# Three Reviews of the Crossway Theistic Evolution Book

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/three-reviews-of-the-crossway-theistic-evolution-book/1043>\
**Category:** Peaceful Science\
**Created:** [August 7, 2018, 5:53am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/three-reviews-of-the-crossway-theistic-evolution-book/1043 "2018-08-07T05:53:17Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 14

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![deuteroKJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/46a35a/32.png) [@deuteroKJ](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/deuteroKJ)\
**Post date:** [August 7, 2018, 11:59pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/three-reviews-of-the-crossway-theistic-evolution-book/1043/14 "2018-08-07T23:59:44Z")

</div>

> [@jongarvey](#):
>
> it was said that the target was “a _particular_ type of theistic evolution”

It has always troubled me when ID (or YEC, OEC) use the TE wiithout always clarifying what their real target is to those who don’t know the details or don’t investigate too deeply.

> [@jongarvey](#):
>
> f that target was sometimes too wide in the book, it may be partly because in our day TE has been popularised in a particular form far removed from its historical roots in, say, B B Warfield, Asa Gray or even Alfred Russel Wallace.
> 
> Part of the characteristic of this form is its refusal to stand up and _be_ a particular target, which I put down, in the end, to intellectual cowardice, I’m afraid.

I am sympathetic to your critique here. Still it would’ve been far better if the editors sent BioLogos their summary definition of TE to see if it is accurate. But [BioLogos](https://biologos.org/blogs/deborah-haarsma-the-presidents-notebook/a-flawed-mirror-a-response-to-the-book-theistic-evolution), as you know, thinks it’s a straw man. It would’ve been an easy thing to do. Now BL has an easy “out.” it’s a shame, because I too want BioLogos to answer some of the concerns you raise.

> [@jongarvey](#):
>
> too much from what seems a Young Earth and biblically literalist perspective.

Yep, that’s my assessment too. I did like some of the philosophical discussions about the nature of science and methodological naturalism. But the biblical and theological stuff was disappointing overall.

> [@jongarvey](#):
>
> _What version of theistic evolution could be theologically sound?_

The lack of care on definition I noted above is why I fear this excellent question is not getting enough attention more widely. I think the posture of the Crossway book prevents this discussion, rather than encouraging it.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/three-reviews-of-the-crossway-theistic-evolution-book/1043)._