Customer Reviews

Science Held Hostage: What's Wrong With Creation Science and Evolutionism

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

 

 

As both a scientist and a Christian, I found this treatment of the much-heated debate on creation vs. evolution very fair-minded and enlightening. It is written for the layperson in mind and is very clear in defining the scope for both the realms of science and religion. As a person who has grown weary of the "mud slinging" from both sides of the controversy, I am glad to recommend this book to anyone who is honest with himself and open-minded (believers and non-believers alike!). One criticism, however, is their rather lengthy examples using geology. Since I am trained in molecular biology, this section did not hold my interests as greatly as the other sections. This book helped give me new insights to strengthen both my scientific stand on objective facts and my religious stand on a personal, loving God who created this wondrously complex universe.

This book is jointly written by Joward J. Van Till (author of The Fourth Day: What the Bible and the Heavens are Telling Us about the Creation), Davis A. Young (author of books such as The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth, Creation and the flood: An alternative to flood geology and theistic evolution, etc.) and Clarence Menninga.

They write in the Introduction to this 1988 book, "The goal of this book is modest. We seek to challenge some of the misperceptions concerning the nature of the professional scientific enterprise, and to illustrate the mischief that flows from these misperceptions by presenting case studies drawn principally from the arena of the creation-evolution debate."

Here are some additional quotations from the book:

"...the shrinking sun report... continues to be employed as a 'scientific evidence' for a young earth... (Thomas) Barnes gave no evidence of having taken into account the several professional publications which had cast serious doubt on the reality of secular solar shrinkage." (Pg. 56-57)
"This claim (based on moon dust) has continued to be published by young-earth advocates until the present time..,. One hardly knows where to begin in evaluating such a report. The statements about the amount of dust predicted and the amount found reflect both gross misinformation and ignorance of research results published before 1982." (Pg. 75, 77)
"If scientific creationists wish to have their theories taken seriously, they must discontinue their current practice of ignoring the professional geological literature the discusses the observation of these critically important details." (Pg. 117-118)

Science Held Hostage is indeed surprisingly fair in its treatment of those whom it criticizes. The discussion of the nature, methods, and values of science is quite appealing on the whole. Unfortunately, the book fails in its attempt to prevent science-theology controversies from arising by separating the two into non-interacting compartments. The authors tell us that the formational history of physical objects falls solely within the domain of science, so theology can appear to conflict only by transgressing its boundaries. This assertation amounts to claiming to know in advance what divinely-inspired books might choose to say.

But (as A. Plantinga) points out, one just doesn't know that in advance. God might tell us that on one occasion, really good wine was formed not from grapes over a long time, but from dirty water in a short time (John 2, the wedding at Cana). According to the domains described by Science Held Hostage, that claim is properly in science's territory, and science, which does not find dirty water turning rapidly into dirty water regularly, would reject the claim.

The result is that Van Till et al., if consistent, ought to deny that Jesus turned water into one. One can generate many such examples.

This book's attempt to separate science and theology to prevent conflict, therefore, either amounts simply to calling on theology to capitulate (which is a peculiar way to stop a war, and which ought to be identified as surrender, and acknowledged to be theologically liberal rather than evangelical), or simply fails to resolve the conflict after all. Given that resolving the conflict was to a large degree why the book was written, one must judge the effort to be a failure, though one worth reading.