Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? [Paperback]

I have finally been able to pout this book down, now that I have finished it. Although the Evolution/Creationism debate is nothing like as hotly debated on the UK side of the Atlantic, Alexander (a British biochemist) sees the damage that it is doing both to Science and to Religion and here nails the fact that it ought not to be doing anything of the sort.
The very existence of people like Alexander, who have a deep and thorough grasp of evolution while also having deep religious faith ought to put the lie to the idea that these two are mutually inimical. What Alexander does, however, is to explain it. His explanation of evolution is lucid and thorough and avoids the misleading metaphors and simplifications of, say, Richard Dawkins. The discussion of genetics is not always easy to follow, but that's simply because it's a difficult subject. His demonstration that the Bible - especially Genesis - can be perfectly well understood in the light of evolution is also clear and lucid. Moreover his tone is never less than respectful for those who hold a different position from his own.
The central core of his argument - that those who cannot see that evolution and Christianity work perfectly well together springs from a misconception regarding the idea of "naturalism" - is clearly made and, from this Christian science-teacher's perspective, pretty watertight.
At this point I feel I ought to put in some negatives to make this a balanced review. It's hard to find any. It is a little hard-going at times, but the effort required in reading it carefully pays dividends. In short, I would recommend this book without hesitation to any pastor or scientist interested in evolution and/or religious faith.

I enjoyed this book. Its great merit is that it affirms both great science and great faith. The one can, and does, benefit the other. Alexander takes us back to the idea of the scientist as one who explores the workings of God's universe. This book gets us away from the sterile either/or thinking of the evangelical atheists and the militant creationists.

The book echoes echoes thoughts from Michael Ruse (Can a Darwinian be a Christian?) who from a philosophical background shows that Christian faith and evolutionary biology are compatible, and Francis Collins (The Mind of God) who also has no problem reconciling his biological knowledge and his belief in God.

Alexander is particularly good at showing how DNA changes can generate genetic diversity which is the substrate for evolution. He also shows how natural selection is likely to be a conservative force on most occasions.

Alexander takes evolution back to its original role as a biological theory that explained the formation of new species from existing ones. As such evolution is a powerful theory, with great explanatory power. His account of species formation, and the examples provided are excellent.

Alexander is also good at showing how the idea of evolution has been exteneded to ends far beyond its biological use. The right with its belief in survival of the fittest businesses and individuals, the left with its idea of human perfectibility and inevitable historical progress, the Nazis with their idea of "lives not fit to be lived", the atheist materialist who must deny any idea of design or purpose all use evolution far beyond its intended, or valid, remit.

This book is both an excellent account of evolution, and a demonstration that science and religion can be successfully and effectively pursued together.

The two possible areas of weakness in the book are the section on the origin of life and its summary dismissal of the arguments of intelligent design.

Overall however this is a useful book, and one that allows scientists to get on with studying evolution together whatever their religious differences may be. It helps to build a very powerful bridge across the false divide presented by those who prefer to talk about, "science versus religion."

I only read this book because I started to read the counter-argument (Should Christians Embrace Evolution?) which was on a Creationist bookstall, and I realised I needed to read this one too. I'm glad I did.

This is a good book whether you agree with the views or not, as DA expounds some commonly-held perspectives of Christians working in science. He has been a top-rate scientist for decades, and is also a committed Christian and a well-recognized leader in the community of Christian scientists. For these reasons alone the book should be worth reading, but more than this, he has written a well-constructed and readable account of the relevant science and biblical passages, in particular addressing the issues of Adam and Eve and The Fall.

Chapter 2 is a joy: The Biblical Doctrine of Creation in which DA discusses what the bible reveals of God's immanence in creation, referencing Galileo's comment that so-called `nature' is the `executrix of God's will' - the outworking of God's will (p32). Here is such an expansive vision of God and His creation that has direct application to the daily lives of all Christians here and now, as we seek the coming of God's kingdom in the corner of creation where God has placed us. A Creationist would surely applaud this, but it sits especially well with the idea that God is `big enough' to generate the natural world without interventionist `tricks', since God is taken to be just as present in the everyday as in the miraculous.

After this, Chapters 3 to 5 get into the scientific detail of evolution whilst continuing to view things through Christian spectacles. So, for example (p62), he relates the story of a Cambridge science undergraduate who converted from a completely atheistic background after she sat in a standard (`secular') university biochemistry lecture and was stunned by the beauty of DNA which has evolved over billions of years. I suspect that some Creationists and New Atheists alike would simply not `get' this - that just to appreciate the outcome of `natural processes' should point someone to God (though remember that DA has already expounded the biblical view that `natural processes' are themselves the outworking of God's will - the world is made of HIS materials). So good!

He specifically addresses several `Objections to Evolution' and includes some detailed answers to anti-evolution arguments and questions. Some have criticized DA for not referring to the plethora of Creationist material which argues against evolution. However, DA is careful to point out that good science requires it to be openly `peer reviewed' and this certainly does not apply to the kinds of material generated by these organisations. The key point is one of openness where `dissent and discussion are encouraged' (p130). Personally I'm sure he's right in principle, but in practice we all know people can take sides unfairly.

In discussing Genesis he points out that everybody interprets the early chapters figuratively in some sense. So for example, snakes don't eat dust do they? (p167). And most people would surely think that the river out of Eden wouldn't actually branch into four other rivers - rivers don't do that. If we were to take the creation of Eve as being simply a literal divine operation then we will have missed the key figurative point that every preacher makes (and that Jesus himself made) about marriage. In this he is laying the groundwork for a review of how we see Adam and Eve and The Fall, and challenging assumptions.

So having described his science, answered some common objections and reviewed some key bible passages, he then goes on to postulate how we can reconcile evolution with the bible - particularly with regard to the major areas of who Adam and Eve actually were, and what does The Fall really mean (given that the expression doesn't occur in the bible). He discusses 5 alternative syntheses (`models') of science and theology which he then tests against the facts. He says that the models `go well beyond the text itself' (p234), one of which (Homo Divinus) he uses as a working model until `a better model comes along' (p243) and about which he says `It may be wrong' (p274). How's that for being tentative?! He doesn't mention it, but his favoured option is similar to ideas suggested by John Stott (Understanding the Bible) and CS Lewis (The Problem of Pain).

He claims that he never uses science as a `tool for interpreting the passage' but he will allow his science to `shed light on a biblical passage' (p151). He does this remarkably well in my view. One of the worst things to happen in a bible study is when somebody simply gives a `standard answer' without allowing personal experience to engage with the text. I'd love to share a bible study with DA because he is so Berean about understanding what the bible actually says in the light of his experience. But I have to say that when he later changes what I would see as being a fairly traditional interpretation of Romans 8:22-23 (p269) it does feel more like he's using science as a `tool for interpreting'. Those verses have always been taught to me as being about Adam's (and our) sin causing physical death and destruction.

For me, this is the toughest pill to swallow: DA's Homo Divinus decouples the origin of physical death from sin. Yet Matthew Henry says that these verses in Romans 8 have `some difficulty...which puzzles interpreters a little; and the more because it is a remark not made in any other scripture, with which it might be compared.' Personally, I wouldn't want to divide a church over this, or force my children to make a choice over incompatible interpretations as seems to be the intention of some preachers. And DA is certainly right that when you read the simple text of Ge 1:29-30 at face value there was physical death before the Fall. I applaud him for the way he tackles these issues.

There are other excellent chapters on Theodicy, Intelligent Design and the Origins of Life. Here are some quotes for those who worry about randomness of evolution or its inherent atheism: `evolution is far from being a chance process. It is tightly organised and highly constrained' (p322). `This implies that the protein tape of life may be largely reproducible and even predictable' (p324). `In none of this account have we been talking about `blind, natural forces' doing things, because for the Christian such language is inappropriate. We are living in God's world. These are God's chemicals and God's molecules that we are talking about.' (p349).

And one that shows he believes in God's intentional and intelligent design: `The more we look at Darwinian evolution taken as a whole, the more it seems to display precisely the signs of intelligence that ID proponents believe are located in those hidden non-Darwinian gaps.' (p 311).

In a very brief postscript he bemoans the divisive nature of much Creationist and ID activity, the barriers it raises in outreach and the waste of money in `publishing glossy magazines attacking evolution'.

This is an excellent work - comprehensive enough for both well-read laypeople and church ministers. If you are seriously contemplating the truth-claims of Creationists then please do your church a favour by reading this book carefully.