Book Review: Seven Glorious Days

Seven Glorious Days by Karl W. Giberson
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

The purpose of this book is to show that evolutionary processes can be one way of explaining the account of creation found in Genesis 1. Given the scientific data available today, the author's perspective is that theistic evolution is the strongest explanation for the universe and life as we currently understand them.

This book requires that readers set aside any sort of fundamentalist and historical reading of the Genesis account. It must be seen as an origin story that was an attempt by the early Hebrews to construct a meaningful narrative within the confines of their knowledge, beliefs, and culture. For most liberal Christians and those who do not hold to a literalist hermeneutic, this should not be a problem. For conservative Christians I suspect this book will be difficult to even read as it violates certain fundamentals that are part of that worldview.

Atheists will also find plenty with which to object. The author assumes the existence of God that is personally involved with the universe. Particularly in the final chapter the discussion is around how God can enter into the universe and guide its development within the confines of the natural order that he initially set up.

The book discusses various branches of science - cosmology, astrophysics, biology, to name a few - in support of theistic evolution. The author writes in a way that is accessible to those without extensive scientific background; it steers clear of highly technical language. I have some experience of sitting through technical lectures on cosmology and astrophysics and what the book offers appears to be coherent with available scientific data. Because of that I assume the data and interpretations given in other areas are also sound.

One issue that the author does not address is the existence of death before sin. This may be a problem for many Christians who take the position that death is a direct result of sin. However, it is possible to take several other positions that allow for the existence of biological death prior to a moral fall. By not sufficiently explaining this dilemma, I believe the author weakens his argument for theistic evolution.

Overall I found this book useful in learning about how one might reconcile scientific data with the creation account of Genesis. Whether or not one ultimately agrees with the thesis of the book, it suggests that one need not take a purely naturalistic, materialistic stance toward the evolutionary process.

View all my reviews

Leaping to conclusions?

I came across a news item on MSNBC.com, Genetic mutation makes those brown eyes blue. It is basically how researchers have figured that all blue eyes originate from a single ancestor. This was due to a genetic mutation that occurred some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.

The final two paragraphs in the MSNBC.com article read as follows:

That genetic switch somehow spread throughout Europe and now other parts of the world.

"The question really is, 'Why did we go from having nobody on Earth with blue eyes 10,000 years ago to having 20 or 40 percent of Europeans having blue eyes now?" Hawks said. "This gene does something good for people. It makes them have more kids." [Emphasis mine.]

If a person begins with the assumption that humans have been around for much longer than 10,000 years populating all parts of the earth in great numbers, and a priori rule out a Great Flood that could have constricted the gene pool and reduced the population down to a very small number, then how else can one explain how this single mutation in a single individual spread so quickly and so widely?

Now, since I am only basing my observations on what I read in the news item, I may have missed the fact that validates the theory, "It makes them have more kids." I suspect though, inferring from the way the statement is worded, that this was a off-the-cuff leap to a conclusion, putting forth a theory to fit both the assumed and the observed facts. Has there been any scientific study that tests the theory that blue-eyed individuals have more kids? If so, I'd have expected the news item to at least mention it.

Maybe the statement was made tongue-in-cheek, a joke. But the way it's reported, it's hard to tell. In any case, to my ears it is just a bizarre statement, and I had to share and comment on it.