January 31, 2017
ISBN-13: 978-1587433948
I think at this juncture it’s reasonable to set Venema and his book aside at last.
-David Klinghoffer, here(see below)
Exaggerations, hasty conclusions, later retraction.
This book has become a great lesson-learned in the evolution/creation debate:
When an evolutionist make grandeur claims based on recently produced genetic data...wait and see. The field of genetic research is still We can certainly look back on history and say "We've learned so much!", but honestly, that even include the last 10 years. Although have learned a lot, there is no doubt the field of genetics is just getting started. Many decades from now we'll still be learning, and we will look back at this time and consider genetic research "in its infancy" in its infancy .
This book was recommended to me by a Theistic Evolutionary professor I had dialogued with at the time the book came out. Being one that likes to follow evolution closely, I gladly got a copy and read it.
The book was rather technical, but I did my best to follow up. I also followed much of the discussions and responses that came following its publication.
BTW, a few side notes:This is a bit of a side topic, so I placed this in here, not wanting to detract from the main points.
Unfortunate 'creationist' upbringing
Venema's very first sentence (in the introduction on p. ix) reads:
Like many evangelicals, I (Dennis) grew up in an environment that was suspicious of science in general, and openly hostile to evolution in particular.[emphasis mine]
I disagree with that word "many"; but honestly that's not worth debating.
What I do want to point out first is that there have been some bad "creationist" teachings in the past (and still today perhaps). Unfortunately these uniformed Christians promoted this notion of distrust in 'science' (what they really meant was modern scientific consensus, more on that difference later). As a result, I've seen a number of TE scientists who grew up in that bad environment and are now adamant opponents to (a false version of) creationism.
It's obvious to me that Venema falls into that category. It comes out in statements like "Yet I had a deep longing to be a scientist" and "I almost didn't become a scientist", plus a few other statements below. It's unfortunate to see someone this intelligent, and have this much of a love for science, be misled about the nature of 'science' and the tremendous benefit it has to bible-believing Christians.
Tainted view of "science"
It's unfortunate to see that he has a tainted view of 'science'. Like many TEs, he confuses scientific consensus, and methodological naturalism with the word "science". They are NOT the same. It shows in statements of his like the following:
"..if the church had a better relationship with science to begin with and "scientist" had been on the unofficial list of acceptable Christian careers..."
And when he explains that undergraduates like him heard that
"...they have to choose between the Bible and science"
To all these statements I have to reply: Define Science! Again, like many TEs, he confuses scientific consensus, and methodological naturalism with the word "science". The TRUTH is, as true creationists, our science is better.
I tried to read the theology half of this book (by Scot McKnight). I really did. I don't want to be one who only stays within my own bubble. Reading opponents' views is a healthy thing.
I didn't have to get very far into the theology half (written by Scot McKnight) to see some holes in his thinking:
- On p. 96 he discusses Genesis 1-11, saying that it has some "mighty unusual features that make an honest reader wonder whether they are mean to be strictly historical", and then lists several of them. Problem McKnight: 8 chapters later a women got turned into a pillar of salt. That's mighty unusual as well. Does that mean we suspect whether it happened? And there's just a tad more 'unusual features' like that from the chapter on! That's certainly not a sufficient criteria for exegesis.
- The appeal to the "ancient Near Eastern culture". There seems to be a number of TEs that have clinged to this as an excuse to not have to take Genesis 1-11 as historic. Just because some other literature from other cultures existed around the same time is no excuse to compromise on scripture. It's a cop-out to me.
- McKnight lists three 'defining moments' that moved him towards his beliefs today. One included a young student coming to him "in tears", grateful to hear about the Near Eastern excuse. Not to belittle the story, but an individual being moved to tears over hearing something does not elevate it to a level of 'truth' that should be told to others. It goes both ways. How about the number of students I've heard of leaving Venema's class in tears because he ruined their faith? Or people moved by Muslim teachings? How about the significant number of people's live's changed by the Creation message? BTW, it reminds of this topic
As for the rest of the book, nothing moved me to even consider evolutionary creationism's compromise on scripture.
Exaggerations
It didn't take me long to pick up from reading his book that he's quite an exaggerator. I also started collecting information from multiple individuals pointing out various exaggerated claims from this book. These included hasty conclusions that Venema came to from the material he was siting. He was drawing conclusions greater than what the original material allowed for. I started collecting a list, and planned on posting them here. But chose not to for brevity.
I believe at times 'less-is-more'. Rather than posting all of them, I will just focus on one posting that lead to the quote by David Klinghoffer at the top of this review.
The Retraction
After this book came out, a number of response articles were produced by the Intelligent Design community and were posted at https://evolutionnews.org. One of the last articles posted was titled: Discussion Over: On Adam and the Genome, Former BioLogos Fellow Backs Down.
To sum it up, a few IDers took Venema to charge for what he wrote in his book and entered into a dialog with him, showing him were he was wrong in about his declaration that genetic science had disproven the traditional idea of a “bottleneck” of two human ancestors. According to Klinghoffer: "Bottom line: Venema has backed down."
Apparently after a long discussion with Venema, Richard Buggs of Queen Mary University in London says the following to Venema:
You would do your readers a service if you wrote a blog to tell them now, as far as you are able, that present day genomic diversity in humans does not preclude a bottleneck in the human lineage between approx 700K and 7myr ago. I think you owe this to them, and to everyone who has taken the time to participate in this discussion.
Klinghoffer explains: "That is, Venema should concede in an official BioLogos blog post that contrary to the apparent main point of his Adam and the Genome, genetic science DOES NOT exclude a traditional first couple...". Venema responds:
I’ve already agreed with this, and it’s been up there ^^ for weeks now. You’re welcome to publicize it as you wish...
So there you have it. I have to agree with Buggs, Venema needed to post a statement indicating he was wrong. But it doesn't look like that's going to happen.
For brevity I'm trying to summarize the salient point of this article, but I encourage you to read it for yourself. Especially the "Final Statements" which included the quote I shared at the beginning of this review.
Conclusion
Since this book came out, I collected a great deal of rebuttals to many things written by Venema in this book. I intended on presenting all of it. But honestly, I think that one posting above where he admitted his fault is sufficient.
I considered tossing this book. Even the theology portion wasn't worth the read (I gave it an honest read through, I really did). However, I changed my mind. This book now serves an excellent purpose, as I alluded to above: a lesson learned. This is not the first time evolutionists have come out with grandiose claims, that later have to be retracted (junk DNA & psuedogenes, for example).
So when big claims like Venema's come out, we Creationists can just respond: "We'll wait and see..."
