X

The Colossian Forum Subscription Form

| Resume a previously saved form
Resume Later

In order to be able to resume this form later, please enter your email and choose a password.

Subscriber Information







Subscriptions

Resources

The Colossian Forum offers free resources to help you transform polarizing cultural conflicts into opportunities for spiritual growth and witness.

Mailing Address







Please enter the required value for your country.

Our Blog
October 2, 2012 | Andy Saur

Book Review – Among the Creationists: Dispatches from the Anti-Evolutionist Front Line by Jason Rosenhouse

Book Review – Among the Creationists: Dispatches from the Anti-Evolutionist Front Line

 

Among the Creationists: Dispatches from the Anti-Evolutionist Front Line by Jason Rosenhouse.  New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Pp. 272

 

 

 

 

October 2nd, 2012
Book Reviewed by Todd C. Wood

A few years ago, I gave a presentation at a church, and after the service, folks gathered around to ask questions.  One woman said, “I get so mad when I’m watching a nature program and they start talking about evolution or millions of years!”  Without skipping a beat, I looked her right in the eye and said, “Stop watching nature programs.”  My response left her mouth hanging open in confusion, so I explained that I also “get so mad” when creationists are stereotyped as foolish or ignorant.  Rather than deal with such nonsense, I just ignore it.  Life’s too short to keep exposing myself to maddening stereotypes.

Now the latest anti-creationist missive comes to us from Jason Rosenhouse, an atheist math professor at James Madison University.  When I saw the announcements for Rosenhouse’s book, I ignored them.  I thought to myself, “I’ve seen that song and dance before.  More reasons why creationists are so stupid.  What a cliché!”  After Michael Gulker, executive director for The Colossian Forum, asked me to review the book, I decided that I would at least give it a chance.  At worst, it would reaffirm my resolve to avoid the sleazier side of the creation/evolution debate.[div id=”callout-right”]It’s the I-thought-it-would-be-terrible-but-I-tried-it-and-it-wasn’t-that-bad genre.[end-div]

By now, savvy readers will have recognized the genre in which I’m writing.  It’s the I-thought-it-would-be-terrible-but-I-tried-it-and-it-wasn’t-that-bad genre.  Kind of a cliché in itself, but the book really wasn’t what I expected at all.  Rather than smugly caricaturing creationists, Rosenhouse spent time at creationist and intelligent design (ID) conferences interacting with prominent creationists, as well as the rank and file.  He paints a complicated portrait of modern creationists – always critical, occasionally infuriating, but very often sympathetic.  At the heart of this book seems to be a genuine confusion and curiosity, or, as Rosenhouse puts it, “I do not understand how people come to believe such remarkable things” (p. 22).

The book is loosely organized around four main events: a 2005 “Mega-Conference” staged by the young-earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis, a 2007 ID conference called “Darwin vs. Design,” the Sixth International Conference on Creationism (2008), and a personal visit to the Creation Museum in 2010.  Since the book is a memoir more than a sustained argument, there isn’t a clear, linear structure.  The chapter topics bounce around between accounts of his visits to these venues, analysis of various creation/evolution arguments, and a few personal chapters explaining the author’s own views on religion.  If you’re willing to go with the flow of consciousness, there is much here that’s worth reading.

Even at its more critical turns, Rosenhouse presents some of his more important arguments in such winsome ways that they become really hard to resist.  Consider his discussion of one of the central tenets of creationism:

[div id=”blockquote”]In their [the creationists’] telling, evolution was not merely wrong, it was ridiculous.  It was not simply that the evidence for evolution was weaker than claimed, it was that there was no evidence at all for evolution, and massive, irrefutable evidence for young-Earth creationism (p. 18).[end-div]

As I read that description, I winced with recognition.  I too have tussled with folks who firmly believe that evolution is about to collapse under the weight of its own implausibility and lack of evidence.  I continue to try to correct this baffling and entrenched misunderstanding, and I think Rosenhouse provides an eloquent response:

[div id=”blockquote”]It is highly unlikely that a clever amateur will discover a fatal flaw that has been long overlooked by the professionals.  More than anything else it is the unwillingness of creationists to consider this point that I find distasteful. … The implausibility of several generations of scientists being guilty of crass stupidity and gross incompetence never seems to occur to them (p. 36).[end-div]

That’s a blunt assessment, but I can certainly appreciate his point.  Sometimes creationist rhetoric comes across exactly as he describes it: scientists are fools for believing in evolution, clearly a terribly rotten excuse for a scientific theory.  On the other hand, I know a lot of creationists who don’t buy into that hype at all.  As one of them recently told me, “Evolution isn’t going to collapse in some big upheaval.  Establishing the creationist view will take time and lots of work.  We’ll just have to keep chipping away at it, little by little.”  I suspect that any progress in that chipping away will only come as creationists take a more realistic look at the inadequacies of our own position, rather than the imagined faults of evolution.  That there are creationists willing to do that gives me hope for the future.

On other subjects, Rosenhouse provides quite simple refutations that are literally impossible to argue with.  Consider the common creationist argument that mutations are always detrimental or lead to a loss of information, as found in the work of Werner Gitt or John Sanford.  I have always felt uncomfortable with such claims, mostly from the perspective of their implausibility.  My own experience with genomics leads me to believe that most mutations do next to nothing, good or bad.  Leave it to a mathematician to notice a more glaring problem:

[div id=”blockquote”]It is a logical impossibility for all mutations to degrade information.  Mutations can reverse themselves, you see.  If the mutation changing A into B causes a loss of information, then the reverse mutation from B back to A must represent a gain of information (p. 65).[end-div]

Indeed it must.

Beyond such esoterica, I found his treatment of the diversity of Christian opinions about evolution reasonable and even helpful.  When discussing his experiences at the ID conference, he admits that ID does not equate to creationism, despite the rhetorically advantageous term “intelligent design creationism” that is commonly used by many anti-creationists.  This will no doubt be gratefully acknowledged by the handful of non-Christian ID advocates.  At the same time, he does not ignore the obvious connections between ID and creationism.

[div id=”blockquote”]At its core, creationism is a cultural and political rebellion against a scientific theory that is believed to menace religion and morality.  Seen in this way, ID is absolutely a form of creationism, one that was born from the failures of previous strategies.  The substance of ID arguments is only superficially different from traditional creationism, while its morally outraged rhetoric is identical to it (p. 90).[end-div]

I think creationism is far more than Rosenhouse’s reductive “core,” but the underlying observation of political affinities between traditional creationism and ID is correct.

The similarity of ID and creationism does not necessarily imply a cozy relationship, however.  On the contrary, Rosenhouse records one encounter with some ID advocates that is disturbingly familiar to me:

[div id=”blockquote”]At some point I made a casual remark about creationism.  To judge from their reactions, I had just committed a grave faux pas.  They looked disgusted.  My original conversation partner referred to creationism as “crap.”  The woman was even more blunt, describing creationists as “idiots” and “Bible-thumpers” (p. 85).[end-div]

ID advocates portray their movement as a “big tent,” including all forms of anti-evolutionism, but that public claim contrasts sharply with so many ID advocates’ personal disdain for creationism, as illustrated above.  Now that I think of it, it’s oddly reminiscent of their public denial of being creationists while at the same time advocating so many arguments recycled from creationism.

On the subject of theistic evolution, Rosenhouse expresses some of my own reservations.  For instance, Rosenhouse finds evolutionary theodicies convoluted and unconvincing.  This is especially the case with Francisco Ayala’s theodicy, which drew my attention only because of the boldness with which Ayala asserts that evolution is a gift to theology.  Ayala’s theodicy would putatively relieve God of responsibility for natural evil by making death and suffering an unavoidable consequence of the evolutionary process of creation.  According to Rosenhouse,

[div id=”blockquote”]I fail to see … how Ayala’s suggestion advances the discussion at all.  Identifying the suffering in nature as a side consequence of the creative process God employed only absolves Him of responsibility if we can show that a more benign process is not possible.  But that is precisely the problem with which we began (p. 151).[end-div]

That seems like such an obvious deficiency.  One wonders how such theodicies persist.

An evolutionary creationist might respond by proposing that somehow God was constrained to create using evolutionary processes, that creation could be accomplished in no other way.  On this point, Rosenhouse cites Michael Ruse’s argument that “natural selection is the only option” (quoted on p. 145) for producing complex adaptations, which Rosenhouse finds inadequate,

[div id=”blockquote”]…since natural selection is plainly not the only option for creating human beings.  God might have created everything directly and supernaturally, precisely as the Bible says He did (p. 145).[end-div]

Once again, I find myself in agreement with Rosenhouse.  Notions of God’s being limited to natural selection seem especially preposterous when some advocates of that idea criticize creationists as arrogant for insisting that God was constrained to create as Genesis literally describes.  But perhaps that’s a rant for a different essay.

More recently, I have noticed theistic evolutionists emphasizing the suffering of the Creator as one possible explanation for the natural evil inherent in evolution.  Playing off of Christ’s radical humility and suffering, such individuals argue that God’s intention all along was to humbly suffer with us, thus necessitating a creation of suffering.  In other words, God made us all suffer together for some larger theological purpose.  Here, Rosenhouse finds himself outside of the realm of science.  “[W]e have simply left behind any connection with empirical realities” (p. 148).  Though it’s likely that a clever theologian could invent answers to any objection, what bearing does this have on reality?  Why should we accept such clever answers?  What distinguishes such answers from ad hoc handwaving?  I could add here, what distinguishes a creation made to suffer because of human sin from a creation made to suffer for some mysterious reason of God’s?  Why is one any more compelling than the other?

Rosenhouse’s final judgment of theistic evolution is one of disinterest.  “If you are possessed of sufficient imagination to find such things plausible, then you are welcome to them” (p. 149), but given the weaknesses of theistic evolution that he discusses, “it is unsurprising that so many people find it impossible to think of Darwinian natural selection as the sort of creative mechanism a loving God would employ” (p. 152).  More bluntly, he concludes

[div id=”blockquote”]If you want to redefine original sin, or summon forth strained interpretations of Genesis to reconcile evolution with Adam and Eve, then go right ahead.  But please do not pretend that this represents some convergence of ancient wisdom with modern understandings.  This is not science and religion in conversation.  This is science telling it like it is, and religion trying desperately to catch up (p. 177).[end-div]

This is precisely the sort of language that raises the hackles of theistic evolutionists, but I find much truth in his assessment.  Regardless of which side of the creation/evolution debate we find ourselves, we evangelicals are still trying to figure out what evolution means for us and for our faith.  Meanwhile, science marches on, often without us.

This seems like a good time to discuss Rosenhouse’s “defense” of creationists, although I hesitate to use the term “defense.”  At no point does Rosenhouse relent on his own criticisms – even dismissals – of creationism, but he also spares no criticism of unfair or invalid anti-creationist arguments.  He dismisses the epithet “biblical literalist” as an oversimplification.  Instead, creationists argue “that if you are going to interpret a passage nonliterally there should be strong textual grounds for doing so” (p. 41), which is pretty close to my own position.  Descriptions of creationists who “read the Bible as a science textbook” also falls far short of reality in Rosenhouse’s view.  This is a phrase that I’ve heard repeatedly, and I’ve begun asking people to explain what it’s supposed to mean.  So far, all I’ve gotten in response is a bit of stammering about how the Bible isn’t intended to record scientific detail, which is so obviously true as to be trivially irrelevant.  In contrast to the dismissive theologians I’ve encountered, Rosenhouse recognizes the nuance of the creationist position:

[div id=”blockquote”]Creationists do, however, believe that the Bible is inerrant on any subject it addresses.  If that means accepting what it says during its very rare excursions into science, then so be it (p. 43).[end-div]

Even more surprising to me, he offers a remarkably compelling theological argument for young-earth creationism.

[div id=”blockquote”]We might find it interesting and suggestive that the Bible, which mostly avoids scientific questions, opens with so much of a scientific nature.  Perhaps the conclusion is that God considered these particular scientific truths to be so important that they could not be omitted without compromising the story (p. 43).[end-div]

Out of the mouths of atheists!

These seeming defenses of creationism could simply be dismissed as a scholarly attempt to state with precision what is or is not wrong with an opposing viewpoint (Rosenhouse is a mathematician after all), but I also detect hints of a humanitarian decency about him.  Early in the book, he confesses that interacting with creationists changed his outlook.  “They are no longer defined by a few odd beliefs you have heard that they hold.  They become actual people, with depth and personality and reasons for the things they believe” (p. 15).  This personal experience leads him to conclusions that I have to suspect aren’t very comfortable for him.  Whereas he affirms the usual claim that “the concept of an infallible source of information about nature entails the abandonment of the scientific method” (p. 51), attending the International Conference on Creationism (ICC) seems to have softened that judgment.  At the ICC, he found creationists

[div id=”blockquote”]…who, so far as I can tell, are motivated by entirely the same considerations as mainstream scientists.  They are trying to understand nature as best they can.  That they begin from a premise most of us would regard as highly improbable has no relevance to that determination (p. 188).[end-div]

Thanks.  I’ve been saying that for years.

Speaking of charity toward the enemy, there’s one other point Rosenhouse repeatedly brings up that I think is well worth mentioning.  There is a dominant narrative in modern evangelical Christianity, a reflection on life that I think overstates – severely – the personal value of Christianity.  It goes something like this: Without Jesus, life is terrible, empty, hopeless, but with Jesus, life is super awesome.  I think what this narrative wants to say is that Christ brings immense and inestimable value to our lives as Christians.  The love of God truly exceeds description.  Choosing to express this value by portraying life without Christ as miserable and empty is unrecognizable to many non-Christians.  Many non-Christians live a pretty decent, moral, meaningful life, and when evangelism gets stuck on total depravity, people just can’t relate.

Creationist fervor can carry this personal narrative to almost absurd lengths.  Evolution, we are told, isn’t just wrong or mistaken.  It’s actually the source of evil in society.  But hasn’t evil has been around a lot longer than evolution?  Evolution, we are assured, is a rejection of God.  Of course.  How silly of me.  Here I thought evolution was a scientific model intended to explain certain facts about biology.  Rosenhouse addresses the demonizing of evolution and atheism throughout the book, beginning with this passage:

[div id=”blockquote”]I am an atheist.  That means that I do not believe in God.  It does not mean that I am metaphysically certain there is no God, that I wallow in nihilism and moral relativism, that I think science has explained everything, that I think religious people are stupid – or that I partake in any of the other asinine caricatures of atheistic belief you may have heard (p. 20).[end-div]

Though I am a creationist, every year I attend a conference of evolutionary biologists, and there I find a startling contrast between reality and the picture of evolutionists one can infer from creationist rhetoric.  Far from being foolish or wicked, evolutionary biologists are instead immensely articulate, intelligent, and likable.  Most folks there are just geeking out about their monkey flowers or statistical models.  A few are ardently opposed to creationism, but most don’t care much about us crackpots.  The subject of God almost never comes up, and they’ve never held any anti-God or anti-morality strategy sessions that I’ve been aware of.  The “asinine caricatures” really don’t hold up.  I suspect that for creationism to survive, we have to start recognizing evolutionary biologists for who they really are, rather than pigeonholing them into ludicrous caricatures of our own invention.

Needless to say, I didn’t find the book entirely satisfactory and agreeable.  Some of Rosenhouse’s arguments were dismissive and occasionally even smug, but my most visceral reaction was reserved for his assessment of religion in a chapter called “Why I love being Jewish.”  The chapter opens with a contrast between religion as a set of propositions about reality, and religion as a “cultural identity.”  Rosenhouse then gives a passionate description of his cultural Jewish identity, which resonated with me, even though I am not a Jew.  I have no experience with Passover or bar mitzvah, but I can easily identify with the emotional touchpoints of childhood and home.  For me, like Rosenhouse, some of those touchpoints were religious.

Rosenhouse finds his cultural religion satisfying and admirable, but I struggle to relate.  Perhaps I’m reacting most to the missing ingredient in Rosenhouse’s experience of religion.  In the opening pages of the book, Rosenhouse notes,

[div id=”blockquote”]…it is a source of frustration to me that most of my fellow Americans see things differently. …  I wonder what religious folks know that I do not.  Do they have some insight that I lack (p. 21)?[end-div]

Actually I think I do know something – or someone – that Rosenhouse doesn’t.  I know it frustrates him, but my personal encounters and experiences with God speak more loudly to me than any rationality or logic ever could.  I wish that I could package my own faith and confidence and give it to Rosenhouse, but I can’t.  I wish that the path to God were as relentlessly rational and logical as Rosenhouse seems to want, but I’m not sure that it is.  Maybe someday Rosenhouse will recognize his own encounters with God for what they are.  Maybe someday God will open his eyes.  I hope so.

 

Todd Charles Wood is an associate professor of biology and director of the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College. In his spare time, he enjoys classic movies, making pie, and traveling with his wife.

Suggested Posts
Virtual Small Groups Can Overcome Isolation
June 26, 2020 | Monica Lawrence
Virtual Small Groups Can Overcome Isolation
Isolation is one of the deep pains we are experiencing as churches and individuals right now. The changes brought about by COVID-19 highlight how many ways we are separated from each other, even in God’s family. But loneliness in the Church isn’t new. As a millennial Christian, I know we have a habit of hopping from one church to another and a reputation for leaving the Church altogether. When I was in college, I attended several churches but never really got plugged in. I was always assigned to an age group, meaning I missed out on perspectives, growth opportunities, and encouragement outside my bubble. That’s part of the reason I love the inter-generational aspect of The Colossian Way. It pulls you out of your echo chamber and says, “look at all these voices that make up the Church.” It’s not just millennials who get stuck in echo chambers or feel isolated. As I coordinate our trainings and workshops and connect people with faithful conflict engagement resources, I see church leaders burdened with the heavy responsibility of supplying answers to hard questions and responding to conflict, all while holding their congregations together. It’s easy to feel alone in your struggle to navigate culturally divisive conflicts in the Church. My favorite part of hosting Colossian Way trainings is seeing Christians make connections to others struggling with difficult disagreements. To come together, to name those struggles, and to work toward a way forward – knowing you may never agree – is an incredible gift. But does that unity and relationship carry over to a grid of tiny Zoom boxes? Back in March, my colleague and I decided to lead a Colossian Way group online to see if it was possible to practice discipleship through Christian conflict engagement virtually. Here’s what we learned: Technological Skill Level Isn’t a Barrier to Participation: Facilitators should familiarize themselves with the video platform they use by accessing tutorials and perhaps investing in a paid account to access convenient features. Small group participants just need a strong internet connection and be able to log on to the platform. It’s Important to Get Used to New Conversational Rhythms: When you meet online, conversational rhythms of talking and listening can become more rigid; you lose the moments of excited interruption and “turn to the person next to you” conversations. Just like in an in-person small group, Facilitators should learn to be comfortable with silence and carefully manage time. If your platform allows you to split up into breakout rooms, be mindful of the extra time those technological transitions take. Take the Extra Time for Relationships: In the Colossian Way groups I’ve led, we took a little extra time to get to know each other. When we met in-person, we shared a meal before each session. Online, we took a few minutes to connect before the session began. One of our participants taught Spanish and used a different flag or photo from a Spanish-speaking country as his webcam background each week. Another, a healthcare professional, participated despite the strains of her job during a pandemic. Bonding over these interests and challenges helped us dive into difficult topics. In the end, our online group, like any group, worked, not despite a lack of relationship or closeness, but because we committed ourselves to building relationships with one another and to being spiritually formed to look more like Christ in the midst of disagreement. Facilitating a Colossian Way group is challenging but extremely rewarding. You’re joining a robust community of experienced guides who are playing an active role in making their congregations more loving, more resilient. In addition, we’ve designed training and resources to support you every step of the way. And, in August, Facilitator Training will be available online, making it easier than ever to equip yourself to guide your church to navigate conflicts in Christ-like ways. I’m a runner, so I’ll use a running metaphor. You can run barefoot. You may step on some pebbles, hit the pavement too hard, or scrape your toe, but you’ll absolutely get from point A to point B. But a good pair of running shoes will support you and help you run better. A good pair of shoes will protect you from rocks, support your feet, and help you run faster, longer. The Colossian Way Facilitator Training is like a good pair of running shoes. It teaches you how to balance your time, respond when somebody in your group monopolizes the conversation, and how to manage your own anger and anxiety. And perhaps most valuable, Training brings you into a community, because even though running can seem like a solitary sport, our endurance and speed get a boost when someone runs beside us or cheers us on at the finish line. For information about our newest small-group series, Political Talk, including how to become a Facilitator register for an upcoming free, one-hour webinar. To support other “runners” on this Colossian Way journey, I invite you to donate today to help provide online training and eBook curricula to Christian leaders looking for a way to hold together in Christ.
Does it Work? Discipleship and Witness.
June 8, 2020 | Emily Stroble
Does it Work? Discipleship and Witness.
We see face masks everywhere. Articles fill our news feeds every day, explaining precautions, studies, and the potential effectiveness of innovative solutions for disinfecting our surroundings. We also lament. Outcries against injustice fill our communities. We strive to discern how we are called, in this moment, to “act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God” (Micah 6:8). But will any of it work? It’s a fundamental, bold question, demanding we evaluate the results something produces against its purpose. We are often asked if The Colossian Way works. Our community of over 850 small-group participants in 10 denominations answers with a resounding “yes.”  But what does that mean? First, we must clear up a few misconceptions about The Colossian Way. Some people come to The Colossian Way expecting it to help them change their opponent’s mind or to quickly resolve interpersonal disputes. They will be disappointed. The purpose of the Colossian Way is to equip Christians to navigate deep, cultural conflicts in a way that results in discipleship and witness. “Discipleship” and “witness,” then, are the measure by which we know whether The Colossian Way works. They are central to The Colossian Way because they are central to the life of the Church. The Great Commission, the foundational purpose statement of the Church, commands Christians to “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel,” (Mark 16:15) and “make disciples of every nation” (Matthew 28:19). Discipleship and witness change us. Discipleship goes beyond teaching. It evokes a commitment from the pupil to adopt and be formed by the teaching. Similarly, witness goes beyond talking about the Gospel, meaning to testify or give evidence, to live as evidence of Christ’s redemptive work. Conflict has always existed at the center of Christian life, right alongside discipleship and witness. Most of the New Testament is concerned with the witness and discipleship, often in the context of deep cultural conflict. Paul writes frequently about factions within the church, responding to civil authority, and issues around socioeconomic status, to name a few. So, if The Great Commission commands us to disciple and witness, if the Epistles aim to design a Christian community that does just that, let us ask a bold question: Does the Church work?  In a 2015 study by the Barna Group, only 1% of church leaders stated they thought churches were doing discipleship “very well.” A 2017 Lifeway Research Survey found that 32% of young people leaving the church listed hypocrisy as their reason, another 29% didn’t feel connected to their church, and 25% cited political disagreement. The media conveys a similar image of a hypocritical, insular, divided Church, indicating that the same issues that drive congregants away may also prevent them from coming in the first place. While these statistics don’t present a full picture of the Church, they indicate the work to be done if we are to fulfill our purpose as the Body of Christ.  The Colossian Forum has committed to coming alongside churches doing this work. Henry, a pastor trained in The Colossian Way and a member of his Christian Reformed Church Classis’ Healthy Church Task Force, put it this way: “The heart of it is a number of us thinking, ‘how do we work with conflict differently than we have before?’ … The approach can be applied to many things. I’ve heard retired pastors and newer pastors respond immediately that’s exactly what we need to be doing.” The Colossian Way helps church leaders build that different, consistent, approach to navigate the difficult questions and decisions they face right now. Conflict will certainly continue as we begin to regather our congregations and political tensions increase heading into the fall. The bold question that remains is “will the Church work in the face of the deep brokenness of the world?” We invite you to join us with your prayers, leadership, and support. Like many non-profits, The Colossian Forum put its fundraising efforts on hold to focus on the needs of our community in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, as we prepare to offer vital decision-making and conflict-engagement resources, training, and support in this critical time, we’re working to match $4,000 pledged by several cornerstone donors by July 10. Our total goal of $8,000 will help equip leaders through forthcoming online training, translate our curriculum into an accessible ebook format, and develop whole-church practices for conflict engagement and decision-making. Give today at colossianforum.org/give.

601 Fifth St. NW, Suite #101
Grand Rapids, MI 49504

(616) 328-6016

info@colossianforum.org

Stay connected and informed about the latest in faithful conflict engagement tools! Sign up to receive exclusive event invitations, blogs, prayer letters, e-news and other content.