The tragic toll of toxic teaching
A review of "Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian
and Believe in Evolution" by Karl W. Giberson Reviewed by Jerry Bergman
This is the story of how a professing Bible-believing Christian
young-earth creationist, Karl Giberson, became a committed Darwinist who now
enthusiastically opposes those who have concluded that God has played an active
role in creation. Giberson even argues that those who believe evidence
exists for intelligent design in nature are ‘anti-science’.
Evolution, he argues, can explain all life and the entire natural
creation. As will be illustrated, his arguments against design and for
naturalistic evolution are irresponsible.
Until college, Giberson was a creationist—creationist Henry
Morris was one of his boyhood heroes, and his “dog-eared copies of Henry
Morris’s classic text of scientific creationism and Christian apologetics, The
Genesis Flood and Many Infallible Proofs” were among his most prized
possessions (p. 1).
The
college connection
What happened to change his worldview is the subject of his
book. In short, he attended Eastern Nazarene College. In his Bible class, his Bible
professor “assaulted my literalist reading of Genesis, suggesting that Genesis
should be read as poetry … to make matters worse, the science faculty—despite
claiming to be Christians—all seemed to accept evolution” (p. 2). He added that
even his “fellow students, at least in the science division” were also
evidently all evolutionists.
By the middle of his second year Giberson was “sliding
uncontrollably down the slippery slope that has characterized religion since it
began the liberalizing process just over a century ago” (p. 6). He
realized that acceptance of evolution forced a radical reinterpretation of the
Bible, and he eventually rejected the account of Adam and Eve, and most of the
core teachings of Christianity itself. In his search he writes:
“I turned with some optimism to
religion scholars, but found they had little to offer. Some of them strangely
insisted on the historicity of some portions
of the Genesis story, while allowing that much of it was not historical. The
fall, for example, was sometimes an important part of elaborate theological
systems, serving the critical function of getting God off the hook for a
creation filled with so much suffering. So even though Adam and Eve were not
actual characters themselves and Eden was not a real place, they at least
represented something historical.
Once upon a time, human beings did something
to ruin God’s perfect creation, and this is where it all went wrong
[emphasis in original]” (p. 9).
A
matter of convenience
He adds that by his third year in college he “was now wearing
scientific spectacles almost all the time” and, as a result, non-evolutionary
explanations for life “looked a little too convenient to me”. Giberson
writes he “had come to the point where, by definition, nothing could
ever be explained by reference to God [emphasis in original]” (p. 110). An
example of the ‘too convenient’ explanations he rejected was the view of those
theologians who
“… drew a provocative connection between the fall and
redemption (1 Cor. 15:45). The first Adam made the mess; the second
Adam cleaned it up. I could never see, though, how theologians could be so comfortable with
a mythical interpretation of Eden, but insist on an important historical role
for its resident. Paul’s ‘first Adam’ was indeed the original sinner,
but he didn’t live in the Garden of Eden, he didn’t name all the animals, and
he may or may not have been married to Eve” (p. 9).
As Giberson continued to struggle with the many challenges
to his Christian faith he encountered at the Nazarene college, he learned that
even the religion scholars there
“… were quite accepting of evolution. An Old
Testament scholar … assured me that ‘Genesis was never intended to be read
literally’. He and his colleagues had made their peace with evolution … [and]
were surprisingly disinterested in the struggles of those who, like me, were
trying to hold on to some version of their childhood faith, while portions of
its foundations were slowly removed” (p. 9).
Giberson ended up reducing historic Christianity and the
Scriptures to myth.
Fanciful
fables?
Giberson ended up reducing historic Christianity and the
Scriptures to myth. He calls the Genesis story an ‘old fashioned fairy tale’ that is
ridiculous because it includes such things as a ‘magical garden’ and ‘talking
snakes’ (p. 8). The clear impression Giberson leaves in the
reader is that Genesis is ridiculous because, as an anti-supernaturalist, he
accepts the line of reasoning that rejects all of Jesus’ miracles and every act
of God in physical nature, calling into doubt both Old and New Testaments.
Giberson never addresses the logical implications of his conclusions
except to note that evolution is not only the doorway to atheism but,
as Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett argued, evolution is a
‘universal acid’ that affects everything and with “… undisguised glee he outlines
how evolution, which he calls ‘Darwin’s dangerous idea’, eats through and
dissolves the foundations of religion. The theory of evolution, which he thinks
is the greatest idea anyone ever had, destroys the belief that God created
everything, including humans. ‘Darwin’s idea’, he writes with approval, ‘eats
through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a
revolutionized worldview’” (pp. 9–10).
What’s left of Christianity? After reading this book at face value, one
could be forgiven for thinking— not much, certainly not its foundation,
although Giberson unsuccessfully tries to argue otherwise. Giberson
admits that “Acid is an appropriate metaphor for the erosion of my
fundamentalism, as I slowly lost my confidence in the Genesis story of creation
and the scientific creationism that placed this ancient story within the
framework of modern science. Dennett’s universal acid dissolved Adam and Eve;
it ate through the Garden of Eden; it destroyed the historicity of the events
of creation week. It etched holes in those parts of Christianity connected to
these stories—the fall, ‘Christ as second Adam’, the origins of sin, and nearly
everything else that I counted sacred” (p. 10).
Under the heading “Dissolving the Fall” Giberson writes, “Clearly,
the historicity of Adam and Eve and their fall from grace are hard to reconcile
with natural history.” The reason is “the geological and fossil records
make” the case against Adam and Eve compelling. He adds that once
“… we accept the full
evolutionary picture of human origins, we face the problem of human uniqueness.
The picture of natural history disclosed by modern science reveals human beings
evolving slowly and imperceptibly from earlier, simpler creatures. None of our
attributes—intelligence, upright posture, moral sense, opposable thumbs,
language capacity—emerged suddenly. Every one of our remarkable capacities must
have appeared gradually and been present in some partial, anticipatory way in
our primate ancestors. This provocatively suggests that animals, especially the
higher primates, ought to possess an identifiable moral sense that is only quantitatively different from that of
humans” (p. 11).
The
case against
In fact, the case against human evolution is
compelling, as I and others have documented. Giberson seems totally unaware of
this devastating case. In trying to hold onto a remnant of Christianity, he
argues that “Christianity, as its name suggests, is primarily about
Christ”, yet Christ and the early church fathers clearly accepted Adam as the
first man, the Fall, and all the rest that Giberson rejects (See Romans 5:12–21
and 1 Corinthians 15:22). Giberson also makes numerous egregious claims, such
as:
“… ‘scientific creationism’ (also
called ‘creation‘ science’) and ‘intelligent design’, [are] sibling
perspectives insisting they are unrelated. Despite being largely devoid of
scientific content, these movements have captured the hearts and minds of over
half the country, although they remain, for the time being at least, banned
from America’s public schools” (p. 17).
His claim that “the science of evolution grows increasingly robust and
secure, even as America’s schools find the topic increasingly harder to teach”
is directly the opposite of reality. He does admit that the
goal of evolution “is to win … the cultural-war … not to discover the truth”
(p. 172). The book is miss-titled—it should be “Why Creationism is Wrong”,
because little to no effort was expended to “save Darwinism”.
Chemicals
plus magic equal creation
His story of evolution starts about 3.5 billion years ago with simple
chemicals that evolved into cells; then some of these cells clumped together to
form multi-celled organisms and, eventually, humans evolved, all due to time,
the actions of natural forces, chance, and luck (p. 191). No role for
God; none is noted. It’s all magic—molecules become people and “a central nervous system
can become intelligent” and “light-sensitive cells can become sophisticated and
turn into eyes” all due to ‘mother nature’ (p. 192).
The mistakes in this section are everywhere. One
example is, in contrast to Giberson’s claim, human embryos do not have gills, or tails like a dog
(p. 200). Similar genetic ‘mistakes’ in different organisms are not irrefutable
proof of evolution as he claims, but are likely due to hot spots or a dozen
other reasons (p. 203).1 In contrast to his claim that the
four nucleotide codons (A, T, G, C) for amino-acids are ‘without exception’
universal (p. 203), exceptions do exist.2
Giberson concludes that evolution from molecule to man is
“quite simply, true” (p. 206) and that “God’s signature is not one of the
engineering marvels of the natural world”, but ‘evolution’s signature’ is an
engineering marvel (p. 210). The fact is, all of the ‘proofs’ that
Giberson gives for evolution have been refuted, often by evolutionists
themselves.
After giving many historically early examples of intelligent
design (ID)—then called natural philosophy— he notes that scientists and
philosophers with few exceptions until Darwin believed that “God’s fingerprints
were everywhere” in the creation (pp. 28–29). He then argues for several
hundred pages that ID is found nowhere in the natural world yet notes even
those who reject Christianity acknowledge that ID was everywhere, writing:
“Even those starting to reject
Christianity and the Bible found in nature a compelling witness to God as
creator. Thomas Paine, who penned the notorious Age of Reason, in which he claimed to ‘detest’ the Bible ‘as I
detest everything that is cruel’, found in nature a clear revelation of God’s
power and benevolence. The Bible, Paine contested, was written by men; God
wrote the book of nature. The Bible was parochial and recent; nature was
ancient and universal, available to all people at all times. Such celebrations
of nature were common across Europe and in the New World. Everywhere, science
supported belief in God through its revelations of both God’s wisdom and
concern for creatures. This tradition of natural theology nurtured the young
Charles Darwin who set sail on the Beagle
[Emphasis in original]” (p. 29).
Darwin’s
‘big picture’
Darwinism was central in overturning this once dominant
worldview. Darwin originally believed that the natural world revealed a benevolent
and wise Creator, but as he experienced life, Darwin “began to wonder why so
much of the world looked neither wise nor benevolent” (p. 31). Darwin
eventually rejected the historic Christian answer to the problem of evil by
reasoning that maybe
“… we just don’t see the big
picture; perhaps sin and the fall are responsible for some of the problems;
maybe we don’t understand the phenomena well enough; and so on. But these
responses are woefully inadequate and little more than patches on an ancient
ship riddled with holes and taking on water” (p. 32).
Giberson also appears to negate the validity of not just
core Christian doctrines, but also the Scriptures as a whole:
“The gospels, noted the critics,
disagree on such basic history as Jesus’s resurrection. Matthew places two
women at Jesus’s tomb, Mark places three, Luke more than three, and John only
one … . Now that we understand the importance of history, how can readers put
faith in the historicity of an event chronicled by such unreliable reporters?”
(p. 47).
The cost of ‘saving
Darwin’ was to sacrifice Christianity.
The
‘problem’ of the synoptic Gospels
Even the explanatory notes of many translations document
that this ‘problem’, which could have been dredged up from ‘gutter atheist’
websites, is a non-problem: several women visited Jesus’ tomb, as Luke noted, and
Matthew mentioned two of them, Mark three, and John only one. No
contradiction. Giberson’s reason in noting such examples is an attempt to save Darwin
by demolishing the opposition, namely science and Christianity. Giberson
claims that Darwin was a “reluctant convert to evolution and ultimately
agnosticism”, because Darwin was convinced that he had demolished not only
Christianity, but also the major evidence for the existence of God, namely the
evidence from design (p. 38). In the end, Giberson has gutted
Christianity so that only an unrecognizable shell remains. The cost of ‘saving Darwin’ was
to sacrifice Christianity.
Giberson also supports indoctrinating students into
Darwinism and against both creation and ID, even concluding that:
“As noble as it might seem to
‘balance’ education, the reality was that creation science was nothing but a
tiny intellectual backwater championed by a handful of minor fundamentalist
scientists. If every tiny opposing viewpoint received the equal time that
Louisiana wanted for creation science, the public schools would be opening
their doors to astrology, Holocaust denial, alien visitation, and countless other
preposterous topics” (p. 109).
A
trial of faith
He is especially opposed to ID, claiming that at the 2005
Dover Trial “the key ID people—deeply religious people—in the trial were
actually lying and knowingly misrepresenting their case” (p. 113), as if being
‘deeply religious’ was a negative trait not welcome at Eastern Nazarene
College, at least by some of the science professors. Instead, Giberson favors secular
atheistic science. Having read the entire trial transcript, including the
Judge’s opinion—which was almost totally plagiarized from the ACLU brief—plus
four books on the trial, I am not aware of any credible evidence that the ‘key
ID people’ lied or knowingly misrepresented their case as Giberson claims
(p. 113).
Giberson correctly notes that those who oppose Darwinism are
“Christians concerned about the pernicious effects of evolution steadily
eroding traditional American values” (p. 117). Giberson is only helping to
erode these values, as are many theologians:
“Dayton, in Arkansas, at the
Supreme Court, in Dover, and on every legal field where creation and evolution
met, there were always strong religious voices in support of evolution.
Biblical scholars and theologians from all but the most conservative Christian
denominations were every bit as opposed to creationism as the scientists … . I
have found, for example, after more than two decades as a faculty member at an
evangelical college that the most vigorous opposition to creationism comes from
scholars in religion departments rather than in scientific disciplines. As
strong as the scientific evidence against creationism has become, the biblical
and theological arguments for rejecting it are perhaps even stronger. Expert
scholars of religion made this clear in each of the trials” (p. 119).
Bad
design?
Giberson’s theological solution to the problem of evil is that God is
not the Creator, therefore He is not responsible for floods, earthquakes,
sickness and what Giberson claims is the poor design of the human body.
His examples that “the human body is riddled with … bad design” (p. 163),
including knees, the back, the larynx, and junk DNA have all been refuted.3
Furthermore, ‘bad design’, even if it did exist, does not prove no designer exists. He
implies that God was responsible for almost nothing historically. To Giberson,
God is largely a word, and not a meaningful tangible part of reality. Giberson
also indicates that he teaches soft atheism in his classes, and most of his
courses include atheistic attacks on creationism and ID. Few
differences—certainly not any practical ones–exist between classical
atheism and Giberson’s soft atheism.
In his attacks on creation and ID, Giberson employs less
name calling than atheists and, in a few places, condemns the common ad
hominem attacks against Darwin doubters, such as calling them wicked. This
kinder, gentler approach to proselytizing for soft atheism may be more
effective than the in-your-face, nasty and bold atheism, such as that by
atheopathic Professors Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne. Since Giberson believes
he has destroyed the most common argument given by people for believing in God,
the argument from design, why does he still believe in God? He is very
forthright in explaining why:
“I understand how honest thinkers
and seekers after the truth like Daniel Dennett and Michael Ruse can end up
rejecting God. Like that of most thinking Christians, my belief in God is
tinged with doubts and, in my more reflective moments, I sometimes wonder if I
am perhaps simply continuing along the trajectory of a childhood faith that
should be abandoned. As a purely practical matter, I have compelling
reasons to believe in God. My parents are deeply committed Christians and would
be devastated, were I to reject my faith. My wife and children believe in God,
and we attend church together regularly. Most of my friends are believers. I
have a job I love at a Christian college that would be forced to dismiss me if
I were to reject the faith that underpins the mission of the college. Abandoning
belief in God would be disruptive, sending my life completely off the rails. I
can sympathize with Darwin as he struggled against the unwanted challenges to
his faith” (pp. 155–156).
In other words, he ‘believes’ in God because of peer pressure.
In reality, his faith is moribund, since it is not based on Christian
foundations, but rather on naïve readings of atheists and secular writings.
This attribute is hardly one that will inspire young Christians struggling with
their faith who attended Christian colleges. Also, Paul, in Romans 1, tells us
that there are no truly honest thinkers who become atheists; rather, they are
‘without excuse’. Giberson admits that ID is a solid argument for
belief in God (p. 156) yet the story of his fall into unbelief is repeated
hundreds of times today. I personally know of dozens of cases where
Bible-believing Christians rejected the core teaching of Christianity due to
Christian or secular influence, including Drs Stanley Rice, Louis Leakey,
George Gaylord Simpson, P.Z. Myers, Richard Dawkins, and even Darwin himself. Parents
spend from 20 to 50 thousand dollars for a Christian college education, and
some end up with an anti-Christian education that is the doorway to atheism—and
no small number of students from these colleges end up as atheists.
Conclusion
In conclusion, except for its thin veneer of close to
meaningless theism, this book is almost identical in content and conclusions to
the many atheists’ books on the market published to disprove the major
arguments for God, the cosmological and teleological arguments. The
reasoning in this work is also very similar to the writings by atheists and
others against creation and ID. Even mocking believers is present,
although not quite as vicious. When I was an atheist we used to call people
such as Giberson ‘useful idiots’ who were making major contributions to
destroying their own religious edifice.
