evolution

Review: Beyond Evolution

/ rtrube54 / Leave a comment
Cover image of "Beyond Evolution" by Sy Garte

Beyond Evolution, Sy Garte. Tyndale | Refresh (ISBN: 9798400501364) 2025.

Summary: Rather than evolution hindering belief, observes a reluctance in biology to follow evidence warranting belief in a Creator.

Sy Garte believes it is time to move on from controversies surrounding evolution. He doesn’t reject evolutionary theory. Rather he argues that there are more foundational matters to be considered as well as new developments that suggest that biology could be on the brink of a paradigm shift. On the biology side, a commitment to reductionism has hindered thinking about purpose, agency, and decision-making even at the cellular level and a teleology behind evolutionary development. To open the door to these ideas might offer warrants for a belief in a Creator God. Likewise, on the religion side, Garte has observed the needless controversy and division among Christians fighting about evolution.

Behind Garte’s contention for a paradigm shift are several factors. One is the absence of any mathematical models for evolution, and particularly an account for the non-random nature of many mutations. A second is that highly accurate self replication of cells is antecedent to any evolution, and is highly complex, and unique in separating living from all non-living things. Even more foundational is how a living and self-replicating cell originated from non-living material (abiogenesis). We haven’t explained why there is life in a universe unfriendly to its origins.

Perhaps most interesting and still quite new to me is Garte’s discussion of agency, cognition, and teleology at the cellular level. Cells act to sustain and protect themselves. This involves at some level cognition of both internal and external environments. And the agency of living things suggests purpose or teleology: to live and to reproduce. This is true of single-celled bacteria and human beings. The main difference is complexity. Above all is the complexity of human consciousness, which Garte believes continues to defy purely materialist explanations. He also raises the question of consciousness not being selectively advantageous, so how then account for it.

However, Garte is not arguing for a “God of the gaps” theory. He is open to discoveries that address currently open questions. Rather, he argues for following the evidence and that randomness may not be the best explanation of the evidence. He believes there is too much evidence of non-random, purposeful occurrences in biology to dismiss purpose and teleology and even design. He would contend that there is a willful effort to ignore this because it provides warrants (not proof) for belief a designer.

There were several things I loved about this book. It brought me up to date on the developments in biology since my college courses a long while ago. I appreciated the call to stop the needless squabbling about evolution and Garte’s reasons for moving on. However, most striking was his vision of a new paradigm for biology, following the evidence for agency, cognition, and teleology. Setting aside the question of belief in a Creator, it raises the question of a paradigm shift in biology. This is worth conversation and investigation among all biologists, Christian or not. Finally, on every page, Garte offers material for what one friend calls “doxological fascination.” As one who believes in a Creator, Garte gave me lots of material for worship.

_______________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Review: The Phenomenon of Man

/ rtrube54 / 6 Comments
Cover image of "The Phenomenon of Man" by Teilhard de Chardin

The Phenomenon of Man, Teilhard de Chardin. Harper Perennial Modern Classics (ISBN: 9780061632655) 2008 (first published in 1957).

Summary: A synthesis of evolutionary thought and teleology culminating in a collective consciousness or Omega Point.

I recently reviewed (https://bobonbooks.com/2025/07/21/review-the-divine-milieu/) de Chardin’s The Divine Milieu in which de Chardin traces our growth in godlikeness toward the end of Christ uniting all things in himself. In that book, de Chardin attempts to integrate an understanding of evolution with Christian ideas. De Chardin wrote The Phenomenon of Man a decade later. In it, he elaborates his ideas about the evolutionary process and its telos in a uniting of all conscious, the noosphere in what de Chardin calls “the Omega Point.” He was not permitted to publish either book during his life, both being published posthumously in 1957.

The work is divided into four books. The first describes the origins of the material universe. One of the most important ideas running throughout this work is the inner and outer energies, mind and matter, that constitute all matter. The outer included crystallising and polymerising material.

The second book traces the transition of this material to living organisms from single cells to the expansion of life. He argues that this is not a random process but reflects the working of the inner “mind” through outer matter. Furthermore, life develops increasing complexity in “the tree of life” until the rise of consciousness in hominid.

Then book three traces the development of thought within the human race. Not only are humans self aware, but they also convey their knowledge to others. For de Chardin, this network of shared though results in a thinking layer, or noosphere, that encircles the earth. Consequently, humanity is heading toward a decisive turning point or choice, either toward stillborn destruction or to emergence as a kind of “supersoul.” Our collective consciousness culminates in a new level of existence.

Finally, in book four, de Chardin describes this new level of existence as “the Omega Point.” All the consciousnesses will become singular. Science, technology and religion will come together. Our instincts to survive and to love will come together.

A few observations. One is that de Chardin is hard to read. He creates words like involution and noosphere. A second is that most evolutionary scientists would reject any idea of a telos for evolution. Finally, for me, the most telling is that while de Chardin skates on the edge of orthodoxy in The Divine Milieu, he goes over the edge in this book from theism to panentheism, what he describes as “God all in everyone.” Gone from this book is the idea of God uniting all things in Christ. Rather, all things are united in the noosphere and evolves into a super consciousness.

I have seen an increase in interest in de Chardin in recent years. I can’t help but wonder if the advent of AI and ideas like Ray Kurzweil’s singularity are bringing de Chardin to renewed attention. Personally, I consider all of this as just one more version of humanity’s penchant for “tower of Babel” projects. I wish de Chardin had stopped at The Divine Milieu. This book is neither good science nor good theology but rather an exercise in speculative and wishful thinking.

___________

Thanks for visiting Bob on Books.  I appreciate that you spent time here. Feel to “look around” – see the tabs at the top of the website, and the right hand column. And use the buttons below to share this post. Blessings! [Adapted from Enough Light, a blog I follow.]

Review: Free Agents

/ rtrube54 / 1 Comment
Cover image of "Free Agents" by Kevin J. Mitchell

Free Agents, Kevin J. Mitchell. Princeton University Press (ISBN: 9780691226231) 2023.

Summary: An argument based on the evidence of the development of nervous systems, for the evolution of individual agency–free will.

Philosophers have long debated whether human beings have free will or are creatures determined by the various forces that impinge upon us. Then enter the neurobiologists who have been able to increasingly map the fine structures and neural networks of the brain. They have accounted for a vast array of animal and human behaviors For many in the field, they have concluded that ultimately, we only have the illusion of free will. We only think we are thinking and deciding.

Kevin J. Mitchell, while accepting the evidence of evolutionary neurobiology, argues otherwise. He believes there is evidence that human beings, and perhaps other species, have agency that is not an illusion but an evolved quality. There are at least two strands to his argument. First, he traces evolutionary history from single-celled organisms to human beings. The simplest organisms have sensory abilities oriented toward sustaining life (seeking nutrients) and avoiding harm (from poison to predators). Over several chapters he shows how, as multicellular organisms developed, giving way to more complex species, that sensory apparatus developed. Neural inputs fed into ganglia, and eventually a cerebral cortex. Increasingly complicated responses developed to the variety of inputs involving layered and connected neural networks. In human beings, this resulted in a large pre-frontal cortex with semantic capabilities carrying the possibilities of thought and meaning within the recursive and layered neural processes.

The other part of Mitchell’s argument is based on quantum effects and neural “noise” factors that introduce indeterminacy into the system. He argues that this creates room for choice in what might otherwise be a determined system. Combined with human evolution, this allows space for higher level thinking, consciousness of self, and real agency.

He also argues against an approach to freedom as a lack of prior influences on choice. He argues that we have greater freedom when we have access to these factors and can draw upon them. This means we enjoy degrees of free agency rather than some impossible “absolute freedom.”

Until reading Mitchell’s book, I thought there were only two major options. One is dualism which posits a non-material mind, consciousness, or soul interacting with the brain. The other is reductive materialism where we are our brains and agency is illusion. What Mitchell posits is a third option, cognitive realism, in which neural patterns comprising “thoughts” may have causal power based on what they “mean.”

As interesting as this is, I still can see this collapsing into reductive materialism. All of what he posits is rooted in material processes. All material is subject to quantum indeterminacy. Random probability is different from free agency.

Mitchell is still making a materialistic argument. While I recognize that philosophic dualism has its own challenges, not least that it is incapable of scientific proof, I found that Mitchell was dismissive of this long tradition of thought that has its own explanatory power in terms of what it means to be human. Mitchell relegates this to “the ghost in the machine” language, and in doing so thinks he has satisfactorily dismissed it. Yet I wonder if he has substituted material for non-material “ghosts.”

____________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Review: What Hath Darwin to Do with Scripture?

/ rtrube54 / 1 Comment
Cover image of "What Hath Darwin to Do with Scripture?"

What Hath Darwin to Do with Scripture?, Dru Johnson. IVP Academic (ISBN: 9781514003619) 2023.

Summary: A study of Genesis identifying both remarkable continuities and important discontinuities with Darwinian and modern evolutionary theory.

Dru Johnson takes a very different approach to how we read Genesis in light of Darwinian evolution. He takes the key concepts of scarcity, fit, and sex in Darwin and explores how these selection pressures are evident in scripture, as well as asking important questions about how the accounts diverge.

He explores first of all the question of scarcity and how it may lead either to competition and violence, or collaboration. Johnson notes continuities with the murder of Abel, the violence of Lamech, the violence leading to flood, and urban Babel as a buffer against scarcity. At the same time, in Abraham, the man of faith, and in the pre-fall Eden, there is abundance where scarcity is prevalent, under God’s care. Johnson carries this study beyond Genesis noting scarcity, competition, and violence and the providential care of God when his people trust God.

Second, he considers the idea of fittedness to habitat. He surveys a variety of evolutionary examples of fittedness and again turns to Genesis. We consider the habitats of the first three days and the creatures that fill them during the second three. He notes the name of the man is “dirtling” because he arises from the dirt. He notes the fittedness of the garden and this dislocation of exile and the arc of the biblical story toward new creation.

Finally, he considers sex. And here he notes a disjunct between evolution, where the focus is on males copulating with as many females as possible, a focus on reproduction, and the concern in Genesis, especially among women, for generation, the perpetuation of a family through one’s descendants. Certainly, there are examples of profligacy and even rape as evolution would predict, but also a distinctive focus upon a family line, and family lines, reflecting the promise of God.

In his conclusion, Johnson proposes that these continuities and discontinuities only make sense if there is some intersection of the metaphysical with the physical, which is the deeper issue between Darwin and scripture. He is hopeful that evolutionary and Hebraic conceptual worlds might be reconciled. The strength of what he proposes is that the approach takes both seriously as well as the expectation that if there is the possibility of reconciliation, continuities will be found. Yet Johnson also shows the anomalous in Genesis and throughout scripture that evolution-only explanations cannot reckon with. Might this help lead to a paradigm shift to a different and better faith-science conversation? One can only hope.

____________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Review: Retrieving Augustine’s Doctrine of Creation

/ rtrube54 / 2 Comments

Retrieving Augustines Doctrine of Creation

Retrieving Augustine’s Doctrine of Creation, Gavin Ortlund. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2020.

Summary: A study of Augustine’s writing about creation and what that might contribute to the contemporary controversy.

Imagine a gathering with a young earth creationist, an old earth creationist, and an evolutionary creationist. Fireworks, right? Now imagine that Augustine time-travels from the late 4th-early 5th century and sits down with this group. What would he contribute to the discussion and how might he offer unique perspectives? These are the questions Gavin Ortlund explores in this new work.

First of all, Ortlund observes that Augustine helps us to step back from the controversy to consider the sheer wonder of creation. God created, not out of need, but his extravagant goodness. Augustine was absorbed with creation, believed it mirrored our own purpose of being created for God and finding rest in God, a theme he develops at the end of The Confessions. Indeed, for Augustine, the doctrine of creation was not an optional prequel to theology but absolutely foundational.

While not afraid to speak from conviction about the goodness of creation when faced with the dualism of Manichaean heresy, Augustine urges humility and the avoidance of rashness in interpretations, admitting where he thinks several views are equally possible. He exemplifies this with his own careful handling of Genesis 1, and his rejection of literal twenty-four hour days because of difficulties within the text including fitting all the events of day five into twenty-four hours.

Augustine also offers different perspectives on the problem of animal death and suffering. Responding to Manichaean ideas, he defends the goodness of predation. He also proposes the idea of perspectival prejudice, in which our local perspective often obscures the larger picture.

Finally, Ortlund looks at Augustine’s writing on Genesis 2 and 3 concerning the question of a historic Adam and fall. Augustine both admits the literary complexities of the text and his convictions about the historic character of Adam and the fall in the garden, while leaving room for figurative interpretations.

In one sense, Augustine can’t resolve the differences between the contemporary “camps.” He was unaware of the science to which contemporary interpreters respond in differing ways. By modern standards, some of his exegetical conclusions would be ones to which many would take exception. Yet Ortlund proposes that Augustine offers perspective that may enrich and change the tone and character of these discussions. He reminds us of the wonder of God’s work in creation. He exhibits an uncharacteristic humility, admitting both what he knows and does not, speaking with conviction about what is clear, and peaceably and humbly the matters on which interpreters may differ. In such areas, he exhibits a flexibility and openness contemporary scholars might emulate. Ortlund also shows us a careful scholar dedicated to rigorous study to understand what scripture affirms. These dispositions would not resolve our conflicts, but would create a character of conversation that would be God-honoring.

Ortlund’s concern focuses on the conversation between Christians. But wonder, humility, and rigor of study are also dispositions characterizing dedicated scientists. The animus between faith and science that has existed may well be rendered unnecessary if more on both sides emulated Augustine. We cannot invite him to the table except by mining his writings. Ortlund offers a study of Augustine’s writings worthy of Augustine’s dispositions.

________________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

Review: Evolution, Scripture, and Science

/ rtrube54 / 4 Comments

9781532690143

Evolution, Scripture, and Science, B. B. Warfield (Edited by Mark A. Noll & David N. Livingstone). Eugene, Wipf & Stock, 2019 (originally published in 2000).

Summary: A collection of the writings of B.B. Warfield consisting of lectures, articles, and reviews showing his engagement with evolutionary writers and his conviction that scripture and science need not be in conflict.

B. B. Warfield (1851-1921) was know as a staunch advocate of the inspiration, infallibility, and authority of the Bible, and as a “Princeton theologian,” trained by Charles Hodge. What is lesser known was that he closely followed the scientific literature of his day concerning the developing theory of evolution and did not see that evolution and scripture inherently in conflict.

Mark Noll and David N. Livingstone have collected the writings of Warfield on the subject of evolutionary science. This includes lectures, articles, and excerpts from Warfield’s own writings as well as numerous reviews of articles and books by various writers on the subject. There are several things that impress me about Warfield:

  1. He both affirms the truthfulness of the Genesis accounts but is open to interpretations that do not insist on literal days, or use genealogical records to date when Adam was created.
  2. He insists on ex nihilo creation of the stuff of the cosmos, allows for providentially guided development, but insists on the creation of the human soul.
  3. His views develop over the course of his life. At one point, while allowing for evolutionary development under God’s providence, he advocated mediate creation. Later, after studying Calvin, he abandoned the idea of mediate creation and allowed for development and speciation.
  4. At the same time, he was willing to both affirm and critique various aspects of the writers of his day. His big issues were not evolution per se, but rather evolutionism that denied God’s providential involvement and the idea of randomness that denied teleology, the evidence of purpose in the development of life.
  5. He is, if anything more challenging in his remarks on theological writers when they deviate from orthodoxy than with science writers.
  6. He is unwilling to accept the fact/value dichotomy. He insists that theology and biology are both sciences, both are concerned with facts. Theology cannot be relegated to the subjective world of faith and emotion.

The editors provide an excellent essay on Warfield as a “conservative evolutionist.” Also each of the works are preceded by a brief summary.

It is sad that Andrew Dickson White’s History of the Warfare of Science with Theology shaped the public conception about Christianity’s response to evolutionary theory and science more generally, one sadly that even many Christians have adopted. Warfield called White’s work “special pleading,” projecting present controversies into a past when Christians were on the forefront of science and saw their investigations as giving glory to God, studying his revelation in the books of scripture and nature. It is sad that Warfield’s ideas did not gain greater currency in the culture and in the church.

At very least, this collection suggests that thoughtful Christians with a high view of scripture need not be at war with science. The state of evolutionary theory is far advanced from the time of Warfield and the discussions concern discarded aspects of the theory. Nevertheless, the model of respectful engagement, a theologian abreast with scientific research, a foundation of conviction with an openness to grow all commend Warfield as a model for those who would engage discussions between scripture and science. Wipf & Stock is to be commended for re-printing this work and keeping it in circulation.

________________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher. The opinions I have expressed are my own.