Introduction

For many Christians, evolution represents a serious departure from historic,

biblical Christianity and a Trojan horse for atheism. Creationists claim the
exegetical high ground in their ‘literal’ reading of Scripture. If this is true, why
did many prominent Evangelicals embrace evolution when the Origin of the
Species was first published before it was co-opted by atheists like Thomas
Huxley? Why could Augustine caution against discussing science in a naïve
manner using suspect understandings of Scripture? The aim of this essay is
to show that atheism is not logically entailed by evolution, that what is
considered a literal reading is nothing of the sort, and that Christian models of
the theory of evolution can be developed while being faithful to Scripture. The
essay concludes with some practical advice for the churches.

Neo-Darwinian evolution
Neo-Darwinian evolution may be summarised as descent from a common
ancestor by gradual improvement, due to the combination of genetic variation
and its sorting by the environment through the process known as natural
selection over a long time (Fowler and Kuebler 2007:138). Rose (1998:181)
notes that natural selection entails; like breeds with like with variations due to
random mutations, some variations are more successful for their environment
than others and the fittest creatures survive to produce the most offspring,
which in turn inherit those survival friendly traits. The gradualism of natural
selection means that evolution is not random even though it relies on random
mutations (Dawkins 1986:43). For example, the chance of haemoglobin
arising purely by chance accumulation is 20146 (Dawkins 1986:45). However,
instead of evolution in one step, natural selection is cumulative. Each
successive stage of evolution builds on the last so that environmental
pressures to survive act as a filter on random mutations (Dawkins 1986:49).

Random mutations occur when DNA is copied, and differences between living
species provide information about evolutionary history and ancestry (Finlay
2004:13). Genes may be copied multiple times within a genome, with
mutations in the copies sometimes producing new characteristics. New world
monkeys (NWMs) have two copies of a gene for visual pigment proteins

1
whereas old world monkeys (OWMs) have three, giving them three-colour
vision. It is vanishingly unlikely that the same duplication would occur
independently in two or more species but instead indicates common ancestry
between OWMs and NWMs (Finlay 2004:16-17). Pseudogenes occur when
genes are damaged and no longer perform their function. Humans lack a
pheromone sensing organ, but carry many of the relevant genes as
pseudogenes, and have fewer of the active genes than apes or OWMs. This
indicates that pheromone sensing became inactive in a common ancestor
with the number of genes involved decaying ever since (Finlay 2004:20).
Insertion of DNA sequences by viruses have been used to construct a
cladogram showing the evolutionary history of primates, since the probability
of finding the same integration of two lines in the same location in two
different species is exceedingly low (Finlay 2004:24).

Evolution requires that the Earth be billions of years old. Chronostratic dating
is based on the assumption that layers are laid down sequentially and contain
a representative group of fossils (Fowler and Kuebler 2007:84), providing a
relative dating system. Chronometric dating uses radiometric techniques that
rely upon known radioactive decay rates and the relative amounts of isotopes
in rocks. Given this long period of time, common descent is assumed as the
fossil record reveals a progression from simple to more complex forms, for
example there are no hard body parts recorded before the Cambrian
explosion, while the genus homo does not appear until the Tertiary period.
The fossil record also bears out the predictive power of Darwin’s theory, since
gaps evident during Darwin’s time are being progressively filled.

Dawkins (1986:73) notes that the number of animals that has existed is a tiny
fraction of those that could have existed, while Gould (1989:48) claims that if
evolution were re-run, the results would be very different. However, Conway
Morris (1999, 2003, 2006) has demonstrated that evolutionary convergence
makes contingency uninteresting. Convergence is the appearance of similar
features in different settings, such as the enlarged canines of placental and
marsupial cats (Conway Morris 1999:203) and suggests that evolution is
predictable (Conway Morris 1999:139).

2
Science and Christianity: war or peace
Many Christians assume that evolution logically entails atheism, but is this
true? Christian theism claims that an transcendent, omniscient and
omnipotent God created the cosmos ex nihilio to operate with the uniformity of
cause and effect and yet remain open to his ongoing immanent involvement
(Sire 2004:29). Deism denies that God is immanent, nor providentially
involved in human affairs or the unfolding of cosmic history (Sire 2004:48-49).
Materialism (Sire 2004:61) or metaphysical naturalism (Carlson 2000:18)
asserts that the universe is casually closed as it is all that exists (Sagan
1980:4), and understands evolution dysteleologically (purpose denying)
because the only watchmaker (with a nod to Paley) is a blind one, with no
foresight (Dawkins 1986). Humans are not God’s image but are naked,
upright apes whose appearance was not inevitable (Gould 1989:44) and
whose soul is nothing but a pack of neurons (Crick 1995:3). Are these
assertions logical, i.e. does evolution entail atheism, or is theistic evolution,
the idea that God supervenes over the evolutionary process a valid option?

Nelson and Reynolds (1999:42) assert that young earth creationism

represents an open philosophy of science, and critique theistic evolution
because methodological naturalism denies God as a scientific hypothesis.
Hunter (2007:11) argues that methodological naturalism is a theological
assertion. Bacon wanted to avoid religious speculation in science and
metaphysical speculation by science (Hunter 2007:16). By the 16th century the
view x that special divine action should be kept to a minimum was widespread
(Hunter 2007:21), leading eventually to deism and a disbelief in miracles.
Given this theological background, Hunter (2007:49) argues that atheism is a
side show since methodological naturalism does not imply metaphysical
naturalism. For both Hunter (2007:44) and Nelson and Reynolds (1999:46),
methodological naturalism is a blind spot because science always insists on a
naturalistic explanation and rejects a ‘God of the gaps’. Theistic evolution
commits the error of an unemployed God by excluding him from any gap in
understanding. Instead, biblical inerrancy supposedly demands special
creation (Frair and Patterson 2000:23). The risk therefore in adopting a

3
theistic version of evolution is that it leaves God unable to act and science
unable to know when he has acted, recapitulating the deistic slide. While a
logical possibility, this move is not necessary.

Creationists explain gaps in the fossil record as evidence for special creation.
However, intermediate forms are constantly being discovered, e.g. between
fish and tetrapods, hippos and whales (Fowler and Kuebler 2007:87). Existing
discontinuities are due to the nature of fossilisation and it is impossible for a
complete record to be reconstructed. While this makes special creation
logically possible, the issue is which theory is most parsimonious with the
evidence? Intelligent design (ID) advocates claims that science and the bible
properly interpreted both provide evidence for a designer (Meyer 2000:130).
Arguments for design in biology are known as local design argument (LDAs;
O’Connor 2003:66) in contrast to global design arguments found in
cosmology. The LDAs of ID include irreducible complexity, like the flagellum
of some bacteria (Meyer 2000:154), blood clotting (Behe 2003:286), or the
information content of DNA (Meyer 2000:156) which is referred to as complex
specified information (O’Connor 2003:69). While ID has the advantage of
bringing God into the scientific endeavour, it founders on the evidence. The
argument that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex because it would
not function with any of its proteins has been shown false as some of these
proteins are found in an organ that injects toxins into cells (Miller 2006:95). ID
is also philosophically founders as it is based on weak arguments that trade in
a lack of imagination of what might be possible and ignorance of the full
trajectory of evolutionary history (O’Connor 2003:72). Finally, theologically it
represents a God who only ‘interferes’ on occasion (Alexander 2008:184-
187), and indeed does not identify who God is.

One theological dead end is non-overlapping magesteria (NOMA, Gould

2002:5). For Pond (2000:71) NOMA means using the right tool for the
scientific job, i.e. ‘God did it’ is not an intellectually satisfying in science (Pond
2000:96). However, this is question begging, as science and human reason
has its epistemological limits (Rm 11, Job 40-41). NOMA is a cover for
evacuating God from the world. Christian orthodoxy has no place in Gould’s

4
thinking (Gould 2002:42), who uses NOMA to critique not only literal readings
of Genesis but the accounts as ‘cobbled together’ (Gould 2002:13). The role
of metaphysics in scientific theorising is clear having been employed in the
service of materialism in cosmology (Russell 2006:44). Hence, the partial
overlapping magesteria (POMA) of McGrath (2007:19) is a better working
model, recognising that metaphysics drives science and making us careful in
how we should approach evolution.

What place then for the creator? The bible states that God created all that
exists (Gen 1:1) ex nihilio (Heb 11:3, Rm 4:17). The creation is maintained
through Christ (Col 1:16-17; 1 Cor 8:6) and the Father (Ps 104:29-30),
bringing glory to God (Ps 19:1, Rm 1:20). All of this is affirmed by theistic
evolution. Alexander (2008:184-187) stresses that God is immanent in the
entire evolutionary process, not just making the occasional tweak when things
do not work (as in ID). The creation has a formational economy (van Till
2000:214) that has the capabilities to cooperate in its own creation (Welker
1999:7). In this regard, Grudem (2007:277) confuses theistic with deistic
evolution (Erickson 2002:504). Alexander (2008:186) therefore thinks all talk
of naturalism should be abandoned for language of ‘scientific explanation’, as
this recognises the level of explanation being used without prejudging
metaphysical matters.

Grudem (2007:276) ponders how the random walk of evolution is compatible

with the direct response to God’s creative word in Genesis 1. Doesn’t
accepting evolution mean that God is somehow not in control of the details?
Grudem’s confusion arises from his insistence that divine fiat implies
instantaneous fulfilment (Walton 2009:138). Other than arguments on the
nature of day (yôm) in Genesis 1, human considerations of time are irrelevant
to God (1 Pet 3:8). It is also clear that God works through natural processes
(Alexander 2008:188), e.g. the parting of the Red Sea (Ex 14:21). Alexander
(2008:36) also notes that nowhere in scripture is the language of miracle used
of creation. Bulgarov argues (quoted in Jackelén 2007) that God is not simply
a cause in the world but that as its creator and provider works providentially
through the normal order of things to bring about his ends.

5
Arguments for the improbability of evolution via random mutations founder
scientifically and theologically. Just as wings and fins point to the existence of
air and water as environmental selection mechanisms, so intelligence arising
multiple times in various creatures (Rogers 1997) including crows (Emery and
Clayton 2004), dolphins (Marino 1996) and of course humans suggest a
divine mind or a ‘mental air’ (Oakes 2007:64). This larger directedness
outweighs concerns about an inherent randomness. In any case, God is
sovereign over apparently random events (Num 26:55, 33:54; Acts 1:23-26;
Pr 16:33).

Therefore, theistic evolution is open in that God can choose to deliberately act
or use the relationships he has established, and does not collapse into
continuous creation (Grudem 2007:277) or a closed system (Nelson and
Reynolds 1999:42). As God’s hand in election is shown in Israel then the
church, so his choice of humans to bear his image is also an act of election
(Ps 8), suggesting a better understanding is that of emergent and elective
creation (Pope 2009). Creation emerges from the relationships God has
established, but particularly with the election of humans as image bearers,
God acts in a purposeful and special manner.

Genesis 1 and the age of the Earth

To many Christians, Genesis 1 teaches a literal six day creation, which denies
evolutionary theory the time it needs to operate (Fowler and Kuebler
2007:219). This reading has the advantage of apparently taking Scripture at
face value. Young (2006, 2007a,b) discusses the various dating methods and
urges the reader to take the multiple lines of evidence for an old earth as a
divine gift that gives us insight into scripture (Young 2007b:141). The
argument for a young earth is that either the evidence is wrong or that the
earth only appears old. Young earth creationism rests upon a reading of the
Hebrew yôm as a 24 hr day and the fossil record was produced by a global
flood. For example Hodge (2006) argues that dinosaurs and humans lived at
the same time but were not found together. However, the argument is poor
and selective, for example that all of the pre-flood human bodies have not

6
been found (an argument denied to evolution) or the simplistic idea that
humans did not live near dinosaurs for safety (the flood would have mixed
bodies up). Instead, steady deposition over a long age makes much more
sense of the evidence.

Mature creationism asserts that the world was created to appear ancient.
Erickson (2002:382) claims this makes God a deceiver, but Grudem
(2007:305) disagrees if God tells us this is what he did. However, this
argument is circular, since mature creationism asserts the earth is actually
young based by assuming the scientific evidence is false and a particular
interpretation of Gen 1.

Some attempting as resolving the issue have been made by considering the
Hebrew word yôm ,which usually means a 24 hour day, as the evening and
morning formula of Genesis 1 suggests. However, yôm can also describe
longer periods (Gen 2:4, Is 2:12, Joel 1:15, etc). While the Sabbath day
suggests a literal 6 day creation (Grudem 2007:303), the lack of the evening
and morning formula suggests the seventh day is ongoing. Some authors
propose a view where each day corresponds to an age of unspecified length
(Grudem 2007:293-297), which may be of unequal length (e.g. Newman
1999:107). Other than the arbitrary nature of six unequal events, concordance
between the Genesis sequence and physical reality is not exact (Grudem
2007:300). Day 4 appears to be out of place, since it is the making of the two
great lights and not some hypothesised appearing due to a clearing of the
atmosphere that is described (Seely 1997).

The literary framework hypothesis breaks Genesis 1 into three days of

forming and three days of filling (Grudem 2007:301). The account is not
chronological, though it should not be seen as mythical (contra Nelson and
Reynolds 1999:70). Grudem (2007:302) argues that the matching of days is
not exact citing for example the lights of day 4 being put in the firmament
created on day 2, not day 1 but such issues are a problem for day age views
also. Walton (2009:42) argues that the ontology behind Gen 1 is functional,
based upon a thorough study of the Hebrew word bara (create) in Gen 1.

7
More than forming and filling, days one to three establish function (Walton
2009:54) while days four to six install functionaries (Walton 2009:63). The
function and the functionaries occur within the cosmos as a divine temple
(Walton 2009:78) which is not only apparent from ancient near eastern
parallels but also the language used to describe the temple (e.g, the basin as
the sea and the pillars the pillars of the earth in 1 Ki 7).

Welker (1999:6) sees the creation narratives as more than a simple emphasis
on the exercise of power by a transcendent being. God engages with creation
as an active partner which fulfils its function (Gen 1:11-12, 14, etc), with
humans as co-creators, in tilling (Gen 2:5 cf. 1:11-12) and naming (Gen 2:19-
20 cf. 1:24). Welker concludes that creaturely activity is part of the process of
creation, which is at least consistent with an evolutionary narrative. Creation is
‘the construction of associations of interdependent relations between different
creaturely realms’ (Welker 1999:13). This includes human culture (e.g. role of
heavens in determining seasons, Gn 1:14) so that creation is not to be simply
identified with nature. Welker (1999:15) also states that the creation texts far
exceed the reach of naturalism, precisely because naturalism attempts to
reduce everything to cause and effect while voiding creation of any cultural or
transcendent significance.

Walton and Welker’s reading removes any need to accommodate the text to
science or to deny science its place, but exclude scientistic metaphysical
pronouncements. Far from the literalistic readings of creationists, this view
represents the face value reading from the ancient near eastern context
(Walton 2009:102) and clears the way to accept evolution as coming under
the providence of God.

Who was Adam?

If evolution describes how life developed, is it compatible with an historical
Adam, which appears to be given of Christian theology (Walton 2009:139)? In
Rm 5:12-21, Paul states that sin came into the world through one man
(ενος ανθρωπου, v12), effecting the many (v14c). This one-many contrast
argues against a universal mythical Man and for a unique individual (Dunn

8
1988:272). Cosner (2008:107) argues that Paul is using typology which
requires both Adam and Christ to be equally historical. Schaeffer (1972:41f)
notes that Adam/Christ parallelism is not just Pauline but is also found in the
gospels (e.g. Lk 3:38). Stott insists that the Athenian speech refers to an
individual (Berry 2009:64). However, Berry (2009:97) believes that Dunn’s
argument does not rest on Adam as an historical individual and is content to
leave the answer to theology not science. The key for him is that since the
question of an individual Adam is theologically open, it does not directly
impinge on the issue of evolution. This suggests that while evolution requires
us to abandon some readings of Genesis, it does not mean we have to give
up on an historical Adam.

In Genesis, adam is used in a variety of ways. In Gen 1 (also Gn 5:1-2), adam

is a corporate term for all of humanity (Alexander 2008:191). There is an
ambiguity as to when Adam becomes a proper name given the use of the
article (Alexander 2008:194). The emphasis is that the man is from the earth
(adam from the adamah). Both the animals and adam are nephesh (living
beings) but only humans are in the image of God (Alexander 2008:195).
Woman (isha) was created from man (ish), and unlike the beasts (hayyah) is
the mother of all living (havvah). This linguistic play on words is highly
suggestive that a literal reading in the sense of a historical description of
divine surgery is misguided and that the foundation of marriage is in view
(Alexander 2008:196; Hess 2009:97). This approach does not deny the
existence of an early or first couple.

How then does evolution illuminate the biblical text? Alexander (2008:234-
243) presents 5 models of how the biblical story and evolutionary history
might be brought together. Model A is an ahistorical model where there is no
connection between biology and theology. Genesis is a myth that provides a
theological account of the importance of humanity without identifying when
Homo sapiens became the spiritually aware Homo divinus. Model B is a
gradualist protohistorical view which suggests that anatomically modern
Homo sapiens gradually became aware of God’s presence. Genesis tells a
historical story in a mythical manner. Model C places the events of Genesis in

9
a Neolithic setting. God chose couple or a community of Neolithic farmers to
enter into fellowship with. Human beings were already spiritual in the sense
that they had religious beliefs, but Gen 2 represents an act of election. Being
anatomically human was a necessary but not sufficient condition to be Homo
divinus. This view also makes sense of texts like Gen 4:14-17 that discuss
people other than the first couple and their offspring. Model D represents
episodic creation. Although the earth is old, God intervenes directly to create
Adam from the dust. Finally, model E is young earth creationism, where the
first human pair is created on the sixth day.

Models D and E are not supported by science or a functional ontological view

of Gen 1. Model A presents problems for the understanding of a historical
Adam as argued above, as well as with a biblical understanding of the Fall.
Model B is attractive in that it can provide a neat fit to evolutionary history, but
as Alexander (2008:240) notes, moves the events from the Levant to Africa
and more than 100,000 years. Model C is most consistent with scripture and
science. Alexander (2008:241) notes the interest in metals such as gold (Gen
2:11-12), bronze and iron (Gen 4:22) mark out the chapters as having a
Neolithic farming rather than hunter-gathering context. Other indicators
include musical instruments (Gen 4:21), although flutes go back 30,000 years
(Conrad et al. 2009). A neolithic setting places Adam and Eve some 6,000-
8,000 years ago. Note further that while Adam and Eve may be understood as
historical, the account of Genesis 2 and 3 do not read as modern literal
history. While Seely (1970) is right to point out the figurative elements, a
rejection of the accounts historical referents does not necessarily follow.

Alexander (2008:242-243) notes that this model does not require us to reject
the flood account but to insist on a local flood. Likewise this model leaves
open the issue of what was the eternal destiny of those who came before
Adam and Eve, including the Neandethals with whom some modern humans
interbred (Dalton 2010). This is the same question as asking what happens to
still born children or those who never get to hear the gospel, issues any
understanding of human origins needs to face.

10
Evolution and the Fall
Does evolution conflict with the biblical account of the Fall? Does increasing
cognitive functioning equate with moral improvement? Beyond the direct
consideration of humans, does the necessity of death in the evolutionary
narrative (eg. 99% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct)
conflict with the understanding of death being introduced by the Fall?
Alexander (2008:254-256) relates the Fall to each of his five models. In model
A, the Fall is the story of every person, stressing the spiritual death as
alienation from God (Alexander 2008:250) rather than physical death which is
part of the created order. In model B humans came to a gradual awareness of
God, and gradually came to reject this awareness in favour of their own
models of the divine. Model C understands the Fall as an historical rejection
by a couple or a small group of Neolithic farmers. The spreading sin to all of
humanity is understood as Adam being our representative (federal headship,
see Bruce 1989:124 on Rm 5:15). Models D and E see the Fall as the
disobedience of the first human pair. The effects of sin spread by birth (natural
headship, see Erickson 2002:652). In model E, animal death is a result of the
Fall.

Models D and E fail to do justice to the scientific evidence. Further, there is no

biblical insistence to assert that animal death did not exist before the Fall
(Model E). In Rom 5:12, it is clear that death enters the world (κοσµον) but
only effects humanity (παντας ανθρωπους). Schreiner (1998:436) notes that
the slavery of creation (Rm 8:21) entails corruption, decay and death due to of
Adam’s sin. However, Moo (1996:515) says that the Fall marred the goodness
of God’s creation, but does not suggest that this goodness excluded death.
Likewise Dunn (1988:471) seems to think that this original goodness means
being subject to humanity and says nothing about animal death. This is also
echoed by Kidner (1967:73) who comments that a creation without humanity
playing its proper role is like a choir grinding on in discord. Blocher (quoted in
Berry 2009:70) notes that instead of blessing the earth, humanity in its greed

11
and selfishness destroys it. Further Blocher (2009:65) notes that God is
responsible for animal carnivory (e.g. Ps 104, Job 38-41).

This leaves Models A-C. Models A and B reduce sin to socio-biology and
science providing an alternative account of original sin (Williams 2001:201).
Mortimer (2009:192) shows that a purely evolutionary account of humanity
removes any sense of the Fall as humans are neither corrupted, alienated or
good but just a ragbag complex of tendencies. However, biblically sin is about
a broken relationship with God (Alexander 2008:274, Berry 2009:70). Even
Dawkins (1989:201) notes that we are the only creature who can rebel against
our genes. Therefore, model C represents the view where humanity came to
the point where they were able to sin and able not to sin (posse peccare et
posse non peccare, Lane 2009:132 quoting Augustine) and yet chose to sin.

What might Model C look like? Alexander (2008:275) comments that some
Christians view humanity as superhuman before the Fall, a view that has no
biblical support. Young (1988) discusses Augustine’s understanding that
humans were mortal before the Fall as they had to eat. Pannenberg
(1991:212) argues that the image of God in humanity was always to reach its
fullness and completion in Christ. He sees little evidence for a paradisasic
perfection of holiness and knowledge in the garden, indeed there knowledge
is associated with sin and the serpent brings to the surface an inclination to
turn aside from God’s will (Gen 3:5f). Likewise there is no evidence that
humanity would have been immortal had they not sinned, for death is a threat
held out to them. Pannenberg (1991:218) sees divine likeness as a process of
becoming, not completely achieved in Adam’s first estate. Similarly Irenaeus
understood Adam and Eve as created without sin but immature and hence
perfection was meant to be a process (Lane 2009:131).

The parallels of the above discussion with evolutionary history show that such
a history is not incompatible with orthodox Christian belief, although it requires
models which are not explicitly stated in scripture. This is nothing new for
theologians with concepts like the trinity, models of human and divine will,
inspiration, etc. What is required is to see that some traditional readings are

12
not as literal as creationists make out since they apply 21st century
assumptions to the aims and methods of ancient writers.

Counsel
Given the widespread attack on Christianity by atheists who claim evolution
makes their atheism possible (e.g. Dawkins 1986:6), how should Christians
respond to this issue? Should ID or creationism be taught from the pulpit, or
along side evolution in schools/Sunday schools?

The first thing to note is that science itself has been nurtured in a theological
context and only makes sense in a divinely created world. Further this essay
has stressed that while metaphysics helps move science forward;
metaphysical conclusions from scientific evidence are not scientific in
themselves. When Dawkins assumes that evolution implies atheism he is not
making a scientific statement but offering an opinion. Christians should be at
liberty to point this out. Churches need to be informed on this issue so that
they do not feel that their faith is threatened with every new book by Dawkins
or similar. Good Christian books are available that point out Dawkins
metaphysical flaws (e.g. McGrath and Collicutt McGrath 2007) and should be
available on church bookstalls. Hence, the releases of books by atheists on
evolution are good apologetic opportunities for local churches to run events
that speak positively about the relationship between Christianity and science
in an open and charitable manner.

Evolution asks us to re-read some of our texts and return to the ancient world
in which they were written. This means not coming to the text simply with our
own agendas and assumptions of what Scripture must say. While the text of
the bible is available in translations to suit all reading styles and ages it does
not mean that it is straightforward to understand. Teaching from the pulpit has
to provide both the historical-grammatical and the scientific understanding. No
one individual is likely to competent in this, and hence pastors need to turn to
the educated laity to provide them with training or to give seminars and
sermons on the topic. In my own church, series are sometimes run that touch

13
upon scientific topics. These are occasions to show that science itself does
not challenge the bible, but that the two overlap and inform each other.

This issue of education is no where more important than in Sunday School.

Children need to be slowly introduced to the topic, so that when they meet
evolution at school or start to think of dinosaurs, they are able to put the two
together. It is not unusual for students to reach the higher years of school or
begin university and be confronted with an understanding of evolution that
conflicts with their religious upbringing. The result is sometime an abandoning
of their faith. A reading of evolution which falls under the sovereignty of God
avoids this. Further, as Walton (2009:165) notes, rather than wasting time
trying to insist that ID be introduced into schools, we can put energy into
arguing that materialism not be bundled with evolution.

Finally, what is also needed is a spirit of charity. Pond (2000:90) is extremely

defensive about her science and faith (hence retreat into NOMA) obviously
due to attacks by creationists. All sides need to accept that the manner of
creation is not a shibboleth of faith, but that we need to treat each other with
respect and love. Indeed, the accepting of theistic evolution as compatible
with Christian faith affirms Christians who are biologists that their study is not
sinful, but can even be doxological (c.f. Ps 104). Hence while accepting
evolution may seem threatening, it need not be so.

Bibliography
Alexander D 2008. Creation or evolution: Do we have to choose? Oxford, England: Monarch

Books.

Behe M 2003. The intelligent design hypothesis. In NA Manson (ed), God and design: The

teleological argument and modern science, London, England: Routledge.

Berry RJ 2009. Did Darwin dethrone humanity? In RJ Berry and TA Noble, Darwin, creation

and the Fall: Theological challenges, Nottingham, England: Apollos.

Bruce FF 1989. Romans, Tyndale New Testament Commentary Series. Leicester, United

Kingdom: IVP.

14
Carlson RF, Introduction. In RF Carlson (ed), Science & Christianity: Four views, Downers

Grove, USA: IVP.

Conrad NJ, Malina M and Münzel SC 2009. New flutes document the earliest musical

tradition in southwestern Germany, Nature, 460, 737-740.

Conway Morris S 1999. The crucible of creation: The Burgess Shale and the rise of

mammals, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Conway Morris S 2003. Life’s solutions: Inevitable humans in a lonely universe, Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press.

Conway Morris S 2006. The Boyle Lecture 2005: Darwin’s compass: How evolution discovers

the song of creation, Science and Christian Belief, 18, 5-22.

Cosner L 2008. Romans 5:12-21: Paul’s view of a literal Adam. Journal of Creation 22(2),

105-107.

Crick F 1995. The astonishing hypothesis: The scientific search for the soul, London,

England: Touchstone.

Dalton R 2010. Neanderthals may have interbred with humans. Nature News,

doi:10.1038/news.2010.194, published online 20 April 2010. Last accessed 4 July 2010.

Dawkins R 1986. The blind watchmaker, London, England: Penguin.

Dawkins R 1989. The selfish gene, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Dunn J 1988. Romans 1-8: Word biblical commentary volume 38, Nashville, USA: Thomas

Nelson Publishers.

Emery NJ and Clayton NS 2004: The mentality of crows: Convergent evolution of intelligence

in corvids and crows, Science, 306, 1903-1907.

nd
Erickson MJ 2002. Christian Theology (2 edition), Grand Rapids, USA: Baker Book House.

Finlay G 2004. God’s Books: Genetics and Genesis, Auckland, New Zealand: TELOS Books,

2004.

Fowler TB and Kuebler D 2007. The Evolution Controversy. Grand Rapids, USA: Baker

Academic.

Frair W and Patterson GD 2000. Creationism. In RF Carlson (ed), Science & Christianity:

Four views, Downers Grove, USA: Inter-varsity Press.

15
Gould SJ 1989. Wonderful life: The Burgess shale and the Nnature of history. London,

England: Penguin.

Gould SJ 2002. Rock of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life, London, England:

Vintage.

Grudem W 2007. Systematic Theology (2007 Format), Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity

Press.

Hess RS 2009. God and origins. In RJ Berry and TA Noble, Darwin, creation and the Fall:

Theological challenges, Nottingham, England: Apollos.

Hodge B 2006. Why don’t we find human and dinosaur fossils together? In K Ham (ed), The

new answers in Genesis: Book 1, Green Forest, USA: Master Books.

Hunter CG 2007. Science’s blindspot. The unseen religion of scientific naturalism. Grand

Rapids, USA: Brazos Press.

Kidner D 1967. Genesis, London, England: Tyndale.

Lane ANS 2009. Irenaeus on the Fall and Original Sin. In RJ Berry and TA Noble, Darwin,

creation and the Fall: Theological challenges, Nottingham, England: Apollos.

Marino L 1996, What Can Dolphins Tell Us About Primate Evolution? Evolutionary

Anthropology, 5, 81-85.

Meyer SC 2000. Qualified agreement: Modern science and the return of the “God

Hypothesis”. In P Nelson, RC Newman and HJ van Till, Three views on creation and

evolution, Grand Rapids, USA: Zondervan.

McGrath A and Collicutt McGrath J 2007. The Dawkins delusion: Atheist fundamentalism and

the denial of the divine, London, England: SPCK.

Miller KR 2006. The flagellum unspun: The collapse of “Irreducible Complexity”. In WA

Dembski and M Ruse, Debating design: From Darwin to DNA, Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Moo D 1996. The epistle to the Romans: The new international commentary on the New

Testament, Grand Rapids, USA Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Mortimer R 2009. Blocher, original sin and evolution. In RJ Berry and TA Noble, Darwin,

creation and the Fall: Theological challenges, Nottingham, England: Apollos.

16
Morris L 1988. The epistle to the Romans, Grand Rapids, USA Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing

Co.

Nelson P and Reynolds JM 1999. Young earth creationism. In P Nelson, RC Newman and HJ

van Till, Three views on creation and evolution, Grand Rapids, USA: Zondervan.

Oakes ET 2007, Complexity in context: The metaphysical implications of evolutionary theory.

In J. D. Barrow, S. Conway Morris, S.J. Freeland, and C.L. Harper (eds), Fitness of the

Cosmos for life: Biochemistry and fine-tuning, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University

Press.

O’Connor R 2003. The design inference: Old wine in new wineskins. In NA Manson (ed), God

and design: The teleological argument and modern science, London, England: Routledge.

Pond J 2000. Independence: Mutual humility in the relationship between science & Christian

theology. In RF Carlson (ed), Science & Christianity: Four views, Downers Grove, USA:

Inter-varsity Press.

Pope M 2009. Emergent and Elective Creation. Paper presented at the ISCAST Conference

on Science and Christianity (COSAC), Geelong, Victoria, September 18-20, 2009.

Rogers LJ 1997. Minds of their own: Thinking and awareness in animals, St Leonards,

Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Russell RJ 2006. Cosmology, evolution, and resurrection hope: Theology and science in

creative mutual interaction, Hindmarsh, Australia: ATF Press.

Sagan C 1980. Cosmos, New York, USA: Random House.

Schaeffer FA 1972. Genesis in space and time, London, England: Hodder and Stoughton.

Schreiner TR 1998. Romans: Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament, Grand

Rapids, USA: Baker Books.

Seely PH 1970. Adam and anthropology: A proposed solution, Journal of the American

Scientific Affiliation, 22, 88-90.

Seely PH 1997. The first four days of Genesis in concordist theory and in biblical context,

Perspectives on science and Christian faith, 29(2), 85-95.

th
Sire JW 2004. The universe next door: A basic worldview catalog, 4 edition, Downers Grove,

USA: IVP Academic.

17
van Till HJ 2009. The fully gifted creation. In P Nelson, RC Newman and HJ van Till, Three

views on creation and evolution, Grand Rapids, USA: Zondervan.

Walton JH 2009. The lost world of Genesis one: Ancient cosmology and the origins debate,

Downers Grove, USA: IVP Academic.

Welker M 1999. Creation and Reality. Minneapolis, USA: Ausburg Fortress Press.

Williams P 2001. Doing without Adam and Eve: Sociobiology and Original Sin, Minneapolis,

USA: Fortress Press.

Young DA 1988. The contemporary relevance of Augustine’s view of creation. Perspectives

on Science and Christian faith, 40(1), 42-45.

Young DA 2006. How old is it? How do we know? A review of dating methods—part one:

Relative dating, absolute dating, and non-radiometric dating methods. Perspectives on

Science and Christian faith, 58(4), 259-265.

Young DA 2007a. How old is it? How do we know? A review of dating methods—part two:

Radiometric dating: Mineral, isochron and concordia methods. Perspectives on Science

and Christian faith, 59(1), 28-36.

Young DA 2007b. How old is it? How do we know? A review of dating methods—part three:

Thermochronometry, cosmogenic isotopes, and theological implications. Perspectives on

Science and Christian faith, 59(2), 136-142.

18