Book Review:
How I Changed my Mind about Evolution: Evangelicals
reflect on faith and science
Editors: Applegate, K. and
Stump, J.B.
Publisher: Monarch Books
(Lion Hudson plc), Oxford,
2016.
Pages: 196. Price: £10.99
This
book is a collection of twenty five short autobiographies by people who claim
to be evangelicals, yet have accepted “evolutionary creation” (aka theistic
evolution) as an explanation for origins. This position involves a rejection of
Scriptural authority and Dr D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones summed up such claimants:
“…instead of submitting themselves to the
Scripture, they turn to science, to philosophy, or to one of a number of other
disciplines, and their position is determined by these things. They allow
reason to determine what they believe instead of how they believe and how they
think.”[i]
Some of the authors apparently
accepted the biblical position on creation until in their higher education they
encountered compromising Christian theologians. An uncritical attitude towards
these theologians and a mistaken notion that they represent the historic
Reformed tradition swayed their worldview towards theistic evolution.[ii]
John Calvin’s name is used to buttress old earth creation (page 26), although in
reality he was strongly opposed to those who questioned the timeframe that
Genesis provides, noting that the Spirit Himself testifies against them:
“…if men wish to
cling to their knowledge and judgement, it will be incredible to them that the
world was created six thousand years ago. For what was God doing from all
eternity? In fact, shallow and imaginative people will never understand what
the Holy Spirit gives witness to because they will always have their own
answers.”[iii]
The grammatical-historical
interpretation of Genesis, which necessarily entails a young cosmos, is
dismissed as an “utter novelty” (page 25) based on Ronald Number’s biased and
selective history.[iv] Many
creationists have ably demonstrated that Genesis 1-11 is a historical narrative[v],
and from the second century A.D. Christians were refuting the notion that our
cosmos is extremely ancient (or even eternal) when countering Greek
philosophers.
Other authors in the book argue
that Genesis chapter 1 employs simple, “ancient science”, which they say is now
known to be just plain wrong. However, there is a vast difference between
simplification and fabrication! Whilst it is important not to neglect Hebrew
idiom and culture, this can easily be taken too far. There is no “ancient
science” in Genesis one. Rather, the infinite, timeless Author is accommodating
his timeless truth to us in every age. Many early cosmogonies, such as those
from Egypt,
are probably pagan corruptions of the Genesis Flood narrative. One author
writes: “it is fair to say that no human knows what the meaning of Genesis 1
and 2 was precisely intended to be.” (page 73) Such statements directly
contradict the doctrine of Scriptural perspicuity and ultimately end in scepticism
concerning special revelation as a whole. Bear in mind that even the Lord Jesus Christ himself, Scripture's ultimate Author, would fall foul of this glib assertion, because he is fully human as well as fully divine!
Some of the authors felt that
by maintaining a young cosmos against the tide of scholarship and peer pressure
they were interpreting Scripture subjectively. However, the Holy Spirit is our
interpreter, and being God-breathed, the Scriptures are our sole and final
authority in all matters which they touch upon. Aberrant and novel
interpretations of Scripture, which are motivated more by extra-biblical
speculations than by careful exegetical and historical study, should not be
accepted. Returning to Dr Lloyd-Jones’ neglected warnings:
[Such
people] “…are saying that there are, as
it were, two great authorities and two means of revelation: one of them is
Scripture and the other is nature…so you go to the Scriptures for matters
concerning your soul, but you do not go to them to seek God’s other revelation
of Himself in nature. For that, you go to science. You are familiar with this
view which, it seems to me, is not only extremely dangerous, but tends to
undermine our whole [evangelical] position.
We have got to contest it, and contest it very strongly.”[vi]
Origins science, unlike
operational science, is not demonstrable in a laboratory and some of the authors
appear naïve in accepting what are merely fallible, changing opinions and
assumptions. Many unprovable, tacit assumptions and speculations are thoroughly
unbiblical. Spiritual discernment is required and those evangelicals critical
of biblical creationism should at least inform themselves about what
creationists actually believe regarding the limits of biological variation (pp.
37-38), the origins of entropy (p. 126), and the identity of Cain’s wife! (p.
139).
Commendably, throughout the
book we are encouraged to give God glory and praise for his wonderful and
awe-inspiring world. Yet in the worldview of ‘evolutionary creation’ the Fall
had very little effect on animals and although evolution by natural selection
is described as “profound”, “beautiful” and “elegant”, its mechanism involves
death, disease, bloodshed and untold animal suffering as part of the creative
process. How such monstrous cruelty could be attributed to the loving Creator
of the Bible, who gave His divine stamp of approval no less than seven times in
Genesis one, is left unanswered.
Most of the authors were once
biblical creationists and describe their former approach (or that of their mentors)
in very critical terms: “selective” (p.23), “quite aberrant” and “narrow”
(p.26), “afraid” (p.33), “scared to death” (p.36), “growing” yet “at war with
science” (p.65), “unworkable” “wishful thinking” (p.66), “declaring personal
infallibility” (p.67), displaying “misinformed religious fervour” (p.74), “bad
science, shoddy thinking, false claims and misguided ideas” and “…a wrong
interpretation of the Bible” (p.93), “intellectual slackers” (p.95),
“uncritical” (p.99), “risk-averse” (p.104), “spoon-fed” (p.105), “flawed”
(p.110), “gerrymandering” (p.117), “nervous” (p.120), “increasingly absurd”
(p.140), “rigid” (p.156), “a fabrication of religionists” (p.174), “a
caricature” which we will “face
judgement for” and “our own subculture of alternative science” (p.175). In
short, generally “hung up” (p.192).
Other authors contradict
these negative jibes and put-downs. One author writes that “many have lost
their faith over evolution. It is quite understandable that many churches are
worried about their young people studying biology in secular universities.” Another
author states: “…Christians who are uncomfortable with any version of evolution
– even evolutionary creationism – are not necessarily unintelligent, naïve or
obstinate.” For a book full of unpleasant remarks about those who profess true
doctrine, this is an interesting admission!
A battle is raging for the
hearts and minds of our young people and sadly many who are being led astray
and have abandoned Scriptural authority may welcome this book as it will
seemingly confirm them in their errors. If Bible-believing evangelicals read the
book, they should do so with great caution.
[i] Lloyd-Jones, D.M. (1992). What is an Evangelical? The Banner of Truth Trust, p.49.
[ii] Chapters 1-3 of Coming to Grips with Genesis by
Mortenson and Ury contain a helpful rebuttal of this pseudo-historical idea. Also cf. Sarfati, J. (2004). Refuting Compromise. USA: Master Books.
[iii] Calvin, J. (1559), translated by McGregor, R.R.
(2009). Sermons on Genesis: Chapters 1-11.
Edinburgh: The
Banner of Truth Trust.
[iv] Numbers, R. (2006). The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. Harvard University Press.
[v] See, for instance: Beeke, J.R. (2013). What Did the
Reformers Believe about the Age of the Earth? In: Ham, K. (Ed.) The New Answers Book 4, Master Books,
pp.101-110; Peet, J.H.J. (2013). Does the Bible require a belief in ‘special
creation’? DayOne Publications, pp.43-55; Patrick, J. (2013). The Genre and
Goals of Genesis 1-11, Origins #57 [Part 1, pp.14-17] and Origins #58 [Part 2,
pp.8-11]. Journal of The Biblical Creation Society.
[vi] Lloyd-Jones, D.M. Op. Cit. p.73
