A Review of Desmond Ford's "Genesis Versus Darwinism"

In several ways "GENESIS versus DARWINISM: The Demise of Darwin's Theory of Evolution" is a very unique book, beginning with the author, Desmond Ford, who is a theologian, not a scientist. That someone with his background would write a book attacking Darwinism is not unique; what is unique is his honest engagement with the science and uncommon objectivity as a nonscientist. Most theologians who write books that are pro-creation and anti-Darwinist consistently refute scientific facts on the slimmest of evidence—the “evidence” itself often being based on a misunderstanding of the science, or at best, on a very narrow facet of the scientific evidence that is problematic, as if any hard-to-explain evidence from science proves that science has failed to properly interpret the natural world.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://spectrummagazine.org/article/2015/06/03/review-desmond-fords-genesis-versus-darwinism

what I found was that Des is strong on the Who of creation, questions the when He doesn’t make it as clear as I hade hoped that the earth as a body and the Biomass were two different events. He is correct in demolishing the Usher dating and the use of chronology…My study of human anatomy and physiology lead me to the wonders of design, far beyond trial and error. Fundamentalism makes a terrible mistake in trying to defend God through Gen 1-11. But I do have to agree that for every watch there is a watchmaker. even today man and his tools are limited. we are picking up a cold trail. Des made a contribution that remains in part fussy at the edges. Tom Z


Ford stands in a long line of theologians who just can’t do 7X24.
A long line of theologians that read Genesis in a old way. I did not say a new way.
Usher failed math, history, …just failed. NOT Oct.23, 4004 BC at sundown.

I have run several R&D companies. There is much talk about the thought and effort in design. Many engineers do not talk about the trial and error in design. Maybe trial and error lessens the worth of an engineer. (look at a light bulb, trial and error x 99) I know this is making God in man’s image, but I can see the “watch maker” trying many things. T-Rex was a good plan and worked for many years. Not a good plan for today.

We must admit what is clear; The world is stinking old. Life is followed by death. There are many prototypes, some worked for years, but prototypes or versions built for a very different world. AND We will never know all things, bible or science.


Can you please summarize the differences between the Full Version, the Abridged Edition, and the Especially For Adventists. In other words, is Dr. Ford’s premise sufficiently established in the abridgments? Would the Adventist version be annoying to non-Sabbatarians?

Trust The Process.


we always leave out the devil who had dominion for centuries. now he plays with micro organisms. the flu of the year kind of stuff. Tom Z

1 Like

Desmond Ford’s great strength is his integrity. There is nothing sacrosanct about his views; like most people he is trying to make sense of a complex reality and his conclusions are as tentative and fallible as anybody else’s. But he is an honest man, and that is refreshing. He does not shy away from the actual data. He does not insult his readers by proposing far-fetched deus ex machina stratagems to get out out of theological quandaries. The tragedy of modern Advenism is that it would choose a conniving bureaucrat like Neal Wilson over the troubled integrity of honest people like Desmond Ford. Glacier View was, fundamentally, not about theology–always a work in progress–but about integrity of scholarship and facing the future honestly.


Because we don’t understand (fill in the blank) God must have done it.
God made all this in his perfection, and all is well.
But all is not well. If God did this then “the OT God must be a real sun of a b*%#^”.
So we need to invent a bad God to blame (bad-fill in the blank) on.
But the Jews and the OT don’t really have a God-the-Devil so Christians invented one. After all God can’t be both good and bad so let our God be good and the other (God-the-Devil) be the bad one. (or I think God does things that we see as good and bad) (or I think there are many Gods) (or we don’t have a clue)

Animals (and the flu) do what animals do, change if they have to, to survive, and don’t change if they are doing well.
Every year humans learn how to fight the flu so the flu must change to survive. This is the way things are. Or you could say God helps humans fight the flu and the God-Devil makes the flu change (bad). Or God does both. Or this is just how God made things.

When I was young; Adventists said; pre-flood, people were infinitely smart and 12 feet tall. They took DNA from God’s animals and changed it to make T-Rex. I could not see that. If 12 foot man has taken T-Rex DNA and changed it to make a cow …well …closer to the focal record.
I have also heard that the Devil did it. “Only the Devil can make a animal change.” “Only God can make a animal change”. Well people have been changing animals all through recorded time. It looks like the environment also makes animals change.

We need to get past the idea that God’s animals don’t change! Stop blaming this on the Devil or 12 foot tall people.

On the other hand, the last time I had the flu, I begged God and cursed the Devil. Bowed low to the white porcelain God. Cursed several Gods. Then my fever came down.

1 Like

I also have a high regard for Dr Ford, his intellect, his courage, his contributions to understanding God. I just found this unabridged book difficult. so it must be me. Tom Z

Adventists do have some unique aspects that nobody else would understand. :confused:


Ever hear of quantum physics? Talk to me about clear…


As I said in the review, Tom. it is a bit sprawling, and he does take many side-paths. Reading it in a short time frame would probably help, and as I mentioned, the first half can be read and the second half skipped without losing anything about his arguments.


There has never been any evidence that humans have ever been taller than we are today or that they lived longer than we do today. Improvement in diet in human history and the development of medical care has had a substantial affect on human height and longevity. I don’t know if Ford deals with this in terms of young earth chronologies.


Thank you for the Review! Sounds like a very interesting book. I hope it is on Amazon…

In other words hold up fallen man’s ideas as the standard and reinterpret Almighty God’s Word to make it agree. Just as Ford did with his ideas on the Sanctuary, prophecy etc, he gives too much reverence to “authorities” and not enough to the plain reading of the Word of God.


This article is a refreshing summary of the issues.


I keep hearing about Ford and his so-called integrity. Equivocating like he did on the definitions of words re prophecy (he misrepresented the sheba/shabua/sevens/weeks thing - let’s put it plainly - he was just plain wrong, whether deliberately, or more likely, to pull the wool over the eyes of those who don’t know how the Hebrew language works in order to make his point), speaking from both sides of his mouth re Ellen White - saying she;s a prophet on one hand but minimising the value of her writings on the other, making them of “none effect”, denying the plain meaning of the biblical text, making contradictory statements in order to satisfy whoever happens to be in the audience asking questions at any particular time, and now implying that Genesis 11 covers an unknown vista of time (and saying Creation happened 14 billion years ago), when the Bible quite plainly gives the ages of the patriarchs and when their sons were born.

The Bible’s focus is man because it is written for man, but the Bible does not limit death to man because of sin. The Bible is clear that animals were vegetarian before the fall, and that they will be vegetarian in the New Earth. Animals had to die in order to clothe Adam and Eve, who did not need clothes before they sinned.

Where is the “integrity” of Ford? Rather than repeating this ad-nauseam as if it is a fact, please go through all the contradictory statements of Ford, all the statements where he misrepresents what the Bible says, and explain to us how that is integrity.

Ford has integrity in the eyes of evolution-believing prophecy-denying para-Adventists because he upholds their beliefs and gives them an extra leg to stand on in their fight to change the Adventist church into something they feel more comfortable in.


Pago, you may want to look up the definition of integrity. It has to do with sincerity, not infallibility. The fact that prominent Hebrew scholars such as yourself disagree with Desmond Ford’s exegesis (he’s only got a PhD for Pete’s sake), has nothing to do with the question of honesty.

This is the disease that is destroying American politics–the idea that disagreement is treasonous. For a person who doesn’t have the guts to use your own name (Leopold something?), you’re not exactly in a position to vax too loud about integrity and sincerity.


Integrity has to do with moral soundness. Not sincerity. One can be Sincerely wrong. Sincerity in a wrong path can never make it right.


Please explain that to me. How do you come up with 4004 bc? or there about. With out any history books. Remember history books and science books are form the same evil source.

[quote=“DV2000, post:18, topic:8442”]
One can be Sincerely wrong.
[/quote]Agree! Most people are sincerely wrong.
I know someone that teaches what he does not believe. Likely what he teaches is wrong (at least in part) and what he believes is wrong (in parts) so he is in-sincerely wrong.

1 Like

It seems like Ford makes the interpretation of science the equivalent of God’s revelation to his prophets. If science contradicts the revelation then we have misunderstood the revelation. Is it possible that the science has been misunderstood, despite the unanimous certitude among scientist about the age the life and the earth? Scientists make errors and misinterpret data as well. There are times when the consensus turns out to be wrong. There is so much uncertainty on these issues that both sides in the debate should proceed with caution.

1 Like