Creationist Science and Evolution

Book Review:

Bush, L.B. The Advancement: Keeping the Faith in the Evolutionary Age. B&H Publishing

Group Nashville, Tennessee, 2003.

Introduction

L.B. Bush’s book The Advancement: Keeping the Faith in the Evolutionary Age suggests that the modern, secular worldview that has developed since the Enlightenment is a stark contrast with the Christian worldview. Bush adamantly insists that faith must come before an emphasis on scientific understanding. Bush is not completely anti-science in the sense that he concedes that God has created a rational world, based in orderly moral as well as natural laws. But he argues that science, as is the case in classical philosophy, must be found in theology, not the reverse. Instead, in the modern era, there has been a growing tendency to view religion as primitive, and human existence as progressing to a better, more progressive, and secular worldview as a result of greater knowledge about the material world. Overall, the book presents a literate, but factually controversial, alternative history of modern scientific development (particularly emphasizing the concept of evolution) through a creationist lens.

Summary

Bush divides his text into eight chapters. After introducing his text and his main issues with any philosophical system which does not put God and Christ at its center, he then contrasts what he calls modern scientific naturalism with traditional theology in Chapter 2, “The Rise of Advancement Science.” “Scientific explanations which did not remind people of God or thrust moral implications upon the hearer were more likely to be accepted by the increasingly secular general public” (Bush 22). In his view, science originally began with creation and theology; now modern science has been used to disprove or ignore the Bible by discounting its relevance in scientific interpretation, most notably evolution. Chapter 3, “The Advancement and Theory of Knowledge,” Bush states that the secular conception of evolution is as much a culturally-conditioned product as religion is alleged to be: “Do evolutionists believe in evolution because they are biologically determined and sociologically constrained by the evolutionary process to believe in evolution?” (Bush 34). Furthermore, it is possible to offer new, theistic alternatives to the naturalist evolutionary concept.

In Chapter 4, “Modern Theistic Alternatives,” even presupposing that “evolution occurred,” Bush argues, “this theory must go on to contend that there is still infinite potential within the transcendent part of the ‘God/process’” (Bush 48). In short, even if evolution exists, this does not mean that there is no room for transcendent, theological conceptions of the human. The naturalistic concept of evolution, Bush argues, is overly narrow and does not explain why human beings have the ability to conceptualize God and the divine. This is a common argument for the existence of God advanced since the Middle Ages, namely if a conception of God can exist in the human mind, there must be some independent existence for that entity.

Chapter 5, “What is Naturalistic Evolution,” offers an overview of the secular conception of evolution which Bush is attempting argue against. In this chapter, Bush specifically advances an argument against the science of evolution, beginning with the idea that “physical similarity among living beings is an indication of a historical biological linkage” through the fossil record, as well as common ancestry of invertebrates and vertebrates (Bush 51). This section of Bush’s book contains the most so-called hard science, such as his argument that there are gaps in the fossil record (a common contention of those who support intelligent design) and his argument that, “A wise designer could build all life according to a pattern that could include a common organic chemistry” (Bush 52). Some arguments of Bush simply flat-out disagree with the concepts of what he calls the necessary preconditions to believe in evolutionary science, such as the idea that nonliving matter can generate living matter in an entirely natural fashion. Bush argues that there is still room for the possibility of divine intervention in enabling this to be possible.

Bush also disagrees that spontaneous biogenesis, justified by the similarity of genetic material, is impossible, given that, “For identical genetic coding systems to have spontaneously and independently arisen from a random process that occurred by chance is simply unacceptable because it is incredibly improbable” (Bush 53). In short, randomness is improbable and thus God as the first cause and first mover is the only likely alternative. Bush continues these themes in Chapter 6, “Why Not Naturalistic Evolution,” which further underlines his belief that “Human minds are a qualitative jump, not just a quantitative one, above the animals,” an idea that both affirms humanity’s superior place in the cosmos as well as questions naturalistic evolutionary theory.

Chapter 7, “Why Not Advancement,” Bush argues against a linear view of history that presupposes that individuals are moving from primitivism and a dark understanding of the world solely through myth to a more Enlightened one. “While ancient people did not enjoy the technological advantages that we do, they were not primitive in their mental capacity” (Bush 66). The final Chapter 8, “What Are We Then to Believe,” argues that the naturalistic and the advancement worldview cannot be reconciled. The only alternative is a new, theistic concept of evolution that must replace the naturalistic one. “God worked through nature to move along a process from simplicity to complexity and thus created us” (Bush 70).

Critique

Thus, throughout the text Bush contrast the ancient and the modern view, the theological and the secular. The text is driven by a contrast between what Bush calls naturalism, or traditional, scientific modes of inquiry, versus advancement theory, which suggests that God acts in nature, and even though nature may evolve and advance, this is solely due to the influence of the divine. There is, however, an essential problem with Bush’s approach, given that he consistently blends creationist science (which is not mainstream science) with arguments about theology and human being’s place in the world. On one hand, he attempts to argue with mainstream evolutionary theory on a scientific basis, but he then immediately interjects a theological worldview that is not based upon the scientific method.

This is most obvious when Bush is arguing about causality. Bush states that the theory of evolution is problematic because it does not provide a reason or a cause for events such as spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter. But science would argue that the theory is the result of no other convincing explanations for such generation, and there is scientific evidence in the form of the similarity of DNA and RNA between all living beings. Of course, it is possible to argue that God caused this jump from living to a nonliving state. But it is also possible to argue that a non-Christian god or gods did so, or simply a monstrous, powerful being. In short, creationist science is not falsifiable, it cannot be proven or disproven.

This is not to deny the power of God or human belief. But Bush’s text seems driven by a determination to prove science wrong as a way of proving theology right, rather than suggesting both are simply different ways of knowing. It is true that in the past, particularly in the pre-Enlightenment era, many scientists were also theologians. But since then, there has been a separation of the two disciplines. This does not mean that scientists cannot be religious or religious people have to believe in creationism but rather these two modes of inquiry offer different ways of looking at the world which are not necessarily compatible.