I have always held the position stated by Petcher and Morris (Science and Grace) in their Introduction that “there can be no contradiction between science and faith, properly understood” (emphasis mine). As I read and learn, I see that having a proper understanding of the data and conclusions of science that is consistent with a proper understanding of what the Bible teaches is an exercise in mental calisthenics. I see a great temptation of scientists that profess belief in the God of the Bible to exhaust their cerebral capabilities to understand the science and while neglecting a similar study and contemplation of the deep truths of the Bible and ultimately, theology. If there has even been a book that highlighted the importance of taking ones theology seriously, this would be it.
Early in the book, Giberson states that the “acid of evolution” and natural history dissolves pretty much all of the historicity of the events in Genesis, particularly Genesis 1-11. It seems that Giberson believes that we must only hold to the historicity of Jesus and His work on our behalf in order to be Christians. However, in doing so, he undermines the very facts that make the historicity of Jesus part of a rational view. Books have been written on this topic (some I have read and others I have not) discussing these issues, but I will make a brief statement concerning my thoughts on this topic. If Adam was NOT a historical figure and Jesus Christ WAS a historical figure, why do the Apostle Paul and the writer of Hebrews take such pains in the New Testament to tie Adam and Christ (the second Adam) together when describing the process of our justification? They are either both metaphorical and spiritual or both historical figures.
Giberson spent his time arguing with a traditional
creationist view of origins. I say this
because he continually referred to the fact that creationism states that God
made all animals in the current form.
However, a careful reading of Genesis does not demand this at all, even
though this has been a position of scientists and theologians in the past. It seems possible to hold to a special
creation of species without restricting them in how they might change over time. I would echo the above statement from Petcher
and Morris, and argue that it is likely that none of the currently accepted
views (evolutionary, creationist, and others) have properly interpreted both
general revelation (creation) and special revelation (Scripture).
Toward the conclusion of the book, Giberson presents the
evidences of evolution. It seems clear
from the summary of the evidence, that defending evolution on the basis of
evidence was not a high priority for this book.
In addition to this treatment, Giberson does not seem to understand that
experimental data can support multiple hypotheses – not just one. I say this because the universality of DNA
and common structures, which are both mentioned, do not exclude or refute a
hypothesis of a special creation. They
both support such a hypothesis – unless you wish to say that special creations must
not share anything in common, which is a common statement I have read by the
supporters of evolution. However, if we
believe that a creator could create freely, who are we to dictate HOW they must
have created?
Probably the most troubling shortcoming of the book is the treatment
of Darwin’s rejection of a special creation due to pain and suffering within
the animal world. Examples of nature “red
in tooth and claw” lead some to believe that God could not be involved in
creation because His goodness and perfection is inconsistent with these aspects
of Creation. Giberson gives a one
paragraph response in his 221 pages to the idea that the Fall resulted in
significant changes – including suffering and torture in the animal world - to
Creation. He basically dismisses the
idea that the Fall altered the physical creation at all and that it was a
purely spiritual event. However, it
seems pretty clear that ALL of Creation fell with man and that the Fall
affected the whole of man (physical and spiritual). The Fall was no small matter – all of
Creation is broken due to the effects of our rebellion. It seems to me that a view that ignores the
effects of the Fall does not understand the seriousness of sin or the holiness
of God.
From the standpoint of a book that recounts the relatively
recent history between science and faith, Giberson brought much to my
attention. From that perspective, the
majority of this book gave useful information.
But overall, I am underwhelmed by Giberson arguments. I am concerned that THIS is what believing
scientists have to read and contemplate as a proper Christian response to the
controversy between science and evolution.
Giberson seems to hold high the importance of rationality and logic in
science and these are seriously missing in many areas of the book, as well as
his presentation of Christianity. 