Rescuing Darwin - Reviewed by Professor Andy McIntosh

RESCUING DARWIN
By Nick Spencer & Denis Alexander
Theos. 66 pages. £10.00
ISBN 978-0-95544-535-4

This small book is, according to its frontispiece, a report on ‘the extent and nature of evolutionary and non-evolutionary beliefs in the UK today and their perceived relationship with theism and atheism’.

Nick Spencer is director of Theos and Denis Alexander is the director of the Faraday Institute, which is well known for its view that the Genesis account of Creation should be seen through the lens of evolution. According to Theos’s own website (http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/), they have written this as part of an ongoing programme to ‘Rescue Darwin’. This programme was announced on that website on June 3 2008 and has been funded by the Templeton Foundation, so that any discerning reader will be aware from the outset that this does not come with a pedigree of strong evangelical tradition.

No friend to the Bible

Firstly, the title Rescuing Darwin. Spencer and Alexander are attempting to state that Darwinism somehow fits comfortably with Christian thinking and not with atheism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Though Darwin was no atheist, he was no friend to biblical Christianity, as any cursory examination of his writings from the Beagle onwards show. Because of the suffering he observed in nature he could not reconcile a good God with what he saw and moved further and further into agnosticism as he got older.

Misleading history

Secondly, the book is based on the wrong premise. It is view that the interpretation of Genesis in a straightforward way is somehow a recent phenomenon. They quote (pp.46,47) Origen, Augustine, Jerome and Gregory of Nyssa as taking an allegorical view of the days of Creation, but fail to tell the reader that Ephrem the Syrian, Basil of Caesarea, Ambrose of Milan (the mentor of Augustine), Justin Martyr and Tertullian spoke of literal 24-hour days, as did Luther and Calvin much later in the Reformation. The six-day Creation position has been held for centuries and is not recent.

Origin of suffering?

Thirdly, their theology of the origin of sin and suffering flies in the face of New Testament teaching in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, in which Paul clearly states: ‘For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive’ (1 Corinthians 15.21,22). The clarity of Scripture is contrasted here with the confusion that the authors exhibit in their closing discussion (pp.57-59) on the existence of pain and suffering in Creation. Evolution is predicated on creatures suffering and dying out with the survival of the fittest, but the argument of Romans is that Adam’s rebellion brought the universe into bondage — so, ‘by one man's offence death reigned by one’ (Romans 5.17) and, ‘Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now’ (Romans 8.21,22). There was no death (certainly of humans and, by implication, animals as well — see Genesis 1.30) before the Fall. If death was already present before the Fall and God only instituted spiritual death following a rejection of his command (Genesis 2.17), then why did Christ die both physically and spiritually on the cross? The theology of Rescuing Darwin is seriously at fault, for the New Testament teaching of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 is clearly based on the knowledge that the original creation was without disease and suffering. On page 37, Spencer and Alexander accuse young earth creationists of making a category mistake. They allege quite erroneously that ‘…a literal view of Creation is dismissed by serious theologians and philosophers’ and quote Rowan Williams (who is certainly no friend to an evangelical position!). It is, in fact, the reverse. It is the theistic evolution position that they espouse which is so theologically wrong and dismissed by many leading theologians (would one call Spurgeon, Ryle, Martyn Lloyd Jones and John MacArthur non-serious theologians, to name but some of the conservative view?).

I recently received a communication from a missionary friend working in Papua New Guinea, where they are using the ‘Creation to Christ’ model of instruction to evangelise villagers. When these people are told that God created man in his own image and man rebelled and brought suffering and death into the world, they immediately grasp the significance of this vital truth and it has pleased God to arouse many in those and other lands, through the clear teaching of Genesis, where sin and trouble come from, and of the vital need to repent and turn to Christ for salvation. What a lesson to us in the sophisticated West.

Inadequate science

The fourth disquiet I have with this book is its science. Neither author seems to be aware of the wealth of findings now available showing the careful student the large body of evidence which fits admirably with a Creation / Flood position. Their discussion of Creation thinking in the 20th century is woefully inadequate. To label Creation thinkers as anti-science (pp.26,27) is a slur on Christian brethren who have worked hard with little financial support on science research without the assumption of a naturalist framework. There is no mention in their booklet of the great advances in the last 20 years by in-depth creation research journals such as Creation Technical Journal or the Answers Research Journal, in which careful and painstaking research is reported and is making significant contributions to understanding biology, geology and astronomy from a biblical mindset. For example, in Alexander’s own area (genetics), writers in the Creation Technical Journal have been saying for many years that the evidence of genetics denied that much of the human genome was ‘junk’. This had been the basis for recent evolutionary arguments used to wrongly assert that the genome had genetic evidence of common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees (a view that Alexander holds and is spelt out in his other book Creation or Evolution — do we have to choose?). However, latterly, articles in Nature and other ‘secular’ science journals concerning ‘junk’ DNA are beginning to show that indeed it is not vestigial, but rather has functions only now coming to light. This is an example of how far-sighted biblical thinking can free science from the shackles of naturalism which many evolutionary scientists are locked into.

Basis for science?

This brings me to my fifth and final comment. Their criticism of Intelligent Design on pages 42-43 shows that they have completely failed to grasp the basis of doing science from this perspective. They bring out the tired argument of ‘god-of-the-gaps’, when it is the reverse argument that actually applies. The design thesis is the argument from Romans 1.20: ‘For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse’. In other words, it is not seeing God in the parts of nature that we do not understand. Rather, it is completely the opposite. It is the science that we do understand that confirms beautifully the truth of Romans 1.20. The design approach to scientific investigation is not somehow to be regarded as a theory within a framework as described on pages 52 and 53. Rather, it is a new framework entirely and, indeed, is the only correct biblical framework within which to do origins science. Though points 2 to 6 in their list (concerning testable hypotheses, laws, mathematics, objectivity and repeatability) are agreed as important principles for doing objective science, they have made a category mistake in their point 1. They state: ‘Science in its methodologies excludes questions of ultimate purpose, value and significance’. This is not correct. By definition when dealing with origins one is forced to be right on the edge of empirical science and bordering on philosophy. To adopt a naturalistic framework here is perilous indeed to the science (let alone the theology, as already discussed) and leads quickly into a worldview that then incorrectly ignores the principle of Romans 1.20 — Paul there clearly alludes to purpose in the created order and this underlines, particularly when it comes to origins, that no scientist works in a vacuum — his thesis reflects his worldview. Consequently, the reason that the scientific method itself is in great difficulty today, when it comes to the study of origins, is precisely because the paradigm is wrong — so point 1 of Spencer and Alexander’s list is incorrect and gives away too much to a philosophically erroneous view of science. Rather than trying to sweep away the Creation / Intelligent Design position as their book is seeking to do, Spencer and Alexander have failed to realise why the design position will not go away. The reason is nothing to do with some poor theologians who also do not understand science. It is because a growing number of thinking serious scientists, philosophers and theologians question, not some small detail of the empirical data or have a poor grasp of good theology, but, rather, have good scientific and biblical reasons for questioning the entire Darwinian paradigm. Spencer and Alexander are not grasping that there is an important revolution of thought taking place today.

Believing Moses

It is a sad reflection on the evangelical church that we have devised sophisticated reasons why we should not believe the Bible and, in particular, Genesis 1-11 in a straightforward manner. Christ stated some very serious words when arguing with the unbelieving Jews of his day in John 5.46,47: ‘For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?’ We deny Genesis, the first book of Moses, at our spiritual peril.

Professor Andy McIntosh, Leeds, is a member of Milnrow Evangelical Church.