"Three Views on Creation and Evolution" provides an excellent and professional philosophical/theological discussion on Christian views relating to origins. Three major essays are presented, each by a different author or authors. Each essay provides a different perspective on how the Biblical account of origins relates to the mainstream scientific account (and, more generally, how Biblical interpretation and Christian theology relate to the scientific method). Each essay in turn is critiqued by four other scholars, to which the essay's author(s) are given opportunity to respond. Finally, two other scholars' essays conclude the book.
Young-earth creationism (YEC) is presented by Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds. YEC is the classic literalistic approach to Genesis, in which adherence to the plain meaning of the Genesis text is the epistemological imperative, no matter what the divergence with mainstream science (and the divergence is radical). Thus it is strange that so little time is spent on Biblical interpretation in this essay. Science, too, is largely ignored (except for some surprisingly glib concessions that you might think would be quite damaging to YEC, such as "Natural science at the moment seems to overwhelmingly point to an old cosmos", p. 49). Instead, the presentation is largely philosophical - a tack I personally found quite interesting, but unconvincing (offering "recent creationism is intellectually interesting", p. 50, as a major reason in support of YEC just doesn't cut it).
This general approach - heavy on the philosophy and theology, while light on science and Biblical interpretation - is repeated throughout the book. Old-earth, or progressive, creationism (OEC) is a view which generally accepts the conclusions of the mainstream physical sciences on the age and development of the cosmos and the Earth (while stipulating that certain causative factors in this development may have been miraculous). But OEC generally rejects large-scale biological evolution and abiogenesis, and insists on numerous miraculous creation events instead. Robert Newman propounds this view in his essay, the shortest of the three. To his credit, he addresses Scripture and scientific evidence more than anyone else in this book.
The longest essay, and most compelling, is for theistic evolution (TE). This is the view that God expressed his creativeness providentially through the laws and properties of nature. The conclusions of mainstream science, including abiogenesis and large-scale biological evolution, are thus merely a recognition of how His providence worked. And, since mainstream science is clearly inconsistent with a plainly-literal reading of Genesis, some form of allegorical/mythological interpretation of Genesis is to be adopted. Howard Van Till presents this chapter powerfully and effectively in what struck me as an almost-airtight argument from a philosophical/theological standpoint. But again, specific scientific arguments for why the conclusions of mainstream science are so compelling, are absent. So too are specific hermeneutical arguments for why it is permissible to read Genesis in such a way.
The responses to each essay, unfortunately, are less satisfying than the essays themselves. It would have been interesting had the authors been allowed to critique each others' views. But instead, four other scholars get that role, and it is clear that all of them essentially conform to the OEC view. This makes for a rather predictable series of responses to each essay - with Van Till getting the liveliest criticism as expected (OEC and YEC, after all, are both forms of creationism in that they say there is scientific evidence for God the Creator; while TE claims science is incapable of such, and thus remains scientifically indistinguishable from the dreaded atheistic evolution).
The wrap-up essays are supposed to summarize the book, but in practice they also double as further presentations of TE (Richard Bube) and OEC (Phillip Johnson). Again, the closing essays are philosophical in nature, and while Bube's especially is tightly argued (if a bit redundant of Van Till's), the overall lack of Biblical exegesis and scientific presentation from this book is its greatest weakness. After all, most of Zondervan's audience is evangelical Christians who place a great premium on the Bible. Viewpoints on what Genesis is really saying are very important, if not most important, to these believers. At the same time, most evangelical Christians who have any interest at all in the creation/evolution debate do so because they have an interest in science. Scientific arguments hold weight with them, but such arguments aren't common in this book.