A little more about evolution . . . and creation . . . and Intelligent Design

I haven't posted lately on this topic. Partially because I have been preoccupied with so many other subjects.

But I continue to read a bit on the subject. I've picked up a few additional books. . . . And I have continued to follow an email discussion list I'm on in which some highly educated Old-Earth Creationists (primarily ID advocates, as far as I can tell) discuss their views.

A few issues have bubbled high enough above the surface that I feel compelled to comment.

1. I just discovered that Denyse O'Leary wrote a blog post at the end of last year in which she notes,
   

   Freelance reporter Suzan Mazur (Scoop, March 4[, 2008]) pulls back the veil on one of evolution's little known secrets--Darwinism is dead as a theory of evolution:
   

   It's not Yasgur's Farm, but what happens at the Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria this July promises to be far more transforming for the world than Woodstock. What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature—let's call them ‘the Altenberg 16’—who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. It's pre the discovery of DNA, lacks a theory for body form and does not accommodate ‘other’ new phenomena.

   Mazur explores the views of the Altenberg 16 "self-organization proponents" and their attack on Darwinism as they desperately search for another materialistic explanation for life in a six-part E-Book.

   Frankly, I am grateful for this post because it encourages me in--what I have been thinking I need to do--maintaining my generally agnostic view with respect to origins . . . at least with respect to physical mechanisms.
    
2. I thought I should encourage you, potentially, to follow the reference to Mazur's e-book. Mazur writes, in her introduction:
   

   No one knows how life began, but so-called theories of evolution are continually being announced. This book, The Altenberg 16: Will the Real Theory of Evolution Please Stand Up? exposes the rivalry in science today surrounding attempts to discover that elusive mechanism of evolution.

   Nice start. Helpful summary of her subject matter.
   
   But look where she goes!
   

   Evolutionary science is as much about the posturing, salesmanship, stonewalling and bullying that goes on as it is about actual scientific theory. It is a social discourse involving hypotheses of staggering complexity with scientists, recipients of the biggest grants of any intellectuals, assuming the power of politicians while engaged in Animal House pie-throwing and name-calling: "ham-fisted", "looney Marxist hangover", "secular creationist", "philosopher" (a scientist who can’t get grants anymore), "quack", "crackpot". . .
   
   In short, it’s a modern day quest for the holy grail, but with few knights. At a time that calls for scientific vision, scientific inquiry’s been hijacked by an industry of greed, with evolution books hyped like snake oil at a carnival.
   
   Perhaps the most egregious display of commercial dishonesty is next year’s [i.e., at the time of writing, 2009's --JAH] celebration of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species – the so-called theory of evolution by natural selection, i.e., survival of the fittest, that was foisted on us almost 150 years ago.
   
   Scientists agree that natural selection can occur. But the scientific community has known for some time that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. It also knows that self-assembly is real, that is, matter can form without a genetic recipe – like the snowflake (non-living). It does this without external guidance.
   
   And that the Hydra (living), for example, can self-organize its scattered cells even after being forced through a sieve. Yet, science elites continue to term self-assembly and self-organization "woo woo".
   
   Coinciding with the 2009 Darwinian celebration, MIT will publish a book by 16 biologists and philosophers meeting in Altenberg, Austria at the Konrad Lorenz Institute in July [2008 --JAH] to discuss a reformulation of the theory of evolution. That’s the mansion made famous by Konrad Lorenz’s imprinting experiments, where Lorenz got his geese to follow him because they sensed he was their mother.
   
   The symposium’s title is "Toward an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis?", although the event is expected to be the actual kickoff of an evolution remix.
   
   Some of the Altenberg 16 or A-16, as I like to call them, have hinted that they’re trying to steer science in a more honest direction, that is, by addressing non-centrality of the gene. They say that the "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis", also called neo-Darwinism – which cobbled together the budding field of population genetics and paleontology, etc., 70 years ago – also marginalized the inquiry into morphology. And that it is then – in the 1930s and 1940s – that the seeds of corruption were planted and an Evolution industry born. . . .
   
   But will the A-16 deliver? Will they help rid us of the natural selection "survival of the fittest" mentality that has plagued civilization for a century and a half, and on which Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are based, now that the cat is out of the bag that selection is politics not science? That selection cannot be measured exactly. That it is not the mechanism of evolution. That it is an abstract rusty tool left over from 19th century British imperial exploits.
   
   Or will the A-16 tip-toe around the issue, appease the Darwin industry and protect foundation grants? . . .

   --Bold emphases mine. --JAH

   I haven't read the entire e-book. I'm just sayin': It looks like it's got some fascinating content!
   
   ******
   Oh. Before I stop on this subject: I should probably note what actually happened at the A-16 conference since that was 10 months ago.
   
   I have to confess, I'm not impressed. Though perhaps I "simply" don't know enough. But here's what Massimo Pigliucci, the conference sponsor, wrote about it:
   

   By incorporating [a series of exciting empirical and conceptual advances that have marked the field [of evolutionary theory] in recent time] into our understanding of evolution, we believe that the explanatory power of evolutionary theory is greatly expanded within biology and beyond. As is the nature of science, some of the new ideas will stand the test of time, while others will be significantly modified. Nonetheless, there is much justified excitement in evolutionary biology these days. This is a propitious time to engage the scientific community in a vast interdisciplinary effort to further our understanding of how life evolves.
   

   Really. Truly. That's the "final statement emerging from the Altenberg workshop, agreed upon by all 16 participants"!
   
   Are you impressed?
   
   Yeah. I didn't think so. Nor am I.
   
   Oh. you wonder what the "exciting empirical and conceptual advances" might be?
   
   Here they are:
   

   The new information includes findings from the continuing molecular biology revolution, as well as a large body of empirical knowledge on genetic variation in natural populations, phenotypic plasticity, phylogenetics, species-level stasis and punctuational evolution, and developmental biology, among others.
   
   The new concepts include (but are not limited to): evolvability, developmental plasticity, phenotypic and genetic accommodation, punctuated evolution, phenotypic innovation, facilitated variation, epigenetic inheritance, and multi-level selection.

   Sorry, that still doesn't do it for me.
    
3. Then there is this post about Philip S. Skell's Forbes magazine article, The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution.
   
   Skell writes:
   

   It is widely accepted that the growth of science and technology in the West, which accounts for the remarkable advances we enjoy today in medicine, agriculture, travel, communications, etc., coincided with the separation, several centuries ago, of the experimental sciences from the dominance of the other important fields of philosophy, metaphysics, theology and history.
   
   Yet many popularizers of Darwin's theory now claim that without the study of ancient biological history, our students will not be prepared to engage in the great variety of modern experimental activities expected of them. The public should view with profound alarm this unnecessary and misguided reintroduction of speculative historical, philosophical and religious ideas into the realms of experimental science.
   
   It is more crucial to consider history in the fields of astrophysics and geology than in biology.

   . . . And he goes on from there.
   
   I would recommend either Mats' blog post about Skell's article or Skell's article itself.
   
   *******
   As with my last comment: I should probably note that Mats seems like a very interesting person. He seems to be Italian Portuguese (see his Blogger profile and notice he lives in Lisbon; check out the "background" language on his site as well); yet he is very tuned-in to American society. It appears he identifies himself as an evolutionist (scan down to the very end of the post and look at item #4), yet he writes some of the most thoughtful and "deep" anti-evolutionary/pro-young-earth-creationist stuff I think I have ever seen. (Check out his recent Are Secular Geologists Ready to Consider a Global Flood? post.)
    
4. From the email discussions: One member wrote,
   

   Here's my take on ID and Natural Selection:
   
   "Intelligent Design" is a tautology.
   
   "Natural Selection" is an oxymoron.
   
   The word "selection" is an anthropomorphism which implies intelligence - a series of items are evaluated against some standard and either approved or discarded. The term "natural selection" thus implicitly attributes such divine action to nature, causing the word "nature" to suddenly have two parallel and opposite meanings. It can mean "random, undirected process" or "intelligent, directed process", depending on the whims of the user. As such, the word "nature" loses its meaning. Linguistically, the correct terminology is "random patterning". While I believe that patterns still inherently reflect design, I am willing to concede this word to the evolutionists in order to have fruitful debate. At least "patterning" does not imply directionality, as "selection" does. And "random" in its popular usage cannot hold any implication of intelligence, no matter what noun it describes.
   
   TE's [i.e., theistic evolutionists] survive on this sleight of logic - they can truly and rationally talk of "natural selection", although issues of pan(en)theism inevitably crop up time and again, even if often hotly denied, then certain often indirectly implied.
   
   Darwinians should not be allowed to use the phrase "natural selection" at all and should be restricted to "random patterning". It would be interesting to see if any could manage to do so for longer than a few minutes at a time.

   I love that: "random patterning"! :-)
    
5. Okay. Finally: I just got a copy of Denis Lamoureux's Evolutionary Creation. Whether he convinces me about the need to believe in a truly evolutionary creationism or not (something I am disinclined to expect at this time!), I am finding his discussion--even as I found Glover's and the Haarsmas' discussions--fascinating and useful.
   
   Just in Chapter 1, as he lays out the subject matter he wants to address, I think his distinctions are helpful:
   

   Today the origin of the universe and life is often seen in Black-and-white categories. For many people, the cosmos and its living organisms came about through one of two ways--either evolution or creation. In other words, the subject of origins is cast as a dichotomy. . . . It is an issue that is divided into only two simple positions. Regrettably, this either/or type of thinking fuels the popular perception that modern science and Christian faith are entrenched in an endless war. . . ..
   
   A critical factor that fuels the origins dichotomy is the popular use of the terms evolution and creation. These words are often merged inadvertently with concepts that narrow the range of meaning. This problem is known as the conflation of ideas. Defined specifically, conflation is the carelessly collapsing of distinct categories into one single poorly conceived notion. For many people today, evolution is blended with a godless worldview, and creation is dissolved into a strict six-day literal interpretation of Gen 1. Consequently, the common use of these terms limits thinking and traps the discussion and a never-ending evolution vs. creation debate. . . .
   
   For most people, the term evolution refers to a biological theory of molecules-to-people that is driven only by blind chance. this word is conflated with an atheistic worldview--the belief that God does not exist and that our existence has no ultimate meaning or purpose. Understandably, this popular use of evolution produces strong negative reactions within the Church. But for some Christians, evolution is simply the method through which the Lord created life, including humans who bear His Image. . . .

   What fascinates me is how Lamoureux goes on to distinguish two "types" of evolution, what he calls teleological and dysteleological evolution, the one having a plan and purpose (teleological more or less means, literally, "having an end" (i.e., goal or purpose)) and the other one having no plan or purpose, the one reflecting intelligent design and the other no intelligent design.
   
   Somehow, I find that simply having a precise vocabulary to describe a concept helps me to understand the concept.
   
   *******
   Finally
    
6. A few nights ago, I was thinking again about the issue of God's sovereignty and chance . . . as the Haarsmas discuss it here and here.
   
   I got thinking about this because Sarita has been following the Denver Nuggets as they pursue the NBA championship. She wondered aloud whether they had thrown Game 4 in their series with Dallas simply so they could come back to Denver and win in front of the home crowd. I mean, really: they are up by 14 points at the half and then they lose by two?
   
   Anyway. That's Sarita. She's a skeptic when it comes to these kinds of things.
   
   But I got thinking: Can anyone be sure whether the team threw the game or not?
   
   And what about the teams where, historically, we know they threw games--like the Chicago "Black Sox" scandal of 1919? Or the widespread game fixing that went on in college basketball in the late '40s and '50s. --Can the fans tell that this is going on?
   
   Often not!
   
   So--to borrow and modify a phrase from Ken Ham--if fallible human beings are able to fix games and throw games and make certain events appear totally "random" or "unpredictable" even while they are very intentional . . . why can't we believe that God could make physical events (mutations or "self-assemblies") appear "totally random" even though they are not?
   
   Just a thought.

Okay. I'm done.

Thanks for listening!

The proper (separate) roles of Scripture and science

I mentioned the Haarsma's book Origins yesterday. I said I was pleased with how it pushed me to think new thoughts I had never thought before.

Here's one of the thoughts to which it introduced me.

NOTE: I had read books or papers that suggested most of the different interpretive schemes concerning Genesis 1 and 2 that the Haarsmas summarize, but I had never heard any Christian address what I am about to tell you in the way that the Haarsmas do.¹ Indeed, the only people, up until the Haarsmas, whom I had ever heard mention this interpretive schema were diehard atheists. And, I will confess, the atheists' "arguments" for their interpretation disturbed me greatly. They say their schema clearly demonstrates the very human foundation of the Bible; God, they say (or a god, any god), had absolutely nothing to do with any kind of biblical "inspiration." The Bible is "just" a human document.

In one fell swoop, however, the Haarsmas not only present the outlines of the exact same schema, but, in my opinion, by means of their presentation, they declaw it; they remove the atheists' ability to use it against Christians. Suddenly--I say this with great joy--the atheists' "arguments" no longer bother me. I sense a freedom from fear concerning the atheists' arguments that I have not felt in years. If you are familiar with what I am about to discuss, I hope what the Haarsmas (and Gordon Glover) have to say will be encouraging to you as well.

The Haarsmas say that a growing number of evangelical scholars are interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 (plus a large numbers of other passages from the Old Testament) with the idea that its primary outline, its "furniture," if you will, the "scientific" "facts" to which it alludes, come from the standard Ancient Near Eastern [ANE] cosmology (i.e., the way virtually all Ancient Near Eastern cultures viewed creation--the cosmos). Among other things, the peoples of the Ancient Near East were convinced

• The earth is flat.
• It is surrounded by water (both above and below).
• The sky is a solid structure [which is, literally, what the word translated "firmament" in the King James, and "expanse" in the New English Version, means].
• The firmament holds back the waters that are above it. [After all, what else--besides a solid object--can possibly hold back water?]
• The firmament has floodgates or windows in it (Genesis 7:11; 8:2) that let the "waters above" sometimes pour out upon the earth.

Gordon Glover, in Beyond the Firmament, provides additional details of the ANE cosmology . . .

• The "four corners" of the earth (Isaiah 11:12; Proverbs 30:4) rest on the "pillars of the earth" (Job 9:6; Psalm 75:3).
• The "pillars" themselves stand on the "foundations of the earth" (1 Samuel 2:8; Psalm 104:5; Job 38:4-6; Jeremiah 31:37).

. . . And so on and so forth.

The Haarsmas note,

This physical picture of the world is woven throughout the Old Testament. It reflects the way the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Canaanites, and Israelites literally understood the world around them. In the account of Noah's flood, the waters come from the floodgates of heaven and from the springs of the deep (Gen. 7:11), not from clouds. In Psalm 19:4-6, the sun rises at one end of the heavens and travels its path to the other end, just as the Egyptians viewed the sun as a boat sailing on the firmament.²

--pp. 113-115

Having explained the basic ANE cosmology, the Haarsmas then go on to describe the ANE cosmogony--the ANE story of creation--with special reference to the Babylonian epic, Enuma Elish. The distinctions between the Scriptural cosmogony and Enuma Elish are remarkable.

Some of the key differences the Haarsmas note (p. 116):

• Bible: There is one God. Enuma Elish: There is a pantheon of gods.
• Bible: God created an ordered world by the authority of his Word.  Enuma Elish: The world was formed by battles among the gods.
• Bible: No part of the physical world is divine.  Enuma Elish: The sun, moon, and other objects are gods that control human fate.
• Bible: God said his creation is good.  Enuma Elish: Some portions of creation are related to good gods; others are related to bad gods.
• Bible: God purposely created human beings to be trusted stewards of his creation.  Enuma Elish: Humans are an afterthought made to be slaves to the gods.

The Haarsmas suggest that the point of Genesis 1 has nothing to do with science and the structure of the universe (i.e., cosmology); it has everything to do with theology and anthropology: who is God and who is mankind in relation to God?

Because of [their cultural] context, the original audience would not have heard Genesis 1 teach that the earth was formed out of a watery chaos or that there was a solid dome firmament holding back waters above the sky. They already believed that physical picture! Rather, the original audience heard Genesis 1 as a powerful theological manifesto proclaiming the true authority of the God of the Israelites and the true status of humanity.

God inspired the human author of Genesis 1 to communicate these theological truths using a physical description of the earth that was familiar to them.

Imagine if God had instead tried to correct their scientific misconceptions by explaining to them that the earth is spherical (not flat) and the sky is gaseous (not a solid dome), and that . . . It would have baffled them completely! Moreover, it would have completely distracted them from the theological message.

--p. 117

So far, so interesting. But I said I felt the Haarsmas had freed me from a fear that has gripped me more or less since the moment I first heard this idea that the biblical account of creation is based upon or takes its primary form from the creation myths of the cultures round about Israel.

So why would the Haarsmas' reference to this view (again, one of nine different views they outline!) give me any comfort at all?

Because, as they say,

If God's purposes in Genesis 1 did not include teaching scientific facts to the Israelites, then we should not look here for scientific information about the age or development of the world. [According to the conservative Christian viewpoint that suggests we ought to view the cosmology in the Old Testament--including Genesis 1 and 2--as being the same as (because it came from) the cosmology of the cultures surrounding Israel, f]or modern readers, as for the original audience, the message of [Genesis 1] is its powerful theological truths. God does not use the Bible to teach us the physical processes he uses to make the rain fall or the earth orbit the sun or to form the mountains. Instead, in a beautifully crafted and impressively short text, God teaches us all about

• his sovereignty.
• the goodness of creation.
• the honored status of humanity as his imagebearers. . . .

In Genesis 1, . . . the first listeners heard nothing new about the physical universe; all the emphasis was on who created the world and humanity and why they were created.

What does this mean for science? It means that Genesis 1 is not a science textbook. The text was never intended to teach scientific information about the structure, age, or natural history of the world. Thus, . . . comparing Genesis 1 to modern science is like comparing Psalm 93:1 ("The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved") to modern astronomy. Genesis is not in agreement or conflict with the sequence of events found by astronomy and geology.

As scientific knowledge increases and changes over the centuries, its understanding of the physical structure and history of the earth will change. But through all of those centuries, the theological truths of Genesis 1 remain the same: there is one sovereign God who makes light from darkness, creates an ordered world from chaos, and fills an empty world with good creatures. Humans need not fear the capricious whims of a pantheon of gods, but can instead trust in the one true God who made us in his image and declares us "very good."

--pp. 119-121

Yowzah!

As we noted yesterday, we don't get upset when meteorologists create computer models and use Doppler radar and thermometers and all the other instruments of modern meteorology to predict the weather for us--despite the fact that Scripture clearly teaches us that God controls the weather. And--I didn't mention this yesterday, but I'm sure you can follow--none of us gets upset when geneticists and embryologists and other students of human development study how our human beings reproduce . . . despite the fact that, we are told, it is God who knits us together in our mothers' wombs. Similarly, we don't turn to Scripture in order to understand planetary motion or how to send a rocket into outer space . . . despite the fact that, again, the Bible tells us God placed the sun, moon and stars where He wanted and controls their motion by His will.

The fact is, we don't turn to Scripture in order to discover scientific information. We understand in every other area, it seems, but not when it comes to Genesis 1--that modern science is asking different questions than those the Scriptures were written to answer.

So, I heard the Haarsmas say, as they quoted the Christians who view Genesis 1 in light of the Ancient Near Eastern cosmological perspective: we ought to handle the "science" of Genesis 1 in the same way we handle all the "science" elsewhere in Scripture. Ignore it. Don't worry about it. Recognize that this "science" is every bit as culturally bound to its time and place as our science, today, is bound to ours.

---

¹ The Haarsmas are by no means first to suggest the schema I am about to share with you. They are simply the first Christian authors I have read (or heard!) who present this perspective. --From reading the Haarsmas' and Glover's books, I get the sense that John H. Walton's The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis, especially around pp. 80-85, may be an excellent popular-level source for information on this subject.

² If we seriously intend to interpret Genesis literally, say the Haarsmas, then we had better keep these things in mind and speak not only about 24-hour days and so forth, but a flat (not spherical) earth; and an earth that rests on pillars rather than orbiting the sun; and a solid-dome sky that has the two great light-giving bodies--the sun and moon--and the lesser bodies--the stars--affixed to its "inside" surface . . . with an ocean of water above and beyond these fixtures and the dome to which they are attached. . . .

And lest you feel I am overstating the case, consider Martin Luther's lecture on Genesis 1 in which he said,

Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters. . . It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night.

--Quoted by Glover, p. 65. Full reference at loc. cit.

A wonderful book about origins

I'm out-of-country right now and have been blessed with many hours to read books I would otherwise have been hard-pressed to get around to.

Among those I've been reading, I just finished Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, & Evolution by Deborah B. Haarsma and Loren D. Haarsma and Beyond the Firmament by Gordon J. Glover.

I am so grateful for my correspondent (I can't remember his name at the moment) who told me about them. They have satisfied me in several ways that no books having to do with origins have satisfied me . . . in quite some time.

I was impressed with David Snoke's A Biblical Case for an Old Earth when I read it a couple of years ago. I sensed he attempted to handle much of the biblical text with care and integrity. But when all was said and done, it seemed pretty obvious to me that he was permitting his "science" to push his "exegesis" into some rather "interesting" corners I doubted the original human authors--much less God Himself--would have intended the text to go.

But now come the Haarsmas and Glover.

I read the Haarsmas' book first. I appreciated their even-handed summary of the amazing diversity of approaches to origins taken by Christians of all different stripes. Beyond that, they provide a number of useful analogies and forced me to think new thoughts I had never considered before. One example, from the book's Introduction:

What causes the rain? Most of us were taught how water evaporates from the ground level, rises to where the air is cooler, and condenses into water droplets that form clouds. We learned how cold fronts and warm fronts and low pressure systems bring rain. When we watch meteorologists on television, we hear that scientists now use sophisticated computer models to help them understand and predict the weather a few days in advance. Their ability to understand meteorology is especially important for farmers, airline pilots, military personnel, and coastal residents. Every year, scientists develop increasingly accurate computer models of the weather.

Now imagine that debates arise about what should be taught in schools about the weather. Imagine that prominent scientists write popular books about meteorology that state, "From our scientific understanding of the causes of wind and rain, it is clear that no divine being controls the weather." Imagine that a professional organization of science teachers writes a set of guidelines that state, "Students must learn that all weather phenomena follow from natural causes; weather is unguided and no divine action is involved."

Meanwhile, other people insist that these scientific explanations of rain and wind must be wrong because the Bible clearly teaches that God governs the weather.¹ These people write books and give public speeches saying, "Atheists have invented their godless theories about evaporation and condensation. But we can prove that their so-called scientific theories are false and that the Bible is true." They go to churches and teach, "If you believe what these scientists are saying about the causes of wind and rain, then you've abandoned belief in the Bible." They petition school boards and courts to require that science classrooms also teach their "storehouses" theory of the weather as an alternative explanation to evaporation and condensation. . . .

Fortunately, we don't have such debates about what causes the weather. The majority of Christians say that when it comes to the weather, both science and the Bible are correct. God governs the weather, usually through the scientifically understandable processes of evaporation and condensation. And the majority of atheists today would also agree that having a scientific explanation for the weather, by itself, neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. So there are no court battles about what science classrooms should teach about the weather.

Debates about creation, design, and evolution have some similarities to the above example. . . .

--pp. 8-9

Except, say the Haarsmas, the creation-evolution-design debates are more complex.

Indeed, they say the purpose of their book is "to lay out a wider variety of options [than the two options of young-earth creationism v. old-earth evolutionism] and to examine what both the Bible and the natural world can teach us about these options." They seek to "explore in depth the issues of origins and consider where [evangelical] Christians generally agree with each other and areas where [evangelical] Christians disagree.

"Our goal," they say,

is not to convince you that one particular opinion must be correct, but neither will we merely list a wide variety of opinions without doing any analysis. We will

• summarize what we believe God's Word teaches about origins when it is studied using sound principles of interpretation.
• summarize what we believe God's world can reliably reveal about origins when it is studied using sound scientific methods.
• distinguish between scientific theories that are well-established and have a great deal of data supporting them and scientific theories that are more tentative and speculative.
• look at the range of opinions that Christians hold about origins and discuss some of the pros and cons of each in light of what we can learn from God's Word and God's world.

--pp. 9-10

As I read their chapter summaries (pp. 10-11), I thought they just might be right: they would dramatically expand my horizons. I mean, when was the last time you read a popular-level book that set out to "consider God's governance in four areas: explainable natural events, unexplainable natural events, supernatural miracles, and random events" . . . much less "four concordist interpretations of Genesis 1 . . . [and] five non-concordist interpretations of Genesis 1 and then [discuss] all of these interpretations in light of [fundamental conservative] principles of biblical interpretation"?

I was blown away. Not merely by the summary (frankly, I didn't know what "concordist" and "non-concordist" even mean--so the fact that they could suggest there are nine clearly distinguishable interpretations of Genesis 1 . . . let alone that four are concordist and five are non-concordist: well, that impressed me!). But, far more, I was impressed by the Haarsmas' actual performance.

By the end of the book, I think you can tell, pretty clearly, "where they are coming from." But I don't know if I have ever read such an even-handed presentation of such a wide variety of perspectives on any subject.

I look forward to pushing Sonlight Curriculum to carry this book!

---

¹ The Haarsmas note: "Many Bible passages proclaim that God causes rain and drought (see Deut. 11:14-17; 1 Kings 8:35-36; Job 5:10; 37:6; Jer. 14:22). Writers of Deuteronomy, the Psalms, and Jeremiah refer specifically to storehouses of rain and snow (see Deut. 28:12, 24; Ps. 135:7; Jer. 10:13)."