Crossway is publishing a mammoth (over 600-page) anthology critiquing theistic evolution , with a wide range of contributors from science to theology. From the publisher:
The debate about biological origins continues to be hotly contested within the Christian church. Prominent organizations such as Biologos (USA) and Faraday Institute (UK) insist that Christians must yield to an unassailable scientific consensus in favor of contemporary evolutionary theory and modify traditional biblical ideas about the creation of life accordingly. They promote a view known as “theistic evolution” or “evolutionary creation.” They argue that God used—albeit in an undetectable way—evolutionary mechanisms to produce all forms of life. This book contests this proposal. Featuring two dozen highly credentialed scientists, philosophers, and theologians from Europe and North America, this volume provides the most comprehensive critique of theistic evolution yet produced. It documents evidential, logical, and theological problems with theistic evolution, opening the door to scientific and theological alternatives—making the book essential reading for understanding this worldview-shaping issue.
Here is Bill Dembski’s endorsement:
The “evolution” in “theistic evolution” denotes a scientific theory that sees only material factors (“chance and necessity”) as playing any role in the origin and subsequent development of life. The adjective “theistic” is here merely a throwaway, a weak gesture to try to affirm that somehow, in a way that has no scientific or conceptual bearing, God is behind the evolutionary process. Essentially, theistic evolution says Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins got the science right, but that God is still somehow involved. Putting this view into the crosshairs, this book argues convincingly that the science of evolution is in fact wrong, and that any theistic gloss one puts on it is thus doubly wrong. No Christian should want to affirm theistic evolution. This book shows why no Christian need affirm it.
See also: BioLogos gravitating to “full-on naturalism”?