Book Review: The Dark Side of Charles Darwin

Jerry Bergman's The Dark Side of Charles Darwin: A Critical Analysis of an Icon of Science was a very painful book to read because it has been so poorly edited. It reads like a series of articles that have been thrown together resulting in considerable repetition. The author is clearly a creationist and this agenda, at times, detracts from the objectivity of the book. Rather than being an “impartial” analysis of Darwin's beliefs, attitudes and errors the underlying agenda of the author to discredit Darwin and his ideas in order to promote creationism overtakes the analysis and diminishes the credibility of the author.

Another weakness of the style is the reliance of the author on secondary sources. A large amount of the text consists of direct quoting of others opinions and conclusions about Darwin rather than the author reporting on his own research of Darwin's primary sources (although there may be some of that). The strong impression is that the author is “preaching to the choir” rather than presenting a scholarly piece of work.

The quality of the material is very uneven and often is not directly related to what I expected of the book. Part 1 (’Darwin and Christianity’) has overstated chapter titles such as ’How Darwin Overthrew Creationism Amongst the Intellectual Establishment’. The chapter entitled ’Why Darwinism Demands Atheism’ completely ignores scholars who remain theists AND accept evolutionary theory.

Parts 2-4 of the book gradually become better as information is provided on Darwin’s alleged mental health issues, his passion for killing animals, and his views on race, gender, and eugenics.

The section on claims that Darwin plagiarised his ideas is interesting.

There is no doubt that Darwin was a deeply flawed character if the evidence in this book is to be believed. But that doesn't necessitate that his ideas are wrong, of course. The author does go on to argue that the central ideas of Darwinian evolution are incorrect and lacking in evidence but generally accepted because of the suppression of critical analysis of evolutionary theory. In my view, the author needed to support this claim with a more substantial argument than he has provided including a discussion of the ways in which contemporary evolutionary theory may differ from Darwin's original publications.

In summary, an uneven, poorly executed book that gains more value in the latter sections. Despite that it is worth a read to obtain some sense of the somewhat neglected darker side of a famous man.

Book Details: Jerry Bergman (2011). The Dark Side of Darwin: A Critical Analysis of an Icon of Science. Master Books.

Book Review: Darwin, Creation and the Fall

Last year (2009) was the bicentenary of Charles Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of his world-shattering book Origin of Species. Many Christians, particularly those on the conservative end of the spectrum, have had a very difficult time with evolutionary theory as it is considered, by them, to completely undermine the biblical narrative of human origins.

In the book Darwin, Creation and Fall: Theological Challenges, we have a fascinating exploration by a group of scholars who are conservative evangelicals and who accept the current consensus of scientists on the evolutionary origins of humans. Now that is interesting!

The two editors of the book come from different disciplines. R J (Sam) Sperry was Professor of Genetics at University College London 1984-2000. T A Noble is Senior Research Fellow in Theology at the Nazarene Theological Seminary in Kansas City. They have gathered a number of writers who, in this volume, explore the relationship between the biblical account of origins and Fall in Genesis 1-3 and the contemporary understanding of origins as articulated by the theory of evolution.

Each of the contributors to the book takes a particular aspect of the issue and describes, and attempts to resolve, some of the challenges once one accepts the biblical documents as authoritative and the modern consensus on evolution. The book begins with a chapter that sets the doctrine of creation in the context of worship of the Creator. This is followed by a historical survey of Darwin’s struggle to come to terms with his scientific discoveries and their theological implications. The next chapter takes a look at Darwin himself and the theological challenges that arose for him as he worked on his science. Another chapter revisits the early chapters of Genesis and discusses the issue of interpreting this text. Following this is a discussion of the concept of original sin and provides some fresh perspectives on the doctrine of the Fall. The last two chapters engage with two theologians — one ancient (Irenaeus) and one modern (Henri Blocher) who have contributed significantly to the discussions of the Fall, original sin, and theodicy.

In the epilogue to the book, the authors affirm the following:

• An insistence that as new information emerges, Scripture, whilst God-given and authoritative, must be re-examined and may require reinterpreting. Christians of a former age had no doubts that the sun moves round the earth and supported their ideas from the Bible …; nowadays we unhesitatingly interpret the passages which seemed to speak of a fixed earth in other ways.
• An awareness of the compelling genetic and fossil evidence that human beings have descended from an ape-like line, and that we are therefore related to other living beings.
• The uniqueness of human beings as the only creatures made in God’s image, albeit ‘fallen’ so that life in fellowship with God is now only possible because of Christ’s redeeming and reconciling death. (pp. 197-198)

The authors conclude that they have arrived at a ‘…position which seems impossibly conservative but also surprisingly radical.’ (p. 198) They warn of the danger of ‘…rush[ing] too quickly to conflate the narrative of human origins and Fall in Genesis and the narrative of human origins given by modern science’, and they acknowledge the necessity of each discipline (science and theology) maintaining their own integrity with each contributing different perspectives on the issues. They arrive at the hypothesis that:

Our prehuman ancestors cannot be called immoral (let alone ‘sinful’) on the grounds that they killed, deceived, behaved promiscuously, and so on. But when God created the first humans, apes now in God’s image, or Homo divinus as John Stott has called them, these creatures, since they were now brought into this unique relationship to God, became moral agents. Although they shared many inherited — including behavioural — traits with their ancestors and animal relatives, this did not mean that they were dependent on or determined by them. Sociobiologists fall into the naturalistic fallacy when they argue that human ethical norms are no more than correlates of our evolutionary history. But the new relationship to God, being in his image, which led to new moral possibilities and responsibilities, was followed by a failure to believe and obey God, and consequently a failure to grow into the spiritual and moral greatness we were meant to exemplify. (pp. 200-201)

This hypothesis demonstrates how deeply radical and conservative the authors’ position is. The main benefit of this book, though, is not so much in the position they arrive at (which, of course, needs to be discussed, evaluated and critiqued) but more in the model it presents for conservative and liberal Christians in engaging both with science and with scripture. It demonstrates an approach which moves beyond dogmatism and the conflation of interpretations of the Bible with what the text may, in fact, authentically mean.

In the concluding paragraphs of the book, the authors write that

It is our conviction that there is no conflict between Holy Scripture and modern science. Indeed the Christian doctrine of creation provided the ground for the rise of science. The idea that Christian faith and science are in conflict and always have been is a myth propagated by Humanists for ideological reasons, but sadly they are helped by sincere Christian believers who think they are defending Holy Scripture when in fact they are doing nothing more than defending interpretations of Holy Scripture which are sadly inadequate. That does not mean to say that all the questions are answered, all the problems settled and all the mysteries resolved. That is never the case in either theology or natural science! Both are ongoing quests for deeper understanding. (p. 204 – emphasis in original)

 Darwin, Creation and the Fall is going to be very tough reading for conservative Christians. Undoubtedly, many will accuse the authors of heresy and blasphemy. If they do, then they will not have seen how deeply committed the authors are to the Bible and to God and how they are determined to give due weight to the biblical text as well as due weight to what we now know about human origins from a scientific view.

And, undoubtedly, there will be those who see these authors as doing nothing more than trying to rationalise their religious beliefs in order to legitimise what many atheists see as an outmoded, irrelevant, and even immoral, system of belief.

But for those of us who want to affirm our commitment to God and struggle to understand that commitment in the context of what we now know from science, this book will be a fascinating journey that, as the authors say, won’t answer every question, but will provide the opportunity to hear from others about a way forward in resolving an unnecessary conflict between faith and science. For anyone interested in these questions, and who are not afraid to think in new ways, this book is essential reading.

Book deteails: Berry, R. J., & Noble, T. (Eds.). (2009). Darwin, Creation and the Fall: Theological Challenges: Apollos.

Technorati Tags: Charles Darwin,creation,the Fall,theology,evolution,science

Book Review: Saving Darwin

Is it possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution? Many Christians say it isn't. But the fact is that there are Christians who also believe in evolution. One of these is Karl W Giberson who once was a creationist but now believes in evolution and remains a Christian. In his book Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution he provides an incisive, cogent, and compelling argument in support of evolution and its compatibility with Christian belief. On his web site he explains why he wrote the book:

'I wrote Saving Darwin to build a bit of a bridge between two cultures at odds with each other: the scientific community and American evangelicalism. I have lived in both cultures and am dismayed at how far apart they are. In this climate of misunderstanding the ‘naturalism’ of science looks anti-religious and the anti-evolutionism of evangelicalism looks uninformed. I hope to illuminate the tension that divide these two communities and to contribute to improved communications.'

Giberson's book certainly fulfills his objectives. In his first chapter Dissolution of a Fundamentalist he shares his life journey from his hero-worship of Henry Morris (author of the classic texts of "scientific creationism"), through his teenage fundamentalism, and on to his increasing doubts about creationism and persuasion that evolution is the best explanation for origins of life on planet earth.

One of the great benefits of Saving Darwin is Giberson's superbly engaging and clear survey of the creation/evolution debate in America. He separates fact from fiction in relation to Darwin's developing theory of evolution and his faith in God and the birth and development of fundamentalism. Giberson explores 'Darwin's Dark Companions' — those individuals and movements who have coopted Darwinian evolution to justify such evils as genocide or amorality. According to Giberson, many of these have abused or misused evolution for their own purposes and evolution has inappropriately suffered from guilt by association.

The creation/evolution debate has had a long and prominent history in American courts. There is an excellent chapter telling that story from the Scopes trial right up until the recent Dover ruling. Following this is a history of the rise of "scientific creationism" which has now transformed into the Intelligent Design movement including a discussion of why Giberson believes the Intelligent Design argument fails. Despite Giberson's critique of Intelligent Design, he also acknowledges that evolution speaks ambiguously and different people hear it saying different things leading to the fact that people residing in 'profoundly incompatible worldviews' can accept it.

In an interesting chapter entitled How to Be Stupid, Wicked, and Insane Giberson turns his attention to the increasingly strident and often religious sounding rhetoric of some evolutionists. As far as Giberson is concerned the evolution/creation debate is more a culture war about who is going to determine, for society, the ultimate nature of reality. On one side you have the likes of Richard Dawkins who has explicitly declared his purpose to be the destruction of religion. And on the other side you have those like Philip Johnson who wants to bring down naturalism. This culture war is really not about origins at all but more about the imposing of a worldview from either side on the rest of society.

Finally, Giberson provides a summary of the multiple lines of evidence in support of evolution. Giberson believes that evolution is true and an 'expression of God's creativity, although in a way that is not captured by the scientific view of the world.' (p. 216) Giberson affirms the inability of science to remove mystery from what is. No matter how much we learn there will always be room for God because God is not the longtime abandoned 'God of the gaps'. God is the ground of everything that exists and, whatever we discover about the natural world, there is no reason to exclude God from reality.

Perhaps the most important conclusion we can come to on the matter of origins (and indeed anything we believe we know) is a profound humility as we seek to answer the questions we have about the universe. In his introduction, Giberson quotes Michael Ruse who wrote a book called Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? Ruse wrote:

If you are a Darwinian or a Christian or both, remember that we are mere humans and not God. We are middle-range primates with the adaptations to get down out of the trees, and to live on the plains in social groups. We do not have powers which will necessarily allow us to peer into the ultimate mysteries. If nothing else, these reflections should give us a little modesty about what we can and cannot know, and a little humility before the unknown.

Whatever side of the origins debate you find yourself on, remembering that we are mere humans and not God may be the most important thing we can remember. The arrogance and dogmatism at the two extremes of this debate do not seem to me to be appropriate for those who follow the teachings of Christ.

Saving Darwin is a powerful book that provides Christians who struggle with the discoveries of science and tension with their Christian faith with a middle way between two extremes. It is an important contribution to this most significant cultural conversation. It won't answer all your questions and you may find aspects of it with which you wish to disagree. But Giberson provides an important perspective worth considering. If nothing else, Christians must cease accusing other Christians who believe in evolution of not being truly Christian.

Related Links

• Karl Giberson's website
• Criticism of the book by William Dembski - an Intelligent Design proponent

Technorati Tags: creationism,evolution,Christianity

How religion evolved. Or is it?

James Dow, an evolutionary anthropologist, has written a piece of software (called Evogod) that he claims suggest how religion has evolved in society. He makes the starting assumption that there are some people who have a genetic predisposition to pass on 'unverifiable information'. On running his software, this trait didn't do much on its own. He then added in a factor representing non-believers who were attracted to what believers were saying. This led to the spread of the unverifiable (or, 'unreal' information, as Dow also calls it).

I guess the conclusion is that the spread of religion wouldn't have occurred if unbelievers ignored the believers. Dow admits the implications of his software modelling are very tentative and in the early stages. Of course, the assumption that unverifiable means unreal is an enormously contentious assumption! The philosophical naturalism that underlies atheistic conclusions about reality and denies the non-existence of anything empirically unverifiable may be inadequate as more and more science is suggesting.

You can read the whole story here in the New Scientist article.

Technorati Tags: anthropology,evolution,religion

Creationist Museum

Have a look at the news story below about a new Creationist Museum being built in the US. A couple of things to notice:

1. The museum designers completely ignore scientific knowledge about the age of the earth and claim the Bible provides the age of the earth - it doesn’t. This is a museum of religious belief - not a scientific enterprise. According to one of the interviewees, the Bible is the absolute source of all knowledge. Another person states that, to work at this museum, you need to believe in God and agree with all the doctrines. This is a religious group even though it might be trying to make itself sound scientific.
2. They go way beyond the Bible. The museum indulges in pure conjecture about when dinosaurs existed. The Bible doesn’t even mention dinosaurs. Nor does it state an age of the earth. So this museum doesn’t even stick to what the Bible says.
3. See my post coming soon about the options available for understanding the relationship between the Bible and theology. The one offered in this museum argues that the Bible should come before any other type of inquiry when trying to understand the natural world and science must conform to it. This leads to a religious pseudo-science.

Here’s the news story:

In the Beginning (Economist)

The Economist has published an article called In the beginning which describes the spread of the creationism vs evolution conflict beyond the borders of America (where it has been predominately situated until now). The story is in response to the global publishing of The Atlas of Creation by prolific Turkish author. According to the article,

THE “Atlas of Creation” runs to 770 pages and is lavishly illustrated with photographs of fossils and living animals, interlaced with quotations from the Koran. Its author claims to prove not only the falsehood of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, but the links between “Darwinism” and such diverse evils as communism, fascism and terrorism. In recent weeks the “Atlas de la Création” has been arriving unsolicited and free of charge at schools and universities across French-speaking Europe. It is the latest sign of a revolt against the theories of Darwin, on which virtually the whole of modern biology is based, that is gathering momentum in many parts of the world.

The article includes a brief history of the conflict between evolution and creationism (unfortunately calling it a conflict over ’religion and reason’). It is a biased history which needs to be balanced by reading books such as, Doubts About Darwin and Darwin Strikes Back. It is interesting and significant, though, that the conflict over origins has broadened beyond Christianity and beyond the United States with potentially dangerous consequences.

Seeing the Light -- Of Science (Salon)

Ronald Numbers -- a former Seventh-day Adventist and author of the definitive history of creationism -- discusses his break with the church, whether creationists are less intelligent and why Galileo wasn't really a martyr. Read his interview here.

'Creation or Evolution? Yes!' (Christianity Today)

Christianity Today magazine have published an interview by Stan Guthrie with Francis Collins, head of the Genome Project, who has also recently published a book entitled, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press, 2006). In the interview, he explains why he wrote the book:

One of the main reasons I wrote The Language of God was to try to put forward a comfortable synthesis of what science teaches us about the natural world and what faith teaches us about God. Yet it seems to be a pretty well kept secret these days that the scientific approach and the spiritual approach are compatible. I think we've allowed for too long extreme voices to dominate the stage in a way that has led many people to assume that's all there is. The thesis of my book is that there is no need for this battle. In fact, it's a destructive battle. And we as a society would be well served to recover that happy middle ground where people have been for most of human history.

You can read the whole interview here.