Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design

Counterpoints

by J.B. Stump (Editor), Ken Ham (Contributor), Hugh Ross (Contributor)

Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design presents the current "state of the conversation" about origins among evangelicals representing four key positions:

Young Earth Creationism - Ken Ham (Answers in Genesis) Old Earth (Progressive) Creationism - Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe) Evolutionary Creation - Deborah B. Haarsma (BioLogos) Intelligent Design - Stephen C. Meyer (The Discovery Institute)

The contributors offer their best defense of their position addressing questions such as: What is your position on origins - understood broadly to include the physical universe, life, and human beings in particular? What do you take to be the most persuasive arguments in defense of your position? How do you demarcate and correlate evidence about origins from current science and from divine revelation? What hinges on answering these questions correctly?

Genres: Theology, Science, Christianity, Religion, Christian, Nonfiction, Spirituality

235 pages, Kindle Edition

Published November 21, 2017

Reviews

[Ana Avila · Rating 4 out of 5]

Creo que este es un buen recurso para los interesados en conocer las principales posturas que los cristianos pueden tener acerca del proceso creativo de Dios. Desde el principio del libro me pregunté qué hacía aquí la postura del Diseño Inteligente, que en realidad no es una postura sino más bien una teoría sobre cómo debemos hacer ciencia (de manera no-naturalista) y no tiene ninguna manera definida de interpretar el texto de Génesis 1 ni hace afirmaciones acerca de la edad de la tierra.

En fin, me gustó mucho el formato de este libro; es como un debate por escrito. Un colaborador presenta su postura, los otros tres responden, y luego el colaborador presenta una réplica breve para cerrar su participación.

Mi parte favorita del libro fue la introducción del editor.

Aprecié el tono de dos de los colaboradores; a pesar de sus claros desacuerdos con los demás, mostraron humildad y un gran deseo de ver unidad cristiana. Los otros dos, en mi opinión, dejaron mucho que desear. Les dejo a ustedes, futuros lectores de este libro, la tarea de determinar quiénes fueron.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book itself is good, though I imagine the editor would have done it differently. The essays were fairly informative and well-written, though young earth advocates would no doubt have wished someone like Lisle or Doug Kelly would have replaced Ken Ham.

Ken Ham: Ham insisted he be allowed to have a longer essay than the rest since he, and he alone, “was defending the authority of the Bible vs the authority of Scientists.” Ham’s outlook is simple: will we trust Scripture and let Scripture determine how we view science?” That sounds noble, but can he pull it off? Sadly, he cannot. Ham’s strength is his relatively clear portrayal of one interpretation of Genesis 1-2. Note, however, that not only does Ham ignore other creation accounts (e.g., Job 38-39; Ps. 104), he refuses to bring them into the discussion because they are “poetry.” Poetry, on his account, cannot teach truths. Ironically, Ham is very close to liberalism at this point.

Hugh Ross: Ross presents “moderate concordism,” the view that we can have a testable model of creation that can give us historical predictions. His science seems fairly accurate. As one author noted, the layman is in the unfortunate prediction of trusting one scientific authority over another and just hoping for the best.

Deborah Haarsma: This is the theistic evolutionist or “evolutionary creationist” account. She has the unenviable task of defending evolution. I do not think she succeeds.

Stephen Meyer: Updated Intelligent Design. I agree with everything he says, but, as others note, his position does not really need the Bible.

Young Earth Creation

There are good scholars and defenders of Young Earth Creation. Ken Ham is not one of those. His essay probably set the movement back twenty years. He does not understand how biblical hermeneutics works and regularly confuses his interpretation with God’s interpretation. His essay is not all bad, though. It is relatively clear and straight-forward.

* According to him, his is the “clear and natural reading.”

* Genesis 1-11 is history.

* Yom means a 24 hour solar day.

* When God creates, he creates supernaturally.

* The chronologies do not have gaps.

* No death before the Fall.

His chapter also touches on a worldwide flood, but that is actually irrelevant to the creation account, though it probably does touch on fossils and the like

Response

That it is “a clear and natural” reading is precisely what one should prove. I do believe Genesis 1-11 is history, but that is not all it is. Yom has other meanings besides a 24 hour solar day, as a lexicon can show the interested reader Even today, the word “day” alternates between 24 hours and 12 hours. If I worked “all day,” I do not mean I worked for 24 straight hours.

I do not dispute that when God creates, he does so supernaturally. I think that point was more aimed at Haarmsa. Moreover, as Ross points out, Ham contradicts himself. He says humans were eyewitnesses to parts of the creation week, yet elsewhere says they were unobserved (Ross 31).

The biggest problem that Ham has to overcome is the issue of starlight. If the universe is 6,000 years old, then how does Ham account for starlight that is obviously from much older stars? The initial response is that God created the light, like he did Adam, fully formed and functional. The problem is a bit deeper than that, though. On Ham’s reading, light is coming from stars that never existed. Information is coming to us from no source at all. This is a problem for all Christian justifications of science. At this very point we cannot account for the rationality of the universe. The comparison with Adam does not work. We do not currently see Adam. We do see starlight.

Old Earth Creation

Hugh Ross has probably the best argued chapter, though it is by no means perfect. He argues:

* The surface of the earth’s water is the frame of reference in Genesis 1.

* Poetry can convey truth, which means we are allowed to go to Psalm 104 and Job 38-39 for information about creation.

* Day Age creation. The days were six sequential, non-overlapping long time periods.

* Even if one wants to say there was no death before the fall, there was entropy, as phenomena like metabolism suggest.

* The Bible itself hints at earth’s antiquity. It speaks of the mountains as “ancient” and “everlasting,” which would not make much sense if the mountains were only a few days older than man.

Response

The biggest problem with Ross’s essay, as one can imagine and as Ross himself anticipates, is the presence of death before the fall. Ross points out that Romans 5 only mentions human death as a result of the fall. It says nothing of animal and plant death. Even if all the carnivores were vegetarians before the Fall, it still has them consuming possible life. Moreover, one would have to say that they all became carnivores after the fall.

I am still not 100% satisfied with Ross’s account. It is logically consistent, but something just does not set right.

Conclusion

There was no overall clear winner. Ross had the best essay. Ham had the worst.

[R.W. · Rating 3 out of 5]

This volume contains a snapshot of how Evangelicals based in North America view the scientific and theological implications of the origins of life on Earth. In that sense, the book is informative.

Personally, I completely reject Ken Ham's approach to origins, because I think he is cavalier about both the complexities of hermeneutics and of cultural analysis; in contrast, Haarsma's articulation strikes me as both scientifically responsible and irenic. I think she is right to identify origins as a disputable matter (Romans 14), and yet, like Paul, she frames the argument toward the most liberal or generous of the available options within the context of Christian discipleship.

I find the need for a book like this an intellectual scandal--evolution cannot destroy the Christian faith, but Christians who refuse to affirm evolution can prevent others from considering the claims of Christ.

[Abigail Rasmussen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having been raised with a Young Earth Creation worldview, and now believing an Evolutionary Creation worldview, this book was very interesting to me. I didn't know much about the other two world views, Old Earth Creation and Intelligent Design, before I read this book.

This book includes an essay from each world view. After each essay, the authors of the other views give a response to it. Then, the original author of the essay provides a rejoinder. Each author was respectful of the others view while giving evidence for their own view. Each view comes from a Christian perspective -each author believes the Bible to be the infallible and inspired Word of God. No one even considers an aesthetic or naturalistic world view within the pages of this book.

Young Earth Creation - Ken Ham
This view believes that the ONLY plain reading of the text from the Bible is that God instantaneously created everything in 6-literal 24-hour days. Any other view is a compromise to the inspired Word of God which can not error. Because of my background, I'll admit it was hard to read this section without wanting to put the book down and argue the points myself. I had to keep reminding myself that far smarter people gave responses to Ken Ham if only I could get through a few more pages... I agree with Ken Ham that the Bible is God's inspired Word, and is infallible. I do not like that Ken Ham equates his own interpretation with the infallible Word of God. Basically, in his mind, if you disagree with him, you're disregarding the authority of God's Word. No Ken, I'm disregarding you as the authority over the interpretation of God's Word. Okay, I'll stop.

Old Earth Creation - Hugh Ross
I never knew what this world view was until now. I really like the tone that Hugh Ross has. Very patient, yet also very firm in his belief. He makes a strong case Biblically, historically, and scientifically for an old earth, 4.5 billion years old. I agree with everything he has to say about the age of the earth and the scientific reliability of the numerous dating methods by many different fields of science. Hugh Ross completely rejects biological evolution and common descent. He has evidence both Biblical and scientific to back up his statements. He believes God instantaneously created different species over distinct time periods of the millions of years that life has existed on planet earth. I believe God could've done it this way, but I don't completely buy into all of Ross's arguments against biological evolution.

Evolutionary Creation - Deborah B. Haarsma
This view believes that God created and used all the natural processes that we see happening on earth, including evolution, to create the amazing world and universe we see around us. Haarsma explains that to be completely honest with the text in Genesis, which she believes is God's inspired Word, we have to understand the context of when the text was written, and the original audience. Evolutionary Creationists don't believe that Genesis was written to refute 21st century origins debates, or contradict modern science. It is historical, but not chronological. Genesis is not a myth or a legend, the events actually happened, but we can't read it as if it were a science textbook. To read it literally, we must read it with the intent of understanding the literal sense, the message the original author was intending to convey to his original audience. Haarsma has loads of Biblical and scientific evidence to support her claims. I don't believe everything she has to say, but most things I do.

Intelligent Design - Stephen C. Meyer
This view holds to the theory that things created point to an intelligent designer. Proponents of Intelligent Design do not comment on the age of the earth, therefore there are both young earth and old earth believers among the ranks of the Intelligent Design worldview. They completely reject evolution and common descent. They say that most of the evidence that Evolutionary Creationists say point to common descent could also be evidence towards common design. Meyer spent a lot of words explaining DNA and how it works and how he thinks it's impossible for new information to be added with mutations. Haarsma's response, as a I expected, explained how Meyer misunderstands how evolution actually works, which is usually the case with anti-evolution arguments; they stem from a misunderstanding of the complicated theory. This section was much less engaging or interesting for me, and not very convincing for me at all.

All the authors shared a desire that this book help the origins conversations that happen between friends and families. If no one changes there mind from reading this book, hopefully they will have a better understanding of where other people come from, and also a renewed respect for other people's belief's and opinions. It was a quick read with lots of foot notes with blog posts and books suggested for further learning by the authors.

[J.K. Turner · Rating 4 out of 5]

My Rating - Put it on your list

Level - Medium length, moderately to highly (especially the last chapter) scientific/technical language (from three of the authors)

Summary
The format is the now standard Counterpoint Series - Essay/Argument, responses from the other three authors, then a rejoinder. Also, intro and conclusion from an editor (this time, from one that is affiliated with one of the other authors, which I don't think I've seen before, however, he does acknowledge this up front).

The four views are Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth/Progressive Creationism (also often known as Day-age Creation), Evolutionary Creationism (also known as Theistic Evolution, but she explains why they is a weak and broader term than her view, which I found compelling), and Intelligent Design.

My Thoughts
I was torn on how to rate this. Three of the authors made this a five star, must read, but the first author was just a disaster. I would give him a zero if possible. I've read probably 10 of the Counterpoint books and his essay was the weakest one I've ever read. He weakens not just this book, but the entire series.

Ham has no education or training in either science or theology and it shows. He doesn't seem to understand how science works, and is unrelenting in his belief that his theological interpretation is the only valid one. His understanding of church history (claims that his view is the historical one, which is demonstrably false) and Hebrew is also lacking. His responses boiled down to 'na-uh', putting things in 'scare quotes' the he didn't agree with, and questioning the salvation of the other authors.

The editor even pointed out in the conclusion that he refused to shorten his essay, due to be the only one to support Biblical authority (the editor also expressed dismay over the lack of charity). Obviously, this is incorrect as there are multiple conservative (SBC, PCA, etc.) pastors, theologians, commentaries authors, Hebrew scholars, and seminary professors that do not share his view. I assume when he said he wouldn't meet the standards everyone agree to, that he threaten to leave the project, and it is a shame that the editor and publisher didn't just allow this to happen and move on without him. The book would have been far superior with his absence.

Now back to the good part. Ross was likely my favorite writer of the group. He made compelling arguments for the 'Day-age' view of creation. So, he uses the more general 'framework theory' of Genesis 1, not that they are literal days. He agrees with geology and physics that the world is Billions of years old, but not with biology that we evolved (explicitly reject the 'common descent' evolution). He sees God involving himself in the changes to species throughout time, creating new ones in history. He also had a fascinating argument that one reason there have been no new species since humans came on to the scene is because God rested from creation. Not sure if I believe it, but compelling and interesting nonetheless. He take the order of creation to be literal, so expects that science will prove that at some point. I generally agreed with his interpretive view, but I wonder about picking some science and not others. 

Haarsma took the Evolutionary Creation view, making the point that creation is the point and evolution modifies it, not the other way around, as with Theistic Evolution. Also, 'theistic' is no necessarily the God of the Bible. She accepts science on both age of the earth and evolution. She also takes the 'framework view' which is common among Evangelical scholars. She doesn't take the creation order as literal and supports common ancestry. Her organization (Biologos) seems to be focused on evangelism to those in the scientific field, so she starts with accepting science, and then moving to God and Christ. 

This is a different approach from Meyer. His group, The Discovery Institute, isn't focused on evangelism or apologetics, but instead focuses on the issues within the science, and the argument that the science itself calls for a creator. In that way, his group does not have faith statements for the God of the Bible or Christ and has other religious and non-religious people within his organization; though he himself is a committed orthodox Christian. His focus was entirely on the science of biological evolution, and did not make much of a theological argument (which is fine, that is how his organization works). He accepts all science on age of the earth and biology in regards to evolution, his point is to argue that is was directed by God (which is not really different than Haarsma essay). His article was maybe the most interesting, but certainly the most technical, so get ready, it might take awhile. 

Three of the authors have PhD's in science, and then there is Ham. Due to this, there are some technical aspects of the writing in all chapters. There is also the academic argumentation that occurs in, well, academic/scientific research, but for some reason it seems odd in this book. Maybe that was an editorial decision. It is also likely, unavoidable, though, were I the editor, I don't think I would allow arguments that use scientists who point out issues with evolution, yet still fully support it. That is just how science and research work, and the fact that these issues don't sway those scientist somewhat undermines the argument. 

Most of the authors cited widely, with the exception of Ham, who only cited himself (which is fine if you are published) or his organization (or their printing arm). He also labeled others who disagreed that were cited elsewhere as 'atheistic' regardless of what they actually believed, I assume in an attempt to scare people. Again, I would just cut him out entirely, so I'll ignore the other issues with him. 

Another editorial change would be to lock down some definitions. There seemed to be at least four working definitions for evolution alone, which sometimes lead to people talking past each other. I would have liked to see some more discussion of 'special creation' for those who support evolution, but I guess Haarsma mentions a few things that makes her views clear, while Meyer stuck to science and no theological arguments.

I'm actually still torn on the inclusion of Meyer. His arguments were inline with the others, with huge agreement with Haarsma. It is just that his tactic is different. Ultimately, I think he brought a lot of value, but due to his nature, it didn't leave much for the others to interact with. Haarsma and Ross, agreed with him and his critiques of science, respectively. As I mentioned above, he article was maybe the best, but as he isn't really arguing a different 'view', it left the chapter feeling a little disconcordant. 

If you have interest on the science (mostly settled) and theology (all over place) of creation, this is a book to put on your list. As for age of the earth, if you are a committed young earth, this book will help you understand the old age arguments and show how it doesn't have to end your faith. If you are trying to understand young earth, you should probably look elsewhere, as Ham is a street corner preacher that yells at people as the pass bye. Certainly there are better sources out there. The strength of the book is evolution science (though Ross and Haarsma have PhD's/academic careers in the astro-physics realm, which does come up and is quite good), so if that is what you are interested in (while still maintaining a Christian belief, or if you don't want to see the Christian belief that discusses evolution seriously) then this book is a must read. If you interest is the theology of evolution, this is still good, but the Four Views on the Historical Adam is better. If you are trying to read everything you can about all these, put it on your list. 
More reviews at MondayMorningTheologian.com

[Russell Piontek · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good overview for anyone not familiar with the views overall. The format (a long essay making the case for their view, cross examination, and final word/rejoinder) worked well overall to give basic overviews for each position and the common objections for each view.

The only downside would be for those already initiated in topics involving creation/evolution etc…there’s not much of note for you in that case.

[Hernando · Rating 3 out of 5]

First time reading something like this. It is sort of a debate book but with footnotes and without the proponents interrupting each other, and I actually liked the format. It would be nice to find something similar but not only focusing on religious proponents.

About the book itself, Ken Ham's is the guy which most conservative Christians will relate the most as it is basically Christian religion as taught in schools (or were) . I find his essay the weakest of all four, also the guy is quite annoying sometimes as he believes whatever he says is the true because "That is the true", I later saw him on YouTube and he is even worst. Even the editor of the book had some trouble dealing with him that it made me laugh. Citing the editor:
"The most obvious discrepancy that remains is in the initial essays, where Ham's is noticeable longer than the others. He was unwilling to cut anything further, believing it only fair that he should be given more space than the others since he was the only one defending the young age of the earth and the authority of Scripture vs the authority of the scientific majority". Quite a guy eh?.

Hugh Ross is an interesting case, as an Astrophysics he believes in like 99% about all the scientific consensus related to cosmic stuff, but he differ in the evolution and origins of life. Researching through his footnotes I see he has an interesting views that few non-religious people also consider, specially that about Fine-tuning of the universe. His weakest point I would say that is that he is actually making the bible to concord with everything Astrophysics find and that is why many people say that he tends to much to Concordism.

Haarsma is a proponent of almost everything that non-religious scientist believe, so most of those people will find her point of view the most compelling of all, but she add God into the equation. So she believes in the Evolution, Origins of life, the LUCA, etc as the scientific consensus says but also that God guided everything in any way. Her weakest point is actually the obvious one, what God has anything to do in all this if all this looked as He was unnecessary. Though Her reply to this opposition is quite interesting. She works for that organization (BioLogos) that is actually run by geneticist Francis Collins which it happens that he is the guy in charge of the NIH in the US and who led the Human Genome Project.

The last guy, Meyer, only based his essay on Intelligent Design so nothing to add to this as even though he has his own position on the age of the universe and origins of life most of his essay is basically explaining everything about ID including why it is not Pseudo-science.

Finally, the editor finish the book saying: "It takes enormous effort, then, on our part to listen to others and consider their critiques of our own positions. But if we're serious about pursuing the truth in the matters, it is important."

[Ben · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think this is a pretty excellent resource for any contemporary Christian looking for a concise summary of four common opinions on how and when the world was created. Each of the four essays argues their points respectfully and concisely with good evidence and logically formulated ideas that leave you to weigh the arguments presented to best reconcile them with special and natural revelation. Even if you are already convinced as to which interpretation of Scripture and science is the right one, this compilation will give you a better understanding of the opinions of other Christians on the topic. Hugh Ross' essay is probably my favorite and the one I most agree with (though still not convinced about animal predation pre-fall), but they all make some points of validity that will at least make you think about the topic from multiple perspectives.

[Josiah Richardson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I wrote a longer review for this book, something that was entirely too long for a Goodreads review, so I'll post it to my blog sometime this week.

However, I will say that if you are reading this book and have only gotten your ankles wet in this topic, this will be a helpful book for you to differentiate the major views of origins within Christianity. If you're already swimming in this topic, the only new material you'll find is the dialogue between the contributers. As far as a short review goes, Ken Ham spent most of his time telling the reader why other views were wrong, not why his view was right. This may have been prudent for him if he is assuming that the reader knows of his website and other materials. But because he constantly deflected and inadequately showed why his view was the "right one" I give him 2/5 for his contribution.

Hugh Ross was by far the most compelling writer for this book and did an excellent job giving reasons to believe (pun intended) of why his view was the most accurate view. He did not shy away from any questions and though I disagree with his overall view, he gave the best contribution, so 4/5 for him.

Deborah Haarsma had the uphill battle among 3 other peers that all saw her and her view as the most incorrect view, so she was ganged up on a lot in the Q&A. She did a good job showing why her view (and mine) was biblically and scientifically supported, but she seemed more interested in keeping the peace and unity than she was at putting foots on the necks of the counterarguments. This was her downfall in my opinion, not that it was a bad thing to seeing unity, but that for debate purposes (this can be seen with her YouTube discussions and debates) she is simply not assertive enough and for that she gets 3/5.

Stephen Meyer wrote his contribution as if he walked out his backdoor and onto a stage wondering why he was there instead of elsewhere. He continually mentioned that his viewpoint has no opinion on YEC or OEC views though it does line up with OEC moreso. The only viewpoint he took offense to was Haarsma's Evolutionary creationism view because Intelligent design has a major bone to pick with EC. When he was discussing that issue he was in his element and made some good points, but porcupines have good points as well, that doesn't make them correct though. Because Meyer focused on one counterpoint for legitimately all of his contributions and had hardly anything else to say about the other two (at least he could have spoken on where they align), he gets 3/5 from me. His could have been a 5/5 if he didn't pigeonhole his arguments against one view.

Overall a helpful book for those getting into the issue, but probably not one I will recommend to others who have walked this trail already.

[JR Snow · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a sort of reboot of an earlier edition I recently read, with completely different contributors for each position on origins. Given the nature of the discussion, I think this is appropriate. Each contributor improves upon the original, though Poythress' commentary is missed from the first edition.

[Luke · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book demonstrates that each creation position has weaknesses. Some of the positions would have us accept the current scientific understanding and conform the scripture to it. Others would have us take the Scriptural revelation and conform our understanding of science to that. While none of the proponents state it just that way, it seems to be in fact the case. Instead they all try to say that their position is consistent with the Scriptures and their position is also consistent with science, an argument that doesn't hold up. The real question everyone must answer is what is the basis of faith and truth.

I didn't think the selection of authors was particularly good. Ross and Meyer hold the same view, though one argues from progressive creationism, and the other intelligent design. Also, the editor, Stump, works for the same organization as Haarsma (the author proposing evolutionary creationism). While I recognize that Ham is the most prominent figurehead of young-earth creationism, I think others would have argued the position more convincingly.

The arguments are significant and touch on many areas of theology beyond cosmology: bibliology, harmartiology, soteriology, theology proper, anthropology etc. The various position touched on the theology in ways that are not mildly different but significantly different. I did find Meyer's scientific arguments for intelligent design compelling. However, most of the scientific arguments seemed to be consistently undercut by the others. Meyer's response to Haarsma in his rejoinder was strong and seemed to be the exception to that observation. Overall, the science seemed a weak basis for the faith of those who worship it. While I didn't always appreciate Ham's approach I do concur with his position and found his interpretation of the Scriptural revelation to be correct. I didn't find any of the others to have a scripturally convincing argument.

I am astounded that the evolutionary position has been accepted so overwhelmingly by our society. Yet, it fails to address the fundamental question of how something came from nothing. Haarsma writes: "EC [evolutionary creationism] agrees that a complete, satisfactory natural explanation was not (yet) been found for the origin of life from non-life, but EC sees this as an active research field" While I understand and admit that young-earth creationism demands faith, it would seem not nearly as much as this. Evolution doesn't even offer an explanation for creation yet people accept that non-argument as truth. This book does demonstrate that this theory is far less settled than the general populace holding it likely understand.

While this book was insightful for me, it was far from captivating. I am still looking for a better handling of each of the positions.

[Oliver Hunt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ever wonder how Christians debate regarding the creation of the world? Well here you go. Ranging from a literal 6000 year old(ish) earth to a 13.5b year old(ish) universe brought about through theistic evolution, this book takes four folks representing four views on the creation narrative through a Christian and biblical perspective. I say "folks" and not scholars since I think, perhaps, while the term scholar definitely applies to most of the writers, I'm not convinced the term applies to all.

And not just the earth, but interestingly and importantly, humankind. Was humanity birthed from two individuals? Or do we have multiple progenitors? Were Adam and Eve real historical people that lived 6000 years ago in the middle east as the only two people on earth? Or 200,000 years ago in Africa as two specifically chosen homosapiens, out of many, that were there? Or was it all just an analogy? While I think most evangelicals, in my experience, have been taught only one route in particular on this topic, this book outlines the others.

The book is put in a brilliant format - an expert provides their opinion, the three others respond to it, and then the original author gets a rejoinder to their responses. And it's actually kinda hilarious because most every response/rejoinder follows the same format: "While I appreciate that they say the love the Bible and Jesus... Here are the most egregious ways this person is either insane or delusional or deliberately nefarious. But in conclusion, let us love one another well and bring unity to the church." Sometimes they fall just short of calling an opponent a dumbass and that their views are going to send people to hell... and then immediately follow it with a charge that we should really all just get along and seek to understand each other more.

Regardless of one's views coming into the book, it's been enlightening to understand how others approach theirs. Each argument defends itself in light of both the Bible and science, and while some do this (much) more convincingly than others, it's helpful to have a perspective on what all the different voices are proclaiming and where their strengths and weaknesses lie.

[Avantika Parihar · Rating 1 out of 5]

It was hard to read this one objectively. Even though I tried not to, throughout my reading I was heavily dismissive of any and all ideas constituting this book.
I won't blame myself for this. When compared to the likes of Richard Dawkins, these four authors even combined don't measure up to the level of scientific reasoning required to prove or disprove such theories.

[David Jung]

Great overview - if you can get past the unnecessarily argumentative approach by some of the writers and the lack of details (expected in this format), this book presents a great snapshot of the creationism debate today

[Caleb · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book to be a very helpful summary of the main stances on origins held by evangelicals. The book is divided into four parts, each consisting of a lengthy essay from one of the contributors in which they argue for their view, followed by short responses/critiques from the other three contributors, and closed out with a brief rejoinder from the original contributor. This format allows one to quickly gauge how strong each side's arguments are by seeing how they stand up to criticism. What follows is an appraisal of each author and my comments/conclusions regarding their case.

Ken Ham - Young-earth Creationism
Young-earth creationism is the view that God created everything in six consecutive 24-hour days, roughly 6000 years ago. Ken Ham's essay arguing for this position had a strong biblical case but a rather weak scientific one. He defends his position with passion, but as I've grown to expect from him, his contributions contained a fair deal of arrogance and snark. I used to be a young-earth creationist myself but scientific evidence and exposure to alternative interpretations has led me to reject this view, and it annoys me to see the dogmatism propagated by Christians in this camp. I thought his critics did a good job of pointing out the errors in his essay, although he didn't have much room to respond.

I found it ironic that Ken Ham claimed his position was growing (to be fair, everyone except Hugh Ross claimed that about their own position—a logical puzzle indeed). The way I see it, more and more people are leaving young-earth creationism to adopt a more scientifically defensible view of origins. Unfortunately, many of these people head straight to atheism because they've been led to believe that YEC and Christianity are synonymous. I'm glad that other views, such as old-earth creationism, are gaining exposure and adherents. While I appreciate Ken Ham's willingness to stand firm on what he thinks is the truth, I was firmly unconvinced by his arguments.

Hugh Ross - Old-earth Creationism
Also known as progressive creationism, the position represented by Hugh Ross is more defensible scientifically than young-earth creationism. It states that God created life supernaturally, without using evolution, over billions of years. Hugh Ross argues for the day-age interpretation of Genesis, the biblical arguments for which are decent but flimsy at times. I'm gradually moving away from the day-age interpretation of Genesis, championed by Hugh Ross, and moving toward something like John Walton's temple inauguration view.

I thought Hugh Ross presented great arguments in his initial essay for an old earth and decent arguments against biological evolution. I was surprised to see that in his response to Stephen Meyer's essay on intelligent design, he came out as a critic of the argument from the rarity of new protein folds. Ross also spent a lot of time on the Cambrian explosion; I was glad to see this, since Meyer omitted it from his essay. I appreciate Hugh Ross' attempts to reconcile the Bible and science, and it was him who eventually convinced me to leave young-earth creationism, but I'm beginning to doubt his biblical arguments for long creation days. Overall, however, Ross had a good showing.

Deborah Haarsma - Evolutionary Creation
Evolutionary creation, also known as theistic evolution, is a growing view among Christians. It holds that God used the process of evolution to create life on earth. Deborah Haarsma, president of BioLogos (probably the world's leading organization promoting this view), contributed a thought-provoking essay to this book. I generally agreed with her principles on harmonizing science and Scripture when they appear to be in conflict; I disagreed with her that Genesis 1 actually teaches a solid firmament, but it's not an issue I've looked into. Other than contributing those thoughts, Haarsma didn't make many other biblical arguments (an issue that bothered Ken Ham). What she did offer continued to convince me that evolution is a valid theological option—the question is how good the scientific evidence is. I found her scientific arguments to be lacking, though she gave some decent scientific arguments for an old earth. She mainly argued for common ancestry, a view which is fully compatible with intelligent design. Her arguments for it were almost compelling, but they didn't quite measure up to the criticisms of common descent that Stephen Meyer gave in response to Hugh Ross. I personally think Haarsma was absolutely smoked in the rebuttals, but I admit my bias and I would be interested to see some follow-ups from her.

One particularly interesting point was when she responded to Meyer, who asked her if she thought evolution was a random or nonrandom process (the distinction is clearly important from a theological perspective). She responded by pointing to examples of convergent evolution, saying that many scientists at BioLogos hold that the laws of nature are set up so that evolution will always go a certain way. The funny thing is, this is actually called "structuralism", a view endorsed by the Discovery Institute (Meyer's organization) as intelligent design! Biologist Michael Denton, a senior fellow at the DI, has championed this view. Thus, there may be some overlap between ID and evolution. To conclude, Haarsma's essay was stimulating but failed to convince me.

Stephen Meyer - Intelligent Design
Definitely the best showing. In his essay, Meyer represented intelligent design, a biblically neutral perspective that claims that certain features of the natural world are best explained as a result of intelligence, rather than a random process. In his main essay, therefore, Meyer took no stance on interpreting Genesis or on the age of the earth (in his responses, however, he offered personal thoughts that clarified his belief in an old earth, and his stance on Genesis). He developed two main arguments in his essay: 1) DNA and the need for intelligence, and 2) the rarity of new protein folds. Ken Ham agreed with both. Hugh Ross and Deborah Haarsma both offered rebuttals to the protein fold argument, and only Haarsma offered a criticism of the DNA argument. Meyer's responses to the protein fold criticisms were concise, approachable, and absolutely devastating. He spent two paragraphs respectfully but viciously ripping to shreds everything Haarsma and Ross had brought against the argument. I was having a difficult time reading through all the smoke.

Meyer didn't offer a response to Haarsma's DNA criticism (probably due to space constraints), but all the criticism amounted to was the age-old "evolution is a nonrandom process" excuse peddled by ID critics since the dawn of time. Unfortunately for Haarsma, natural selection has no creative power and can't be spoken of as some kind of force that drives evolution forward. Mutation is the only thing that can create, and if it can't create something as simple as a new protein fold, natural selection will never be able to help evolution get from a single-celled organism to Homo sapiens. In principle, her criticism makes sense, but when one gets to the specifics, I think it falls apart. Mutation can't create.

Conclusion
Meyer wins on the evolution/design issue, Ross and Haarsma win on the age issue, and Ham wins on the biblical issue. I think the views put forth by Ross and Haarsma are biblically defensible, even if they're not the most face-value interpretation of the text. Other views, such as the one defended by John Walton, arguably fare better than young-earth creationism. In conclusion, then, I think old-earth creationism/ID comes out strong.

I highly recommend this book to anyone wanting to learn how evangelicals differ on these issues. It will challenge your stance, help you to develop a more balanced conclusion, and equip you to navigate conversations about origins with truth, grace, and love.

[Elizabeth · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the third title that I've read from the Counterpoints series, all of which present different interpretations (along with critiques and rejoinders) on any number of topics related to the Christian faith. As appealing as I find this format, sometimes I can't help wondering what God thinks about these books, and of the arguments put forth by their contributors. I don't claim to know the mind of God, but my best guess is that what pleases Him most is not whichever chapters come the closest to "getting it right". I think that what pleases Him most is when the authors find common ground with one another, when unity in Christ trumps theological nit-picking, and when grace and respect are expressed even in disagreements.

Like the old saying goes, "In essentials: Unity. In non-essentials: Liberty. In all things: Charity."
In the introduction to this book, editor J.B. Stump seemed to hope that it would be able to set such an example. A heartening and worthy goal, I thought! And they probably would have succeeded, too, had it not been for the unfortunate inclusion of Ken Ham among the contributors.

Ham might be the biggest name among Young Earth Creationism advocates, but as popular as I know YEC to be among Evangelicals, I really hope there are better representatives somewhere in that camp. His my-way-or-the-highway approach to Scripture, along with his attitude toward those who disagree with him, will be a grief and an embarrassment to any thoughtful Christian. Fortunately, the other participants were more Christ-like in their interactions, salvaging the work as a whole, but it was still frustrating to wade through Ham's sections.

As someone who has never been very scientifically inclined, I didn't have any strong opinions on the subject matter of this book before I read it. Now that I'm finished, I still don't. I believe that God created the world. Exactly how he did it is of comparatively little importance. This was an enlightening and educational read nonetheless, and anyone who is interested in learning more about the different views on creation, evolution, etc., would do well to check it out. And anyone who isn't interested should still look into some of the other subjects that this series covers. There are lots to choose from. :)

[Paul Bruggink · Rating 5 out of 5]

The stated goal of this Four Views book is “for it to be an accurate snapshot of the origins conversation in America right now.” In my opinion, it succeeds.

The format consists of essays by Ken Ham (Answers in Genesis), Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe), Deborah Haarsma (BioLogos), and Stephen C. Meyer (Discovery Institute). Following each essay are responses by the other three authors and a rejoinder by the essay author.

The essay authors were asked to describe their position on origins, discuss the most persuasive argument for and biggest challenges to their position, their sources of evidence for their position, and how important it is to have a correct view of origins.

Ken Ham defends Young-Earth Creationism against all of the old-earth views. He states that “Scripture must control our interpretation of the scientific evidence and our critique of evolutionary, naturalistic interpretations” (p. 31) and that “the issue of the age of the earth for Christians comes down one of authority. Who is the ultimate authority, God or man, or what is the final authority, God’s Word or man’s word?” (p. 34) He neglects to mention that Scripture also needs to be interpreted, and that his interpretation is only one of many possible interpretations of Genesis 1-11. He claims that “all old-earth scientists ignore (or worse, twist) God’s eyewitness testimony in Genesis in their efforts to interpret the physical evidence from events of the past” (p. 212).

Ken Ham then goes on to state that “The scientific evidence confirming the literal truth [i.e., his interpretation] of Genesis 1-11 is overwhelming and increasing with time as a result of the research of both evolutionists and creationists” (p. 31). That statement is blatantly false and totally opposite of reality.

As part of his discussion of biological evolution, Ken Ham offers two cut-off quotations from Ernst Mayr’s book “What Evolution Is” (pp. 33 & 157) that appear to support his position until you look of the rest of the quotations.

Finally, in his rejoinder, Ken Ham offers a challenge: “Unless we are persuaded from the Scriptures that we are wrong, we will not recant our teaching and defense of young-earth creation, which historically is the biblically orthodox faith of the church” (p. 70). Christian old-earth and evolutionary creationists need to take him up on that challenge.

Next, Hugh Ross’s essay on old earth (day-age, progressive) creationism defends a moderate concordist (seeking harmony between nature and Scripture) approach to the interpretation of Genesis 1-11 and what he calls “constructive integration, which he describes as anticipating “a straight-forward, harmonious integration of Scripture’s book with nature’s record.” His approach centers on a testable creation model “providing multiple scientific evidences . . . for God’s direct involvement in nature” (p. 78). For instance, he suggests that genetics studies will eventually show that the current human population descended from two humans.

As an astronomer, Hugh Ross’s strength has always been in the area of cosmological evolution. His essay, however, focuses more on biological evolution. He describes what he perceives as biblical and scientific challenges to biological evolution, such as the Avalon and Cambrian explosions and perceived evidences of God’s interventions. He also suggests that evolutionary convergence fits well with a common design perspective, which would appear to indicate that he is unfamiliar with the work of paleontologist Simon Conway Morris on convergence within biological evolution.

In the end, he believes that “Nothing less than active, repeated interventions by a supernatural Creator could ensure that just-right kinds of life at just-right population levels living in just-right habitats would replace the extinct species at just-right times to keep Earth’s atmospheric chemistry and surface temperatures optimal for life throughout the past 3.8 billion years.” (p. 91). This sounds like a “God of the Gaps” argument.

In her essay, Deborah Haarsma provides an excellent 30-page description of the evolutionary creation view of origins. She first discusses the geological and astronomical evidence for the vast age of the universe and the earth. She then briefly discusses how evolution works, including the fossil, embryo, and genetic evidence for evolution, and the various mechanisms of evolution. She then makes the case for human evolution and current options for viewing a historical Adam and Eve, about which BioLogos takes no specific position.

Haarsma then goes on to the theological issues around biological evolution, including what it means for man being made in the image of God, original sin, death before the fall, and natural evil. She concludes that evolutionary creation is a faithful option for Christians.

In his essay on the intelligent design view, Stephen Meyer presents a brief history of the classic design argument and the case for Intelligent Design. He states that intelligent design is an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origin and development. His basic claim is that intelligence is the only known cause of specified information, and that therefore an Intelligent Designer is the best explanation for the origin and evolution of life. The majority of his essay seeks to make his case. He makes no effort to tie his message to the creation accounts in the Bible.

Throughout the book, areas of agreement among the views were mentioned, and there were pleas for unity and suggestions for how to achieve it. Interesting insights in the essays and responses were too numerous to mention here.

Basically, Haarsma and Ham did a good job of addressing the issues and connecting with the reader; Meyer and Ross not so much.

I heartily recommend this book to anyone, Christian or non-Christian, interested in the origins debate among Christians.

[Rodrigo Lira · Rating 4 out of 5]

Muito bom! A abordagem em forma de debate que o livro utiliza para expor as principais visões cristãs sobre as origens é muito útil para compreensão de cada ponto de vista. Recomendo a leitura para todo aquele que tem interesse sobre as questões relacionadas às origens.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Helpful to delineate views on this decidedly secondary or tertiary topic. Also, Ken Ham is a spectacularly poor theologian.

[Emily M]

After a lackluster year of biology at my daughter's Christian high school, with no attempts made to reconcile the theology they were taught in doctrine class with the materialistic evolution they were taught in science class, I'm embarking on a reading journey to find representative books from different Christians who have come to various conclusions --Young Earth and Old Earth Creation, Intelligent Design, and Theistic Evolution--about God's role in the natural world. My goal is for my teen to do some deep reading this coming year as we discuss our family convictions. I'm not going to give the books I'm previewing starred ratings, as that might imply my level of approval or agreement with the author or that I have enough scientific expertise to judge their arguments from a position of scientific authority. I'm just a homeschool mom with a literature degree who has some very smart scientist friends recommending books to me.

So this book came recommended from our pastor, as it calls on recognizable leaders in the four strands to interact with each other in a single volume. From a pure readability standpoint, I have not taken biology in 25 years but was able to follow most of the discussion, so I appreciate that all four contributors tried to write at a popularly accessible level.

I wish someone other than Ken Ham had been selected to present young earth creationism, because his tone is so self righteous and combative, and Gordon Wilson (whose book I read earlier in this process) is more genial in tone. As in the YEC presentations I remember from my childhood at a very conservative Christian school, more time seemed to be spent explaining why evolution is false than presenting a rigorous explanation of YEC. He does footnote a lot, so those are options for further research into this strand.

Hugh Ross seemed very readable and accessible in his discussion, and his commitment to Scripture seem to match our family's, so I was pleased to note that the OEC church topical study a friend had recommended was written by him. We will delve further into his work. I also want to note that he seemed very respectful of the other contributor's faith, even as he disagreed with their conclusions.

Haarsma definitely sought to appeal to intellectual Evangelicals by noting that BB Warfield, CS Lewis, and Tim Keller all were open to theistic evolution (or as she says, evolutionary creation), but it's unfortunate in the post-covid era that she's bragging about Francis Collins' scientific integrity--I'm not the only one who blindly trusted him in 2020-2021 and now feels pretty jaded. In this chapter, Keller name dropping notwithstanding, Haarsma's theological convictions on several doctrinal issues clearly are much more liberal than mine (she's a member of the Christian Reformed Church, whose local congregation in our town is currrently rebranding in order to be more LGBTQ friendly). I had never had a very thorough presentation of evolution from a Christian before reading this chapter, and I'm coming out realizing that there are many theological issues that I probably disagree with more than I realized with my theistic evolution-advocating friends. They have all recommended BioLogos, however, so we will delve into some of her footnoted resources.

Stephen Meyer tries to bring ID down to the layman's level, but I admit that I find him both utterly convincing (I tip my hand here in being in the ID camp) but also hard to follow once he goes into depth on some of these issues, and I suspect my high schooler will have to read through his chapter quite slowly. Of course, ID does not take a stand on the logistics of how the intelligent designer (God) created our world, though in his comments to others, Meyer seems to pretty much agree with Ross in the OEC camp. The majority of our smartest Evangelical scientist friends have recommended resources from/are members of the Discovery Institute, and my next subject of study will be some of their student materials.

[Malin Friess · Rating 5 out of 5]

4 contributors present their theological and scientific views to support 4 key positions (and then provide counterpoints):

1- Young Earth Creationism: Ken Hamm (only has a high school degree- out of Australia), Answers in Genesis- Advocate for the creation museum in Kentucky and the Noah's Ark Museum. YEC believe that the 7 days presented in genesis are literal 24 hour days and the earth and universe is only about 6000 years old (following the biblical geneology). There was no death before the fall and the flood with Noah was global. YEC often see themselves as the protectors of biblical integrity pushing back against a culture that is having a spiritual meltdown.
a) Weakness of YEC: Pretty much ignores all science that dates the universe or the earth. Ignores the Big Bang, ignores dating of half life or rocks, ignores the layers of the Grand Canyon, ignores the layers of ancient ice sheets, and ignores the rings of trees. Most main-stream academic physicists, and geologists and biologists reject this position outright.
b) Strength- Position can more easily no death before the fall (when Adam and Eve sinned).

2) Old Earth Creationists- Hugh Ross- Creation days are eras (not specifically days). Universe is several Billion years old and the earth is at least 200,000 years old. Still accept the sequence of creation- light/dark, land/water, sea creatures/plants. Believe the flood was local. Believe humans are still created special (with a soul). Rejects evolution and rejects common descent. Accepts evolution on a very micro scale (no new species). Reads genesis account as literal.
a) Strengths- Adheres to the geologic record that does not show a gradual change in fossil evidence but "bursts of creativity." Lack of transitional fossil species seen.
b) Weakness- At times trouble defending the sequence of creation (plants before light?)

3) Evolutionary Creation (or Theistic Evolution)- Evolution is real and the Bible is true. God created universe over billions of years with the gradual process of evolution to create a diversity of life. Accepted by Francis Collins (leader of NIH). Reads Genesis 1 as poetry- not literal. Accepts common descent (tadpole to Human).
a) strength- reflects most academic science departments
b)weakness- can be seen to make a Creator unnecessary- if evolution does it all. How to reconcile evolution (by definition non-guided) with a guiding creator. Theologically- may be stretching the text of Genesis to fit their scientific views.

4) Intelligent Design- No theologic bent (accepted by jews, muslims, Christians). Belief that life is so complex (particularly the building blocks of life- DNA, amino acids, proteins, cells) it could not have evolved. Belief that DNA is a written language, a code--such that their must be a coder or intelligent designer. Some people call that person God. Presents mathematical models to show that a designer is more reasonable to produce the complexity of life that we see as opposed to the blind random chance of evolution. Believe things like the eye or flagellum have many moving parts that make it "irreducibly complex."
a) strengths- does not have to hold to a theological view or support the Bible
b) Weakness- can be looked at as at argument out of ignorance--whatever we can not explain yet we say it must be intelligent design--or God of the Gaps argument.

5 stars. The leaders in their field present their views and go at each other in their counterpoints. The editor hoped they would find unity (this did not occur) and they are all entrenched in their camps (as expected). They did find unity that one's view of Creation is not a salvation issue.

I am certainly a proponent of an old earth. I am not ready to accept universal common descent. I am moved by the ID arguments.

[Anthony Lawson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is one of the latest volumes in the Counterpoints series of books published by Zondervan. Presented are the four main Christian views of origins, namely, young earth creationism, old earth creationism (sometimes called progressive creationism), evolutionary creationism (sometimes referred to as theistic evolution), and intelligent design. What is unique with this work is that the writers represent the four main organizations in the United States for each of the positions. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis arguing for young earth creationism, Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe for old earth creationism, Deborah Haarsma of BioLogos for evolutionary creationism, and finally, Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute for intelligent design.

The format is for each author to present their view, then each of the others to offer a response, and finally for the original author to offer a rejoinder. I think this method worked out fairly well in giving an overall picture of the various positions.

Since there is so much material covered it would be difficult to review each view adequately. I'll just summarize some of my thoughts. First, Ken Ham actually did a fairly decent presentation for the young earth perspective, outlining his views and why he holds them and interacting with the others. Ham had the least disagreement with Meyer and the most with Haarsma. What is a bit frustrating is the fact that Ham's essay was longer than the rest, something that the editor admitted in his conclusion to the book.

I found Hugh Ross's position probably the most frustrating and unconvincing mostly because he advocates for a form of concordism between Genesis and science in a similar vein to the old historicist approach to the book of Revelation where they saw a concordism between the various visions of Revelation with the outline of church history. They saw details in Revelation as being reflected in various events and persons in church history, Ross does the same with specific statements in Genesis and how he thinks they reflect the history of the Earth. What I also found very frustrating is in Meyer's response he didn't have any real disagreement with Ross so he chose to spend his time responding to the subject of evolution. This was a bit unfair in that Haarsma had no opportunity to offer any rejoinder to his comments.

Meyer's essay on intelligent design seems out of place mostly because all of the other positions tend to embrace some form of ID, Ham and Ross more strongly towards the Meyer view, why Haarsma is less convinced of the interventionist tendencies of the ID movement. Meyer also seemed more interested in contesting biological evolution than engaging with the other two positions.

As one who started out as a young earth creationist, then embracing the ID movement in its early history, and then eventually moving briefly to old earth creationism, and finally to evolution I find Haarsma's essay and responses the most convincing. She offers the most comprehensive view regarding faith, the Bible, and science.

The editor mentions in his conclusion to the volume that we are all hard-wired to believe and accept what we already hold to and to dismiss evidence that challenges our views. Indeed we need to be able to deal with cognitive dissonance when we are faced with such challenges and be able to overcome our biases and be willing to consider other positions, especially those that are critical of our own. I highly recommend this volume for this very reason, it gives the reader a chance to look at four positions and as well as additional resources listed in endnotes for each section. Read broadly and be willing to listen and consider other positions than your own, this is how we can overcome our biases and be more informed in the process.

[Josh Reisinger · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really enjoyed the Counterpoints book discussing the historical Adam, so this felt like the obvious next one to read. The arguments by Hugh Ross (Old Earth Creationism) and Deborah B. Haarsma (Evolutionary Creationism) were very well thought out and informative (which should be the entire point of all of these essays in terms of the whole point of the book which is designed to inform about different points of view). However, the other two contributors fell short dramatically.

I’ll start with the final contributor, Stephen C. Meyer. His inclusion in this book is somewhat baffling. At the beginning the editor, J.B. Stump, says that there were originally 3 essays in this book but they felt it necessary to include the argument for the Theory of Intelligent Design. Which begs me to ask - why? ToID is a very noncommittal theory by nature and it doesn’t seem to add anything to the discussion whatsoever. That isn’t necessarily a critique of Meyer, but in the decision to include him. The topic feels adjacent and I didn’t get the sense that any of the other contributors really had a great idea of exactly what they were critiquing. This led them to all have essentially the same critiques in their responses. Meyer then responded by saying their critiques were directed at aspects of ToID that he himself doesn’t necessarily believe. Which leads me to ask once again, what in the world is the point of this argument being in this book.

On one hand, I understand why the publishers would want readers to be aware of this aspect of the discussion. But to strong arm it into being one of the argumentative essays in the book just did not work at all. I think it would have served better to be a bonus essay at the beginning or the end. It just doesn’t really address the things that the book is trying to address.

Now, I’ll talk about Ken Ham…

His essays were incredibly frustrating. He brought up valid defenses of his Young Earth Creationism and then subsequently say that if you don’t agree, you aren’t taking the Bible seriously or you are undermining the authority of God. Which, as someone who was forced to watch the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate from years ago, this didn’t surprise me. The way he speaks is toxic to intelligent discourse and counterproductive to the purpose of the book.

To say he has an air of superiority in his writing wouldn’t be the truth. It isn’t an air, it’s explicit. In the final conclusion by J.B. Stump, it says that Ken Ham felt he deserved a larger word count than the other contributors because “he was the only one defending the young age of the earth and ‘the authority of scripture vs. the authority of the scientific majority.’” It is incredibly reflective of the way YEC is discussed in the American church (you should see Christian schools’ science curriculum) and it is incredibly sad and manipulative.

In his conclusion, J.B. Stump said that he was disappointed by the lack of goodwill expressed in this book and felt that we weren’t “any closer to the goal of Christian unity on the topic of origins.” That feels pretty consistent in my experience as a reader.

If people are interested in just dipping their toes into topics like this out of curiosity or interest, I would recommend the book “Four Views on the Historical Adam” in this same series. It is a much more informative and helpful work that has a good bit of overlap with the topics found here.

[David Blankenship · Rating 3 out of 5]

Having read a number of the books in the 'Counterpoints' series, I have come to expect that Christian charity and humility in thought is often not at the forefront of most of these author's minds. The very nature of putting out a handful of perspectives and then commenting on others that they professionally and personally and spiritually disagree with means that at times writers get far too harsh with their criticisms. This book often runs in that same vein.

There were some good points to this book. While I would say that I grew up young earth creationist and my sympathies still lie in that camp, Dr. Haarsma's essay on evolutionary creation struck a very real chord with me. Her essay is certainly the most balanced of the four in trying to combine legitimate Scriptural hermeneutics and theology with scientific understandings. While she may not succeed fully, she seemed to display that greatest amount of grace in her interactions with others (and often on the end of most of the abuse!), accepting that there are flaws and gaps in some of the details of modern orthodox evolutionary theory (even as she still holds to it in a broad sense), and for that I respected her essay.

And while I sometimes rolled my eyes at Dr. Ross' attempts to wedge novel interpretive approaches to Scripture with an 'old earth' creation theory, his essay gave me a lot to think about. Could God well have been entering supernaturally into the history of the universe at key phases to miraculously do an act of creation? I don't see any reason to doubt that God could do such things.

Then there's the bad. The more I have read young earth creationists over the years, the less convinced I am that they can be right. I am not a scientist but I am smart enough to see when my intelligence is being insulted. Ken Ham's essay is no better than any others I have read. He wrongly makes the mistake of many Bible-believing Christians of thinking that HIS interpretation of Scripture is endorsed by Almighty God. The kind of arrogance that I see in his writing is very oft-putting even though I'd like it to be correct. His argumentation that young people lose faith by no longer holding to young-earth creationism is the worst kind of argumentation. Basically Ham and those of his ilk teach people things that have little to no basis in fact, threaten them with damnation if they don't agree, and then go pointing fingers when people walk away.

Finally, there's the irrelevant. The chapter on intelligent design was meaningless for me, because all it basically said was that 'surely an intelligent designer is behind the universe', which all Christians by nature already agree with. Nothing in this article was conclusively Christian, only theist. There may well have been some very good science in this chapter (it was mostly over my head as a non-scientist), but all in all I didn't see much use for this chapter in an entry-level book on this issue.

To sum, read Haarsma's essay, skim through Reed's, and skip the rest.

[George · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is my first foray into the Counterpoints series by Zondervan and I have to say that I wasn't disappointed. The whole point of the Counterpoints series is to have people of opposing views write their best arguments for a position and respond to their interlocutors essay. This book brings together four different thinkers and has them write their best arguments for their belief on the Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design. J.B. Stump did a good job in selecting the contributors even if some of them didn't behave themselves well, but more on that later. I found three of the contributors particularly helpful and one of them less so. I also read through this book with a group from my church which colored my reactions a bit as well.
I found the essays by Ham, Ross, and Haarsma to be worth reading. I line up most with Haarsma and the Evolutionary Creation theory as it squares the Bible well with the scientific community the best in my view. It was also the best written of all the essays. Ham and Ross do a decent job of arguing for their positions, but Ross gets caught in non-layman friendly scientific minutia and Ken Ham is well, Ken Ham, and is too bellicose to really be persuasive. Meyer's essay was fine, but I felt as though it was out of place. I didn't really see a need for intelligent design to step in and contribute anything, because all Christians believe in intelligent design in some way. So, his essay, which also contained a lot of scientific minutia, felt like it wasn't needed.
J.B. Stump's opening and conclusion set the tone for the work well and further engendered me to the Evolutionary Creation argument as he was the one who wanted to set this whole thing up and provided a lot of transparency in the process. I was saddened to learn, but not at all surprised, that Ken Ham was a little baby about the whole process and demanded more space than everyone else. I applaud Stump's graciousness in this area, but I think Ken Ham should have been held to the same word count as everyone else. His uncharitable nature is revealed even more and that really hurts his arguments in my mind because the transparency of the other positions is lacking.
Overall, I am glad I read this book. I probably wouldn't recommend it for a book study at a church simply because the scientific jargon got in the way a lot, but it is very useful for personal use or for a group better equipped to deal with the scientific side of things.

[Joel Opificius · Rating 3 out of 5]

I should note at the outset of my review that I ascribe to the Young-Earth position. This has been a topic of interest for me in years past, and revisiting the topic in this book has reinforced my position. I will not get too deep into the arguments—that is the purpose of the book. The contributors of this book are some of the best people to debate for this topic. However, as in natural in any debate, there was some misunderstanding within the discourse. I especially do not think that Ross, Haarsma, and Meyer adequately understood Ham's view in their responses. Much of their responses could have been better had they read through Ham's chapter one more time. I applaud Ham for the amount of work he spent in his research for this book; he interacted not only with the direct arguments of his opponents, but also did the dirty work to interact with the sources cited by his opponents.

I find it interesting that the editor provided a viewpoint on intelligent design. Meyer shares an identical view as Ross but presents a different approach to creation apologetics. This led to having two proponents for Old-Earth creationism in the same debate, which was quite awkward. I find the chapter on the intelligent design approach valuable, but to provide better continuity and discourse within this book, I wish that view would have been left out.

Haarsma's view, while widely attributed in our world today, is notably the weakest in the book. She uses few references to scripture in her arguments; and the references she does use, she interprets in light of conclusions drawn from secular scientists. This is not an appropriate approach to the Word of God. I would strongly encourage Christians to reject this view.

Overall, I find the Young-Earth and Old-Earth views as acceptable positions within evangelical orthodoxy. I find this book to be an adequate introduction to the topic for those interested. But for those looking to dig deeper for the formation of their viewpoint, I would recommend reading articles of the organizations from which the contributors come: Answers in Genesis (Young-Earth), Reasons to Believe (Old-Earth), and BioLogos (Evolutionary Creation).

[Christiane · Rating 4 out of 5]

A posição de Ken Ham, como criacionista da terra jovem, é totalmente frustrante. Meu problema com ele não é como ele aborda a Ciência, mas como aborda a própria Escritura. Espera-se algo assim do cristão evangélico comum, que nasceu e cresceu imerso numa leitura desconectada de contexto histórico e cultural (inclusive judaico), mas não de alguém que, supostamente, se propôs a estudar o tema.
A posição de Hugh Ross, como criacionista da terra antiga, avança bastante e suas colocações me parecem muito mais honestas intelectualmente falando. Mas de onde ele tirou que as Escrituras devem ser cientificamente descritivas e preditivas? É a "cabala" evangélica em ação. Não dá.
A posição de Debora Haarsma, como criacionista evolucionária, cai no outro lado da jogada. Aceitamos que Deus é soberano sobre todas as coisas, que Ele criou, sustenta e continua guiando sua criação, etc etc. Maaaas não podemos admitir em nenhum momento a possibilidade - sim e isso não nega que Deus criou mecanismos, leis e etc - Deus tenha agido de forma extraordinária ao longo da criação e da história da vida na Terra. Toda vez que chega em um ponto assim a opção é sempre pela explicação "natural", ainda que o natural seja entendido como guiado por Deus.
A posição de Stephen Meyer, como defensor do design inteligente, é a mais difícil de avaliar, pq não pretende ser uma posição de como a criação se deu, uma vez que pode aceitar em suas fileiras defensores das mais diversas teorias. Eu, particularmente, gosto de como ele é aberto a avaliar aquilo que a Ciência traz e questionar as conclusões (não posso julgar, por falta de conhecimento, se há outras posições que derrubam cientificamente as questões dele), aceitando - o que julgo ser a falha da Haarsma - que Deus pode, sim, sem prejuízo de nenhuma das declarações bíblicas, ter intervido da forma milagrosa que Ele achasse melhor. Ou não.

[Gareth Clark · Rating 5 out of 5]

Short review: this is a great snapshot of all three of these topics in Christian teaching. All views are expressed clearly, accurately, and simply enough to be understanding by a common reader. All articles and rebuttals expressed the particular strengths and weaknesses (and problems between views) of the various positions expressed. I would highly recommend this book to both believers and nonbelievers.

Long review: There is a lot that I could compliment about this book and I could go on a rampage against the interpretative and scientific views that I did not agree with. I will instead use this review to express the strongpoints of this volume. 1) This volume is fairly easy to read. All views can be understood clearly without a masters degree in Biology. 2) This volume focuses on Biblical international differences, interpretation of scientific evidence, the role of worldview in said interpretation, popular Christian understanding of science, and the authority of science as a method of truth.
The volume oddly did not focus on individual position's theology and more how the various authors theology saw science. Example) Ken Ham defends a Hard concordist view without going into a lot of detail about why this is clearly preferable (besides a basic intuitive defense).

All the authors spout a lot of philosophy and I am honestly not surprised that more philosophy is not talked about with any degree of seriousness or expertise. The only philosopher among the group was Meyer and he pitched his positions as a scientific position and not a philosophical one (which is far more defendable and reasonable).

This was a rare volume among the counterpoint series as the authors are all the leading public faces of their positions. This gives the volume a credibility and recognition that few counterpoint volumes have.

[Nate Norberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was a helpful overview of several models of creation. It was fascinating to read the interactions between the authors on this topic. Most of the positions described here are actually a large range of positions, so there's obviously a lot of nuance that has to be cut in order for the book to be 200 pages instead of 2000 pages. I also found that there's a lot of overlap between some of these positions, especially with the Intelligent Design movement.

What I found most refreshing was the example of charitable disagreement set by the authors (or rather, 3 of the 4 authors). The format of the book seemed to encourage this. I would have liked to read a bit more discussion between Drs. Ross and Haarasma.

Ken Ham, on the other hand, struck me as arrogant in his contribution and responses. He seemed to write as if he was defending the authority of Scripture rather than just his interpretation of it. (None of the authors argued against the authority or inerrancy of Scripture). He also tended to assert certain points as "truth" while presenting very little evidence. There are probably others in the YEC movement that could have presented the position more convincingly and more charitably.

Overall, I'd recommend this book to anyone interested in the range of opinions held by Christians on the origins of the universe.

[David Shane · Rating 4 out of 5]

For the next school year, we wanted to spend just a little bit of time considering the old (Genesis creation account + modern science)? question, but how do you do that with students in a way that is serious, fair, and also short? Well after reading, I actually recommended this book as the way. The book is very fair by getting four leading proponents of four viewpoints.

Ken Ham: Answers in Genesis, young earth creationism
Hugh Ross: Reasons to Believe, old earth creationism or, he prefers, progressive creationism
Debora Haarsma: BioLogos Foundation, what is sometimes called theistic evolution, but she prefers evolutionary creationism
Stephen Meyer: Discovery Institute, intelligent design

The book format is long essay by each proponent, then three short rebuttals from the other three, then one final rejoinder by the original.

The biggest "downside" to such a book may be, as Haarsma explicitly says at one point, sometimes you end up with one expert telling you a study means this, another saying no, it doesn't mean that, it means this. When the experts can't agree, the common reader might wonder what hope there possibly is for him... but that's just scientific life right now, and everyone should know that. There are many footnotes to help anyone interested in any particular view, or point of dispute, to go find more information.