What do you think?
Rate this book
Evolution and the Fall
What does it mean for the Christian doctrine of the Fall if there was no historical Adam? If humanity emerged from nonhuman primates—as genetic, biological, and archaeological evidence seems to suggest—then what are the implications for a Christian understanding of human origins, including the origin of sin?
Evolution and the Fall gathers a multidisciplinary, ecumenical team of scholars to address these difficult questions and others like them from the perspectives of biology, theology, history, Scripture, philosophy, and politics
CONTRIBUTORS:
William T. Cavanaugh
Celia Deane-Drummond
Darrel R. Falk
Joel B. Green
Michael Gulker
Peter Harrison
J. Richard Middleton
Aaron Riches
James K. A. Smith
Brent Waters
Norman Wirzba
Evolution and the Fall gathers a multidisciplinary, ecumenical team of scholars to address these difficult questions and others like them from the perspectives of biology, theology, history, Scripture, philosophy, and politics
CONTRIBUTORS:
William T. Cavanaugh
Celia Deane-Drummond
Darrel R. Falk
Joel B. Green
Michael Gulker
Peter Harrison
J. Richard Middleton
Aaron Riches
James K. A. Smith
Brent Waters
Norman Wirzba
261 pages, Paperback
Published February 19, 2017
66 people are currently reading
293 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
May 16, 2020
This is a weird book. The essays on their own vary in quality (I especially like those from Smith, Middleton and Harrison), but the real issue is the lack of focus. I think questions that explore the tension between evolutionary theory and the doctrine of the fall are fascinating, but not much of this book actually deals with this topic specifically. It's more a collection of essays relating to the intersection of science and faith more generally, which would have been find once I readjusted my expectations had some of those essays been stronger. Overall, worth the read, but...weird.
March 12, 2020
Here is an attempt to harmonise evolutionary science and biblical interpretation. The result is unconvincing, as the debt is almost completely paid on the biblical side of the equation. The Fall has to be re-interpreted, the historicity of Adam and Eve are re-scoped to mean something else other than historical reality. The outcome is unsatisfactory, but that is not to deny that there are real questions to be answered.
On another note, the final essays by Norman Wirzba on Maximus the Confessor, and William T. Cavanaugh on the Fall in political theory were of another character and extremely worthwhile.
On another note, the final essays by Norman Wirzba on Maximus the Confessor, and William T. Cavanaugh on the Fall in political theory were of another character and extremely worthwhile.
July 30, 2018
Um dos melhores livros que li nos últimos anos.
O livro explora diversas facetas da questão de como a ciência evolutiva impacta as doutrinas clássicas da Queda e do Pecado Original.
Cada capítulo é escrito por um autor diferente, mas o livro apresenta uma coerência interna e concatenação impressionante.
O livro explora diversas facetas da questão de como a ciência evolutiva impacta as doutrinas clássicas da Queda e do Pecado Original.
Cada capítulo é escrito por um autor diferente, mas o livro apresenta uma coerência interna e concatenação impressionante.
May 17, 2017
I wanted so much to love this book. I have a lot of respect for the Colossian Forum, assembling a group philosophers to write on the doctrine of the fall in light of evolution science. From the outset, the authors establish their two main parameters: 1) Evolutionary science strongly shows that homo sapiens did not arrive from a single pair, but 2000-10000 individuals. And 2) Religion has much to offer to the faith-science dialogue, must stand on its non-negotiables, and is in no way second fiddle to science.
The book is broken into four sections: Mapping the Questions, Biblical Studies and Theological Implications, Beyond Origins: Cultural Implications, and Reimagining the Conversation: Faithful Ways Forward. Across these sections are 10 chapters, each written by a different contributer. The lack of scientists is disappointing; 1 (Darrel Falk) to 9 philosophers. Some chapters are of course better than others. While there is much virtue in beginning this conversation, the book suffers two weaknesses.
1) It struggles with consistency. Some contributors write their chapters as if they're a plug for their own work, rather than seeking to integrate the chapter into the narrative whole. More problematic, chapters 4&5 make the case that a non-literal Adam is not essential to a faithful doctrine of the Fall. This is followed by chapter 6, in which the author says Paul firmly believed in a literal Adam and there is an unknowable mystery behind the character of Adam. No consensus is reached, and it is very disappointing.
2) Most authors are "stuck in history." Of the final four chapters (sections 3 & 4), which are nominally meant to bring the conversation to today's climate, only 1 chapter does so. This chapter (7) by Brent Waters is the best chapter in the book. It talks about the theology of the fall in conversation with transhumanism, and the many scientists trying to prolong life immortally. The other chapters are more interested in the historical conflicts between science and faith...and these have been fleshed out in many other volumes.
The book is broken into four sections: Mapping the Questions, Biblical Studies and Theological Implications, Beyond Origins: Cultural Implications, and Reimagining the Conversation: Faithful Ways Forward. Across these sections are 10 chapters, each written by a different contributer. The lack of scientists is disappointing; 1 (Darrel Falk) to 9 philosophers. Some chapters are of course better than others. While there is much virtue in beginning this conversation, the book suffers two weaknesses.
1) It struggles with consistency. Some contributors write their chapters as if they're a plug for their own work, rather than seeking to integrate the chapter into the narrative whole. More problematic, chapters 4&5 make the case that a non-literal Adam is not essential to a faithful doctrine of the Fall. This is followed by chapter 6, in which the author says Paul firmly believed in a literal Adam and there is an unknowable mystery behind the character of Adam. No consensus is reached, and it is very disappointing.
2) Most authors are "stuck in history." Of the final four chapters (sections 3 & 4), which are nominally meant to bring the conversation to today's climate, only 1 chapter does so. This chapter (7) by Brent Waters is the best chapter in the book. It talks about the theology of the fall in conversation with transhumanism, and the many scientists trying to prolong life immortally. The other chapters are more interested in the historical conflicts between science and faith...and these have been fleshed out in many other volumes.
July 2, 2019
This is one of those books that might have come off better if they didn't claim a specific focus. The editors describe this book as an interdisciplinary look at how the doctrines of the fall and original sin are impacted if there is no historical Adam and Eve. Unfortunately, that is a poor description of the project as a whole. Of the ten essays only three or four of them really focus on that question. The rest focus on topics without any obvious connection (such as poetry and politics). Granted, these essays are still interesting, I was nevertheless left wondering why they were included in this volume. If the editors had framed the book with a broader goal, it would have been fine. But as stated, I never felt like the question of how to understand the fall of man and original sin in light of evolutionary theory was successfully answered.
I will note that, while not relevant to stated the goal of the book, the final essay provided a good assessment of how to approach apparent conflicts between science and religion. The approach outlined in this essay was fair and balanced, allowing for both scientific and theological positions to occasionally be in need of correction depending on the details unique to a given conflict.
I will note that, while not relevant to stated the goal of the book, the final essay provided a good assessment of how to approach apparent conflicts between science and religion. The approach outlined in this essay was fair and balanced, allowing for both scientific and theological positions to occasionally be in need of correction depending on the details unique to a given conflict.
May 21, 2017
The chapter by Middleton which reads the story of the fall "attentive to evolution" is excellent and precisely what we need more of - strong exegesis and orthodox theology with an appreciation of what scientific knowledge may add to the story. I highly recommend that chapter, but for those who have already read widely on the topic, the rest of the book comes across as a fairly shallow review from various disciplinary angles. A whole book like Middleton's chapter would have been much more useful.
August 3, 2017
A smorgasbord of essays from various authors touching on subjects of Bible interpretation, original sin and evolution, and advice on approaching the whole subject humbly.
The prologue and the final essay were, in my opinion, the best pieces. If the entire book was as clear and tangible as those sections, then maybe I'd rate it 5 stars.
This was a nice piece of literature to add to the increasing body of knowledge on the Christian tradition in a society that pits modern science and faith against each other.
The prologue and the final essay were, in my opinion, the best pieces. If the entire book was as clear and tangible as those sections, then maybe I'd rate it 5 stars.
This was a nice piece of literature to add to the increasing body of knowledge on the Christian tradition in a society that pits modern science and faith against each other.
March 16, 2018
A thoroughly interesting book for those wanting more talking points on the conversation between evolution, the fall, and Christianity.
At times, I forgot the driving factor behind the book was the conversation between evolution and Christianity, and thought it more to be a collection of essays about the human condition. Certainly worth reading, if you are interested in better understanding our condition on earth after the fall.
Would recommend to those interested in the intersections of science and religion; if not, perhaps stay away.
At times, I forgot the driving factor behind the book was the conversation between evolution and Christianity, and thought it more to be a collection of essays about the human condition. Certainly worth reading, if you are interested in better understanding our condition on earth after the fall.
Would recommend to those interested in the intersections of science and religion; if not, perhaps stay away.
December 10, 2024
I would've given it 3 1/2 stars if the option were available. As a collection of essays with a high view of Scripture (not Fundamentalist, but solidly & historically Evangelical in scope), but a deep respect for the Scientific pursuit, this is an important work & well executed. That said, it is a collection of essays - essentially transcribed lectures - & reads that way, so it can be a bit "burdensome" to read for the uninitiated. Still, recommended for those pursuing broader understanding in the field.
March 9, 2018
The introduction, Chapter 1 (Discussing the evidence for evolution), and James K.A. Smiths essay are worth the price of the book. Those sections are very well done. Those essays provide the best discussions of the topic set out at the start of the book. Some of the other sections are dry and more difficult to see how they relate overall to the topic. I do recommend the book based on quality sections aforementioned.
December 9, 2022
The book came at a time when I was really deconstructing my faith. The book itself is an anthology of essays from scholars of different field exploring the question of Adam and it's relevance for the conversations we are having today be it theological, religious, moral, historical, or political. Immensely helpful for thinking through the question of the historicity of Adam and the nature of the first 11 chapter of Genesis and the New Testament's take on Genesis.
May 20, 2019
As an anthology of essays, the writing is uneven. By the time I got to the end, I wasn't sure what the goal of the book was. On the way there, my thinking was challenged and I was brought up to date on some of the findings of the scientific community regarding the origin of humanity.
August 20, 2017
The book is alright, but most essays in the book fail to address the question at hand. Instead, they follow a million rabbit trails tangential to the question.
July 11, 2020
A largely underwhelming group of essays saved from the abyss by outstanding contributions by a few writers, esp. Smith, Cavanaugh, and Harrison.
July 19, 2023
For those interested in reading provocative thoughts about how science and faith interact an interesting and surprising ways, this is the book for you.
June 26, 2017
Fulfills its job in blazing the trail of reconciliation between evolution and the Christian doctrine of the fall. The booked helped ease much of the tension I've struggled with.
March 23, 2017
The ten essays in this book provide a wide range of ways that “Christians should approach the intersection of Christian doctrinal traditions with knowledge from outside those traditions.” (p. xv)
The editors note in their introduction that the “scientific consensus points to the evolution of humans from primates. It indicates that humans emerged from nonhuman primates—as genetic, biological, and archeological evidences seems to suggest—in a group, not an original pair. The emergence of humans from primates seemingly leaves little room for an original historical state of innocence from which humanity suffered a “Fall.” What then are the implications for Christian theology’s traditional account of origins, including both the origin of humanity and the origin of sin?” (p. xv)
The editors suggest a rather conservative approach, focused on tradition, wherein “any modifications, revisions, and reformulations will (a) need to provide an account of how they are faithful extensions of the tradition and (b) have to concede that the discernment of what counts as faithful extension is determined by the community of practice, and not just the realm of “expertise.”” (p. xxv)
After Darrel R. Falk’s opening essay on the scientific story of human origins, only two of the remaining nine essays directly address the issue of how developments in biological evolution could affect Christian doctrine.
In his essay, James K.A. Smith takes a conservative approach, attempting to preserve a “fall” from “good” to “not good” without requiring belief in a first human couple.
On the other hand, Joel B. Green appears to be more willing to make modifications because of how little Scripture actually has to say on the subject. After examining Jewish texts on Adam from the Second Temple period and the writings of Paul and James on the character of sin, “Green finds that neither set of texts refers to a “Fall” as an event, and that neither suggests that humanity’s sinfulness is determined by Adam’s sin. Green suggests that a careful reading of Paul and James would be amenable to an account of the Fall that would be compatible with scientific evidence, that is, an account of the Fall as a gradual emergence of sin as a pervasive quality of human experience.” (p. xxvii)
Green concludes that the “qualified view of original sin to which scripture bears witness does not require belief in a first human couple, Adam and Eve, or in traditional notions of a historical “fall,” or in the traditional vies of sin’s genetic transmission.” (p. 116)
The book does a good job of discussing the problems with the traditional interpretations of Genesis and of the origin of sin. I would have liked it better if there had been more exploration of how best to proceed theologically given what we have learned about human evolution.
The editors note in their introduction that the “scientific consensus points to the evolution of humans from primates. It indicates that humans emerged from nonhuman primates—as genetic, biological, and archeological evidences seems to suggest—in a group, not an original pair. The emergence of humans from primates seemingly leaves little room for an original historical state of innocence from which humanity suffered a “Fall.” What then are the implications for Christian theology’s traditional account of origins, including both the origin of humanity and the origin of sin?” (p. xv)
The editors suggest a rather conservative approach, focused on tradition, wherein “any modifications, revisions, and reformulations will (a) need to provide an account of how they are faithful extensions of the tradition and (b) have to concede that the discernment of what counts as faithful extension is determined by the community of practice, and not just the realm of “expertise.”” (p. xxv)
After Darrel R. Falk’s opening essay on the scientific story of human origins, only two of the remaining nine essays directly address the issue of how developments in biological evolution could affect Christian doctrine.
In his essay, James K.A. Smith takes a conservative approach, attempting to preserve a “fall” from “good” to “not good” without requiring belief in a first human couple.
On the other hand, Joel B. Green appears to be more willing to make modifications because of how little Scripture actually has to say on the subject. After examining Jewish texts on Adam from the Second Temple period and the writings of Paul and James on the character of sin, “Green finds that neither set of texts refers to a “Fall” as an event, and that neither suggests that humanity’s sinfulness is determined by Adam’s sin. Green suggests that a careful reading of Paul and James would be amenable to an account of the Fall that would be compatible with scientific evidence, that is, an account of the Fall as a gradual emergence of sin as a pervasive quality of human experience.” (p. xxvii)
Green concludes that the “qualified view of original sin to which scripture bears witness does not require belief in a first human couple, Adam and Eve, or in traditional notions of a historical “fall,” or in the traditional vies of sin’s genetic transmission.” (p. 116)
The book does a good job of discussing the problems with the traditional interpretations of Genesis and of the origin of sin. I would have liked it better if there had been more exploration of how best to proceed theologically given what we have learned about human evolution.
April 13, 2017
3.5 stars. As is often the case with collections of essays, some chapters were better than others. Ultimately, the book didn't do what I hoped in addressing the issue of the Fall in light of evolutionary science. To me, the big issue is the concept of original goodness but many writers focused too much on original sin or the historical Adam (and some focused on barely relevant ideas like transhumanism). Those issues aren't what was advertised by the title. Middleton's essay was probably the best. I wish they had all focused on what the book seemed to be about.
April 27, 2017
This collection of essays serves to open up a dialogue about evolution and the Fall in a manner that respects both science and Christianity. It is also helpful in its ecumenical breadth, such that individual essays may differ in perspective and/conclusion. Yet there is a consensus that this topic is worth discussing with faith imagination.
Read
June 6, 2017Завършвам книгата със смесени чувства. Някои есета не представляваха никакъв интерес за мен и направо ги прескочих. От други бях разочарован. Но имаше и няколко, които бяха доста интересни и полезни.
Въведението, което авторите правят ми се струва изключително удачно за темата, която разглеждат. Те излагат своята отправна позиция като сравняват два възможни подхода към темата, които те наричат съответно "галилейски" (от името на Галилей, а не на областта Галилея) и "халкедонски." Първият изхожда от историята за известният съдебен процес и извода, че богословието трябва да се съобразява с това, което казва науката. По принцип това наистина е така и понякога науката може да покаже на християните къде тяхната егзегетика "куца." В същото време бързият извод, че богословието трябва безкритично да се съобразява с науката приемайки по презумпция, че е в грешка щом не се равнява с нея може да се окаже подвеждащ. За разлика от това "халкедонският" подход може да приеме, че дадено богословско твърдение не е задължително погрешно, макар че не отговаря на съвременните твърдения на науката. Това не означава задължително, че науката греши, а богословието е право - т.е. "халкедонския" подход не е огледален образ на "галилейския." Както показва името му той сочи към двете природи на Христос - човешка и божествена - които съществуват заедно в една личност, макар че ние не можем да разберем как това е възможно (или дори можем да кажем, че това е невъзможно). Едно такова начално приемане позволява едновременно сериозно да бъдат взети и претеглени както научните данни така и богословските твърдения на историческото християнство. В темата за корелацията между грехопадението и еволюцията и двата компонента са особено важни.
Това на практика е показано напр. в есето на Джеймс Смит, който демонстрира как можем да търсим единство между еволюционната теория (която авторът приема за несъмнено вярна) и историческите твърдения на християнството, от които той не е готов по никакъв начин да отстъпи. Крайният резултат според мен е скициран недостатъчно задоволително и до голяма степен наподобява казаното преди доста години от Д. Киднер в неговия коментар на Битие, но е пример за търсене върху основа, която ми се струва правилна като подход.
Няколко други есета също са интересни. Джоел Грийн разглежда еврейските писания от периода на втория храм и НЗ във връзка с учението за първородния грях. Изводите му са интересни и могат да накарат човек да се замисли доколко е стъпил върху реална егзегетика и доколко върху просто приета традиция. Ричард Миддълтън прави интересна егзегетика на началните глави на Битие. На пръв прочит има неща, с които не съм готов да се съглася, но прочита определено си заслужава. Нормън Урзба е написал много провокативно есе за начина, по който хората могат да виждат или да не виждат света като паднал - в зависимост от начина, по който гледат. Накрая Питър Харисън предлага чудесно нюансирано есе посветено на проблема за връзката между науката и вярата.
Като обобщение - лично за мен книгата не отговори на въпроса, който поставя в самото си заглавие (как еволюционната биология оказва влияние върху християнското учение за първородния грях) и който живо ме вълнува. Очевидно това е област, в която има да се свърши още много творческа работа. В същото време през последните години подобни гранични и сложни въпроси се задават все по-често в християнските среди без да отключват един силен и автоматичен защитен механизъм, което за мен е признак за някакво узряване. Един пример за това е изместването на основния проблем на спора за отношението на християните към еволюцията от въпроса дали тя е вярна към въпроса как ако еволюцията е вярна можем да гледаме на образа на Адам (и на корелацията която НЗ прави между Адам и Христос). Пресечната точка между еволюцията и първородния грях е един втори подобен въпрос, който аз приемам за по-зряло мислене.
Въведението, което авторите правят ми се струва изключително удачно за темата, която разглеждат. Те излагат своята отправна позиция като сравняват два възможни подхода към темата, които те наричат съответно "галилейски" (от името на Галилей, а не на областта Галилея) и "халкедонски." Първият изхожда от историята за известният съдебен процес и извода, че богословието трябва да се съобразява с това, което казва науката. По принцип това наистина е така и понякога науката може да покаже на християните къде тяхната егзегетика "куца." В същото време бързият извод, че богословието трябва безкритично да се съобразява с науката приемайки по презумпция, че е в грешка щом не се равнява с нея може да се окаже подвеждащ. За разлика от това "халкедонският" подход може да приеме, че дадено богословско твърдение не е задължително погрешно, макар че не отговаря на съвременните твърдения на науката. Това не означава задължително, че науката греши, а богословието е право - т.е. "халкедонския" подход не е огледален образ на "галилейския." Както показва името му той сочи към двете природи на Христос - човешка и божествена - които съществуват заедно в една личност, макар че ние не можем да разберем как това е възможно (или дори можем да кажем, че това е невъзможно). Едно такова начално приемане позволява едновременно сериозно да бъдат взети и претеглени както научните данни така и богословските твърдения на историческото християнство. В темата за корелацията между грехопадението и еволюцията и двата компонента са особено важни.
Това на практика е показано напр. в есето на Джеймс Смит, който демонстрира как можем да търсим единство между еволюционната теория (която авторът приема за несъмнено вярна) и историческите твърдения на християнството, от които той не е готов по никакъв начин да отстъпи. Крайният резултат според мен е скициран недостатъчно задоволително и до голяма степен наподобява казаното преди доста години от Д. Киднер в неговия коментар на Битие, но е пример за търсене върху основа, която ми се струва правилна като подход.
Няколко други есета също са интересни. Джоел Грийн разглежда еврейските писания от периода на втория храм и НЗ във връзка с учението за първородния грях. Изводите му са интересни и могат да накарат човек да се замисли доколко е стъпил върху реална егзегетика и доколко върху просто приета традиция. Ричард Миддълтън прави интересна егзегетика на началните глави на Битие. На пръв прочит има неща, с които не съм готов да се съглася, но прочита определено си заслужава. Нормън Урзба е написал много провокативно есе за начина, по който хората могат да виждат или да не виждат света като паднал - в зависимост от начина, по който гледат. Накрая Питър Харисън предлага чудесно нюансирано есе посветено на проблема за връзката между науката и вярата.
Като обобщение - лично за мен книгата не отговори на въпроса, който поставя в самото си заглавие (как еволюционната биология оказва влияние върху християнското учение за първородния грях) и който живо ме вълнува. Очевидно това е област, в която има да се свърши още много творческа работа. В същото време през последните години подобни гранични и сложни въпроси се задават все по-често в християнските среди без да отключват един силен и автоматичен защитен механизъм, което за мен е признак за някакво узряване. Един пример за това е изместването на основния проблем на спора за отношението на християните към еволюцията от въпроса дали тя е вярна към въпроса как ако еволюцията е вярна можем да гледаме на образа на Адам (и на корелацията която НЗ прави между Адам и Христос). Пресечната точка между еволюцията и първородния грях е един втори подобен въпрос, който аз приемам за по-зряло мислене.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews