This book is not only written by two authors, but also consists of two parts. The first six chapters deal with Genesis 1 through 11:26, while the remaining seven chapters cover Genesis from 11:27 onward. Ben Clausen works as a scientist at the Geoscience Research Institute in Loma Linda, while Gerald Wheeler it the head book editor at the Review and Herald Publishing Association. In style these two parts are completely different.

The second part takes the readers through the biblical text. Although many biblical chapters are dealt with only briefly because of space limitations, the authors manage not only to retell the biblical story, but also to provide helpful exegetical insights and background information. They point to the structure and parallels of biblical passages and here and there apply the text to our present situation. Over all, this part is well done and profitable to read.

The first part does not directly lead the readers through the biblical text but discusses various topics from a scientific and sometimes philosophical perspective. It uses the biblical text as a springboard to deal with God, humanity, creation, theodicy, the flood, and the issue of certainty. It covers among other items ancient creation and flood stories, the question of how biblical texts about creation should be interpreted--especially the issue of time. At the end of each of the first six chapters a short theological section follows the scientific explanations. These chapters are written in an irenic, friendly tone attempting to built bridges to those who hold different views.

Obviously, the authors try to help their audience to understand that with regard to creation and flood there are many unresolved questions, in which--according to their view--sometimes an evolutionary approach seems to make better sense. They suggest: “One should not base a belief in Scripture on scientific evidence, because that puts science above the Bible and reason and sense perception above revelation, tempting us to discard the Bible when the scientific evidence is found to be incompatible with our understanding of Scripture” (p. 62).

The authors’ methodological approach comes to the fore in a number of places. It is this approach which may raise serious questions among the readers and keep them puzzled:

1. They present different options with regard to creation and time models from which their readers can freely choose whichever they prefer (cf. p. 75). Also, the authors’ first principle of interpreting biblical texts that deal with nature lists the use of “metaphor and simile” (p. 14), but does not point out where in Genesis 1 and 2 it is used and how that would influence our understanding of the two chapters. Readers may conclude that it is sound to interpret Genesis 1 and 2 in a non-literal way.

2. Statements such as, “No clear answer as to exactly what kind of death sin brought into the world exists, so perhaps different individuals can reasonably have different opinions” (p. 48), and “I realized that life issues of the greatest importance don’t have geometry-type proofs” (p. 48), may be partially true, but seem to lead toward doctrinal and theological relativism and pluralism (cf. p. 36) and a denial of what could be called objective truth (cf. p. 11).

3. This impression is heightened by the repeated affirmation that persons are more important than doctrines and “being right,” and that winning people is more important than winning arguments (cf. pp. 8, 70, 79).

4. Repeatedly, the evolutionary approach to origins seems to be portrayed as superior to the creationist approach or as the only reasonable approach so far, and creationists are blamed directly or indirectly for not being honest with the data (cf. pp. 45, 57-61, 76). There seems to be a certain incongruity in so far that evolutionists are not subjected to the same verdict, although it is acknowledged that both positions have their problems (cf. p. 11).

5. Most serious, however, is that the authors seem to perceive an almost unbridgeable dichotomy between faith and science, between the work of a scientist and a Christian who believes in Scripture (cf. pp. 8, 80). A leap of faith is required to get from a purely scientific methodology to the data of Scripture, from one realm to another, while the two have not much, if anything, in common. In this sense the authors have left us with nothing apart from an insurmountable chasm between science and faith. This is the major weakness of The Book of Beginnings.

The problem is not only with what the book says, but also with how it is said, what is not said, and the underlying philosophical approach. Although it contains good material, due to the methodology employed in the first six chapters its usefulness for the Adventist readers in general is limited. It raises legitimate questions, but does not sufficiently reaffirm faith and may create an atmosphere of uncertainty. More helpful are without doubt Ariel Roth’s, Origins: Linking Science and Scripture (Review and Herald, 1998) and the volume by Leonard Brand and David C. Jarnes, Beginnings: Are Science and Scripture Partners in the Search for Origins? (Pacific Press, 2006).