The Dome of Eden: A New Solution to the Problem of Creation and Evolution

Written by Stephen H. Webb Reviewed By John Byl

Stephen H. Webb is Professor of Religion and Philosophy at Wabash College in Crawfordsville, Indiana. He has an evangelical background and recently became a Roman Catholic.

Webb starts off with the basic premises that God created the world, that the Bible is reliable, and that evolution occurs. Taking issue with Darwinism, theistic evolution, Intelligent Design, and creationism, Webb offers a new theory of how creation and evolution can both be true.

One major concern with Darwinism is that, more than most scientific theories, it is intimately dependent upon various moral, philosophical, and theological assumptions. Webb claims that there is little empirical evidence for natural selection. Indeed, much of biology is based on inferential reasoning rather than empirical evidence (p. 47). Moreover, transitional forms in the fossil record are incredibly rare, and Darwinism lacks predictive value (p. 51). Darwinists deny purpose in nature, yet their language describing nature is filled with inscribing purpose (e.g., the selfish gene). Thus, Webb asks, if we cannot describe nature without inscribing it with purpose, how do we know that there is a nature beyond our language that is not purposeful (p. 66)?

A major focus of this book is the mystery of natural evil. Darwinian Evolution is random and violent. Thus, any attempt to envision this process as the direct will of God (i.e., theistic evolution) will have a domino effect on every other Christian doctrine (p. 67). Webb argues that the problem of natural evil—particularly animal suffering not due to human causes—poses difficulties for both theistic evolution and intelligent design. The God of theistic evolution causes both life-affirming growth and death-dealing corruption. Such a God, who is both good and evil, cannot be the God of the Bible (p. 110). As to the intelligent design movement, if it is willing to make inference to a good intelligent designer, should it not likewise make inferences to an evil intelligent designer (p. 121)?

Creation science also gets its share of critique. Webb, who believes in an old earth, contends that creation science theorists read Genesis anachronistically, as a response to Darwin. Consequently, they tie the meaning of Genesis too closely to questions raised by evolution and treat the Bible as if it were a fount of scientific information (p. 126). Further, creation science attributes natural evil to human sin. According to Webb, it is unjust to punish animals for human sin (p. 131), and, further, their punishment is disproportionate to the human crime. Finally, if God changes animals into predators, he is responsible for natural evil (p. 133).

Having disposed of these alternatives, Webb presents his own proposal. Following C. S. Lewis, Webb suggests that Satan fell long before Adam and corrupted the world outside Eden. Eden was a special place, protected from the rest of the world by a dome (i.e., the firmament of Gen 1). The animals in Eden were the prototypes of all animals, which Satan tried to mimic, replicate, and destroy in the battle over evolution (p. 142). Thus, Satan is responsible for both natural and moral evil. Evolution is to natural evil as freedom is to moral evil. Evolution is a battlefield for the struggle of good and evil (p. 147). God creates directly, without need of any biological mechanism. Satan, on the other hand, cannot create ex nihilo; he can only manipulate and distort what God has created. Satan tries to mimic, mock, and parody God’s creation. Since evolution is marked by blood and anguish, it is primarily a work of Satan, even though it occurs by divine permission. In Eden, however, evolution proceeded under God’s good guidance.

Thus, Webb makes a valiant attempt to solve the perplexing problem of creation, evolution, and natural evil. Yet Webb’s position has its own shortcomings. First of all, since it is somewhat of a compromise, it is doubtful whether his solution will satisfy many Christians. Part of the difficulty is that the relation between Eden and evolution is ambiguous. On the one hand, Webb tells us that God directly created Adam (p. 161) and the Edenic animals (p. 223). On the other hand, we are told that God used bacteria and other building blocks of life to create the creatures of Eden (p. 161). So which is it? Did God use evolution in Eden or not? Further, if God created Adam directly, how are we to view the evidence for common ancestry between humans and other animals? These are points that Webb does not address adequately. There are also exegetical difficulties. Most commentators believe that Gen 1 refers to the creation of the whole earth, not just Eden. Similarly, the fact that God declares this finished creation, after Adam, as “very good” is widely taken to indicate that Satan has not yet corrupted it.

The book is well-written. Webb offers excellent critiques of naturalism, Darwinism, theistic evolution, Intelligent Design, and creationism. He rightly underscores the importance of the problem of natural evil and the substantial theological consequences that flow from proposed solutions to it. He has deep insights regarding the primacy of Jesus Christ in creation, the biblical view on animals, and the philosophical deficiencies of naturalism.

In sum, this is an interesting read, giving much food for thought—even for those who may not ultimately be convinced.


John Byl

Trinity Western University

Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Other Articles in this Issue

I didn’t come from an Evangelical home, and though he never told me outright, I’m sure my father never wanted me to become a pastor...

Reformed paedobaptists frequently cite Col 2:11–12 as evidence that baptism replaces circumcision as the covenant sign signifying the same realities...

New Testament scholarship in its present state is experiencing a time of abundance, especially with respect to biblical commentaries of every shape, length, level of depth, theological persuasion, intended audience, and hermeneutical angle...

It might seem odd to write an editorial for a theological journal on the topic of not doing theology and how important that can be; and, indeed, perhaps it is contrarian even by my own exacting standards...

Most readers of Themelios will be aware that the word “perfectionism” is commonly attached in theological circles to one subset of the Wesleyan tradition...