Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

The author examines the history and current state of both theories. He then goes on to discuss common misunderstandings between proponents of both theories. He rightly states that attacks against positions noone holds is a terrible waste.

He then examines misconceptions both sides hold regarding the philosophy of science. He also examines theistic evolutionary theory.

The book ends with a plea that scientists of all pursuasions talk to each other and suggests that such a synthesis may benefit all involved.

I agree. Demagoguery tends to characterize both side of the debate. Both sides set up and fight paper tigers. If any progress is to come out of this competition (for either side) the goal of discussion should be a better understanding of each other and a better investigation of the evidence.

With respect to his investigation of the Philosphy of Science I recommend another volume written by a scientist who embraces evolution and also happens to be an excellet science writer: "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould. His review of how a person's prejudice may affect their scientific investigations and conclusions should be an eye-opener for those on both side of this debate.

In "Battle of Beginnings" Ratzsch gives interesting perspectives into various scientific, philosophical and religious ideas involving creationism and evolution. The book includes discussion on why strict creationism and naturalistic evolution often fail to recognize genuine arguments of the other side and sometimes misapply science as reality. The author seems to be inclined towards theistic evolution and discusses the reasons why most modern creationists and evolutionists are opposed to the idea. One of the most important aspects of the book (I felt) however was his discussions on scientific philosophy and the meaning of science. The book did alter my perspectives on this particular topic. Ratzsch has more of a tendency to deflate commonly held ideas but not necessarily supply replacement theories. Additionally he gives historical information but does not go into detailed proofs. The writing can be slightly tedious at times and drawn out sentences abound. But the book is interesting overall and has some valid points to make. I thus give it four stars and recommend it to anyone who would like a fresh perspective.

Del Ratzch has written a book called, "The battle of beginnings: why niether side is winning the creation-evolution debate." This is one of the best and most objective books I have seen on the creation vs. evolution debate (including books from BOTH sides). I strongly recommend this book to be read before one wishes to criticize creationism or evolution. In it, he writes about misconceptions of what people have about both theories (they are tragically common even in science textbooks and seriously inhibit real progress) and refutes some popular arguments both sides have of accusing that their opponents' theories do not qualify as genuine science. I give it 5 stars relative to other books I have seen on this issue.

Christianity Today Book Awards chose this as the number seven book of the year for 1997. The book's goal is to expose the philosophical fallacies in the arguments of both creationists and evolutionists in their criticisms of each other. The author himself avoids taking a position for either side, saying "I do not pretend to know which is correct" (p. 12) or "what the proper resolution to the creation-evolution dispute is" (p. 8). Rather, he seeks to show that many of the "arguments from both sides against the other fail because they are themselves defective or because no one holds the views against which they are directed" (p. 12). As Ratzsch shows, both camps spend enormous amounts of time attacking positions that no one actually holds and that have never been a part of Darwinian theory or creationist theory. (Ratzsch is a professor of philosophy at Calvin College specializing in philosophy of science.)

This book outlines popular creationists' misunderstandings of Darwin's theory, and evolutionists' misunderstandings of creationist theory. Many of the creationist criticisms of evolution are irrelevant because they are based on misunderstandings of that theory, and visa versa. Ratzsch argues, convincingly, that debaters in both camps simply do not understand the philosophy of science.

Perhaps the main message, besides getting a good understanding of the fallacies in the arguments, is that one must do an awful lot of homework before one steps into the ring of debate on this topic. There are way too many people in both camps who engage in the arguments who simply don't know what they are talking about. One needs to understand the philosophy of science. Since few in either camp take the time to study that, we may be doomed to continue to listen to fallacious debates for a long time to come. This book will help lay people sitting in the audiences of those debates to at least smile as they hear the illogical arguments. (Thomas N. Headland)

In the years since this excellent volume was published, the political strategies and tactics surrounding the topic have changed, and the subtitle may now communicate something not intended by the author. But make no mistake, Del Ratzch is not trying to insinuate anti-scientific propaganda into the culture when the scientists aren't looking. Ratzch (PhD. from the University of Massachusetts and a philosophy professor at Calvin College) is interested in more important things: how our arrogance and shoddy thinking leads us to mistreat one another, and ultimately endangers the trust upon which all human communities, scientific and Christian included, depend. To deal with this issue, he humbly offers not only critisism of various common mistakes, but also an overview of the historical development and misunderstanding of Darwin's ideas and the ideas of his opponents.

I believe that this book can go a long way towards convincing an entrenched reader to be more willing to submit to the difficult disipline of rational, civil conversation.

From Del Ratzch's conclusion:
"Broad based clarity on the larger issue[s] is going to require that both sides abandon their respective favorite muddles. . . . The two sides may be unable to find a common ground upon which all their differences can be hashed out. But. . . . if various acts were cleaned up, the area of commonality -- or at least of sensible discussability -- probably could be substantially enlarged compared to what it is now. And even if some differences are so foundational that ultimate reconciliation is clearly impossible, that of itself does not justify embracing rationally slipshod cases either for defending the views of one side or for dismissing those of the other side.

"The caricatures, the easy criticims, the propaganda, the familiar commonplaces of the various sides are comfortable--but they have become costly both within and for the Christian Community. So what should we do? On all sides we need to unhitch our egos and do some hard, maybe even painful work. And maybe the various sides should talk. Not debate--talk."

In The Battle of Beginnings, Del Ratzsch shows that neither side of this ongoing debate can "get away" with easy answers to tough questions. Too often Christians have been convinced that the "other side" must be ignorant, or stupid, or both, because these Christians believe their one-liners ("well the second law of thermodynamics clearly disproves evolution!") obviously answer the evolutionist arguments. Along the same line, Evolutionists have too quickly dismissed the writings of intelligent "creation" scientists (though not all are Christian, or even religious) with their own one-liners. Ratzsch shows that both sides need to re-assess, and carefully proceed with a more informed dialogue.

It is hard to understand why the reviewer from central California sees Del's taking neither side as a fatal flaw. Ratzsch states his task of putting forth the arguements from both sides and goes on to brilliantly address each arguement. this book is a great help for all students of subjects ranging from the history of science to philosophy of science, and beyond into the actual hard sciences. Dr. Ratzsch has all of the necessary knowledge to author a book concerning the Creation / Evolution debate, and articulates so well as to keep an individual with a short attention span interested and intrigued.