Crossway has recently published a book entitled Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique.[1] This volume is contributed to and edited by many heavyweights in these fields including: J. P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K. Gauger, and Wayne Grudem. As the title of the book suggests, this volume attempts to give a comprehensive critique of the Theistic Evolution (TE) position -sometimes called “evolutionary creation”. Both the nature (extensive) and size of the volume (a hefty 1,000 pages), are enormous. This review will consider each of the three main sections individually.

The first introductory chapter is written by Stephen C. Meyer and gives the volume’s working definition of Theistic Evolution (TE). Meyer begins by defining Darwinian Evolution in a three-fold manner: (1) change over time, (2) universal common ancestry, and (3) the natural mechanisms that produce change in organisms (pg. 34). Meyer suggests the first definition is rather vague and is not disputed so it will not be a part of the critiqued position. The other two aspects do form a part of the definition that will be critiqued. Although the idea of a universal common ancestor is rather straightforward, the third concept regarding the mechanism that produces change is split into two elements and treated separately in the remainder of the book. First, there is a consideration of the “creative power of the natural selection/random variation (or mutation) mechanism” supposed in the evolutionary process (pg. 36). Second, there is a consideration of this mechanism being able to produce the appearance of design (pg. 37). Regarding the claim of universal common ancestry, Meyer suggests it is “contestable but not incoherent” while the idea of natural selection as a mechanism for evolution is “deeply problematic” (pg. 40). This is what the scientific side of the critique will seek to expose over the more than five hundred pages that begin this work.

Regarding the mechanism of evolution, Meyer further asserts that it generates either “(1) logical contradictions, (2) a theologically heterodox view of divine actions, or (3) a convoluted and scientifically vacuous explanation” (pg. 43). Throughout both the introductory chapters and the rest of the scientific critique, the major interlocutors are Francis Collins and the Biologos organization. This seems wise since Francis Collins is perhaps the world’s best-known proponent of the Theistic Evolution position and Biologos the flagship of this position.

The second introductory chapter, by Wayne Grudem, suggests no one should feel compelled to interpret Genesis in a way that “presupposes the truth of neo-Darwinism (or other contemporary versions of) macroevolutionary theory” (pg. 62). But he also makes clear that this book does not take a particular position on the age of the earth or whether Genesis should be interpreted “literally” or not (pgs. 62-63). Rather, the critique is of the overall position of TE without claiming there is only one alternative position. It is only at this point that the reader is given a working definition of the term Theistic Evolution (recall that Meyer’s definition was of the term “evolution” more broadly):

God created matter and after that did not guide or intervene or act directly to cause any empirically detectable change in the natural behavior of matter until all living things had evolved by purely natural processes. (pg. 67)

The Scientific Critique

As the book continues, the authors will continually interact with quotes and references from proponents of TE that they argue support this definition. After these introductory chapters, the book turns to the first of three sections: the scientific critique of TE. This section is split into two distinct parts: (1) the failure of Neo-Darwinism, and (2) the case against universal common descent.

Regarding the failure of neo-Darwinism, the first chapter, by Douglas Axe, argues that Darwin’s explanation of life should be thrown out because: (1) acceptance of the position means we must forfeit the claim that all humans are confronted by God’s existence when beholding the wonders of the living world, (2) all accidental explanations of life are demonstrably implausible, and (3) the common justifications for accommodating Darwin’s theory within the framework of traditional faith are confused (pg. 83). Although many would claim that a person needs to be a scientific expert of some kind in order to understand these debates, the author argues that this is not the case and that anyone can know the claim of Darwinism is wrong because we all know that “for unintelligent causes to have imitated genius on such a vast scale would require a very large convergence of impossible coincidences” which we all know to be utterly impossible (pg. 99). That is, natural causes and chance cannot produce works of genius as Darwinism seems to necessitate.

The remaining sections of this Neo-Darwinism critique can be summarized as follows:

Chapter 2 argues that the random mutation and natural selection mechanisms lack the creative power to generate the new genetic information necessary to produce new proteins and forms of life.

Chapter 3 argues that random mutations on DNA and proteins produce only extremely limited changes that do not support the massive changes necessary for Darwinism.

Chapter 4 shows that undirected chemical evolutionary processes and mechanisms have not demonstrated the creative power to generate the first living cell from simpler molecules.

Chapter 5 shows that attempts to simulate evolutionary processes in computer models have also failed. Instead, Winston Ewert argues that these computer models of evolution support the concept of a unique designer.

Chapter 6 critiques the idea that God carefully arranged matter at the beginning of the universe so as to ensure that life would evolve without any additional input or activity.

Chapter 7 explains that new organisms would require information not stored in the DNA and shows that Darwinism has no explanation for this.

Chapters 8 argues that many mainstream evolutionary biologists have now rejected orthodox neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory because they realize that natural selection and random mutations do not have the necessary creative power.

Chapter 9 describes the exquisite orchestration necessary for embryos to develop to adult life and suggests Darwinism has no explanation for how natural processes could have developed this orchestration.

The second part of the scientific critique deals with the claims of common ancestry. Chapters 10-12 show (1) the lack of evidence in the fossil record for this claim, (2) the reality that even many Darwinists question this theory, and (3) several considerations that suggest the idea of common ancestry should be discarded by all in the scientific community.

Chapters 13-17 consider the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, the evidence for human uniqueness and a suggested alternative population genetics model. This section ends with a consideration of the bias in modern-day Western science and how it has created a blackhole for new ideas or a questioning of any scientific status quo.

It should be noted that the scientific critiques in this volume are not new. The beauty of this project is distilling them into one volume. Even if some readers will not be completely convinced by the scientific critique in these chapters, the reader is given much food for thought.

At the very least, a byproduct of this section is showing that the scientific position of TE suffers from being ill-defined and nebulous. There is no agreed upon scope of the evolutionary process and no clear definition of the term itself. Indeed, some have criticized this volume’s definition of TE as not being accurate. But since the definition in the book is based on referenced quotes and statement by major proponents of the position, it would seem the bigger issue is with TE itself.

The Philosophical Critique

The second section is the philosophical critique. In chapter 18 (the first chapter in this section), J. P. Moreland addresses the interaction of science and philosophy. He explains that much of modern science is undergirded by philosophical assumptions that must be brought out into the open before theories can really be considered. Perhaps the best example, and one of the ones he gives, is that of Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose in their best-selling work The Nature of Space and Time. In this work, Hawking claims that philosophy is dead and then he goes on to use philosophy to try and prop up his “scientific” theory.[2] Although Hawking’s blunder is obvious, many other supposed scientific claims do not acknowledge the philosophical assumptions on which they are based. This section seeks to reveal some of these assumptions and show them to be less than satisfactory. After all, a structure is only as stable as it’s foundation. Moreland also points out the tendency of mainline Christianity in the Western World to surrender to anything by the name of “science” far too easily (pg. 558). Thus almost any statement that comes out of a scientists mouth is understood to be the last word of “science” and Christians go scurrying away to change their positions in order to accommodate the newest party-line. But Moreland warns against this knee-jerk reaction and suggest that many “scientific” statements are really based on bad philosophical claims.

Chapters 19-20 critique the philosophical underpinning of methodological naturalism. The authors suggest there is good reason to question this starting point of Darwinism – also adopted by TE advocates. Many of those who would hold to a TE position, discount any evidence that does not agree with their philosophical assumption of methodological naturalism. The problems are, (1) this assumption is not scientific but philosophical, (2) it is based on a poor philosophical basis, and (3) it precludes these scientists from looking at all the evidence.

In chapter 20, there is an argument of particular interest. Stephen Dilley points out that methodological naturalism prohibits the use of theology-laden claims that deny non-naturalistic theories (such as Intelligent Design or Creationism). Yet, he responds, key arguments for evolutionary theory use such theology-laden claims (from the Origin of life to the present) or they attempt to provide evidence-based refutations of those non-naturalistic theories. By doing this, they show significant inconsistency. If something like the Intelligent Design movement is not “real science” as Darwinists and TE advocates claim, then why seek to argue against it with scientific evidence. Only scientific theories need to be refuted by scientific arguments.

Chapters 21-23 critique the following assumptions: (1) scientific knowledge is superior to other forms of knowledge (such as Biblical revelation), (2) all claims for intelligent causation are merely “god-of-the-gaps” argumentation, and (3) that TE has an adequate answer for the problem of evil given their naturalistic assumptions.

Chapter 24 questions the wisdom of TE advocates assuming that historical Christian interpretations must be the first to go whenever science seems to disagree with those interpretations. Chapter 25 argues that modern evolutionary theory cannot explain moral consciousness (which is a big problem for TE advocates).

The final chapter in this section dispels the often-heard claim by TE advocates that C. S. Lewis held a TE-like position. In fact, his writings show significant misgivings about many of the modern TE assumptions and outright denial of several other TE points.

Although helpful, this section appears to be the weakest of the three because it centers far more on one issue (materialistic naturalism) rather than a comprehensive philosophical critique. In contrast, the other two sections have more multi-faceted critiques.

The Theological Critique

The third and final section gives a theological and Biblical critique of the TE position. In Chapter 27, Wayne Grudem begins by enumerating twelve TE beliefs that clearly conflict with the creation account in Genesis 1-3. While he is careful to admit that some TE advocates would not hold to all twelve of these claims, he emphasizes that his arguments are cumulative (pg. 786). He claims that both sections of this chapter still stand even if some TE advocates would not hold to all aspects of them. Grudem further suggests that a non-historical reading of Genesis 1-3 does not arise from factors in the text, but often from a prior commitment to an evolutionary framework that has been shown to be suspect in the first section of this book. Then he argues that several literary factors in Genesis 1-3 give strong evidence that this section should be understood as historical. Additionally, he claims that Jesus and other New Testament authors, in ten separate New Testament books, affirm the historicity of Genesis 1-3 (pg. 786).

Grudem then spends the second half of his chapter explaining the eleven Christian doctrines that are compromised by denying these twelve historical elements of Genesis 1-3. The most significant denials or partial denials he gives are (1) the truthfulness of the Bible (pgs. 821-28), (2) God’s direct creation Ex Nihilo, (3) human equality, (4) the atonement, and (5) the resurrection. This chapter and Grudem’s introduction chapter could be a forceful book in its own right.

It should be acknowledged that Grudem suggests his arguments in this book are heavily based on the significant exegetical work contained in Chapters 28-29. In Chapter 28, John D. Currid considers how TE advocates are out of step with the Old Testament more broadly in some of their claims. In Chapter 29, Guy Prentiss Waters does the same with the New Testament. For anyone who is truly interested in the Biblical/textual case for or against Genesis 1-3 and TE, these chapters fully encapsulate the anti-TE critique.

Greg Allison then considers historical Christian doctrines that are at odds with parts of the TE position. Allison’s approach is somewhat unique in that he shows major TE beliefs to violate major orthodox creeds and confessions that the church has affirmed over 2 millennia. While most TE advocates would see themselves and their claims as squarely within orthodox Christian lines, Allison suggests that this is clearly not the case.

The final chapter by Fred Zaspel seeks to rebuff the claim often heard in TE circles that the great Princeton theologian B.B. Warfield endorsed something akin to modern day TE. Warfield’s early and later writings are brought to bear in such a way that not only is the claim shown to be unsupported by Warfield’s writings, but Warfield actually provides a significant critique of the TE position in several ways concurrent with this book.

Conclusion

The sections and arguments of this book can be helpfully summarized as follows:

Recent scientific evidence presents such significant challenges to key tenets of evolutionary theory that no Biblical interpreter should think that an evolutionary interpretation of Genesis is “scientifically necessary” TE depends on a strictly materialistic definition of science that is philosophically problematic The Bible repeatedly presents as actual historical events many specific aspects of the origin of human beings and other living creatures that cannot be reconciled with TE, and that a denial of those historical specifics seriously undermines several crucial Christian doctrines (pg. 65).

On such a debated topic, no doubt many readers may not find all the arguments contained in this volume to be fully persuasive on their own. But even TE advocates should thank the authors of this work for placing their scientific, philosophical and theological critiques all in one place. Furthermore, for those who wish to look into a certain argument further, many of these chapters are actually distilled versions of much longer arguments by the authors contained in already existing books and lectures. Although this volume will certainly not please every reader, the 2, 122 footnotes contained in the volume give the reader ample opportunity to delve as deeply as they wish into the claims and counter-claims orbiting around this debate.

[1] Wheaton: Crossway, 2017.

[2] Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), 3-4, 53-55, 121.