THE BATTLE OF BEGINNINGS
Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate

A Review article of a book authored by Del Ratzsch and published by IVP in 1996.

It is undeniable that the Creation/Evolution debate has produced a mountain of literature. Claims and counter-claims have been published; position statements have been issued; the controversy has sometimes appeared so complex that people have taken sides, not because they fully understand the issues, but because they have followed personal loyalties. Is it possible that there has been too much talking and not enough listening? What has been needed for some time is a more systematic sifting of the arguments on both sides, with sufficient discernment to assess the validity of specific arguments. Del Ratzsch's book partially meets this need, but for various reasons is not altogether satisfying. 

Ratzsch's stated aim is "not to convince readers to accept any particular resolution of the issue, but rather to point out those things that should not convince one". He says that the arguments that should not convince constitute "an unfortunately high proportion of the popular artillery of both sides" (page 8). It could be suggested that Ratzsch is eminently suited to write this book (being Professor of philosophy at Calvin College, USA) and that his stated aim has been achieved admirably - but his limited goal is really the problem of the book. The text has much critical material (addressing the literature on both sides of the debate) and although there are positive sections, my general feeling is while the analysis helps readers to be more aware of pitfalls in debate, the book does not take readers much further than that. However, more on this later in this review. Some of the chapters look at historical developments and theoretical ideas and provide useful background information to assist understanding of the debate. But the real meat of the book is Ratzsch's incisive analysis of how the debaters have failed to understand the details of their opponents argument, or where the arguments themselves have been logically flawed. These chapters are full of thought-provoking comments and worthy of study by all who engage in debate. One example will suffice, taken from pages 100-101. 

"... one still finds statements like the following in such otherwise reputable sources as The American Biology Teacher:
The creationist hypothesis implies that all living things should be traceable through a series of unchanged fossil ancestors back to the creation date. No new forms should appear after the date of creation, nor should any present day organisms exhibit significant differences from their fossil ancestors. 

Here in two sentences we have fixity of species, denial of speciation, all species present initially, death from the creation and fossilisation from the creation all attributed to creationism, which explicitly denies every one of them." 

It becomes apparent that evolutionists have often a very stereotyped picture of what creationists actually believe. Ratzsch not only points out the misconceptions, he also shows that it is not such a difficult task to research the subject and avoid such misconceptions. But what applies to evolutionists is also relevant to creationists. The chapter on popular creationist misunderstandings of Darwinism is sobering reading, but this is all the more reason to digest and fully understand where mistakes are being made. 

"... since the most visible figures within the creationist movement have made the above misconstruals so prominent, the image of the entire creationist project has been tainted by them, and that has, I think, deprived serious and professionally competent creatonists - of whom there is a small but increasing number - of any serious hearing.
Furthermore, regardless of whether evolutionary theory stands up to scrutiny, Christian lay audiences of all ages have been given an inaccurate picture both of evolutionary theory and of the ease with which it can be scientifically dismissed. This surely cannot be a very good long-term strategy" (page 54). 

Chapters like these will be hard for many creationists to read. We all have our heroes, and we tend to "protect" them from criticism. Some will read Ratzsch's analysis and say: `He's straining at gnats here! These are matters of detail! The main argument is sound and we've got to focus on that'. This would be an unwise reaction. The book is not written to attack individuals, nor to undermine what they are doing. The point is that much needless confrontation is taking place which could be avoided by tightening the arguments and understanding the other side better. In most cases, the criticisms are fair and they need to be addressed. 

I particularly appreciated the philosophy of science sections. For some time, it has seemed to me that positivistic approaches to science have characterised much of the debate. Popper and Kuhn are referred to - but their challenge to positivism has not been absorbed and digested. This book is a very helpful, concise presentation of the issues. This paragraph caught my attention: 

"So our perceptions, theorising and evaluations of theories all seem to have an inescapable human tinge to them. And given the significant interflow among those various components, human tinges in any one of the areas have at least the potential to seep into other areas as well. Thus we cannot eliminate humanness from science (as inductivists wanted to do), nor can we quarantine that humanness in one small corner of science (as hypothetico-deductivists wanted to do). Science is done by humans, and it cannot escape what is inescapably human. Our science is limited to humanly available concepts, humanly available data, humanly available patterns of reasoning, humanly shaped notions of understanding and explanation, and humanly structured pictures of what the world must be like. How could it be otherwise? Science seems to have a serious and incurable case of the humans". (page 129). 

Although this part of the book is excellent, there is a problem of this perspective on science not illuminating the critique of the various views. It should be possible to show that people are bringing their own worldviews into their contributions to the debate. The creation/evolution debate does need analysis in terms of its rational and logical content, but it is also being conducted between humans, each of whom is a "child of their age"! 

Who are the creationists referred to in this book? There is no doubt the focus is on the Young Earth Creationists, but several names crop up which are not generally linked to this group. I noted Johnson, Bradley, Thaxton, Moreland, Hartwig and Meyer. I found this rather confusing - but I think the explanation appears on page 180: a creationist is anyone who rejects (or appears to reject) a mechanistic explanation of the origins of living things. This definition emerges, I think, from Ratzsch's analysis of attitudes to theistic evolution. Whilst this attitude may be a unifying feature for creationists, there are undoubtedly very serious and significant differences within this broader grouping of creationists. Ratzsch refers to an "upper tier" of creationists, but the situation seems to me to be rather more complex than is suggested by this upper/lower distinction. 

The Theistic Evolution chapter is a real puzzle. There is much good reading, for example, on the various misunderstandings that exist between Theistic Evolutionists and "creationists". But then the discussion moves on to consider various approaches to "intervention" - and in my experience, "intervention" is not an ingredient of Theistic Evolution thinking. Theistic Evolutionists emphasise continuity and they do not accept that explanations of origins need or should involve "intervention" in any way. Much of this discussion seems far more appropriate to Progressive Creationists. Considerations of design are discussed and it is shown that the concept of design, including design by an intelligent Creator God, is not to be excluded from science. This, of course, is a major part of Phillip Johnson's case against Theistic Evolution, which has no place for design in its scientific thinking (see for example, Johnson's Darwin on Trial). Yet, Ratzsch's comments: "None of the above objections to Theistic Evolution seems to work very well" (page 195). It seems to me that Johnson's arguments do "work very well"! 

The general conclusions are also, in my view, rather strange. Having looked at weaknesses in arguments, I would want to provide a framework in which fruitful debate could be undertaken. Although some arguments may be presented wrongly, this does not mean that there is no argument! People are just not getting on top of their logic. What are the key arguments that creationists need to address; and what criticisms of evolution have substance? Focusing on some issues where work has to be done seems to me to be a worthy outcome of this study. Ratzsch does not need to provide answers, but just to highlight the questions where satisfactory answers have not been forthcoming. However, Ratzsch's stated goal was not to steer the debate, but to suggest that participants in the debate clean up their act, unhitch their egos and "do some hard, maybe even painful work. And maybe the various sides should talk. Not debate - talk" (p.198). My preference would have been for a somewhat stronger and more pointed conclusion to promote this objective. Overall, however, this is a "must" read. 

David J. Tyler (October 1996) 

Return to top of page