Faith, Reason, & Earth History: A Paradigm of Earth and Biological Origins by Intelligent Design

by Leonard R. Brand

Faith, Reason, and Earth History presents Leonard Brand's argument for constructive thinking about origins and earth history in the context of Scripture, showing readers how to analyze available scientific data and approach unsolved problems. Faith does not need to fear the data, but can contribute to progress in understanding earth history within the context of God's Word while still being honest about unanswered questions. In this patient explanation of the mission of science, the author models his conviction that above all, it is essential that we treat each other with respect, even if we disagree on fundamental issues. The original edition of this work (1997) was one of the first books on this topic written from the point of view of an experienced research scientist. A career biologist, paleontologist, and teacher, Brand brings to this well-illustrated book a rich assortment of practical scientific examples. This thoughtful and rigorous presentation makes Brand's landmark work highly useful both as a college-level text and as an easily accessible treatment for the educated lay person.

Genres: Christian

508 pages, Hardcover

First published June 1, 1997

Reviews

[Josh]

Faith, Reason, & Earth History was written by Leonard Brand. In it, he addresses the interaction between science and faith, especially regarding the age of the earth. He is a young-earth interventionist, but he attempts to outline the best arguments for both an old earth and a young earth. One of his prevailing arguments is that young-earth interventionists can be effective scientists and can sometimes do better research because they are open to young-earth explanations. While I believe this is a valid point, I think it is certainly biased to his point of view. (Using his logic, old-earth evolutionists can also do better research because they are open to old-earth explanations).

Brand spends about the first quarter of the book explaining science, worldviews, and the relationship between faith and science. Then he talks about the origin of life (which a naturalistic worldview cannot adequately explain), evolution, and biological change. Brand embraces microevolution, which constantly alters species, but rejects macroevolution, which explains the rise of biological complexity.

While Brand rejects macroevolution primarily because of his worldview (in my assessment), there are many problems with macroevolution. For example, many people view the evolutionary process as an intelligent agent of change, which it is not. Natural selection and proposed macroevolution cannot see three steps into the future to decide which changes will be needed. Also, the more we learn about genetics and epigenetics, the more problems arise with macroevolution. Brand believes that the burden of proof is on those who claim biological complexity can arise through evolutionary processes, and he suspects that current theories of macroevolution will eventually fall out of favor.

Brand then addresses geology. Much of the evidence we see in the geologic record can be explained by short- or long-age theories, but there is evidence for a young earth. The continents are eroding too slowly for them to be millions of years old (further supported by lack of ocean sediments). The geologic column has too many fossil gaps and sedimentary gaps without erosion. Many sediments are bedded neatly, with little erosion or bioturbation.

At the same time, there are problems for short age earth theories, which some creationists overexplain or ignore. The most prominent problem is radiometric dating (not carbon-14). Also, the geologic column shows increasing complexity of organisms as it goes up the time scale. This supports evolutionary biology, but short-age theories have not yet adequately explained it. Many modern-day species are live in the same location as their fossil record but nowhere else. This fits the theory of local macroevolution. What would it mean in a short-age worldview, which understands species to have traveled from the landing location of Noah’s ark throughout the world?

Science can tell us what is happening, but it cannot speak with authority on what has happened. All explanations have problems, some more than others, but we should not automatically favor the explanation with the fewest problems. The Christian faith is based on God and His Word and should be able to face unanswered questions. Brand predicts, however, that dedicated research will eventually support theories that align with God’s Word. I agree with his conclusion.


Following is an excerpt of a review I wrote on an unpublished book. Rob Layne, the author of this book favored Leonard Brand over Answers in Genesis.

First, Rob Layne delves into AiG’s claim that Noah’s Flood created most of the geologic column. Layne believes this belief is extra-Biblical. Using evidence from sedimentary rocks, fossils, and radiometric dating, Layne shows that AiG’s claim is on shaky foundation.

Some sedimentary rocks have formed rapidly, but others have distinct layers with weathering between them, indicating a delayed formation. Similarly, some fossils appear to have been buried quickly, but others decayed and disarticulated before burial, indicating delayed fossilization. Also, many fossil graveyards appear to have been only small, localized events. Layne also highlights the fact that if radioactive decays was accelerated in the past as AiG-style apologists claim, God would have needed to perform a miracle to protect Noah and his family from the vast amounts of heat and radiation released.

Layne does not believe he needs to attack AiG. He does believe, however, that they overextend some points and ignore data contrary to their claims. He believes they do this because they cannot accept unanswered questions, because they believe that they need to fit science to the Bible. Layne prefers the stance of Leonard Brand, who is willing to accept unanswered questions.

Layne believes that the Bible and science ultimately fit, but that we do not know enough to understand how they fit. He writes, “Believers need not force-fit their faith and science into a false harmony just for the sake of encouraging faith in the reliability of the Bible. Mature Christian faith is willing to rest with unanswered questions, even if they are at the present time clearly challenging to our Bible-based beliefs. Likewise, mature faith will enable us to relate with grace towards those with whom we do not agree.” (p. 140) This is perhaps his biggest issue with AiG.

Next, Layne addresses AiG’s position on apologetics. Layne describes two kinds of apologetics: evidential and presuppositional. Evidential apologetics starts with the belief that everyone can observe evidence and interpret it, gaining true knowledge. In contrast, presuppositional apologetics starts with the belief that the intellect of unbelievers is totally depraved, and that they are incapable of interpreting evidence and finding truth. This approach states that all people use circular reasoning and only Christian circular reasoning is true.

Layne shows how AiG apologetics were founded in presuppositional apologetics. Layne believes this approach is flawed because he does not believe man’s intellect to be totally depraved. While he believes presuppositional apologetics are a powerful critique of secular rationalism, he also believes it is harmful when used for “for transforming every bit of scientific data into an infallible confirmation of the Bible.” (p. 167)

Interestingly, Layne believes that the way AiG uses presuppositional apologetics is a subtle form of rationalism, which contributed to secularism. He writes that according to AiG, “It is considered imperative that science be understood to support the Bible. Thus practically every fact of science becomes confirmation of the Bible—to the point that there are essentially no unanswered questions. The idea that is conveyed, however unintentionally, is that answers allow faith, while unanswered questions cause doubt. The end result, I believe, is a subtle but very powerful rationalism. While meant to encourage faith, this approach encourages faith only in the context of having clear and conclusive answers to all questions. This is unrealistic. Faith must be our response to not only easy answers but also to hard, even unanswered, questions. Unanswered questions should not be considered the end of faith, but its beginning.” (p. 169, 170)

Finally, Layne addresses AiG’s stance on history. AiG believes that the biggest factor in the secularization of the West was reinterpretation of Genesis due to old earth geology. AiG believes that Christians must return to a Biblical view of Genesis and assert Biblical authority over the Western political and social landscape.

Layne disagrees with AiG’s historical interpretation. He writes that Ken Ham (AiG) places the dethronement of the Bible far too late. Secularism was already entrenched before the idea of millions of years of geology entered popular opinion.

Layne also believes that AiG attributes secularism to “far too narrow and simplistic a cause.” Layne believes that what he calls “the Lucretian Shift” was largely responsible for the secularization of society. Named after Lucretius, an ancient Roman writer, the Lucretian Shift brought the West to believe in a mechanistic universe. This shift also included trumpeting individual rights over every authority. Many of these changes happened in the 18th century, long before belief in an ancient earth became entrenched.

Layne also believes that a political church left a distaste in many peoples’ minds, leading to secularization. Because of this, he believes that AiG makes a big mistake when they try to recapture the political influence of the church.

Because of these concerns, Layne believes that, while AiG-style apologetics can have a place, they do not belong in [redacted] curriculum. He believes that a better apologetic is loving service and self-sacrifice, and he challenges [redacted] to formulate a new style of apologetics based on Jesus’ principles.

[Doug Kauffman · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really appreciated the respectful and irenic tone; it was refreshing to read young earth creationists who respect and want to work together with those who don't hold their worldview. They were honest about the challenges to their young earth view. So honest, in fact, that it felt like a substantial portion of their argument (especially toward the end of the book) was basically (in my words): "We predict that more information will be uncovered which will verify our beliefs that are currently unsupported by evidence..."

Some quotes:

Hopefully, this helps us understand that when we discuss evolution and informed intervention, none of us, no matter what philosophy we start from, is in a position to make dogmatic scientific statements about somebody else’s point of view on the subject. Ridiculing someone who is also searching honestly for understanding is never constructive.

and

The way we deal with this subject is important. Some creationists have a tendency to be sarcastic and to talk down to evolutionists. Scientists are portrayed sometimes as being very stupid to believe in evolution. That approach is neither true nor constructive.

and one more because I really like it - although I suspect my interpretation of the quote is somewhat different than the authors' intent:

The more confidence (faith) we come to have in the Person—not just the book, but the Being behind the book—who is communicating to us, the more that faith carries us beyond what can be tested and gives us confidence in the parts of the worldview we cannot test. Knowing God as a personal friend may not seem pertinent to understanding science, but that individual confidence in God as a trustworthy, all-knowing, personal Being is the basis for trust in the Bible as a reliable source of information. We must continue study of the Scriptures realizing that we do not always understand the sacred documents correctly but knowing that God has taken the initiative to communicate with us.

[River Neil · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a well balanced interpretation of the various debates between science and religious systems. The book primarily tackles earth history and the geologic record as it is interpreted by long term(evolutionary) and short term(creationist) theories of natural history. It is well researched and easy to read, my only structural issue with the argument is the authors frequently conflate faith in specific counter evolutionary religious doctrine with faith more generally. This is a book written for its time, and the shift the authors make from the language of “evolution and creation” to “naturalism and interventionism” are helpful in shifting debate to more science centric perspective, which is needed in modern American religion.

[leroy king · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good book

Good book informative interesting well researched and documented. I like the approach neither dismissing science not the the bible record.

[Jay Brand · Rating 5 out of 5]

An outstanding attempt to reconcile scientific data from geology, paleontology, and biology with Scripture--in particular, the historical details included in Genesis chapters 1-11.