McCall RTCH785C Falk Book Review:
Darrel Falk, in his book entitled Coming To Peace With Science (IVP, 2004), attempts to bridge the world of science with the world of faith. As a professor of Biology and as a professing Christian, Falk definitely has both the academic and experiential qualifications for such an attempt. Falk consistently employs a theistic evolutionary perspective throughout this book in that God “subtly influenced natural processes, causing the otherwise very unlikely to become likely” (91; note that this quote has direct implications on SDC). God builds freedom into His creation, as He is in no way coercive. Just as God gave Israel freedom throughout its history, so too does God give creation itself freedom throughout its history (102). Falk questions whether science can in fact discover the “hidden” activity of the divine godhead (which I am also attempting to do with SDC). So how thewn does God act?
- God can influence the process of mutation, the raw material of creation (novelty, i.e.). God could very well setep-in here.
- In dialogue w/ Gould, God knowing the future, ?He could ensure that some organisms would not be selected against, proleptically.
- Cataclysimc events (dinosaurs, etc.).
- Perhaps God could actually “step-in” and put together a pure structure in a miraculous way.
Falk intimates that he is an Evangelical when he strongly states the inspired nature of the Biblical writ in his preface, and unabashedly declares such on the first page of the book (moreover, his approval of the verity of the miraculous on page 210 likewise indicates that he is an Evangelical, note). In the first chapter, Falk gives expression to the inner turmoil that he experienced when first encountered difficulty in trying to harmonize his Christianity with science, and vice-versa (a struggle, or ‘wrestling match’ as per Ingram, that I have likewise endured…). Falk bemoans the virtual ignorance (as do I, note) that the majority of Evangelicals possess when approaching science from a faith-based position, as well as their impotency in attempting to deflect the perpetual onslaught scientism (ref. 25). Falk and I are in agreement that the Younger Evangelicals (ref. Stu Weber) will concur that evolution is the manner in which God gradually created the earth and all of its creatures (cf. 170).
I agree entirely with a key tenet of his first chapter: that God, the greatest of all scientists, used proverbial ‘baby talk’ in relating His revelation to humanity, and therefore in no way should we take Genesis to be a scientific textbook (ref. the oft cited notion that ‘the Bible teaches us how to go to heave; not how the heavens go”). Or, as John Wesley stated: “the Scriptures were written not to gratify our curiosity but to lead us to God” (Wesley, “A Survey of the Wisdom of God in the Creation: or, A compendium of Natural Philosophy”, 3rd edition, London, 1777, vol. 2:463).
Falk addresses the meaning of Scripture, especially regarding the account of Genesis 1-3, in relation to science today in chapter 2. The essence of the creation account in Genesis 1-3 is not to be found in the mechanical details of how life arose, Falk posits (42). Falk asserts that the creation story is more concerned with “timeless truths” than with scientific explanations (ref. 46). One timeless truth that he points out is that humans have always attempted to subvert God’s leadership and question His authority (47). Another timeless (and timely!) truth is that God seeks us out in our times of alienation, just as He sought out both Adam and Eve after their original alienation from Him (48). Third, as Falk intimates, in discussion with myself and Bonhoeffer, victory comes through our wounds (see footnote, pg. 52). Falk cites an interesting quote from Barth’s Epistle to the Romans: “with our own eyes and minds we are led up the edge of this world’s existence, and at that edge we find strong hints that there is something more” (6th edition, London: Oxford University Press, 1968:46).
Discussing the time frame of creation in chapter 3, Falk strongly states that though there may be “some figurative language in Genesis 1, … ‘the message is clear: there was a beginning and it came about as a result of God’s activity” (75). In a sense, science is revealing the details of God’s activity that the writer (and/or editor) of Genesis did not understand. So then, Genesis must be interpreted (cf. 81). In so doing, Falk clearly does not align himself with Young Earth Creationists (YEC). In chapter 4, Falk outlines what we currently know as a result of the fossil record, as well as what we currently do not know about the fossil record. Even though I deem it true that the fossil record is the only record of what did and did not happen in history prior to written communication, I nonetheless tend to discount all talk about the fossil record, because it essentially ‘boils down to’ trying to find a needle in a haystack. At any given time, a geologist (or whoever happens to be doing the archaeological study) is only dissecting a minute area of fossilization (even when considering ‘large’ studies!), so they cannot conceivably be gathering a characteristic sample of all the specimens present in that strata (even if one argues that a properly conducted scientific exploration gives you an ‘accurate representation’ of what existed at that time, a principle of uniformitarianism). However, the fossil record does give general credence to the position that God creates by guiding and directing a process that becomes more complex through gradual change (as Falk points out on 87). Falk asserts that “numerous transitional forms have been found” in the fossil record (129). However, I quickly qualify that statement in saying that such “transitional forms” are highly disputed, rarely agreed upon by two scientists, and much less the majority. So then, though Falk contends that “numerous transitional forms have been found” his assertion is essentially vacuous and without merit.
In chapter 5, Falk discusses the distribution of organisms, and how such distribution comports with a gradual evolutionary development of creation. In so doing, he also notes the co-creator status of creation (150). The “hovering Spirit” did not have to create by divine fiat, Falk notes (150). Indeed, the Spirit did not construct creation as a puppet master does his or her puppets, but woos them along toward their eschatological fullness instead through divine lure (as I hope to be unpacking in the future with SDC). Falk concludes this chapter with the self-evident (but nonetheless heavily refuted) statement that creation is indeed in a state of flux in that creatures really do “come and go” (168).
In chapter 6, Falk explores the genetic evidence that lends credence to common descent, and proffers a convincing case. Retroposons in distantly related (if directly at all) species in the same DNA fragments are virtually irrefutable evidence of common descent indeed. Combine the presence of Retroposons with that of Pseudogenes and Duplications, and the evidence for common descent is virtually airtight.
In chapter 7, Falk concludes his book by addressing the misperceived problem of evolutionary progress and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics simply states that WITHOUT the input of [active] energy, the system tends toward disorder invariably. However, evolution understood theistically (and even through my rudimentary SDC hypothesis) does receive energy INPUT from the outside (i.e. God’s creative energy, or the Spirit according to SDC). So then, in evolution, creatures can become more complex through time due to an input of energy (cf. 205). I posit, in dialog with Falk, that the Spirit of God was the organizing energy and power behind the creation of the earth and all that it entails (cf. 205). Biblically, God spoke, and creation leapt forth from chaos (which necessarily needs the ‘breath’ of God, note). Falk suggests that if any lesson has come, it is that “God works in subtle ways” (206; this correlates with SDC well, note).
In pouring out, new life arises.
- Note that Falk’s favorite book is Gould’s “Wonderful Life”.
- Middle-Knowledge Theory?
- Many times in the Bible, Falk notes, it seems as if God does not know the future. But then again, at various times it seems as God does know the future. So then, it is apparent that the Bible is not real clear.
- Chaos Theory?
- Falk thinks Chaos Theory is a good avenue for Divine Action.
- Is Superveinence Plausible and possible? FALK says no, as when we look into the Bible and into science, we do not see it.
Falk pictures heaven as a big microscope, with all sorts of beautiful things to look at.