In 1986, Michael Denton published Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Many attribute this book with starting the Intelligent Design movement. Denton provides an elegant description of the living cell that I want simply to quote at length:

“To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. We would see endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in every direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing units….A huge range of products and raw materials would shuttle along all the manifold conduits in a highly ordered fashion to and from all the various assembly plants in the outer regions of the cell.

“We would wonder at the level of control implicit in the movement of so many objects down so many seemingly endless conduits, all in perfect unison. We would see all around us, in every direction we looked, all sorts of robot-like machines….

“We would see that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction….

“What we would be witnessing would be an object resembling an immense automated factory, a factory larger than a city and carrying out almost as many unique functions as all the manufacturing activities of man on earth. However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equaled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours. To witness such an act at a magnification of one thousand million times would be an awe-inspring spectacle.” (pp. 328-29).

Awe-inspiring indeed. “I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.” (Psalms 139:14)

Cross-posted at www.theologyforthechurch.com

I dare you to read Andrew Snelling’s Earth’s Catastrophic Past and Davis Young’s The Bible, Rocks and Time side by side. Both men are professional geologists, and both books exhibit the proficiency and expertise of their respective authors. Snelling’s two volume set argues for young-earth creationism and that Noah’s flood created the preponderance of the geological record. Young and his co-author, Ralph Stearley, present the case for an ancient earth and that Noah’s flood was a local phenomena. Snelling’s book is intended to be a successor to Whitcomb and Morris’ seminal work The Genesis Flood (1961). Young and Stearley’s book is a revision of Davis’ earlier Christianity and the Age of the Earth (1982). The two works together total over 1500 pages. I just finished both and I’m suffering from cognitive whiplash.

Snelling is thorough in his presentation. He realizes that he is arguing against the consensus view of the geological community and therefore must meticulously make his case. Davis and Stearley’s give more attention to the historical development of the debate about the age of the earth, but they also give methodical attention to the evidences for their position. Geological laymen (like me) will probably find the books to be a difficult slog. Both books attempt to make their respective cases via cumulative arguments—piling up one example after another. Again speaking as a non-geologist, for me reading them–at times–was like being pummeled to death with ping pong balls.

Snelling and Young often present the same geological data—the geological column of the Grand Canyon, the mid-Atlantic ridge, coral reefs, etc. But they almost always arrive at diametrically opposite conclusions.

What’s going on here? There are at least four possible explanations: (1) The postmodernists and deconstructionists are right–all meaning and truth is subjective and created by the reader. In this case the text is the geological column and the readers are the geologists. (2) At least one side is engaged in deliberate deceit. (3) Spiritual forces are at work. One side is blinded by the evil one while the other’s mind is divinely illuminated. Or (4) at least one side has an almost pathological inability to see the truth. These blind spots render them unable to see what should be obvious.

I don’t like any of the four above possibilities. I am open to another explanation. The postmodernist answer (1), is self-referentially contradictory. Deconstructionism may work as a descriptor but fails as a philosophy. As for explanation (2), there is nothing about Snelling or Davis that indicates either would be willing to deceive or be deliberately dishonest. As for (3), Christians have no doubt about spiritual warfare, and that spiritual battles occur in every avenue of human endeavor, and this includes the scientific realm. However, both Davis and Snelling (and the respective Christian communities they represent) affirm the Lordship of Jesus Christ over their vocations as geologists. Both are servants of Christ. I am in no position to make a spiritual determination about either one. Of the four possible explanations, the phenomena of blind spots (4) is the most likely.

Explanation (4) is also the most optimistic, even if one or both sides seems to be intransigent. Here the community of faith can play a crucial role. If Davis and Snelling, and others who hold to their respective views, will meet, talk, and pray together; if they will allow other godly, concerned, and informed brethren to speak truth into their lives; if they will be humble enough to acknowledge their respective blind spots, then it will be possible for progress to be made and for some type of consensus to be achieved.

As it stands now, the dissonance between the two geologists and their respective books is so great that one has to wonder if they are looking at the same planet.

This post was cross-posted at www.theologyforthechurch.com

Cosmas Indicopleustes, a 6th century monk, wrote The Christian Topography to contend that the earth was flat. Actually, he argued for more than that. Comas declared that the flat-earth view was the only truly Christian view, and that any Christian who entertained the notion of a round earth was tainted with worldy wisdom and had compromised the gospel.  Cosmas didn’t arrive at this position in a vacuum.  He was responding to pagan philosophers, such as Proclus (ca 411-485), who used the Ptolemaic model of the universe to argue against the Christian doctrine of creation. According to Ptolemy, the world consisted of a round earth surrounded by concentric spheres, and these spheres were embedded (in ascending order) with the moon, sun, planets and finally the stars. The pagans, following Aristotle, argued that the earth’s shape–that of a circle–is a manifestation of its unending duration. A circle has no beginning or end. A round earth is an eternal one, they reasoned, so therefore the creation account in Genesis must be false. Instead of challenging their logic, Cosmas decided to refute their premise.  As far as he was concerned, if the pagans believe the earth is round then that was proof that it must be flat. The debate ultimately wasn’t about the shape of the planet–it was about the doctrine of creation.  In The Christian Topography, Cosmas attempted to prove that the earth is flat and the universe is in the shape of a chest. He provided plenty of drawings to make his case. Oh dear.

Cosmas' chest-shaped universe. Note the sun hiding behind a great northern mountain.

Cosmas wasn’t so angry at the pagans themselves as he was at the Christians who were tempted to agree with them on this point.  Christians who accepted the Ptolemaic description of the cosmos were the real focus of his denunciations. “It is against such men my words are directed….” He denounced them as ”two-faced” because they wished to ”occupy a middle position.” They “laugh at everyone and are themselves laughed at by all.”

Before becoming a monk, Cosmas had been a sailor and in that occupation had traveled much of the known world. He used his first-hand knowledge of geography to make his case, and what a case it was.  He argued that the world was a large island, surrounded by a large ocean which could not be navigated. Cosmas believed that the sun was 42 miles in diameter and traveled in an arc 4400 miles above the earth.  Each evening the sun moves behind a large mountain in the north, which gives us nighttime. Cosmas expended great effort to demonstrate the physical and logical impossibility of a round earth, but he made his strongest arguments about what he perceived to be the theological problems with the Ptolemaic model.  If the world is round, concluded Cosmas, then the pagans “are therefore justified in denying the resurrection of the body.”

Cosmas' map of a square shaped earth

One of the more fascinating sections of the book is Cosmas’ account of when the flat-earthers and the round-earthers met in Alexandria for a debate. Each side presented arguments, counter-arguments, and even conducted experiments.  Evidently Cosmas believed his side won. He reported to his mentor, “And it is the truth I speak, O most God-beloved Father, through the power of Christ they went away dumbfounded and sadly crestfallen, having been put to shame by our exposure of their fictions.”  

Cosmas' drawing lampooning the notion of people on the underside of a round earth

Despite Cosmas’ bluster, his side lost the debate among the broader Christian community.  The Medieval church did not believe the earth was flat. Scholars such as the Venerable Bede, Roger Bacon, and Thomas Aquinas all accepted a spherical earth. So what is the take-away from Cosmas? It is the lesson that in the integration of faith and science we must discern what the real issues are and what they are not. We must know what is essential and non-negotiable, and what areas are more modest. Christians have nothing to fear from the study of the natural world.  Our God–the God of the Bible–is Creator of the heavens and the earth. The One Who revealed Himself to us in Jesus Christ is the One Who created the realm that the scientist studies–including quarks, DNA, and the geological column.  God has not given us a spirit of fear. Let’s explore the natural order–His creation–with reverence and confidence.    

This posted is cross posted at www.theologyforthechurch.com

We often forget to make the distinction between creation and creationism. Creation is a doctrine, and as such it is an unchangeable tenet to the Christian faith.  Creationism is an apologetic approach which attempts to integrate the doctrine of creation with the current understandings of the natural sciences.  As such creationism is always changing and subject to amendment. Ronald Numbers has provided us with an excellent history of creationism with his book, The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. Numbers’ father was a Seventh-Day Adventist evangelist who preached in tent revivals sermons such as “God’s Answer to Evolution: Are Men and Monkeys Relatives?” Numbers today appears to be agnostic, but he treats creationists with respect, and he writes as who was an insider to the creationist movement. Creationism indeed has evolved, and Christians need to be aware of the changes that have occurred over last 150 years. The Creationists makes several points of interest: 

1. Virtually all early fundamentalists and evangelicals held to an ancient earth. For example, B.B. Warfield, who coined the term “inerrancy”, held to theistic evolution. R.A. Torrey, who founded both Moody Bible Institute and BIOLA and who edited The Fundamentals (from which we get the term “fundamentalist”), held to the gap theory.  In a celebrated debate over the creation account in Genesis between two early fundamentalists, W. B. Riley and Harry Rimmer, neither advocated young-earth creationism. Even William Jennings Bryan, of the Scopes Monkey Trials fame, held to a day-age interpretation of Genesis One. 

2. Young-earth creationism (YEC) did not ascend to prominence until the early 1960′s with the publication of Whitcomb and Morris’ The Genesis Flood (1961). Prior to Whitcomb and Morris, the view that the proper interpretation of Genesis requires that the earth be less than 10,000 years old was advocated almost exclusively by Seventh-Day Adventists such as George McCready Price. Ellen G. White, founder of Seventh-Day Adventism, claimed to have received a vision in which she was carried back to the original week of creation. There, she said, God showed her that the original week was seven days like any other week.

3. Young-earth creationism (YEC) originally was called “scientific creationism.” Whitcomb and Morris argued that, when the evidence is examined in an unbiased manner, the case for a young earth is much more compelling than for an old earth.  Artifact number one was the claim that humans footprints were found along with dinosaurs tracks in the river bed of the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas.  YEC advocates don’t make that claim about the tracks anymore, nor do they still use the label of “scientific creationism.”

The Creationists was published in 1992, so it doesn’t cover significant developments within creationism over the last 20 years.  Most notably, there is no discussion of Ken Ham and the Answers in Genesis organization, nor is there anything about the rise of the Intelligent Design movement.  However, if one wants to know how the debate got to be where it is today then this book is an excellent place to start.

Peter Enns is the fellow that Ken Ham has been warning about. Members of the Answers in Genesis organization (such as Ken Ham and Terry Mortenson) have often contended that abandoning young-earth creationism is the first step on a slippery slope in which the historicity of Adam and the Fall is denied, and eventually the gospel is compromised.  Logicians generally consider the slippery slope argument a fallacy (or a poor argument at best), but Enns makes the AIG guys look like they’re on to something. Peter Enns’ The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins is both disturbing and disappointing.  Enns doesn’t present much that is all that new (Bultmann made many of the same arguments 75 years ago).  What is new is that the arguments are being made by one who, until recently, signed the ETS statement affirming the inerrancy of Scripture.

Enns argues that Paul got it wrong about Adam, but but we shouldn’t worry about that because the apostle got it right about Christ.  According to Enns, Paul’s use of Adam is idiosyncratic.  Because Paul engaged in the creative hermeneutics typical of 2^nd Temple Judaism, he presents a view of Adam that cannot be sustained by a close reading of the Old Testament.  Actually, Paul’s understanding of Adam is not typical of 2^nd Temple Judaism.  He may have been using their hermeneutics, but he doesn’t arrive at their conclusions. In passages such as Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15, Paul engages in the theological equivalent of reverse engineering.  He saw Christ’s resurrection as a solution in search of a problem.  He begins with the resurrection of Jesus, and then re-interprets the Old Testment (particularly Genesis 3) to make sense of it all.   In the end, the apostle presents us with a view of Adam and the Fall that cannot by justified by theology, biology, history, or even the Old Testament itself. 

The classic theological liberals of the 19th and 20th centuries demonstrated the danger of accommodating the modern worldview to the point the gospel is lost.  Has Peter Enns made the same mistake? I fear he is on the verge of doing so.  Enns affirms the bodily resurrection of Christ, but he abandons the first half of the grand biblical narrative that makes sense of the event.  Enns puts that narrative–Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Restoration–in serious jeopardy.  When he jettisons a historical Adam and a subsequent historical fall, Enns seriously damages the first half of the gospel.

The problem is not simply that Enns advocates theistic evolution.  Other evangelicals in the past have done so (B. B. Warfield and C.S. Lewis come to mind) and some current evangelicals do so today (think J. I. Packer and Tim Keller).  I think they’re wrong about evolution, but they still held, or hold, to a literal Adam who fell in a literal garden.  Enns says that there must be a synthesis of evolution and Christianity. “The only question,” states Enns, “is how that will be done” (123).  I can think of at least one more question. After the merger, is the result still Christian?

This blogpost is cross-posted at www.theologyforthechurch.com.

For over 50 years, Paulist Press has produced the Ancient Christian Writers, a series of critical translations into English of patristic works. Currently at over 60 volumes, Paulist Press adds a book or two each year. They are indispensible for the serious theology student. Volumes 41 & 42 of the series are Augustine’s commentary, The Literal Meaning of Genesis (complete with introduction, synopsis, and annotations).

Augustine wrote the commentary towards the end of his life, while he was also writing two other noteworthy books, The Trinity and The City of God.  What an amazing output from a brilliant mind that was devoted to thinking about the things of God!  At the end of book one, Augustine gives advice about reconciling Genesis with the latest scientific theories of the day. I’ve summed up that advice under six headings along with a brief quote. Though he wrote these words 1,600 years ago, they are relevant today.

1. Don’t say things that unbelievers will immediately see as nonsense.

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world…and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.” (1.19.39)

I think Augustine’s point can be summed up as, “Don’t be an idiot.”

2. Do not rashly commit to or become dogmatic about one particular interpretation.

“With these facts in mind, I have worked out and presented the statements of the Book of Genesis in a variety of ways according to my ability; and, in interpreting words that have been written obscurely for the purpose of stimulating our thought, I have not rashly taken my stand on one side against a rival interpretation which might possibly be better. I have thought that each one, in keeping with his powers of understanding, should choose the interpretation that he can grasp. Where he cannot understand Holy Scripture, let him glorify God and fear for himself.” (1.40.20)

Even in Augustine’s day, Genesis 1-2 presented real challenges.  The Bishop advises us to recognize this, and therefore be charitable with those who disagree with us.

3. Do not let interpretative difficulties obscure the spiritual blessings available.

“But since the words of Scripture that I have treated are explained in so many senses, critics full of worldly learning should restrain themselves from attacking as ignorant and uncultured these utterances that have been made to nourish all devout souls. Such critics are like wingless creatures that crawl upon the earth and, while soaring no higher than the leap of a frog, mock the birds in their nests above.” (1.40.20)

We must not read Genesis 1-2 only with eyes focused on the trench warfare of the creation/evolution debate.  To do so runs the risk of robbing ourselves of the real spiritual nourishment the text is intended to provide.

4. Do not let the latest scientific or philosophical theories cause one to look down upon Scripture.

“But more dangerous is the error of certain weak brethren who faint away when they hear these irreligious critics learnedly and eloquently discoursing on the theories of astronomy or on any of the questions relating to the elements of this universe. With a sigh, they esteem these teachers as superior to themselves, looking upon them as great men; and they return with disdain to the books which were written for the good of their souls; and, although they ought to drink from these books with relish, they can scarcely bear to take them up. Turning away in disgust from the unattractive wheat field, they long for the blossoms on the thorn.” (1.20.40)

Sounds like something that could have been written in our day, doesn’t it?

5. Do not fear attacks on the biblical account of Creation.

“Someone will say: ‘What have you brought out with all the threshing of this treatise? What kernel have you revealed? What have you winnowed? Why does everything seem to lie hidden under questions? Adopt one of the many interpretations which you maintained were possible.’  To such a one my answer is that I have arrived at a nourishing kernel in that I have learnt that a man is not in any difficulty in making a reply according to his faith which he ought to make to those who try to defame our Holy Scripture.” (1.41.21)

In other words, Augustine is saying that though he couldn’t settle on one position, he is settled in his confidence concerning Scripture itself.

6. Take a discerning approach to the integration of Scripture and science.

“When they are able, from reliable evidence, to prove some fact of physical science, we shall show that it is not contrary to our Scripture. But when they produce from any of their books a theory contrary to Scripture, and therefore contrary to the Catholic faith, either we shall have some ability to demonstrate that it is absolutely false, or at least we ourselves will hold it so without any shadow of a doubt.” (1.41.21)

And this is truly the task before us all: discerning the proper way to assess the findings of science in the light of the Word of God.  The God of the Bible is Maker of heaven and earth.  Augustine gives us sound advice about studying God’s Word and His world.

Over the past few weeks I have reviewed books that survey various views concerning evolution, creation, and the proper way to interpret Genesis.  Beginning with this post, I intend to start reviewing books that advocate a particular position.  I’ve chosen these books, not on the basis of my agreement with them, but because I believe they make significant contributions to the creation/evolution debate.  Some that we will look at argue for young-earth creationism, some for old-earth creationism, others for evolutionary creationism, and still others for Darwinism.  In addition, I plan to review a book or two that were written by atheists who hold to evolution, even though they will concede that the evidence does not support the Darwinian hypothesis.  Today I want to bring to your attention Kurt Wise’s Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms about Creation and the Age of the Universe.

 Though Ken Ham commands more notoriety among the general public, Kurt Wise is arguably the most prestigious living advocate of young-earth creationism, at least within the scientific community.  Wise, who directs Truett-McConnell’s Creation Research Center, received his PhD in paleontology at Harvard University; under the tutelage of none other than the eminent evolutionary biologist, Stephen Jay Gould.  Wise displays more care in his approach to the empirical evidences than have some young-earth proponents in the past, and he is more cautious in his claims (with a few exceptions we’ll note below).  Wise also acknowledges the strength of arguments for an ancient universe (58, 70, 99), and that at present the scientific evidence for a young earth is not compelling (68). Still, with a presuppositionalism that borders on fideism, Wise contends passionately for a literal, seven-day creation that occurred approximately 6,000 years ago.

Wise contends that God has made the evidence for creation intentionally ambiguous so as to make faith necessary for having a relationship with Him.  And even though one looking at the empirical evidence alone might come to the conclusion the cosmos must be very ancient, this is not because God deliberately intended to deceive.  Rather, because God created the world fully functional, the universe necessarily has an appearance of age.  Wise uses Jesus’ miracle of turning the water into wine to make his point.  A participant at the marriage at Cana would naturally assume that the wine he was drinking was years old.  But he would have been mistaken: the wine had been created that very day.  The miracle gave the wine the appearance of age.  Wise argues that God’s miraculous activity of creating the world in seven days similarly gives the universe its ancient appearance.  Not all will be convinced that Wise’s argument from analogy holds.  

Wise offers a number of speculations that are sure to raise eyebrows.  Take, for example, his explanation of why, if dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time, no fossil remains of the two species have been found together.  Wise conjectures that they may have lived in opposite parts of the world (174).  He also suggests that coal fields were produced by floating continents (171) and that the ice age lasted only a few decades or a few centuries at most (215-16).  Noah’s flood was not only world-wide, but it also impacted the moon, the planets, and perhaps the entire universe (206). I suspect these arguments will impress only the already convinced.  Faith, Form, and Time provides an accessible explanation of current young-earth thinking.  Those interested in the creation/evolution debate need this book.

This post is cross-posted to www.theologyforthechurch.com

Last week I reviewed a book, The Evolution Controversy, which surveys the various positions concerning the scientific evidence. This week I want to bring to your attention The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, a book that covers the biblical evidence, specifically the creation account of Genesis 1-2.  Evangelicals in general, and Southern Baptists in particular, are biblicists; and as such we hold the Bible to be the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.  So for us the proper interpretation of the creation narrative is of paramount importance.  The Genesis Debate focuses solely on interpreting Genesis 1-2 without addressing corollary matters (such as the empirical evidences for and the extent of Noah’s flood, or attempts to reconcile Genesis with the latest views within biology, geology, or astronomy).

Ligon Duncan and David Hall present the 24-hour view, Hugh Ross and Gleason Archer argue for the Day-Age view, and Lee Irons and Meredith Kline offer the Framework view.  The labels are fairly self-explanatory.  Duncan and Hall make the case for understanding the seven days of creation as seven literal, 24-hour days.  Ross and Archer contend the seven days represent sequential eons of divine creative activity.  And Irons and Kline argue that Moses used the seven-day framework as a literary device, intending more to establish a proper understanding of God’s sovereign relationship with creation than attempting to explain any details about how God actually created.  After each respective position is presented, advocates of the other views respond, and the presenters give a reply to the respondants.  This arrangement allows for give and take about the crucial points of difference.

Limiting the debate to just three positions was probably necessary for a format of this type, but the limitation is, well, a limitation. The book provides no discussion of other significant approaches such as C. John Collin’s Analogical Day approach, John Sailhamer’s Promised Land perspective, or the various Cosmic Temple views as argued by Greg Beale or John Walton.  The editors explain that they believe the positions they chose are the most popular; and that are probably correct.  But the Cosmic Temple view, rightly or wrongly, seems to be picking up support among a notable number of Old Testament scholars.

Passions run high concerning the proper way to interpret Genesis, and The Genesis Debate illustrates this.  At times the arguments are pointed; the discussion less than civil–they mix it up.  Fortunately, more light is generated than mere heat.  The authors, for the most part, stay focused on the interpretive issues relating to the text, and this is the book’s greatest strength.  For understanding the hermeneutical issues involved in interpreting Genesis 1-2, I recommend The Genesis Debate highly.

This post is cross-posted at www.theologyforthechurch.com

If you type the word “evolution” in the Amazon.com search line, it offers over 61,000 books.  A similar search for books on “creation” yields over 31,000 results.  The creation/evolution controversy is an overwhelmingly large subject, and the debate shows no signs of diminishing.  A couple of years ago, Mark Rooker and I were silly enough to agree to write a book about the subject and we have been struggling ever since to produce something that is at the same time both comprehensive and readable.  I intend for the next few weeks and months to highlight books that I have found helpful in my studies, and to call this series “What I’ve Been Reading.”  Some of the books promote a particular creationist or evolutionary perspective, while others, like the one highlighted today, provide an overview of a variety of positions.  One of the best books for acquainting oneself with the debate is Thomas Fowler and Daniel Kuebler’s The Evolution Controversy: A Survey of Competing Theories. 

Fowler, an engineer, and Kuebler, a biologist, break down the positions into four major schools of thought: neo-Darwinian, creationist, intelligent design, and what they call meta-Darwinism.  They provide an overview of each school.  Neo-Darwinism (the view that evolution is true, and can be explained entirely in terms of natural section) is still the majority position among those involved with the natural sciences.  Creationism (more specifically, young earth creationism) enjoys strong support at a popular level but has little or no backing in the academy.  Intelligent design, which accepts the notion of an ancient earth, has substantially more support among scientists but has recently encountered stiff opposition.  Meta-Darwinism represents a growing number of scientists who still accept evolution but realize that the standard neo-Darwinian model simply doesn’t explain the evidence.

The Evolution Controversy is written with remarkable clarity.  Rather than argue a particular position, their intent is to provide information. Fowler and Kuebler explain the nuances and differences in terms and concepts that often confuse even those in the field. They give a brief survey of the history of evolutionary thought, provide review of the evidence (i.e., issues such as the fossil record and genetics), and discuss the flashpoints of dispute.

Rarely do authors attempt to be as even-handed as do Fowler and Kuebler; and for the most part they succeed.  They explain the arguments for each position along with a corresponding set of objections.  The strengths and weaknesses of each model are presented fairly.  Both men are scientists, so not surprisingly the book deals only with empirical evidence.  They provide no discussion of the creation account in Genesis.  However, if you are looking for an accessible presentation of the technical issues regarding the creation/evolution debate, then The Evolution Controversy is an excellent place to begin.