I’ve gone back and forth on this issue for a long time. I was not raised Christian and I was blissfully unaware of such controversies until after I became a Christian at the age of 18. At first I was told that the Bible taught that the Earth was only 6,000 years old and after my experience in conversion, I was prone to just believe that the Bible did indeed teach that.

However, as time went on I became very thirsty for knowledge. I have always been a voracious reader, when I converted, my taste in books shifted from sci-fi and horror to Christian books. (Though, I still love sci-fi and horror.) Because of my experiences, I have read a few books from various positions on this issue. I’ve read books defending evolution, old-earth creationism, young-earth creationism and a bunch of models and such in between.

While searching for a new book to read, I came across this thick volume edited by William Dembski, a mathematician. Dembski was a big name in the Intelligent Design movement and I had read one of his books before, so I decided to pick this book up. The introduction starts by quoting Daniel Dennett and others showing the affection and overstating of just how much evolution encompasses.

In the first chapter, it is said that we are still waiting for Darwin’s Newton, that is, someone who could take what Darwin proposed and support it. There is a comparison made between germ theory and evolution, the former presenting many more stages of development in thought, judging by the many hypotheses and tests in that area. There is a contention that Darwin’s theory was not a theory when Darwin was alive, but instead just a hypothesis.

In chapter 2, Phillip E. Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial, contributes his critique of Evolution as a dogma. Johnson argues that while Young-Earth Creationists may be wrong about side issues, their idea that educators are indoctrinating our children is true. Johnson challenges the assumption that Evolution is backed by empirical evidence and is instead riddled with philosophical presuppositions. Johnson brings up the problem of the Cambrian explosion and cites Dr. Richard Dawkins, who does seem puzzled by the fossils recovered there. This is because the fossils were in an advance stage of evolution that would throw off the timeline of popular evolutionary models, but it would not necessarily prove evolution false. Dawkins own answer is that he thinks that fossils simply can’t last past 600 million years or so. Johnson doesn’t buy this defense. He cites paleontologists of a more recent era stating that the missing links are still a problem to bolster his case that we are lacking the transitional fossils necessary to prove an evolutionary model.

In chapter 3, Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger has a chapter called “The Miracles of Darwinism.” In it, Schutzenberger starts with a 1996 interview with La Recherche, a French magazine. Shutzenberger was a mathematician and doctor of medicine. He was questioned about evolution and his responses were rather interesting. He was asked for his definition of Darwinism, in which Schutzenberger argues that evolution holds two contradictory ideas to be true. That is that of gradualism (small successive changes) and saltationism (changes that jump) on the other. He cites Richard Dawkins as a radical gradualist and Stephen Jay Gould as a radical saltationist.

When it was mentioned that Schutzenberger was not a biologist, he retorted that evolutionary biologists want mathematicians to participate. He claims Dawkins is “fatally attracted” to arguments that “hinge on concepts from mathematics.” (p.104) He goes on to say that Darwinism doesn’t actually explain that much and that the models presented aren’t worthwhile. On the one hand, Gradualism fails because it doesn’t align with paleontological evidence. On the other hand, saltationism requires a miracle to be true, argues Schutzenberger.

He continues by labeling evolution as “grossly insufficient” and cites the idea that horses were once as small as rabbits and only grew overtime to escape from predators. He says while that idea that this could have happened is partially true and possible, it doesn’t account for the fact that gaining size also has negative consequences. So it would seem that finding an exact reason for such a drastic change would seem no more than speculation.(p.110)

In chapter 4, Nancy Pearcy seeks to address Evolution as a worldview. She takes issues with Dawkins and others ruling out other explanations for human origins on the notion that they aren’t naturalistic. (i.e. they reject all supernatural explanations.) She fights hard against the idea that morality is some sort of natural occurrence within our humanity. As she points out several authors who have argued that rape and other heinous things are natural occurrences that we have later made crimes. She disagrees with Dr. Steven Pinker, who argues in his book A Blank Slate that rape is an adaptive strategy pursued by low-status males who are alienated from their communities and unable to win the consent of women. Dr. Pinker concludes that this will lead to a gene or a discovering of a gene that predisposes men to rape.(p.126)

Next she takes on Dr. Peter Singer, the Princeton professor who famously defended bestiality. She finds a weird disconnect in Singer who on the one hand argues for animal liberation but on the other supports human sex with animals. She blames evolution for this, as evolution classifies humans as animals, therefore, it is a species difference but not anything significant otherwise. (p.129)
She argues that evolutionary psychology is self-refuting and an “incoherent patchwork.” (p.132) and addresses Daniel Dennett’s trademark metaphor of Darwinism being a universal acid that eats through every traditional concept. She then briefly addresses theistic evolution. She states that only process theology could account and be compatible for a harmonious relationship between God and evolution.(p.138)

In the 5th chapter, Edward Sission seeks to point out the flaws in what he terms Neo-Darwinism. A lot of these flaws have to do with failed experiments and philosophical points that are disguised or hidden in the science of Evolution.(i.e. Evolutionists will make philosophical arguments with scientific claims and claim the whole thing as science.) In Chapter 6, J. Budziszewski, argues that naturalism is at odds with natural law. His reasoning goes as follows. He states that naturalism destroys any meaningful concept of morality. (p.190) He also states that it’s a disaster to ethics (p.196) and overall that Evolution cannot account for anything because it isn’t a predictive model/theory.

In chapter 7, Frank Tipler calls into question the honesty and integrity of scientific peer-reviewed journals. Tipler is a Christian physicist who took issue in particular with Howard Van Til, a theistic evolutionist, who had told him his work wasn’t worth considering because it wasn’t peer-reviewed. Tipler argues that many great scientific breakthroughs and achievements happened before peer-review was a thing so peer-review shouldn’t be the litmus test for correct information.(p.210) Tipler argues that the peer-review process is arbitrary and that Science journals should be more open to the idea that they could be wrong when presented counter-evidence. (p.229)

In chapter 8, Michael Behe urges us to not reject evolution outright because of our theological convictions, but to thoroughly investigate it. (p.237) Behe repeats his famous irreducible complexity argument and addresses the history of the Catholic church gradually accepting Evolution as an orthodox position on human origins. (p.248)
In chapter 9, Michael John Denton tells us his personal story on his back-and-forth with evolution. Denton argues that scientists make a mistake when they assume animal organs work similar to ours or to man-made machines and thus make false inferences. (p.273)
In chapter 10, James Barham tells us why he is not a Darwinist. He thinks that Darwinism is not empirical, makes sweeping philosophical claims and pushes back against the idea that Darwinism is even the only naturalist explanation for human origins. (p.314)

In chapter 11, Cornelius Hunter argues that Evolution is not consistent with the scientific method. Therefore, it shouldn’t count as a science. The experiments don’t prove what they say they prove and the evidence is shoddy at best.(p.325) In chapter 12, Ronald F. Hirsch argues that bacterial genome sequences prove that Darwin’s conception of evolution is less likely than thought.(p.362) In chapter 13, Christopher Langan argues that naturalism lacks explanatory power and therefore should not be the main model in scientific inquiry. (p.378) In chapter 14, David Berlinksi argues that the fossil record is incomplete, that evolution is defended with faulty reasoning and that it isn’t fit to survive in today’s intellectual climate. (p.425)

Conclusion


I tried to summarize each chapter to give you an idea on what kinds of claims were being made. To see their arguments in further detail, get the book yourself. It’s better to read, digest, and contemplate on your own without someone telling you what to think. My opinion is that some of these chapters are woefully insufficient, while others are thought-provoking. You can judge which you think is which. Come to your own conclusions. However, I think a balanced approach whether you deny evolution or accept it, is to read the for/against works on it. Tolle Lege. ( )