Tim Stafford’s latest work, The Adam Question, does
not explicitly pose the question used as title of this review; however, that is
the crux of the entire matter. As you
continue reading my thoughts, be forewarned of the following: (1) I am not a scientist but am trained in
historical and philosophical approaches; (2) I consider God’s Word to be
infallible and without error; and (3) I ascribe to a literal interpretation of
the initial chapters of Genesis.
The Adam Question opens with an introduction where
the author describes his own child’s struggle with science and faith. He blames Christians for this struggle
because they did not welcome his son’s belief in evolution. From that point, he outlines the book where
he highlights scientists that hold the following positions: young creationism, intelligent design, and
evolutionary creationism. Stafford says
on page 9-10 that he has “deliberately tried not to declare anybody right or
anybody wrong. I lack the authority to
do that, and I don’t think it would be terribly helpful if I did.” Unfortunately, the opening story involving
his son implicitly reveals his bent – against young creationism and toward
evolutionary creationism (which he finally states in the conclusion by calling
it his “hope”).
Below is a short summary of how Stafford summarizes each of
the positions on page 7: (1) young
creationism is good theology but no science; (2) intelligent design is bad
theology but common sense; and (3) evolutionary creationism is some theology
but primarily filled with science. It is
here that the title of my review comes into view – one position accepts what God
says in His Word through faith without question, one position eliminates God
while speaking of some type of a grand “watchmaker,” and one position accepts
the convergence of theoretical and historical science by labeling it as
observational science within which a bit of God has been mixed.
Stafford selects 11 Christian scientists; and with only
three positions considered, that means that some sides will get more time than
others. The last scientist considered,
in my opinion, does not count in the eleven because he left the scientific
field to pursue an Anglican parish.
Thus, 10 active scientists discuss their positions and that means that
one side will have more information than any other. He seems to highlight more of the positional issues
with young creationism than with those of intelligent design or evolutionary
creationism. For consideration of the
latter positions, he seems to talk about their scientific discoveries but never
raises the specter of the difficulties inherent within their position. As a trained historian and philosopher, this
lack of equal time perplexes me.
Our world exists in a postmodern age, so I would like to use
that position as a philosophical critique of this scientific work. Postmodern thought asks the question whether
we can justify our concepts, ideals, structures, models, or ideas of the world
(especially when compared with that of others).
Simply, it says that we are to question all things because truth is
relative. Postmodernity espouses the
notion that “it” (the search for truth) is not about being right or real because
the journey is what matters.
With the above foundation laid, why is it that Darwinism or
evolution is the sacred subject that cannot be challenged? Consider the critique offered by William
Dembski who utilized mathematics and logic to refute the notion that evolution
can produced “specified complexity.” Few
scientists take the critique seriously because Dembski is not a scientist and,
according to page 147, has “no reputation.”
This all-important reputation to the scientific community can only be
earned by publishing in a peer reviewed journal, and that publication can only
occur if you hold the line rather than challenging the core of scientific thought
(i.e. Theodosius Dobzhansky made a statement that has been often repeated: “nothing in biology makes sense except in the
light of evolution”). There appears to be
a heavily guarded fortress within the scientific community that must be
defended at all cost, and that fortress surrounds the prominence of evolution
as the explanation for origins.
In thinking through the positions offered by all three
groups of scientists, I have constructed my own definition of evolution – all current
life is descendents from a common ancestor through a natural process of
naturally selecting sporadic mutations that occurred over epochs of time. If that is evolution, it certainly is not
observable. If it is not observable, then
how can it be historical? Remember, history
relies upon primary resources from eyewitnesses at the time of the event. Thus, if evolution is not observable and not
historical, then it can only be considered theoretical science. If it is theoretical, then how could it be
taught as scientific fact? Again, I am
not a scientist but have historical and philosophical training; but those two
academic approaches leave me with many questions.
Concluding his work, Stafford highlights the strengths and
weaknesses of each position. He says
that young creationism is strong in its commitment to the Bible but is weak in
that it does not match up to the world within which we live. He never fully concluded the thought but
seems to imply that we then need to reinterpret the Bible according to the
norms of the world. The author calls
for, on page 211, “fresh, humble, and faithful understandings of Genesis” which
seems to state that current forms are stale, arrogant, and unfaithful (the “to
whom” is left hanging). Intelligent
design’s strength is its attack on the newer forms of atheism but its weakness
is its rejection of “mainstream science.”
I struggle here because I do not see how the notion of a designer
rejects science because a designer makes common sense. Finally, evolutionary creationism’s strength is
that it is coherent and compatible with modern science, but the weakness is the
Biblical account does not mesh with modern teaching.
Thus, we reach the problem that I posed in my title – what matters
most: God or science? If God is the answer, then young creationism
is the position to be adopted and science is to be utilized to prove the
Biblical account. If science is the
answer, then evolutionary creationism is the position to be adopted and the
Biblical account is to be reinterpreted accordingly. Stafford quickly quotes one of the
evolutionary creationists in that “evangelicals are not scientists” (page 131),
but the opposite is true – most scientists are not theologians. Therein is the problem.
Early in the book, page 6, Stafford says that “all truth belongs
to God,” but he did not stop there. He
continued by saying that science is how we gain truth, but that is
problematic. On pages 150, he says the
following: “Just because the academic
community says something doesn’t mean it is true. They have been wrong before. It’s good to have some skepticism.” If all truth belongs to God and the
scientific community is wrong, then where should our trust be?
I understand the attempt by Stafford to present the
different perspectives, which he did, but his fairness was lacking. The conclusions were also strange from
someone that identifies that the Bible is their primary source of truth. He wants “biblical revelation” to be married
to “scientific understanding” because there is so much that we can gain (page
211); however, he never defined what that gain would be! Is it acceptance by the world? If so, is that what Jesus wanted? Was he accepted by the scholars of the day or
were they the ones that put Him to death?
Instead, he should have left the conclusion of the book with
John Polkinghorne (the scientist turned Anglican priest) when he said that “these
explanations [origins] cannot be decided scientifically” (page 195). He’s right because evolutionary science
cannot deal with origins – no human witnessed it for historical preservation
and no human can reproduce it in the laboratory for observational proof. For lack of a better phrase, “battle lines”
have already been drawn and changing our position (either Biblically or
scientifically) cannot save mankind.
Christ’s Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection are what give us
hope through the Word of God. It is a
total, undivided commitment to Christ – in spite of the world – that can best
glorify God. It is never about us because all of life is always about Him!
I will say this much about Stafford’s work – it does provide
some books to read on each perspective.
I have not delved greatly into the evolutionary creation position, but I
will be purchasing a book by one of the mentioned scientists. I do need to learn more about that
perspective to reinforce my own.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I
received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze®.com book
review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The
opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with
the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements
and Testimonials in Advertising.”
No comments:
Post a Comment