@Pnelson’s review comes out today. It is surprising he focuses on methodological naturalism, which is only referenced in a single footnote of the appendix where I discuss the Resurrection. On the other hand, it isn’t surprising, because Nelson really sees methodological naturalism as the fundamental reason why Christians cannot work with mainstream science.
I will withhold most my comments till Friday, when my rejoinder is published. Until then, I will note that he says this is the most “telling statement” of the book (though it is two sentences, a statement and a question ):
In 2017, the massive anthology Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique , was published by Crossway (I have three chapters in the book). Swamidass reviewed Theistic Evolution for the conservative theological journal Themelios , published by the Gospel Coalition. He concluded his review with this question (in italics), quoted again in GAE (p. 172), which I see as the most telling statement in the book:
As a scientist in the Church and a Christian in science, I see firsthand the strength of evolutionary science. What version of theistic evolution could be theologically sound?
Swamidass is hailing us from within the circle defined by MN and CA. What can I say over here where I’m standing, he asks us, that you folks—outside the boundaries I have assumed as given—will find acceptable?
It is notable he leaves out the rest of the quote, as it is rendered in the GAE:
As a scientist in the church and a Christian in science, I see firsthand the strength of evolutionary science. What version of theistic evolution could be theologically sound? This question, I hope, can be received with empathy by a new generation of theologians. Help us find a better way.
The good news, I think is that most people want that better way. Most are looking to take it.