fallen earth, leaving readers to recognize that "I don't know" can be a perfectly adequate, honest and faithful, answer. "...[W]hen a conflict arises, our response should be to examine both the science and the biblical interpretation more carefully," describes my own position as well as theirs.

In answer to my friend at church, I had not read the book before giving the talk, but I will certainly draw from it if I give the talk again, and I certainly recommend it to anyone wondering how to answer those still shying away from the evidence for an old earth and evolution.



Disclaimer: I borrowed this book from our church library, but I wish I had a copy of my own.

I've read several books on Christian faith and science and I can say that this is one of the most thoughtful approaches to the subject. The authors explain the various positions in clear language from the start, so that the reader can determine at the outset what, if any, difference there is between their own position and that of the authors. I have explained to several friends how Christian faith is not at odds with science, and in doing so, have found that some don't even have a clear idea of what they believe or what their church teaches. All they know is that "evolution is bad" and "science lies", without even understanding what that means.

This book is aimed squarely at that reader, and presents a dialogue on the issues in a very non-confrontational tone. For this reason I can highly recommend it as a "first read" on the topic. That said, I learned a few things, even after having studied science and various theological positions for many years.

I found it especially interesting that the authors are professors at Calvin college and include quotes from John Calvin (the Reformer) throughout the book. Why? Many of the most hard-core six-day creationists today follow the teachings of John MacArthur, himself a Calvinist. So this may be an eye-opener to some of them who aren't actually familiar with Calvin's own writings.

It's short -- you can easily read this in a day or two. It's a good book to pass along to friends or family.

This is a very good book to introduce yourself to the various ways Christians think about origins and creation. They do a very good job trying to dispell the myth that Christianity and science are opposed and one can only choose one. They link to their website and others that provide addition info if you want to pursue some thing found in a chapter.

This is a bold and necessary foray into the complex and contentious subject of science and faith, tailored to a discussion group format. The authors move in a systematic fashion, explaining how since God is the author of both Scripture and nature, what seem to be tensions between the two are only apparent. They gradually set the stage so that a discussion group consisting of participants of mixed persuasions can engage the final topic of human origins without generating more heat than light.

The conclusion they seem to come to is that human beings probably have come about as the theory of evolution says they did (ie. by strictly material processes). There are a number of Christians, myself among them, who disagree with this conclusion for reasons not discussed in the book. That we disagree is fine, but it is unfortunate that the broader reason of why we disagree is left unaddressed.

I believe the authors underestimate the role that the worldview of naturalism plays in the background assumptions of evolutionary science, and are unaware that its rules have been changed to suit this anti-Christian worldview. Naturalism is the belief that nature is a closed system of natural causes and effects, and that if there is a God we know from the outset that he was not involved in the history of nature in any way that is empirically (scientifically) detectable. The authors seem to believe that naturalistic influences on science are external to the essence of modern science itself, and thus that the illegitimate pronouncements of "evolutionism" are easily distinguished from the honest, rigorous conclusions of science.

We agree that God's revelation in nature is truthful. Where we part company is in determining the rules for the discipline (science) that investigates this revelation. This is a hotly disputed point among Christian academics which should have been at least mentioned but is not. The key issue in the debate is whether science requires the practice of methodological naturalism (a restriction of explanatory categories to material realities and a rejection of agent causation) in order to count as science. The authors seem to assume the affirmative side when they really ought to argue for it.

What it comes down to is this: is science to be the search for truth, or merely the search for the best naturalistic explanation? That's the issue. To say it another way, we know that both natural and agent causation occur in our everyday experience, and we have reliable criteria for distinguishing between them. On what basis do we assume, then, that only natural causes played a part in the history of biology?

It will not do to appeal to the limitations of science, as the authors do, as if to imply that even if the Creator has left tangible fingerprints on his creation, there are other knowledge disciplines other than science that have the natural world as their focus that one would more appropriately turn to. Even if this were the case it ignores the fact that another influence of naturalism was that it immersed our culture in scientism, the belief that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge. Thus the limits of science are widely perceived to be the limits of reality. Furthermore to appeal to this limitation is ultimately to argue in a circle since the necessity of such a limitation is the very point in dispute.

The authors are right in claiming that the theory of evolution is not in principle atheistic. But it is important to realize that evolution was not born in a theistic worldview but in a naturalistic one. You don't become a Christian reading Darwin's "Origin of Species", with its repeated argumentation that the apparent design in nature is not real but counterfeited by the blind, unguided, material forces of nature. Christians who find evolution to be theistic do so, in my opinion, because they have other reasons to believe in God. But to the one who is not already committed to Jesus Christ, the arrangement seems a little forced: why, if God actually exists, must we begin with the assumption that he acted in such a way that is empirically invisible to science? To a non-believer it would seem that if one can explain the entire history of life without reference to a Creator, the Creator really is just a superfluous add-on and the intellectually honest thing to do is to discard the God hypothesis altogether. If you start with naturalistic premisses, the most convincing conclusions will be naturalistic ones.

Now despite my misgivings these considerations do not make evolution false; the truth of the theory must be decided on the basis of the evidence. The authors assemble a formidable array of evidence that indicates the antiquity of the human race and likely common descent with animals. However, that in itself is not evolution. Evolution is first and foremost a theory about process, about how organisms changed one into another. It is not primarily about relationship and common descent, although these will follow if an evolutionary process is demonstrated. These are necessary conditions for evolution, but not sufficient conditions. Thus it is possible for biochemist Michael Behe, an intelligent design proponent, to accept common descent but reject the theory of evolution. Yet the authors, though they do at one point distinguish common descent from the mechanisms of evolution, give no evidence of the all-important claim of a purely material process. And the fossil record is not nearly as supportive of evolutionary theory as the authors suggest it is; evidence of transitional forms is extremely rare, and they ignore a crucial piece that counts heavily against evolutionary theory: the fossil evidence from the Cambrian Explosion which turns Darwin's tree of life on its head.

On page 189 we read that "Evolutionary creationists argue that God also fine-tuned the laws of nature so that simple organisms can evolve into complex ones." What are these laws? How do we know they exist? Yes, God could have created in such a fashion but to say that therefore he did, is to miss the process of reasoning by which we arrived at the Darwinian conclusion in the first place. I am convinced that we know that frogs and spiders and trees and humans all came from a single-celled ancestor through strictly physical processes (this is the key element in evolutionary theory), not because we see it in the fossil record or because it has been demonstrated in the laboratory, but because of the naturalistic worldview commitments of the scientific community that make evolution a certainty before the evidence is examined.

Science was born in a theistic worldview and it is high time we started learning how to bring theistic presuppositions back into our practice of science (and other disciplines such as law and education). Intelligent design is doing just that, and it is maddening to see not only non-Christians, but Christian academics, fighting this new way (well, actually the original way) of doing science, using the same straw-man arguments that the scientific naturalists are using. For example, the entire chapter on intelligent design is, unfortunately, simply a mischaracterization. The authors claim that intelligent design falls into god-of-the-gaps thinking. This is false. Intelligent design is not an argument from ignorance, claiming that life is too complex, therefore God must have intervened miraculously somewhere. Rather, I.D. makes a positive case based on what we do know, and concludes that design in nature is empirically detectable. The mode whereby design is introduced is not relevant, and so discussion of miracles is really a red herring.

I would strongly encourage the interested reader to refer to William Dembski's books "Intelligent Design" and its sequel "The Design Revolution" to see how I.D. characterizes itself, that it is not something fundamentally new, but actually a return to science's roots. You might be surprised to learn that I.D. can accomodate any degree of evolutionary change. Furthermore, central to intelligent design is the detection and flow of information in biological systems, an idea that the authors neglected even to mention. Their approach begs the question by judging intelligent design in terms of a naturalistic conception of nature, when it is this very conception that is the point at issue. The difference between evolution and intelligent design is very simple and shows that contrary to the authors' hopeful assertion, they cannot both be true: evolution claims that the history of life can be explained exclusively by natural causation, while intelligent design claims that nature shows evidence not only of natural but also of agent causation.

The influence of naturalism on theistic thinking is not just an academic discussion. It is in fact the primary reason why, in the span of 150 years, Christians have gone from dominating the culture to being utterly marginalized within it. Because of what's at stake, let us as Christians be very careful in assessing that the evidence presented by a scientific community steeped in naturalistic thinking actually supports what it is claimed to support. If we don't, we may unwittingly be giving legitimacy to the creation story of a worldview that is utterly antithetical to Christianity and is corroding the very roots of our culture.

I can certainly recommend this book as a discussion guide. But in light of the above considerations, I have found helpful supplementary reading in the above mentioned Dembski books and also in Nancy Pearcey's book "Total Truth," which goes into great detail in the worldview issues surrounding evolution and creation.

The authors, both college professors, have done an outstanding and professional job of explaining, without bias or cheap shots, the always interesting ideas on creation. I recommend this book without reservation to all those who think they think. Those who already "know" all the answers can continue to rest assured in their comfortable world views.