What and how they decide to communicate provides the most insight
4 stars
The book includes the leading proponents of what I know to be the four most popular Christian positions on creation. Each seem to have relabeled themselves but I'll refer to them as young earth, old earth, evolutionary, and intelligent design. Growing up I was exposed to each in that order. A creation position was not endorsed in my life growing up; although my impression was that young earth was the default, old earth and intelligent design explored and nice possibilities while evolutionary to be wary about.
The young earth author drew a hard line both both in his presentation as well as in his interaction with the other authors.. He believes the young earth perspective is the only one which does not make any theological compromises and that everything should be understood first through the theological lens. To me this is the position which most aligns with my understanding of …
The book includes the leading proponents of what I know to be the four most popular Christian positions on creation. Each seem to have relabeled themselves but I'll refer to them as young earth, old earth, evolutionary, and intelligent design. Growing up I was exposed to each in that order. A creation position was not endorsed in my life growing up; although my impression was that young earth was the default, old earth and intelligent design explored and nice possibilities while evolutionary to be wary about.
The young earth author drew a hard line both both in his presentation as well as in his interaction with the other authors.. He believes the young earth perspective is the only one which does not make any theological compromises and that everything should be understood first through the theological lens. To me this is the position which most aligns with my understanding of the bible. But I just can't accept it with what we know from science. I also did not feel welcomed by the author to ask any questions or express doubts. So although I'd really like for this position to be true, it would simplify my faith, I all around cannot accept this position.
The old earth author tries to be true to each, both scripture and science. The scripture he reinterprets in order to do so seems mostly reasonable. He also argues for a progressive creation instead of evolution. If this position is the case then it also helps simplifies my faith as well. The author finds a nice balance in confidently putting forth his position while also welcoming conversation. But it seems to me he is overly optimistic in being able to stay true to both scripture and science. He is confident in that he does not see any conflict between the two. That both clearly support the other. But this does not at all seem clear to me and leaves me with the impression that the author cannot be trusted, that he is not honestly looking at each and is willing to struggle with the questions which arise. Perhaps this perspective is accurate. I'd like to find a nice middle road like he has. But it does not add up to me.
The evolutionary author did not go into scripture as in depth as the others. Instead she made a case for what we know from the sciences and how that does not exclude a creator. Yet there are struggles on how to interpret some scripture passages. She was the most inviting, welcoming an exchange of ideas. Perhaps this approach comes from her experience in the sciences where ideas are challenged and similar types of conversations occur commonly. It was Francis Collins' book, The Language of God, which originally shook my faith, which I have yet to fully recover from. I have yet to feel comfortable with this perspective in regards to my faith but from what we know seems the most plausible, it therefore does not lend itself to an simple faith.
The intelligent design perspective in unlike the other three in that it does not provide a complete picture on creation, as was pointed out by the other authors. The argument is all about probabilities of life forming, such as it has. I don't know what to make about the numbers used to make the case. Other authors raise concerns about this but also accept portions of this argument to supplement their own positions. I did think the author came off as knowledgeable. But I come away with a feeling of not knowing what to make of the perspective. If I put any confidence in the position it feels like it could eventually collapse and leave me feeling even more disoriented and in doubt. Therefore I'm cautious about picking up this argument.
I did not have high hopes when picking up the book that it would solve any creation dilemma for me. This turned out to be true, I'm pretty much in the same place I started. But it was a useful book to gain an up to date overview of the positions. I applaud the effort to gather this material and attempt the interaction between the various positions. I do not expect any such work to leave the reader with a clear choice. So why read the book? To gain a quick overview as well as support and encourage collaboration efforts such as this.