Customer Reviews

Should Christians Embrace Evolution?

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

 

 

This book is a concerted multi-author attack on a well known book, by Denis Alexander: "Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose". Despite the unity provided by the single enemy, the book is very diverse, covering a broad span of theological and scientific subjects, and with chapters of unequal merit. I here focus on just the two chapters on molecular genetics, by Geoff Barnard. I would have preferred not to give a star-rating, because I do not feel competent to review all aspects of the book, but the Amazon website requires one. Therefore, in view of the faults of Barnard's chapters, and some other weaknesses that I notice at a more superficial level, I give it only two stars.

The two chapters by Geoff Barnard have a common aim: to refute the claim that man and higher apes have a common ancestry. In my opinion both chapters are seriously inadequate, for the reasons that follow.

Chapter 9C ("Chromosome Fusion and Common Ancestry"), the first of Barnard's two chapters, deals with the claim of Alexander (and virtually all evolutionary biologists) that DNA sequences provide strong evidence that chromosome 2 of humans was formed by the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes that persist in chimpanzees and other modern apes (designated 12 and 13, or in modern papers 2p and 2q). Alexander's argument is that chimpanzee chromosome 2p is strongly homologous with one part of human chromosome 2, that chromosome 2q is strongly homologous with the other part, and that the joining region in humans contains telomere sequences that would normally be at the end of a chromosome but are found in the middle of human chromosome 2, exactly as one would predict from the chromosome fusion hypothesis. Barnard accepts all of this! And he agrees that human chromosome 2 was formed by the fusion of 2p and 2q. All he does to contradict Alexander is to bring up three marginal questions. First, he mentions some difficulties to do with "alphoid sequences" that seem to me irrelevant in view of the fact that he accepts the chromosome fusion. Second, he mentions "human-specific" inversion in chromosomes 1 and 18, but I fail to see the relevance of this to the chapter's theme of chromosome fusion or more generally to the thesis of common descent. Then, finally, in the very last sentence he writes "What is certain, however, is that the wide variety of chromosome variations that clearly exist between the human and chimpanzee, dictate against the thesis that these species have common ancestry." This last sentence amazes me, partly because the chromosome variations are rather small (2% at the DNA sequence level), and even more so because Barnard has said almost nothing about the size of the variations in his chapter.

Chapter 10 ("Does the Genome Provide Evidence for Common Ancestry"), the second of Barnard's chapters, deals with the whole range of genomic data that Alexander presents as evidence for common descent: pseudogenes, mobile genetic elements and retroviral insertions. For brevity I here focus on the latter. When retroviruses infect a cell, they insert their DNA in the genome of the host cell, and the cell's descendants are thereby labeled recognizably from the presence of the retroviral sequence at a very precise place in the genome. When the cell is a germ cell, all the progeny are thereby labelled. Remarkably, the pattern of labelling is exactly what we would expect from a standard evolutionary picture. Thus, some insertions occur only in humans, others in humans and chimpanzees but not other primates, others in all primates, and so on. But you never find, for example, an insertion in humans and macaques but not chimpanzees. All of this is very strong, and direct, evidence for the common descent of humans, chimpanzees and other primates, and it presents a major problem for anti-evolutionists. Barnard's solution is to accept most of the data but to explain it away by claiming that particular retroviral sequences go very specifically to a precise location in the DNA. Thus, he claims (without evidence) that the presence of the same retroviral DNA sequence at EXACTLY the same location in chimpanzees and humans is due to the fact that one virus infected a chimp germ cell, another infected a human germ cell, and their identical sequences went to identical places in the genome. Such amazing precision is not biologically credible. An enormous amount of research has been done on retroviral infections, and all the evidence is against Barnard's claim. It is true that the distribution of retroviral insertions is not totally random. Some tend to go near active genes, others near inactive ones, etc. But in claiming a "very precise" specificity in retroviral insertion location Barnard is misleading the reader very seriously. Without this blatantly false claim his case collapses.

Whatever may be the merits or faults of the other chapters, those on molecular genetics are weak and misleading.

I found this a difficult book to read for a number of reasons, not least of which is my lack of technical knowledge of the topics the various authors were addressing.
While I personally reject theistic evolution, I must echo some of the critical comments of other reviewers. Some of the arguments raised in the book seemed to me to point to the opposite conclusion that the authors came to. Other arguments didn't seemed to reach a conclusion, being left "hanging in the air".
The chapters were increasingly "over my head" with my limited knowledge. This is obviously my weakness, not the weakness of the authors.
One matter that was touched on -but not explored- was the potential impact of further evolution of the human species on theology. If evolution were true, presumably we have not yet reached the limits of evolution, and can expect to evolve into new species at some point in the (distant) future. What then becomes of the Christian doctrine of Salvation (and associated doctrines)? I would have liked to have seen this concern addressed as it seems to me that this is potentially far more important than what may have happened in the past.

Is deistic evolution really a solid Christian stance? While evolution is on its last legs as a scientific theory, it is ever more pervasive in popular culture. If you don't <em>believe</em> in evolution, you are dumb. Or so the popular sentiment goes. Because of this popular attitude, many Christians have caved in to evolutionary belief, integrating it into their Christianity, rather than critically examining it.

After all, you don't want to be dumb, do you?

Should Christians Embrace Evolution challenges this line of thinking by asking the question: can a Christian believe the Scriptures are true and evolution is true at the same time? The answer, told from eleven different perspectives, is a decided <em>no.</em>

The book starts out with an essay by Alistair Donald discussing the historical context of the debate over evolutionary theory, specifically how the Church has related to the theory of evolution over the decades. There is a mythical history about that high level, intelligent Christians have "always" accepted evolution; this chapter puts that myth on notice. In the next chapter, Alistair McKitterick discusses the intent of the author of Genesis --a well placed question on the hermeneutics of the book impacting our reading of the creation narrative. Is the creation story a myth? Demythologized text? In chapter 3, Michael Reeves addresses the question of Adam and Eve. Were they real people? Chapter 4 discusses the fall and death in Paul's writings, and how this relates to our understanding of the fall narrative in Genesis 3.

Chapter 5 addresses the heart of the question: can a Christian accept evolution? David Anderson argues the answer is no, grounding his argument in the proposition that combining Christianity and evolution always results in essentially gnostic errors. Andrew Sibley next argues that the combination of evolution and Christianity ultimately reflects on the character of God and his trustworthiness. R.T. Kendell argues in chapter 7 that every generation of Christians has a "stigma," or a test, which it must endure in order to be found faithful, and that evolution is this generation's test. Steve Fuller discusses the impact of evolution on the image of God in man's creation in chapter 8, presenting an argument he believes will provide a winning hand for intelligent design theory.

The book next turns to specific points of evolutionary theory in chapter 9 with Norman C. Nevin's essay. He covers the concept of homology and the fossil record. The chapter continues with an essay by Geoff Bernard on chromosomes, and then an essay by Andy McIntosh on information theory and the second law of thermodynamics. Geoff Barnard discusses the evidence of the genomic record and its relation to evolution in chapter 10, focusing on changes in pseudogenes. Finally, in chapter 11, John C. Walton discusses the part chance plays in evolution.

This is, perhaps, one of the strongest collection of essays entered into the Creation/evolution debate in recent years, and well worth reading from first page to last.

This excellent book was published in England also is very relevant for the U. S. market. Although written to respond to British author Denis Alexander's book titled Creation or Evolution, does an excellent job responding to the claim that no conflict exists between Christianity and Darwinism. Nevin documents that the conflict is at the fundamental level of Christianity. Unfortunately, many Churches have sided with Darwinism, repeating the mistake that the Catholic church made siding against Galileo. Then, as now, all to often the church sides with orthodox science because they trust the "authorities". In Galileo's day orthodox science was Ptolemaic astronomy modified by Tycho Brahe. When Galileo presented evidence against establishment science, the church sided with orthodox science and opposed Galileo, and many churches are making the the same mistake today by siding with Darwinism. Many people today claim that you can "believe in both, and no conflict exists." First of all, as the authors of this book show, an enormous major conflict exists between the two worldviews. Second, there is no point tying to harmonize Christianity, Judaism, or Islam with Darwinism until Darwinism has been proven true. Since the preponderance of evidence, as this work documents, is against Darwinism, to side with Darwinism now is premature if not irresponsible. One of the best chapters in this book is the one on the fossil record, but the chapter on the chromosomal fusion theory is excellent as well (my field is biology, so this interests me). The whole evolution-theology issue is addressed in 220 pages by university professors and reputable scholars. Religiously the authors and/or references are Catholics, agnostics, protestants and others. It covers both theology and science and shows clearly that Darwinism negates both the core of, and the basic doctrines of, Christianity. Although the book focuses on the British situation and controversy, this book is very useful in the USA as well. The book shows that the controversy over Darwinism and scientism has now reached beyond America.

I am glad that I finally read this excellent book. It is an great collection of facts and scholarly interpretation of biblical theology and scientific findings. It is a must read for all who are interested in understanding what the unresolved issues with theistic evolution are.

"Should Christians Embrace Evolution?" is intended to be an argument against theistic evolution in general and a rebuttal to Denis Alexander's "Creation or Evolution: Do we have to choose?" in particular. Accordingly, I strongly recommend reading Alexander's book before this one.

Unfortunately, this book is cobbled together from a collection of articles that, in the main, address apologetics for Bible literalism and challenges to "Darwinism", rather than focusing on theistic evolution. The resulting product pales in comparison to Alexander's tour de force. It gets off to an inauspicious start with the blatant falsehood that "Evolution is secular culture's grand explanation, the overriding `meta-narrative' that sinners accept with joy because it allows them to explain life without reference to God ..." (p 10). This echoes Phillip Johnson's definition of what he termed "Darwinism": a metaphysical naturalist worldview in which nothing exists but the physical world: that would be more appropriately called "Dawkinism".

The actuality is that the current, neo-Darwinian (NDE) theory of biological evolution is a scientific theory that identifies and explains the mechanism by which the diversity of life on earth arose (origin of species). It does not address origin of first life (abiogenesis). It is theistically neutral. It is not, however, denominationally neutral, and that is what the Bible literalist authors try to rebut here.

NDE is not a metaphysic. It is not a philosophy. Accordingly, it does not, nor is it required to, explain the "why" of anything. This effectively demolishes the many challenges in this book for NDE to explain such things as why there is death, decay, pain, and suffering. And that is why this book fails: its challenges are to "Darwinism" as defined by Phillip Johnson, not to NDE.

Additionally, this book's authors display lack of understanding and/or disregard for the basics of Darwin's writings, evolution theory, and science. For example:

Contributing author Andrew Sibley claims: "Science cannot be done independently of theology and Scripture," (p 101), which is patently absurd. Science has been and will continue to be conducted by scientists from a full spectrum of religious and nonreligious belief.

Contributing author R. T. Kendall says: "... empirical knowledge has failed to make their [evolution] theory today more than a theory." (p 113) It's common knowledge, except among Creationists, that no scientific theory ever becomes MORE than a theory.

Contributing author Andy McIntosh declares: "... natural selection has no power to create new functional structures." (p 162) No evolutionist would ever claim that it does. Mutation is the mechanism that provides new functional structures for natural selection to act upon.

There's a whole "treasure trove" of such gems throughout this book. The authors should heed the words of philosopher Bob Dylan, who said:

"And don't criticize what you can't understand
...
Your old road is rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'."