Review of “Special Creationism” (2014) by Andrew Perry

This book puts forward the case for “Special Creationism”, a creation that occurred as described in Genesis 1 in the locale of Mesopotamia and that becomes paradigmatic for the understanding of the creation of everything, demonstrating that God is the creator of all things. This approach does three things (1) It dispenses with the need for a young earth creation because the earth and the universe were already established (2) It dispenses with the need to understand evolution as the only process by which God could create (3) It allows the reader to understand Genesis in a more (though not entirely) literal sense without the need to harmonise the account with science (i.e., this book does not accept the premise of Theistic Evolution as that would undermine the Genesis account).

Perry approaches the task from a philosophical background rather than a scientific one as he readily admits that while he is able to assess popular scientific arguments, he is not scientifically qualified in the specialised fields that would allow an in-depth criticism of the science. Perry does not equate “creation” with “evolution” although he does accept that natural processes form a “baseline upon which divine action takes place” (p. 72). This seems to me a sensible starting point as it is becoming scientifically undeniable that the age of the earth and naturalistic processes have some role to play in where we are “now”; however, that does not exclude God from any naturalistic processes and certainly cannot stop God from intervening at any stage of these processes from initiating a “special creative” act.  We might think here of the difference between God transforming already existing material (water into wine) or when He creates ex-nihilo (out of nothing).

Of course, evolution denies any input from God in naturalistic processes and certainly denies that God can intervene at any given moment either by re-ordering existent material or with “new creative acts”.  The choice to deny God in any creative process is essentially a philosophical choice and not a scientific one – neither evolutionists (nor creationists for that matter) have any empirical evidence that can confirm or deny their beliefs, it becomes therefore a matter of philosophy for both creationists and scientists to either accept creation or evolution. However, evolutionist theory does not really perceive acceptance of what they consider as “hard evidence” as a philosophical choice, but as Perry points out, “there is a philosophical layer embedded in popular evolution writing and that the conflict with religion lies in this layer” (p. 13).

The largest obstacle in understanding Genesis 1 as a new creative act (i.e., “Special Creationism”) is the connection between the present (where we are now) with what happened in the past. Naturalistic processes posit an unbroken link (origin of the species) from the present to the past on the basis of the fossil record and DNA evidence. This evidence suggests an uninterrupted progression from simple life forms in the past to higher life forms in the present.  However, a master builder is able to use “new bricks” or “old bricks” when building a house and in the case of a renovation perhaps a combination of both. Perry notes that, God’s work (at this level) was with existing common ‘material’, using and varying common designs (cf. Eve)” (p. 66). Evolution is based on uniform development even though the earth sciences demonstrate periods of mass extinction and renewal (punctuated equilibrium) and although evolution explains some of the developments of life on earth it cannot exclude special creative interventions – denial of this possibility is based on naturalistic philosophy rather than science (p. 67).

A good deal of Perry’s book examines the philosophical underpinnings of arguments both for and contra evolution and he does this in an even handed way. Topics under discussion include Natural Selection, Universal Common Descent, Evidence and Explanation, Intelligent Design and Bad Design. For non-philosophers it may be difficult to follow the minutiae of some of the arguments but the overall thrust is to test the epistemological basis of evolution.  I believe that he has successfully demonstrated that evolution is as much a belief system as is creation. Like any other subject, the natural sciences require interpretation and context and this influences the way “facts” are perceived.

Evolutionary science is relatively speaking a “young science” and (as is appropriate for all the sciences) new discoveries (such as DNA) will require that theories are tested and adjusted, perhaps the philosophical basis for understanding the processes will at some stage require updating.  Evolution does not have all the answers, in fact no science does – the more we know the more aware we become how little we actually understand.

Personally I would have liked to have seen a chapter on horizontal gene transfer (HGT is a relatively recent discovery) that refers to the transfer of genes between organisms in a manner other than traditional reproduction. This mechanism (HGT) lies at the basis of antibiotic resistance in bacteria but higher organisms have been demonstrated to possess large amounts of “foreign” material.  For example, cows are known to possess 25% reptile (snake) DNA. Prof. David Adelson, study lead and head of Molecular and Biomedical Science at the University of Adelaide, told Australian ABC News. “But what we’ve shown is that there are DNA segments…called jumping genes…which are able to jump between species.” The similar DNA sequence that the two species share is able to “cut and paste itself within the genome,” and thus replicate itself and jump to another species, Adelson explains. In that way, it’s similar to how a retrovirus like HIV works, except it has “no way of making an infectious particle, so it’s a bit of a mystery how it gets from [one] species to another,” Adelson concedes.[1]

Although HGT is known to occur in bacteria because they form connective tubes (called pili) and exchange little bits of DNA, like sharing software, it occurs rarely in a multicellular host and that mostly through retroviral infection. However, such large scale incorporation of new material smacks of the type of “genetic engineering” that humans practice when they add jelly fish genes to pigs to make them glow in the dark, it is therefore difficult to understand how (and why) a retro virus can accomplish this.[2] Moreover, evolutionists admit that it wreaks havoc with the phylogenetic tree (tree of life) as it contradicts a linear progression.  If genes can jump laterally across the “branches” of the tree how can one state with confidence that all commonality can be explained by vertical (up the tree trunk) reproduction/adaptation?[3]

This book is to be commended as it allows us to read the Genesis account as it is (as a relatively ‘new creation’), without attempting to harmonise it with science neither does it demand the implausibility of a ‘Young Earth’ and it leaves evolutionary science its allotted space to work in (the ‘old pre-Adamic creation’ and naturalistic processes). The ‘old pre-Adamic’ and the ‘new’ creations are both established by the same God and related to each other by common ‘materials’ and processes. God is at work now preparing the earth for another ‘Special Creation’ where he will introduce a “new heavens and earth” (Rev 22:1), “for we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” (Rom 8:22).

Evolution cannot deny ‘Special Creation’ on scientific grounds, nor can it plausibly deny God in its ‘spontaneous’ (some would say miraculous) processes – to do so is a philosophical choice, as much as believing in God, the creator of all things, is a faith choice.