Darwin on Trial
Phillip E. Johnson
Inter-Varsity Press 1993
This book is an interesting critique of Darwinism written by a professor of law in the early 1990s.
Johnson does not attempt to put forward any particular view of the origin of life - certainly not overtly - and he appears to have little love for Youth Earth Creationism in particular. If anything he appears to argue for a form of theistic evolution and an old earth.
But rather than outlining what he thinks is a better explanation than scientific naturalistic Darwinism, he concentrates on why Darwinism (or rather neo-Darwinism) fails as an acceptable scientific and logical explanation for the origin of life on earth. Johnson takes the philosopher Karl Popper's thoughts - himself no Christian theologian - who pointed out that a theory that purports to "explain everything" actually by definition explains nothing - and applies it to Darwinism.
The trouble is that for so long Darwinism has been accepted as the orthodox scientific view that evidence contradicting or not fitting the theory is ignored or explained away (because the theory must be kept sacrosanct), while evidence in support of evolution - however tenuous, is treated as if it confirms everything the theory claims. Time after time Johnson documents examples of this kind of thing in scientific writings in books and journals like Science in the USA and Nature in Britain.
Johnson notes that, as Popper suggested, one key aspect of any claim that something is scientific truth is it is falsifiable. Indeed this is constantly used by scientists to dismiss creation science as mere "pseudo-science" since the claims of Young Earth Creationism are not falsifiable. Yet, as Johnson shows time and time again, Darwinism itself fails this test, since its proponents start out with a philosophical commitment to naturalism and the theory itself as the only acceptable explanation for how nature works and how life came to exist, including human life. By definition, and by philosophical bias, anything supernatural or theistic is excluded. When proceeding from this basis, nothing is really allowed to challenge the basic foundational presumptions on which the Darwinian edifice is constructed. In this way, Darwinism has more in common with pseudo-sciences like Marxism and Freudianism than it has with sciences like physics or chemistry.
In a succession of chapters that form the heart of the book and Johnson's argument he deals with how each of the following areas contain problems for Darwinism that cannot properly be ignored:
- The key concept of natural selection
- The fact of mutation
- Fossils
- Vertebrate sequence
- Molecular evidence
- Prebiological evolution
He then comes to the conclusion that Darwinism is a philosophy and even a faith itself that comes to conclusions based on its naturalistic assumption rather than on observable facts which would be accepted by the majority of theists too. To give just one example, Johnson accepts that microevolution is an observable fact - that there is descent with change in nature - the famous light and dark moths observations in Victorian England being a documented instance - but he does not accept that such observations prove macroevolution - that all life comes from a common ancestor, that the whale and the bat for example come from a common rodent-like mammalian ancestor. Instead, such a claim is a philosophical belief arrived at because there is no other possible explanation in a naturalistic universe. While such a belief is reasonable given the philosophical underpinnings on which it is made, yet it is no more reasonable than a theistic or even creationist conclusion from the same facts given theism's or creationism's underpinnings.
As someone who has grappled with many of these issues for a long time as a Christian, I found Johnson's book very challenging and interesting reading. Anyone who thinks he can be dismissed as a "fundamentalist" or "young earth creationist" had better read the book - he is neither of these. Those most frequently quoted in the book are Darwinians like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. There is practically no theology or biblical material in the book at all.
In the concluding sentence of the book Johnson says of the battle of philosophies between Darwinism and Creationism (in its widest sense embracing intelligent design or theistic evolution) "in the end reality will win". To me the challenge of the book is to those who unthinkingly accept Darwinism as "the truth" to subject the theory to criticism and see where that takes you. After all, if it is true, what is there to fear from criticism and examination? Or could it be that in reality the atheistic/agnostic cart is before the evolutionary horse and the tail wags the dog?
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Thursday, 14 October 2010
Complete in Christ
Complete in Christ: Rediscovering Jesus and Ourselves
Nigel M. de S. Cameron
Marshall & Pickering, 1989
This is a short book of only 113 pages. I've had it on my bookshelves for years but had never got round to reading it until now. I only wish I'd read it years ago because it is worth its weight in gold. I haven't read anything else that manages to excite about a doctrine that is under emphasised in evangelical circles - namely the humanity of Christ - and through that doctrine it corrects, comforts and challenges on what it means to be human and what it means to live life as a Christian.
If that sounds like a lot to pack into a short paperback, that's probably because it is. The treatments of the various subjects dealt with are short and pithy. It is more a theological sketch book than a finished theological tome. Relatively few biblical texts are dealt with in any detail and there is almost no interaction with other theologians.
However, what it lacks in size, it makes up for in power.
The introduction sets the tone. It is entitled: "Are Christians human?" This is by no means a foolish question. Cameron rightly points out that in evangelical churches, we have a tendency to so emphasise the deity of Christ - as we wage apologetic battles against liberal heresies - that we tend to downplay (albeit accidentally) the fact that he really was human with all that entails. In the process, as a by-product, we tend to have such a high view of what a Christian should be that we inadvertently expect Christians to be more superhuman than human. This leads to guilt, fatigue, failure and sometimes despair. Instead, Cameron pleads for "a fresh realism in our Christian living."
Cameron then goes on to address the implications of the fact that God became flesh in the incarnation in chapters 1 and 2. Here he criticises evangelical theology in general for the way that Jesus' humanity and his earthly life and ministry are under examined. Too often, he feels we reduce the incarnation to no more than providing a sinless candidate for the atonement, whereas the incarnation has much more significance than this (though it does also have that significance, Cameron is quick to point out). He accuses the evangelical church of an inadvertent Docetism.
Having cleared the ground that Jesus is fully human and pointing out it matters that he was, Cameron then moves on to discuss how this insight should affect the Christian life.
He deals in chapter 3 with the whole area of the mind and intellect in humanity. This passage was very powerful as Cameron points out that life is not just for doing so-called "religious things". Important though activities like worship and evangelism are, they are not the be all and end all of being a human being. Cameron looks at creation, and man's original role as steward of the world, and claims that redemption does not do away with God's original purpose, but rather gets that original purpose back on track as it were. This reminded me of some of N. T. Wright's insights. The Bible's story is not about getting sinners to heaven and out of this mess of a creation we're in. It is about redeeming the creation and renewing it, for sinners to populate and live full human lives in a new heaven and earth.
Cameron points out that the traditional division between the secular and the sacred in life that we tacitly buy into in the church is unbiblical. At one point he says that to be novelist is every bit as noble a calling for the Christian as it is to be doctor or a teacher or a missionary.
Chapter 4 is an interesting discussion of the will and how we are guided by God. And it is a necessary corrective to the idea that Christians should be largely passive when we make important decisions.
He then discusses the emotions in what is another fine chapter.
Towards the end of the book there is a discussion of just how human (with all that entails) the "heroes of the faith" in the Bible are. Cameron suggests that if we got rid of false ideas of what it is to be "a saint" our Christian lives would be far more useful and peaceful. I think he is on the money where he criticises evangelical churches for denying perfectionism in theory but practically making it a stick to beat one another up with in practice.
His conclusion is simple yet very powerful. He points out that it is precisely when we seek to rise above our humanity as Christians or as human beings - as Adam did when he ate from the tree of good and evil - that we fall below what we should be. Since we are created in the image of God, to be human is to be as high in dignity and worth as we can ever hope to be and it is a great privilege and joy just to be a human being. Being a Christian is not about making ourselves less human, if anything it is about being more human than we could otherwise be. He writes: "[The] high goal of the Christian life does not consist in the suppression of the mind, the will, the heart, the body."
This is a book worth getting hold of and carefully reading. Any Christian would profit from it I would suggest. I would certainly like to read it again, slowly and prayerfully, because there's scarcely a page that doesn't say something challenging, encouraging and interesting.
Nigel M. de S. Cameron
Marshall & Pickering, 1989
This is a short book of only 113 pages. I've had it on my bookshelves for years but had never got round to reading it until now. I only wish I'd read it years ago because it is worth its weight in gold. I haven't read anything else that manages to excite about a doctrine that is under emphasised in evangelical circles - namely the humanity of Christ - and through that doctrine it corrects, comforts and challenges on what it means to be human and what it means to live life as a Christian.
If that sounds like a lot to pack into a short paperback, that's probably because it is. The treatments of the various subjects dealt with are short and pithy. It is more a theological sketch book than a finished theological tome. Relatively few biblical texts are dealt with in any detail and there is almost no interaction with other theologians.
However, what it lacks in size, it makes up for in power.
The introduction sets the tone. It is entitled: "Are Christians human?" This is by no means a foolish question. Cameron rightly points out that in evangelical churches, we have a tendency to so emphasise the deity of Christ - as we wage apologetic battles against liberal heresies - that we tend to downplay (albeit accidentally) the fact that he really was human with all that entails. In the process, as a by-product, we tend to have such a high view of what a Christian should be that we inadvertently expect Christians to be more superhuman than human. This leads to guilt, fatigue, failure and sometimes despair. Instead, Cameron pleads for "a fresh realism in our Christian living."
Cameron then goes on to address the implications of the fact that God became flesh in the incarnation in chapters 1 and 2. Here he criticises evangelical theology in general for the way that Jesus' humanity and his earthly life and ministry are under examined. Too often, he feels we reduce the incarnation to no more than providing a sinless candidate for the atonement, whereas the incarnation has much more significance than this (though it does also have that significance, Cameron is quick to point out). He accuses the evangelical church of an inadvertent Docetism.
Having cleared the ground that Jesus is fully human and pointing out it matters that he was, Cameron then moves on to discuss how this insight should affect the Christian life.
He deals in chapter 3 with the whole area of the mind and intellect in humanity. This passage was very powerful as Cameron points out that life is not just for doing so-called "religious things". Important though activities like worship and evangelism are, they are not the be all and end all of being a human being. Cameron looks at creation, and man's original role as steward of the world, and claims that redemption does not do away with God's original purpose, but rather gets that original purpose back on track as it were. This reminded me of some of N. T. Wright's insights. The Bible's story is not about getting sinners to heaven and out of this mess of a creation we're in. It is about redeeming the creation and renewing it, for sinners to populate and live full human lives in a new heaven and earth.
Cameron points out that the traditional division between the secular and the sacred in life that we tacitly buy into in the church is unbiblical. At one point he says that to be novelist is every bit as noble a calling for the Christian as it is to be doctor or a teacher or a missionary.
Chapter 4 is an interesting discussion of the will and how we are guided by God. And it is a necessary corrective to the idea that Christians should be largely passive when we make important decisions.
He then discusses the emotions in what is another fine chapter.
Towards the end of the book there is a discussion of just how human (with all that entails) the "heroes of the faith" in the Bible are. Cameron suggests that if we got rid of false ideas of what it is to be "a saint" our Christian lives would be far more useful and peaceful. I think he is on the money where he criticises evangelical churches for denying perfectionism in theory but practically making it a stick to beat one another up with in practice.
His conclusion is simple yet very powerful. He points out that it is precisely when we seek to rise above our humanity as Christians or as human beings - as Adam did when he ate from the tree of good and evil - that we fall below what we should be. Since we are created in the image of God, to be human is to be as high in dignity and worth as we can ever hope to be and it is a great privilege and joy just to be a human being. Being a Christian is not about making ourselves less human, if anything it is about being more human than we could otherwise be. He writes: "[The] high goal of the Christian life does not consist in the suppression of the mind, the will, the heart, the body."
This is a book worth getting hold of and carefully reading. Any Christian would profit from it I would suggest. I would certainly like to read it again, slowly and prayerfully, because there's scarcely a page that doesn't say something challenging, encouraging and interesting.
Wednesday, 6 October 2010
A busy summer
It's been a long time since I've posted anything to the blog, but I'm hoping to get back into the habit very soon. The summer was very a busy period for us as it involved the buying of a new house, trying to sell our old one, doing a bit of upgrading to the new one, and finally packing up and then moving in less than a fortnight ago.
Everything is starting to take shape now, and we're very happy in the new house.
I should have broadband up and running in a couple of days and then blogging will become a practical possibility again.
Everything is starting to take shape now, and we're very happy in the new house.
I should have broadband up and running in a couple of days and then blogging will become a practical possibility again.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)