Previous | Next

Spring 2014 · Vol. 43 No. 1 · pp. 105–117 

Recommended Reading

Creation and Human Origins: A Select Classified Bibliography

Vic Froese

This bibliography lists titles that represent various Christian positions on the question of how human life came to be. The range of these positions is surprisingly wide given the assumptions shared by most participants in this “discussion.” Gerald Rau helpfully identifies five theistic approaches. 1 They range from Young Earth Creation (YEC) on the far right, which holds to a literal six-day creation, to what he calls Non-teleological Evolution on the left. In between are Planned Evolution, Directed Evolution, and Old Earth Creation (OEC). This bibliography will use Rau’s categories (with one addition), which will be more precisely defined below. 2

I would be remiss if I did not at least mention a few other historical and philosophical works related to this debate. For the history of the theory of evolution, a standard, well respected book is Peter Bowler’s Evolution: The History of an Idea, 3rd ed., rev. and expanded (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2009). Bowler also includes a description of religious responses to the theory that lacks the contempt typical of evolutionists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. The history of the creationist movement is painstakingly chronicled in Ronald Numbers’s The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (2nd ed., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006). In this critically-acclaimed work (creationists also concede its fairness), Numbers tells the story of resistance to Darwinian theory from Darwin’s day, through the birth of Fundamentalism, the Deluge Geology Society, Whitcomb and Morris’s The Genesis Flood, the establishment of Creation research institutes, to the advent of Intelligent Design and the remarkable globalization of creationism in the present. The documentation is impeccable and the story, compelling.

An older but still instructive work is Del Ratzsch’s The Battle of Beginnings Why Neither Side Is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996). Playing the mediator, Ratzsch faults “both sides” (scientific creationists and evolutionists) for failing to {106} understand each other’s positions and concerns, indeed, for making understanding less likely by distorting their opponents views until they barely resemble those actually held. This habit subverts any good faith that might be possible. The impact of books that attempt to mediate between warring parties is difficult to measure, but this one remains a fine example of the clarity and judiciousness that progress on this front requires, even if the issues of the debate have changed somewhat since it was published almost twenty years ago.

In Where the Conflict Really Lies (2011), Alvin Plantinga brings his considerable analytical skills to the larger issue of the supposed conflict between religion and science. His argument is that despite superficial antagonism there is actually significant harmony between theistic religion and science, but that between naturalism and science there is deep antagonism, despite superficial harmony. Along the way, he carefully considers Intelligent Design (ID) arguments à la Michael Behe, and, while sympathetic, concludes that “it isn’t easy to say how much support [for theism] they offer.” 3 Plantinga’s most counter-intuitive thesis, however, is that naturalism (i.e., a rigorous materialism) and science are enemies, a claim he sharpens when he says, “there is a deep and irremediable conflict between naturalism and evolution.” 4 A naturalistic account of the evolutionary development of human cognitive faculties says that their main purpose is to contribute to survival by getting us to behave in adaptive ways, not necessarily to connect us to truth. But if that’s correct, then beliefs about, say, evolution (or anything else important, for that matter) cannot be trusted, since we must doubt both that a purpose of our minds is to give us true beliefs and that they mostly fulfill that purpose. 5 To the extent that theism undergirds the basic rationality of the universe and of the human creatures that seek to know it, it supports the methodological naturalism of science in a way that a strict naturalism cannot.

Finally, in The Experience of God (2013), a book with only an indirect interest in the origins debate, David Bentley Hart takes interventionist accounts of creation to task for the woefully underdeveloped understanding of God they advocate. The God of creationists and some proponents of ID is much like a mythological being who must interrupt natural processes (perhaps where they were inadequately designed?) to create “irreducibly complex” systems. The transcendent God of Christian faith, argues Hart, is not one being among others, whose actions compete with or supplement natural laws, but, as Being itself, he is the source and ground of all that has being, including those laws. Thus Hart comments, “Frankly, the total absence of a single instance of irreducible complexity would be a far more forceful argument in favor of God’s rational action in creation.” 6 The universe—replete with “miraculously” fine-tuned processes sustaining a {107} rich variety of life—already brilliantly reflects God’s resplendent glory, to which no biblically literalistic creationism can add.

Rau does not identify ID as a separate position because, he says, it is strictly a philosophical commitment to scientifically demonstrable intelligent activity in the formation of natural systems. 7 I’ve made ID a separate class in this bibliography anyway because it continues to generate books that don’t fit neatly into one of the other classes. And it spares readers looking for representative ID texts the trouble of scouring the other classes to find them.

It will be obvious that even within the limited time span covered here (roughly 2000–2013, with some exceptions) I have not attempted to be comprehensive. Too much is published on this subject to aim at this goal in a brief bibliographic article. But I have sought to include representative works by major Christian writers in this field. Book-length critiques of the various positions appear under the related category. Websites promoting a particular position have also been included. In a few cases I’ve put the same title under ID and Directed Evolution, OEC, or YEC, which are friendly to theories of divine interventions in creation. Note also that I have placed books that present conflicting perspectives under the main heading as well as the “critiques” sub-heading of a class.

NON-TELEOLOGICAL EVOLUTION

Its opponents call this position “deistic evolution” and sometimes simply “Darwinism,” although the latter misleads in that NTEs do believe in God. According to this school, God created the universe but left natural processes like evolution to unfold toward undetermined ends without further guidance or intervention. Proponents make no attempt to reconcile their views of origins with Genesis 1 and 2 because, while they find religious truths in these stories, they see no direct scientific or historical value in them. Generally, NTEs see science and Christian faith as fundamentally complementary, each contributing equally, but in different ways, to a fuller understanding of the created world.

  • Barbour, Ian G. Nature, Human Nature, and God. Theology and the Sciences. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2002.
  • Cobb, John B, ed. Back to Darwin: A Richer Account of Evolution. Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 2008.
  • De Duve, Christian. Genetics of Original Sin: The Impact of Natural Selection on the Future of Humanity. New Haven, CT; Paris: Yale University Press; Éditions Odile Jacob, 2010. {108}
  • ———. Life Evolving: Molecules, Mind, and Meaning. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
  • Haught, John F. Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin, God, and the Drama of Life. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2010.
  • Peacocke, A. R. Evolution: The Disguised Friend of Faith? Selected Essays. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2004.
  • Peters, Ted, and Martinez J. Hewlett. Can You Believe in God and Evolution? A Guide for the Perplexed. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2006.
  • Polkinghorne, J. C. Science and Religion in Quest of Truth. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011.
  • Ruse, Michael. Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? The Relationship Between Science and Religion. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
  • Russell, Robert J. Cosmology: From Alpha to Omega: The Creative Mutual Interaction of Theology and Science. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2008.

PLANNED EVOLUTION

Also known as “evolutionary creationism,” this position differs from NTE in believing that God had a specific end in mind when he initiated the evolution of life, and in attributing more scientific and theological value to Genesis 1. Thus, according to some PEs, a scientifically reliable framework of creation can be found there, while its details must be interpreted symbolically. According to others, the six “days” are analogous to the human work week but need not be considered 24-hour days. For still others, it tells us that the earth is God’s temple, in which he took up residence on day seven. The creation of Adam in Genesis 2 is parsed in various ways, generally consistent with interpretations of Genesis 1. None identifies Adam as a single historical human being, but all recognize essential theological truth in the Garden of Eden story.

  • Alexander, Denis. Creation or Evolution: Do We have to Choose? Oxford; Grand Rapids, MI: Monarch, 2009.
  • Collins, Francis S. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York: Free Press, 2006. {109}
  • Enns, Peter. The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2012.
  • Falk, Darrel R. Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds between Faith and Biology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004.
  • Giberson, Karl. The Wonder of the Universe: Hints of God in Our Fine-Tuned World. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2012.
  • Giberson, Karl, and Francis S. Collins. The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2011.
  • Lamoureux, Denis O. Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008.
  • ———. I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009.
  • Van Till, Howard J., ed. Portraits of Creation: Biblical and Scientific Perspectives on the World’s Formation. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990.
  • Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.

Critiques

  • Johnson, Phillip E., Denis O. Lamoureux, and Michael J. Behe. Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins. Vancouver: Regent College Pub., 1999.

Related websites

DIRECTED EVOLUTION

This is the view that God actively intervenes in creation by supernaturally directing natural processes that would fail on their own to move toward the ends that God wills. Proponents of this view frequently make use of Intelligent Design arguments. They generally hold the same views of Genesis 1 as Planned Evolutionists, but take Genesis 2 as accurately identifying Adam and Eve as the original two ancestors of the human race.

  • Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free Press, 2006.
  • Behe, Michael J., William Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer, eds. Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe: Papers Presented at a Conference Sponsored by the Wethersfield Institute, New York City, September 25, 1999. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2000.
  • Haarsma, Deborah B. and Loren D. Haarsma. Origins: Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design. Grand Rapids, MI: Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2011.
  • Haarsma, Deborah B. and Scott Hoezee. Delight in Creation: Scientists Share Their Work with the Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Center for Excellence in Preaching, 2012.
  • Johnson, Phillip E., Denis O. Lamoureux, and Michael J. Behe. Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins. Vancouver: Regent College Pub., 1999.
  • Miller, Keith B., ed. Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 2003.
  • Moreland, J. P., ed. The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1994.
  • Moreland, J. P. The Recalcitrant Imago Dei: Human Persons and the Failure of Naturalism. London: SCM in association with the Center of Theology and Philosophy, University of Nottingham, 2009.
  • Poythress, Vern S. Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006.
  • Schaefer, Henry F. Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence? Watkinsville, GA: Apollos Trust, 2003. {111}

Critiques

Johnson, Phillip E., Denis O. Lamoureux, and Michael J. Behe. Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins. Vancouver: Regent College Pub., 1999.

OLD EARTH CREATION

Sometimes referred to as “day-age creationism” or the “gap model,” OEC prefers to say that it views the world as having come into existence through “progressive creation.” OECs hold that God created life by making fully developed plans for each major animal type rather than by macro-evolution (the evolution of one species into another entirely new species). OECs accept scientific geological estimates of the age of the earth but interpret gaps in the fossil record as evidence of God interrupting natural processes to create new species. Genesis 1 is historically accurate, they say, but “days” refers to multi-million-year ages. Adam and Eve are regarded as individual human beings and the original ancestors of all humans.

  • Davis, P. William, Dean H. Kenyon, and Charles B. Thaxton. Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins. Dallas, TX: Haughton, 1993.
  • Lennox, John C. Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning according to Genesis and Science. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011.
  • Meyer, Stephen C. Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. New York: HarperOne, 2013.
  • ———. Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. New York: HarperOne, 2009.
  • Newman, Robert C., Perry G. Philips, and Herman J. Eckelmann. Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth. 2nd ed. Hatfield, PA: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 2007.
  • Rana, Fazale, and Hugh Ross. Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face off. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2004.
  • Rana, Fazale, and Hugh Ross. Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2005. {112}
  • Ross, Hugh. Creation as Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/evolution Wars. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2006.
  • ———. More than a Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009.

Critiques

  • MacArthur, John. The Battle for the Beginning: The Bible on Creation and the Fall of Adam. Nashville, TN: W Pub. Group, 2001. [Written from a YEC point of view.]
  • Petto, Andrew J., and Laurie R. Godfrey. Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2007.
  • Sarfati, Jonathan D. Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of Progressive Creationism (Billions of Years) as Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004. [Written from a YEC point of view.]

Related websites

YOUNG EARTH CREATION

The YEC position is simply that as the Bible is God’s inerrant word, all propositions it contains are true and—unless the text suggests otherwise—must be read literally. Thus, the account of creation in Genesis 1 is accepted as a literal description of the order in which the universe was brought into being and the time it took to be completed (six 24-hour days). The fossil records, on this interpretation, were deposited during the global flood from which Noah and his family were rescued. The earth itself cannot be more than 6000 years old, say YECs, despite appearances to the contrary. Estimates of a much older age by geologists are the result of flawed methods and “uniformitarian” assumptions about natural systems. The theory of evolution is simply wrong as an account of human origins. God created Adam and Eve, the first human couple, exactly as described in Genesis 2. YECs often borrow arguments from Intelligent Design to bolster claims that the fundamental building blocks of creation were completed in a very short time, virtually instantaneously. {113}

  • Ashton, John F., ed. In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. Frenchs Forest, N.S.W.: New Holland, 1999.
  • Brown, Walter T. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. 7th ed. Phoenix, AR: Center for Scientific Creation, 2001.
  • DeYoung, Donald B., et al. Thousands, Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution; Questioning the Age of the Earth. Green Forest, AR: Master, 2005.
  • Guliuzza, Randy J. Clearly Seen: Constructing Solid Arguments for Design. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2012.
  • Ham, Ken. The Lie: Evolution/Millions of Years. Green Forest, AR: Master, 2012.
  • Humphreys, D. Russell. Evidence for a Young World. Petersburg, KY: Answers in Genesis, 2005.
  • Jeanson, Nathaniel, and Henry M. Morris. The Lost Treasures of Genesis. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2013.
  • Lisle, Jason. The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate. Green Forest, AR: Master, 2009.
  • MacArthur, John. The Battle for the Beginning: The Bible on Creation and the Fall of Adam. Nashville, TN: W Pub. Group, 2001.
  • Morris, Henry M., et al. In-Depth Creation Basics & Beyond: An In-Depth Look at Science, Origins, and Evolution. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2013.
  • Oard, Michael J. Frozen in Time: The Woolly Mammoth, the Ice Age, and the Bible. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004.
  • Sanford, John C., and John Baumgardner. Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome. 3rd ed. Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications, 2008.
  • Sarfati, Jonathan D. By Design: Evidence for Nature’s Intelligent Designer—the God of the Bible. [Powder Springs, GA]: Creation Book Publishers, 2008.
  • Wise, Kurt P. Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms About Creation and the Age of the Universe. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2002. {114}
  • Wise, Kurt P., and Sheila A. Richardson. Something from Nothing: Understanding What You Believe about Creation and Why. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2004.

Critiques

  • Petto, Andrew J., and Laurie R. Godfrey. Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2007.
  • Ross, Hugh. A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2004.
  • Van Till, Howard J. Science Held Hostage: What’s Wrong with Creation Science and Evolutionism. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988.

Related websites

INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Most ID proponents limit themselves to identifying cases where the complexity of a life form or component thereof is such that the probability of it having developed through natural selection, genetic mutation, and/or other random events is too low to justify belief in the theory of evolution. When such cases are identified, the inference is made that intelligent design rather than evolution explains those irreducibly complex life forms. But ID advocates stop short of identifying a particular God as the most likely “designer,” since this lies beyond the scope of their methodology. At its core, ID is a philosophical commitment to the idea that intelligent involvement in the formation of natural systems can be demonstrated scientifically. It eschews the “creationist” label on the grounds that it takes no a priori position on the historical accuracy of Genesis, and instead carefully adheres to scientific methods. 8

  • Ayala, Francisco José. Darwin and Intelligent Design. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006. {115}
  • Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free Press, 2006.
  • Behe, Michael J., William Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer, eds. Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe: Papers Presented at a Conference Sponsored by the Wethersfield Institute, New York City, September 25, 1999. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2000.
  • Dembski, William A. The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004.
  • ———. Intelligent Design Uncensored: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to the Controversy. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2010.
  • Dembski, William A., and James M. Kushiner, eds. Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2001.
  • Guliuzza, Randy J. Clearly Seen: Constructing Solid Arguments for Design. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2012.
  • Haarsma, Deborah B., and Loren D. Haarsma. Origins: Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design. Grand Rapids, MI: Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2011.
  • Meyer, Stephen C. Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. HarperOne, 2013.
  • ———. Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. New York: HarperOne, 2009.
  • Moreland, J. P., ed. The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1994.
  • Stewart, Robert B., ed. Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse in Dialogue. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007.

Critiques

  • Forrest, Barbara, and Paul R. Gross. Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. {116}
  • Gonzalo, Julio A., and Manuel María Carreira. Intelligible Design: A Realistic Approach to the Philosophy and History of Science. Singapore: World Scientific, 2014.
  • Pennock, Robert T. Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2001.
  • Petto, Andrew J., and Laurie R. Godfrey. Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism. New York: W.W. Norton, 2007.
  • Shermer, Michael. Why Darwin Matters: The Case against Intelligent Design. New York: Times Books, 2006.
  • Stewart, Robert B., ed. Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse in Dialogue. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007.
  • Young, Matt, and Taner Edis, eds. Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2004.

Related websites

NOTES

  1. Gerald Rau, Mapping the Origins Debate: Six Models of the Beginning of Everything (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2012). These positions are briefly described under their respective headings in the bibliography. The sixth model is Naturalistic Evolution, which rejects outright the reality of a transcendent deity. Titles in this category are readily found by searching any good academic library or online bookstore for works by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Stephen Jay Gould, Ernst Mayr, Eugenie Carol Scott, or Edward O. Wilson.
  2. For helpful tables comparing the different positions on their basic propositions, underlying philosophy, interpretations of evidence, etc., see the first appendix of Rau’s Mapping the Origins Debate. {117}
  3. Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 264.
  4. Ibid., 309. Emphasis in the original.
  5. Plantinga calls this “Darwin’s doubt”: “With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881, in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John Murray, 1887), vol. 1, 315–16. Cited in Plantinga, 316. This meaning is not to be confused with the subject of Stephen Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (New York: HarperOne, 2013), where the same term refers to Darwin’s inability to explain the lack of fossil evidence for transitional ancestors of the diverse life forms that appeared in the Cambrian explosion.
  6. David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013), 39. Emphasis in the original.
  7. Rau, 56.
  8. This is a sore point for creationists who further chide ID for not taking a stance on the identity of the Designer. Even so, ID arguments appeal to OECs and YECs who seek a scientific respectability that has largely eluded ID itself. On ID’s struggle to be taken seriously as science, see William A. Dembski’s “In Defence of Intelligent Design,” in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science, ed. Philip Clayton and Zachary Simpson (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 715–31. See also his Intelligent Design Uncensored: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to the Controversy (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2010).

Previous | Next