Book Review: Seven Days That Divide The World

It's Day Two of my Genesis book reviews, and perhaps appropriately, it's a book that deals with the creation days themselves. This wasn't strictly part of my sermon series prep, but further background reading by an author I respect on a related topic. John Lennox is emerging as one of the leading Christian apologists in the realm of science and evolution, so it was interesting to read his take on the creation.

It might be a recurring observation by all the writers this week, but Genesis is not an easy subject: 'The biblical announcement of the fact of creation was as timelessly clear as it was magnificently appropriate. However... when it comes to the timing and means of creation... people over the centuries have found the book of Genesis less easy to understand.'

Lennox declares that 'the topic is clearly a potential minefield.' Yet he continues to argue that there is hope of a harmony of the Bible and science both properly interpreted. After all, belief in creative intelligence was the starting point for modern science, which therefore doesn't disprove God's existence. Indeed, Lennox examines the trouble surrounding Galileo, that famous test case of religion against science. Rather, 'The conflict was far more between two 'scientific' world pictures than between science and religion.'

Continuing to discuss bible interpretation, Lennox points to a number of examples where the 'literal' sense of the words used can be inadequate and even misleading - 'since there can be different levels of literality.' So, with the discovery that the earth revolves around the sun: 'Even though our interpretation relies on scientific knowledge, it does not compromise the authority of Scripture.' Therefore: 'The Galileo incident teaches us that we should be humble enough to distinguish between what the Bible says and our interpretations of it.'

With this foundation in place, Lennox examines the text of Genesis 1 to discover what it actually says. He explains that there are a variety of meanings for the word 'day' in the Hebrew, whether the period of sunlight; a twenty-four hour period; or an age. He also considers the possibility of the six creation days being solid days, but spaced throughout a longer period of time (ie not just in the one week).

Moving on, the problems of the origin of humans and death are raised. Were Adam and Eve just a pair of humanoids that God decided to begin with, or were they a special creation? Did evolution play a part in their rise? Did death exist before the fall? Lennox' answer seems to push for an ancient world, with an attitude of humility as the 'best fit' for the evidence of Scripture and science.

His fifth and final chapter appears to be the strongest, as he turns from science to focus instead on the message of Genesis 1, displaying the truth it reveals of God to the reader. In a series of simple points, Lennox again and again points to the God who is, the creator, the one who formed us, and calls us to relationship with him.

There are also a number of interesting appendices, providing a background to Genesis, an examination of the Cosmic Temple view, thoughts on the beginning of time, a brief discussion of the suggestion that there are two accounts of creation, and an analysis of theistic evolution and the God of the gaps.

All in all, it's a book that will raise the salient points in the discussion and provide much food for thought. I'm not sure that I agree with all his conclusions, but at least I've been provoked to think more carefully about my position, and am now better informed about the issues. Any book by Lennox also equips the reader for apologetics, which is also a bonus!

Book Review: Should Christians Embrace Evolution?

My reading seems to have a bit of a pattern to it. Throughout the year I'll mix it up, some fiction, some theology, some history, some whatever. Yet for the past few years it seems that the summer months are when I read a book or two on the matters of evolution, science and creation. Already this summer I've read Bill Bryson's A Short History About Nearly Everything, and so my second book on the topic approached the subject from a different starting point.

Norman C Nevin edited and compiled the volume 'Should Christians Embrace Evolution: Biblical and Scientific Responses', which is an interesting read, and very useful when approaching these controversial topics from a theological position. The subtitle basically gives the breakdown of the chapters, although there seem to be seven from a theological perspective, and three or four from a scientific background.

The theological chapters were very good, coming from various experts in their fields. Various vital issues are at stake - including the language of Genesis, the nature of Adam and Eve, the fall and death, the grand scheme of creation, redemption and eschatology, and the nature and character of God. There were some gems of quotes, including the following:

'There is much more to embracing evolution than suggesting different ways of interpreting the creation passages of Scripture.'

'The role Adam plays in Paul's theology makes Adam's historical reality integral to the basic storyline of Paul's gospel.'

'Adam fell downwards, not upwards' (on the impossibility of death as bringing improvement, as required by Darwinian evolution)

When attention is turned to the scientific issues, there are some helpful aspects drawn out, with a useful reminder that science is the basic reporting of inquiry and experiments, whereas the whole package of Darwinian evolution is a philosophical approach using the basic observations in a particular way for a particular agenda. The same evidence can lead to other conclusions which are currently out of vogue in the scientific realm.

'Far from being an engine for beneficial change, mutations are a downhill slope.'

'It follows that, even in principle, some quite different explanation is required to account for the origin of life.'

'The origin of such a system presents a paradox of the "which came first: the chicken or the egg?" variety. The DNA information is needed to build the protein machinery, but only the specific protein machinery can read the instructions! This set-up proclaims design about as loudly as any evidence could.'

It's a very helpful book, with lots of reasons to commend it. However, there were also a few things that have to be flagged up which might take away from the book.

First of all, it appears that (as may commonly happen), this book was written and compiled in response to another book. In a good number of the chapters specifically written for this volume (rather than having been used in this volume from prior sources), there are repeated references and refutations of the work of Denis Alexander in his book Creation or Evolution: Do We Have To Choose? Given its context, this volume may be best read in conjunction with Alexander's - to fully appreciate the points that this book is seeking to make and correct in Alexander's approach.

Secondly, I personally find it a struggle sometimes to read these compilations. It's good to have the various experts writing on their particular subject, but I find it difficult to read, because you're just getting used to one writer's style when his chapter has finished and you're into the next author's new style.

Thirdly, and perhaps more important than my reading preferences, is that while the scientific material was good, there just wasn't enough of it. The section seems to be very brief, with a lot more that could be said and discussed. Perhaps some extra weight could be good in the science chapters, to balance the greater number and weight of the theological chapters?

Another minor quibble I had with one chapter was the assertion that 'the final number of the saved may well vastly exceed the number of the lost by an incalculably long way.' (p.69 - Greg Haslam). This is in the chapter on eschatology, with the assertion that the restoration of creation, the new heavens and the new earth will be even better than what was originally lost at the fall. Yes, indeed, but I'm not sure you can make the assertion that more will be saved than lost - how could you account for the narrow road and the broad road to destruction in this reckoning?

All in all, I think this is a good book on the theme of creation and evolution in terms of the origin of life. The theological chapters are very good, and if the science was boosted, it would be even better. Definitely one for the church bookstall, and for those who wish to further think about creation and evolution in a Biblically faithful way.

Book Review: A Short History of Nearly Everything

I like Bill Bryson. He's the kind of guy I would love to meet, to hear his funny stories about the people and places he's been. But then I would worry about what he would write about having met me!

For about one year, I devoured his travel writings, eagerly finding them in second hand bookshops and journeying with him to exotic places like Scotland the Appalachian trail, Australia, continental Europe and many more. Always informative, always a great read.

A few years back, he went on a journey of a different kind, into the history of science. I bought it not long after it was published, but then didn't get round to reading it. Eventually, it made it onto the 'to-read' shelf above my desk, and recently I completed it. A Short History of Nearly Everything is portrayed as a rough guide to science, and it's probably impossible to find a better guide than Bryson.

The facts that he discovers, the developments in theories he follows, the scientists he profiles and meets are truly astonishing. The universe, and this world of ours, is truly a wonderful place. Wonderful can sometimes be an overused word, but this book will leave you full of wonder. From the smallest of creatures to the biggest of mountains and everything in between; from the atoms and molecules to the whole shebang; nothing is neglected in this grand guide of the known universe.

The response it brought from me time and again, was that sense of wonder at the majesty and provision of grace from the great Creator God, the one who made it all, and continues to rule over his creation. From the way that the earth is just the right distance from the sun, has the right gaseous mix in the atmosphere, has the right climate, the right gravity, the right tilt to provide season, and so many more variables that allow for the possibility and flourishing of life; through to the way we have been able to analyse weather, plate tectonics, sea levels, other species, planetary movements and the expansion of the universe.

In this sense, though, I think the name of the book is even more suitable than perhaps Bryson intended - A Short History of Nearly Everything. You see, I realise it's a book dealing with the development of theories in science; but it is depressingly materialistic - not in the wealth and riches sense, but in the continuous pounding of the drum that matter is all there is. He closely follows Darwin and Dawkins in seeing all of life as one, following one pattern and developing into the great variety we now see around us.

For many, science is portrayed as the great revealer, giving us all the answers of the universe, but Bryson is very helpful in flagging up the great unknowns, the things that science still hasn't figured out, and may never: 'The upshot of all this is that we live in a universe whose age we can't quite compute, surrounded by stars whose distances from us and each other we don't altogether know, filled with matter we can't identify, operating in conformance with physical laws whose properties we don't truly understand.' (p.219)

I would definitely recommend this book; it's a great read, and easy to follow for non-boffins. Despite some very technical stuff being discussed, Bryson (and his team of scientific helpers) have been good at explaining it simply. The humour is mild and amusing, and it's a great journey to go on with a brilliant guide. Just don't swallow all of his conclusions wholesale.

Conserving Evolution?

Sometimes I wonder about things. This is one of those times. Just a brief observation of something that seems a little bit illogical to my tiny brain.

Wildlife conservation is a big business these days, with regular updates on endangered species like the elephants, tigers, pandas, turtles and many more. Much is made of the declining populations and number of breeding pairs left in the world.

Yet at the same time, those most involved in conservation work are the same people who likely believe in evolution, both micro (within species adapting to their particular environment e.g. the urban moths becoming darker to blend in with the polluted cityscape) and macro (producing new species and explaining the origin of everything). But surely this is illogical? Surely their evolution theory should desist any such conservation efforts because that's the way evolution has always worked - species unable to adapt or survive in a changing world are lost while 'progress' is made through new species better able to cope.

Are they to some extent elevating conservation over their belief in evolution? Why would one species worry about the survival of another species anyway? Or are the conservationists displaying the fact that humans aren't just animals like any other species, but that we were made in the image and likeness of God, and given dominion over the animal kingdom to tend and care and rule over it under God?

Evolution and conservation doesn't seem to sit as well together as creation and conservation. Yet we often fail in our responsibilities and stewardship of the earth's resources. Saving animals is good, but not as good as saving people from the wrath to come.