What do you think?
Rate this book
Counterpoints
Three Views on Creation and Evolution
For Christians, the issues raised by the different views on creation and evolution are challenging. Can a "young earth" be reconciled with a universe that appears to be billions of years old? Does scientific evidence point to a God who designed the universe and life in all its complexity? Three Views on Creation and Evolution deals with these and similar concerns as it looks at three dominant schools of Christian thought. Proponents of young earth creationism, old earth creationism, and theistic evolution each present their different views, tell why the controversy is important, and describe the interplay between their understandings of science and theology. Each view is critiqued by various scholars, and the entire discussion is summarized by Phillip E. Johnson and Richard H. Bube. The Counterpoints series provides a forum for comparison and critique of different views on issues important to Christians. Counterpoints books address two Church Life and Bible and Theology. Complete your library with other books in the Counterpoints series.
- GenresTheology
304 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 1999
51 people want to read
About the author
John Mark Reynolds
23 books35 followersDr. John Mark Reynolds is the President of The Saint Constantine School and Saint Constantine College.
Prior to founding Saint Constantine, Reynolds was the Provost of Houston Baptist University. While there, Reynolds helped start several academic initiatives including a cinema department and a graduate apologetics program.
Dr. Reynolds was founder and director of the Torrey Honors Institute, and Professor of Philosophy at Biola University. The Torrey Honors Institute is an exemplary liberal arts and biblical studies program that utilizes the Great Books and Socratic dialogue educational models.
Dr. Reynolds holds an MA and PhD in Philosophy from the University of Rochester where he concentrated in philosophy of religion, ancient philosophy, and epistemology. He graduated with honors from Roberts Wesleyan University and earned a Bible diploma from Elim Bible Institute.
Prior to founding Saint Constantine, Reynolds was the Provost of Houston Baptist University. While there, Reynolds helped start several academic initiatives including a cinema department and a graduate apologetics program.
Dr. Reynolds was founder and director of the Torrey Honors Institute, and Professor of Philosophy at Biola University. The Torrey Honors Institute is an exemplary liberal arts and biblical studies program that utilizes the Great Books and Socratic dialogue educational models.
Dr. Reynolds holds an MA and PhD in Philosophy from the University of Rochester where he concentrated in philosophy of religion, ancient philosophy, and epistemology. He graduated with honors from Roberts Wesleyan University and earned a Bible diploma from Elim Bible Institute.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
February 11, 2025
ANOTHER OF ZONDERVAN’S EXCELLENT ‘COUNTERPOINTS’ SERIES
Editors J.P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds wrote in the Introduction to this 1999 book, “the purpose of this book is to inform the reader about the issues involved in the dialogue about creation and evolution among three different schools of thought: (1) young earth or recent creation; (2) progressive or old earth creation; and (3) theistic evolution or evolving creation… we hope to orient you to … an important challenge to theology from what is called scientism, the main issues involved in the three-way dialogue about creation and evolution, and a historical overview of the debate.” (Pg. 8-9)
They continue, “Young earth and old earth creationists agree on a great deal. They are divided, however, on the theological implications of a second issue: animal death before the fall of Adam. Young earth creationists view this as theologically devastating. How could animals die before the sin of Adam? How could a good God intentionally allow wasteful and horrific deaths of billions of animals over billions of years before man’s sin[?]… Old earth creationists respond in a number of ways (e.g., animal death before the fall of Adam and Eve was the result of a prior angelic fall; SPIRITUAL death resulted from the human fall) but this presents a difficulty for their view.” (Pg. 21-22)
Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds argue for Young-Earth Creationism: “Christians who are theistic evolutionists … are captured… by a methodological naturalism … that will not allow them to scientifically consider positive evidence for a creator. They are so fearful of being wrong about proclaiming God’s activity in the natural world that they have decided that his activity is invisible to human science… How can theistic evolutionists worship an unemployed God?” (Pg. 46)
Walter L. Bradley responds to Nelson and Reynolds, “The question of what changes in the natural world took place at the Fall… is a difficult one. If death was introduced for the first time after the Fall, then all of the apparent evidence of death in the fossil record must be attributed to the Flood. However… fossils in sedimentary rock in the Gulf of Mexico go down 25,000 feet… It is difficult to account for this stupendous historical zoo from one recent, worldwide flood. This situation is repeated around the world, making it extremely difficult to accept the fossil record as the consequence of one worldwide flood. It is also worth noting that some necessary biological activity in human beings, such as bacteria in our stomachs, would seem impossible if no death of living organisms before the Fall is permitted.” (Pg. 77)
John Jefferson Davis asks Nelson/Reynolds, “Problems of the geographical distribution of species that bear on the question of the extent of the Flood are not addressed. For example, did kangaroos and platypuses that live in Australia come to the Middle East to board Noah’s ark? In Genesis 6:20 the text states that the animals in question would ‘come’ to Noah, but it does not indicate that the animals were miraculously transported by God…” (Pg. 84)
Robert C. Newman advocates Progressive/Old Earth Creationism: “numerous strong scientific evidences (and a few biblical hints) indicate that the earth and universe are very old. For example, take light … The most distant galaxies and quasars that we can see seem to be over ten billion light-years away, which suggests that the universe is at least that old. Young earth creationists have taken several different tacks to avoid this conclusion. Some think the universe is really quite small… Others claim the speed of light was much faster shortly after creation than it is now… Still others claim that the light we see from distant objects was created on the way, so that we have never actually seen light that left objects more than about ten thousand light-years away. All these responses seem to face overwhelming problems… The most common young earth response is the third alternative… As most of the universe is more than ten thousand light-years away, most of the events revealed by light coming from space would be fictional… I prefer to interpret nature so as to avoid having God give us fictional information.” (Pg. 109)
He goes on, “Another problem often raised against God’s miraculous intervention in creation relates to style or aesthetics, and this seems to me to be reflected in [Howard] Van Till’s concept of the universe as having ‘functional integrity.’ For one who is responding to the idea of God as watchmaker, it seems rather gauche or unaesthetic for the watchmaker to be continually intervening in his creation, as though he didn’t get it right the first time and has to be forever making adjustments.” (Pg. 128)
Vern S. Poythress responds to Robert Newman: “Unfortunately, in matters of detail Newman is not always the best possible representative for old earth creationism. In my judgment, a moderate creationist view… is the best interpretation of Genesis 1. By adopting a modified ‘intermittent day’ view of Genesis 1, Newman has unnecessarily entangled himself in a number of interpretive mistakes. First, Newman claims that the seventh day of Genesis is still future. But clearly it is not… Second, Newman claims that the creative actions in Genesis 1 BEGAN on particular days, but continue into the present… Third, Newman claims that … God’s works of creation do not take place DURING the day, but during a long period of time inaugurated by the day… Fourth, Genesis 1:16 says that God ‘made’ the lights, not that he caused to appear already-existing heavenly bodies, as Newman states.” (Pg. 148-150)
Howard J. Van Till expounds Theistic Evolution: “A substantial number of young persons in the Christian community are led to believe that they must make an either/or choice between creation and evolution. Some of them choose to pursue careers in the natural sciences… they had been told by some of the more strident Christian critics of evolution that the only reason for the general acceptance of the scientific concept of evolution was its usefulness in support of a naturalistic worldview… For these students, graduate education in the sciences can lead to painful disillusionment… acquiring a familiarity with the actual data and with the way the scientific community formulates and evaluates scientific theories … dispelled the claim that the credibility of evolutionary theory was based, not on convincing empirical evidence, but on the corruptive propaganda of naturalism.” (Pg. 180-181)
J.P. Moreland responds to Van Till: “I think that macroevolution is accepted largely for sociological reasons and not rational factors. Specifically, the scientism rampant in culture, coupled with the belief that special creationism is religion rather than science, means that evolution is the only view of origins that can claim the backing of reason. All supposedly extrascientific beliefs … are relegated to the level of private, subjective opinion.” (Pg. 233)
This book will be of great interest to Christians seeking to compare the various perspectives.
Editors J.P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds wrote in the Introduction to this 1999 book, “the purpose of this book is to inform the reader about the issues involved in the dialogue about creation and evolution among three different schools of thought: (1) young earth or recent creation; (2) progressive or old earth creation; and (3) theistic evolution or evolving creation… we hope to orient you to … an important challenge to theology from what is called scientism, the main issues involved in the three-way dialogue about creation and evolution, and a historical overview of the debate.” (Pg. 8-9)
They continue, “Young earth and old earth creationists agree on a great deal. They are divided, however, on the theological implications of a second issue: animal death before the fall of Adam. Young earth creationists view this as theologically devastating. How could animals die before the sin of Adam? How could a good God intentionally allow wasteful and horrific deaths of billions of animals over billions of years before man’s sin[?]… Old earth creationists respond in a number of ways (e.g., animal death before the fall of Adam and Eve was the result of a prior angelic fall; SPIRITUAL death resulted from the human fall) but this presents a difficulty for their view.” (Pg. 21-22)
Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds argue for Young-Earth Creationism: “Christians who are theistic evolutionists … are captured… by a methodological naturalism … that will not allow them to scientifically consider positive evidence for a creator. They are so fearful of being wrong about proclaiming God’s activity in the natural world that they have decided that his activity is invisible to human science… How can theistic evolutionists worship an unemployed God?” (Pg. 46)
Walter L. Bradley responds to Nelson and Reynolds, “The question of what changes in the natural world took place at the Fall… is a difficult one. If death was introduced for the first time after the Fall, then all of the apparent evidence of death in the fossil record must be attributed to the Flood. However… fossils in sedimentary rock in the Gulf of Mexico go down 25,000 feet… It is difficult to account for this stupendous historical zoo from one recent, worldwide flood. This situation is repeated around the world, making it extremely difficult to accept the fossil record as the consequence of one worldwide flood. It is also worth noting that some necessary biological activity in human beings, such as bacteria in our stomachs, would seem impossible if no death of living organisms before the Fall is permitted.” (Pg. 77)
John Jefferson Davis asks Nelson/Reynolds, “Problems of the geographical distribution of species that bear on the question of the extent of the Flood are not addressed. For example, did kangaroos and platypuses that live in Australia come to the Middle East to board Noah’s ark? In Genesis 6:20 the text states that the animals in question would ‘come’ to Noah, but it does not indicate that the animals were miraculously transported by God…” (Pg. 84)
Robert C. Newman advocates Progressive/Old Earth Creationism: “numerous strong scientific evidences (and a few biblical hints) indicate that the earth and universe are very old. For example, take light … The most distant galaxies and quasars that we can see seem to be over ten billion light-years away, which suggests that the universe is at least that old. Young earth creationists have taken several different tacks to avoid this conclusion. Some think the universe is really quite small… Others claim the speed of light was much faster shortly after creation than it is now… Still others claim that the light we see from distant objects was created on the way, so that we have never actually seen light that left objects more than about ten thousand light-years away. All these responses seem to face overwhelming problems… The most common young earth response is the third alternative… As most of the universe is more than ten thousand light-years away, most of the events revealed by light coming from space would be fictional… I prefer to interpret nature so as to avoid having God give us fictional information.” (Pg. 109)
He goes on, “Another problem often raised against God’s miraculous intervention in creation relates to style or aesthetics, and this seems to me to be reflected in [Howard] Van Till’s concept of the universe as having ‘functional integrity.’ For one who is responding to the idea of God as watchmaker, it seems rather gauche or unaesthetic for the watchmaker to be continually intervening in his creation, as though he didn’t get it right the first time and has to be forever making adjustments.” (Pg. 128)
Vern S. Poythress responds to Robert Newman: “Unfortunately, in matters of detail Newman is not always the best possible representative for old earth creationism. In my judgment, a moderate creationist view… is the best interpretation of Genesis 1. By adopting a modified ‘intermittent day’ view of Genesis 1, Newman has unnecessarily entangled himself in a number of interpretive mistakes. First, Newman claims that the seventh day of Genesis is still future. But clearly it is not… Second, Newman claims that the creative actions in Genesis 1 BEGAN on particular days, but continue into the present… Third, Newman claims that … God’s works of creation do not take place DURING the day, but during a long period of time inaugurated by the day… Fourth, Genesis 1:16 says that God ‘made’ the lights, not that he caused to appear already-existing heavenly bodies, as Newman states.” (Pg. 148-150)
Howard J. Van Till expounds Theistic Evolution: “A substantial number of young persons in the Christian community are led to believe that they must make an either/or choice between creation and evolution. Some of them choose to pursue careers in the natural sciences… they had been told by some of the more strident Christian critics of evolution that the only reason for the general acceptance of the scientific concept of evolution was its usefulness in support of a naturalistic worldview… For these students, graduate education in the sciences can lead to painful disillusionment… acquiring a familiarity with the actual data and with the way the scientific community formulates and evaluates scientific theories … dispelled the claim that the credibility of evolutionary theory was based, not on convincing empirical evidence, but on the corruptive propaganda of naturalism.” (Pg. 180-181)
J.P. Moreland responds to Van Till: “I think that macroevolution is accepted largely for sociological reasons and not rational factors. Specifically, the scientism rampant in culture, coupled with the belief that special creationism is religion rather than science, means that evolution is the only view of origins that can claim the backing of reason. All supposedly extrascientific beliefs … are relegated to the level of private, subjective opinion.” (Pg. 233)
This book will be of great interest to Christians seeking to compare the various perspectives.
September 17, 2021
It is helpful for me to see this kind of dialogue inside Christendom in order to help me know how to present my faith to nonbelievers. I appreciated that this book dove to the deeper issues in terms of the relationship between general revelation and special revelation for the various perspectives. My takeaways:
1. The old earth people shot themselves in the foot by admitting that current science does not support their view
2. Progressive/old earth creationism has significant diversity internal to that side. Note that most of the reviewers of the various positions seemed to be coming from more of an old earth creation perspective.
3. One new detail I learned about in terms of evidence against evolution relates to the alleged examples of transitional forms via fossils. If evolution were true, we would expect to see a significantly larger number of these transitional forms, so it is not sufficient to point out just a few.
4. The theistic evolution side had an interesting term of fully gifted creation. I definitely appreciated this attempt to give glory to God, but I agree with the reviewers that practically speaking this is identical to methodological naturalism. I also think another deeper issue was identified regarding if scientists are biased in some ways.
I enjoyed the structure of the book with multiple people reviewing each position, and then the position owners having an opportunity to respond to the reviews.
1. The old earth people shot themselves in the foot by admitting that current science does not support their view
2. Progressive/old earth creationism has significant diversity internal to that side. Note that most of the reviewers of the various positions seemed to be coming from more of an old earth creation perspective.
3. One new detail I learned about in terms of evidence against evolution relates to the alleged examples of transitional forms via fossils. If evolution were true, we would expect to see a significantly larger number of these transitional forms, so it is not sufficient to point out just a few.
4. The theistic evolution side had an interesting term of fully gifted creation. I definitely appreciated this attempt to give glory to God, but I agree with the reviewers that practically speaking this is identical to methodological naturalism. I also think another deeper issue was identified regarding if scientists are biased in some ways.
I enjoyed the structure of the book with multiple people reviewing each position, and then the position owners having an opportunity to respond to the reviews.
July 11, 2019
I read this book to prepare to write a paper comparing and contrasting the major Intelligent Design Hypotheses. I found the Young-earth position very weak, and the Theistic Evolution position simply evasive. The Progressive position was the strongest, although the Intermittent-Day stuff is wacky. Vern Poythress' responses were far better than any of the actual articles, and it was a pity he didn't actually act as a contributor for one side.
Also, this edition was written in the 90's, which limits its usefulness. I believe there is an updated edition somewhere. In General, the "Counterpoints" series is very helpful.
Also, this edition was written in the 90's, which limits its usefulness. I believe there is an updated edition somewhere. In General, the "Counterpoints" series is very helpful.
October 11, 2024
Went into this thinking it's a book I probably should read, but one I thought I would merely tolerate. I ended up really enjoying it. Every essay and response was challenging and thought provoking. I also really like how the responses to each essay weren't just the other essay authors, but a panel of scholars with different takes, which is different than how I've seen other books like this done. I still lean a certain way on this, but I was very impressed by each contribution. Great korero!
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews