The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side Is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate [Paperback]

Del Ratzsch (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: January 17, 1996

Voted one of Christianity Today's 1997 Books of the Year! Creation versus evolution. The debate is growing louder and hotter--whether in lecture halls or in between the pages of bestselling books. But neither side seems to be winning. Why? In The Battle of Beginnings Del Ratzsch examines the history of the debate and critiques the entrenched positions that he argues merely impede progress toward the truth. Dissatisfied with both creationist fallacies and materialist misconstruals, he seeks to lay the groundwork for more fruitful dialogue. In considerable detail Ratzsch looks at the history and development of Darwin's theory and common creationist misunderstandings of evolution. He then moves on to examine the history and development of creationist theory and pervasive evolutionist misunderstandings of it. He also discusses the nature of science and common creationist and evolutionist abuses as a prelude to showing why both sides have remained critical of theistic evolution. Above all, Ratzsch argues that until philosophical confusion, logical missteps and various other snarls have been untangled, little real progress can be made in sorting out competing theories of life and its origin. With this book he challenges and equips all of us to think more clearly.

Product Details

• Paperback: 248 pages
• Publisher: IVP Academic (January 17, 1996)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0830815295
• ISBN-13: 978-0830815296
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12.3 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (30 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #698,273 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

50 of 54 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A good read for both sides of the debate, January 16, 2000

By 

D. Roberts "Hadrian12" (Battle Creek, Michigan United States) - See all my reviews
(TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side Is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate (Paperback)

This is an excellent examination of strawman arguments that are formulated by both sides of this debate. Given the nature of the subject-matter of the book, it is difficult to find any books at all that are truly objective. Darwinists will enter into the subject with presuppositions that their theory is correct and will many times ignore any evidence to the contrary. Creationists will many times believe in a literal reading of the book of Genesis and will reject the ideas of anyone who says otherwise. Both sides accuse the other of being closed minded and practicing bad science. To a degree, perhaps both are right. This book does about as good a job as one could ever (objectively) do to clear up some misunderstandings that both sides have in regards to the other. The reviewer from California has obviously made up his mind which side of the fence he has sat on, and that is fine. However, to merely say that there really is no debate at all & that the Darwinists have already won is, I think, a mistake. Anyone who is as closed minded as that need not read this book, for the whole point of the book is to take a disinterested look at the (many times fallacious)ideas of both sides. And if the argument is so clear cut as the Californian says, why is it that none other than the Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould has written that "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record" are the "trade secret of paleontology"? Darwin himself said that if there was even so much as one instance where transitional forms were not found, his theory would prove null and void. The great physicist Richard P. Feynman once said that the "core of science" is this: "When you find an exception to a rule, the rule is wrong." What is it that makes Darwinism exempt from this principle, I ask? Moreover, if Darwinism is so very straight forward, why do Gould and Niles Elderidge feel it necessary to resort to such an ad-hoc theory as punctuated equilibrium? Now, to be fair, the creationists for their part have used a multitude of logical fallacies and fudge factors over the years to make their idealogies "work." That is the point of Ratzche's book; to point out the flaws of each side. All that I am saying is that reading this book with a closed mind (either way) would be a waste of time. Reading this book thoughtfully would be time well spent.

15 of 15 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Philosophy of science that is actually interesting, October 26, 2000

By 

Michael Buratovich (Spring Arbor, MI USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side Is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate (Paperback)

Del Ratzsch, a philosopher of science in the Reformed tradition of evangelical Christianity, has added to his growing list of helpful and well-written books. The Battle of Beginnings is not his most recent offering, but it is certainly one of his best books. In this book, Ratzsch fairly, charitably and objectively evaluates the arguments of both opponents and proponents of the theory of evolution and scientific creationism. While not everyone will agree with his conclusions, everyone should certainly listen to him and read him. Ratzsch identifies some of the more outrageous logical blunders made by members of both schools and thought. He also shows where proponents and opponents have simply misrepresented or misunderstood the other side's argument. One of the most valuable sections of the book provides a superbly written historical survey of the philosophy of science. Ratzsch also adds his own attempt to describe this thing we call science, even though it is a very slippery thing to do. Finally, Ratzsch also discusses the possibility of theistic evolution as a viable option for Christian believers and identifies some of problems with arguments had against this view, while admitting its weaknesses.

I found this book to be erudite, level-headed and easy to read. It is also easily understood by nonphilosophers and is a book that can be used as a reference book without reading like one. I also found Ratsch's fairness very refreshing in a field where polemics tend to take a front seat to logic.

My only reservations about the book is that he might be a little too accommodating to poor arguments. While one certainly has to appreciate Ratsch's desire to give the creationist's use of the Second Law of Thermodynamics a full hearing, I was a little less enamoured with his use of Patterson's article. John W. Patterson wrote an article entitled "Thermodynamics and Evolution" for the book "Scientists Confront Creationism," which was edited by Laurie Godfrey. Patterson, an engineer by training, details why various machines and natural phenomena can cause local decreases in entropy. From these examples, Patterson explains why the theory of evolution does not contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics, since evolution requires local increases in entropy that are brought about by naturally-occurring machines and phenomena. Ratzsch views Patterson as having missed the essential point of the creationist's argument - that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be applied to the universe as a whole, and the universe as a close system cannot become more organized by itself. My problem with this is that even if the universe is a closed system and even if the total entropy of the universe cannot increase, surely local entropies can increase at the expense of other places in the universe. This is Patterson's point, and I think, at least in this case, Ratzsch was less than fair to Patterson.

Having said this, Ratzsch has offerred us a fine work that should be on the shelf on anyone who has even the slightest interest in the origins debate and desires a balanced work to use as a reference.

13 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars good intro to both sides, both science and philosophy, September 22, 2003

By 

R. M. Williams "just an avid reader" (tucson, arizona USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side Is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate (Paperback)

First it is addressed to the general reading public, slanted in tone(style, word choice, difficulty of expression) to high school or freshman college level, with a particular desire(on the author's part) to be read by young earth creationists(YEC) within the Christian community. It is a good, notable addition to the discussion and to anyone's library.

Second, the author's motivation is primarily to gently enlighten, by careful philosophic analysis. He is not argumentative, nor brash, so that the book ought not to insult or anger anyone who feels their cherished beliefs under attack. This alone is a unique characteristic of items in the creation-evolution-design debate(CED), and i would welcome the attitude in more literature or discussion in the field. It is not that he doesn't have strong feelings or convictions but rather that he is interested less in persuading people of the righteousness of his ideas, then to explain the problems with the positions taken in the field. There are several places that a strong materialistic anti-creationist darwinian will hit his personal beliefs and recoil, but even these people ought to acknowledge the general evenhandedness of the particulars.

I come to the book as a result of a self-directed study in the topics of CED, while i usually don't read introductory material, i was attracted to this, not only because i appreciate the author's work, but for one quote.
pg. 129 "So our perceptions, theorizing and evaluations of theories all seem to have an inescapable human tinge to them. And given the significant interflow among those various components, human tinges in any one of the areas have at least the potential to seep into the other areas as well. Thus we cannot eliminate humanness from science (as inductivists wanted to do), nor can we quarantine that humanness in one small corner of science (as hypothetico-deductivists wanted to do). Science is done by humans, and it cannot escape what is inescapably human. Our science is limited to humanly available concepts, humanly available data, humanly available patterns of reasoning, humanly shaped notions of understanding and explanation, and humanly structured pictures of what the world must be like. How could it be otherwise? Science seems to have a serious and incurable case of the humans."

This chapter, 9, "The Nature of Science: A contemporary perspective", is in fact the high point of the book for me, it is his field as a philosopher and science, and he introduces a term "shaping principles" which he defends and elaborates with great effect and substance. If you can read only this chapter, take the opportunity to do so, it doesn't presuppose a great deal and is worth your time.

I had only 1 other 2-starred passage in my highlighting, pg 131 "One important implication of seeing science this way is that although the effects are quite indirect, if philosophical positions, value judgements and even theological doctrines are deeply embedded in science as shaping principles, then they too are subject to some degree of empirical risk and empirical correction as nature responds to the systems of which those principles are components." This is an extraordinary idea, not shaping principles themselves for this is a common idea in the philosophy of science, although under different names. It is the idea that science and philosophy/metaphysics/religion can have this point of contact, this relationship, this empirical feedback mechanism, whereby the goodness/rightness/correctness of metaphysical principles can be empirically tested. Neat. i will be sure to follow up on this in Del Ratzsch's more scholarly work.

The book covers well trod ground in the field, i don't see any surprises, but the two quotes above, but it is the delivery that makes this a good-to-be-recommended book. An easy evening read, without the tension and debate that often accompanies works that will challenge people's viewpoints.