Customer Reviews

Can a Darwinian be a Christian?: The Relationship between Science and Religion

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

Despite what our Creation Scientist friends might say, Ruse's book is an excellent discussion of an _open_ question, i.e., whether or not Christianity and Darwinism are compatible. Of course, Darwinism _is_ incompatible with _Creationism_. (So much the worse for Creationism, since the evidence definitively proves the Creationist creation story false.) But, as Ruse clearly and even-handedly describes, there are lots of other versions of Christianity that admit a metaphorical reading of Genesis. The trick then is to try to reconcile the scientific facts about evolution with the key doctrines of Christianty, e.g., Original Sin and its transmission, doctrines which are required in order for a Saviour to be needed in the first place. Ruse takes his task seriously, clearly distinguishing true conflicts from merely apparent ones and sincerely attempting to come up with a consistent Darwinian Christianity. I'm not sure he completely succeeds. Even some moderate Christians will not recognize the resulting positions as Christian, and some non-Christians will no doubt see the sometimes-extreme contortions required as further evidence of the unreasonableness of Christian belief. Nevertheless, this is an important book that ought to be read by anyone interested in its particular focus or the general question of the relationship between science and religion. It is, moreover, clearly and engagingly written, and its honesty and forthrightness should serve as a model for this sort of debate.

This is a serious, solid work by a Darwinian and philosopher. From the preface onward, it is clear that Ruse believes that something important -- the question of the title -- has been overlooked in the noisy debates on evolution and Christianity. In this book, Ruse develops a steady, evenhanded exposition of the central issues. He starts with overview of Darwinism and Christianity, and then moves on to address major points of contention, including origins, naturalism, design, pain, Social Darwinism, and even extraterrestrials (!), each in a separate chapter. In each case he presents the problems posed to Christianity by Darwinism, and possible resolutions that can be found within historical Christianity. Some of the issues, such as monogenism in the section on human origins, are particularly difficult, and may be irreconcilable for many readers. Other sections, such as the chapter on pain, make fascinating reading with or without a desire to span the gulf between Darwinism and Christianity.

This is a welcome contribution by a Darwinian who takes Christianity seriously.

Michael Ruse deserves alot of credit for seriously tackling the subject of the compatibility of Darwinism and Christianity. He also deserves credit for understanding and acknowledging basic Christian beliefs, something that unfortunately cannot be said for some others, like Stephen Jay Gould, who have written on the intersection of science and religion.

Before reaching the substance of Ruse's work, we need to clear up some matters raised by other reviewers. Several young earth creationists have pointed out that the Bible teaches that death--not only human death but animal death, predation and bloodshed, as well--is a result of Adam's sin and the resulting fall of the human race. Rom. 5:12; 8:18-22, I Cor. 15:21-22. But if the fossiliferous strata are interpreted according to conventional uniformitarian geology, it proves that death has been around for millions of years before humans existed, and thus before the first human sin. This is a valid point, but we Bible-believing Christians need to realize that our problem on this point is with uniformitarian geology, (something I call Lyellism), not with evolution or Darwinism. Charles Lyell had already won the day for uniformitarian geology almost 30 years before the publication of Darwin's "Origin of the the Species." The men who agreed with Lyell that vast ages were needed to form the fossiliferous strata were creationists, many of them Anglican clergymen like Coneybeare and William Buckland. Thus, we cannot blame Darwin for theological problems created by uniformitarian geology (and I agree that there are many). Ruse only spends a couple of pages breifly discussing these developments in geology.

This book is addressed to the possible conflicts between Darwinism, with its teaching that humans evolved from lower primates, and Christianity, with its teaching that humans were created by God in God's own image. The central doctrine of Christianity is that Christ is the Son of God, and that Christ died to save fallen humanity. This is not a doctrine peculiar to any particular brand or branch of Christianity. All Christians believe that Christ died to save us; He is our Redeemer. How might this central doctrine conflict with Darwinism? Because it presupposes the need for a Redeemer. It presupposes that there was a fall, that man sinned and fell from grace, something that is taught in Genesis but denied by Darwinism. It seems to me that this is the central conflict between Darwinism and Christianity, and I think, after reading the relevant parts of this book, that Ruse would agree.

To my mind, Ruse gets alot of credit for recognizing that there is a real and substantial conflict here. "an essential component of Christian theology, . . . is that humans are descended from a unique pair (monogenism). That part of the Adam and Eve story cannot be interpreted symbolically. . . . the trouble is that this goes completely against our thinking about the nature of the evolutionary process. Successful species like humans do not pass through single-pair bottlenecks: there is certainly no evidence that this was true of Homo sapiens, a species which seems to have been well spread around the earth" (pp. 75-76). Ruse admits that "we seem to have reached an impasse." (p. 77).

Thus, by page 77, Ruse has spotted the problem. Although the book goes on to page 218, I don't think he ever came close to solving it. The general thrust of the book is that something like what has come to be known as "theistic evolution" is compatible with Christianity. "It is not by chance that the universe exists and it is not by chance that we exist within the universe." (p. 83) But is the idea that God guided the evolutionary process compatible with what Ruse calls "full-blooded Darwinism"? Doesn't evolution teach exactly that it is just by chance that we exist? Those readers familiar with the writings of Stephen Jay Gould, especially "Wonderful Life", know that he teaches that evolution need not have resulted in the human race. Indeed, it was just the luck of the draw that humans ever evolved. Ruse thrashes around on the horns of this dilemma for several pages, never mustering up the courage to say that Gould is just flat wrong. So what remains of "theistic evolution"? "The Christian would be foolish to think that Darwinism insists that humans are uniquely significant and bound to appear." (p. 91). Wow! Not much remains even of theistic evolution.

Ultimately, Ruse admits that there had to be a fall in order for Christianity to work. "In the course of evolution, there must have been a first moment of conscious moral choice. That is the point at which the 'fall of humanity' began and humans were estranged from that natural fellowship with God which should have been theirs, and from their natural ability to relate unselfishly to one another." (p. 205, quoting Ward) But, again, it is not compatible with Darwinism: "And the whole business of an original, unique Adam and Eve goes flatly against modern evolutionary biology. . . . Is one supposed to believe that the parents of Adam and Eve--for they will have had such in the evolutionary story, if not in Genesis-- were soulless or sinless or what? And what about their brothers and sisters, and the next generation of homo sapiens, most of whom were not descended from Adam and Eve?" (p. 209)

Ruse just never solves this basic contradiction. He never comes close. But I salute him for trying. If nothing else, the fact that a man as clever and well educated as Ruse could not solve the basic contradiction between Darwinism and Christianity confirmed for me what I already suspected: the contradiction is insoluble.

Michael Ruse seriously considers whether the major tenets of Christianity are compatible with Darwinism. He convincingly shows that a Christian view of human nature which includes free will, original sin and the soul are not excluded by science in general nor by Darwinism in particular. Questions such as why there is pain and suffering are also shown to have mutually supportive answers in Christianity and Darwinism. Michael Ruse clearly shows how opponents of methodological naturalism, such as Phillip Johnson, engage in bad theology as well as bad science. As a biologist, I found that although he deals with serious theological issues, Michael Ruse writes in a highly engaging and accessible style. I would highly recommend this book (along with the "Tower of Babel" by Robert Pennock and "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller) for anyone who wonders whether methodological naturalism is anti-religious. The copy of "Can a Darwinian be a Christian?" which I read was checked out from our local library. Will I now be purchasing my own copy? Absolutely!

Someone should buy Michael Ruse a new dictionary. The term "polemic" doesn't appear in his. He doesn't engage in polemics, and pours balm on those that occur. The "war between science and religion" is something he deplores. His subtitle sets the tone of this book in describing "The Relationship Between Science and Religion", deftly eschewing conflict at the outset. In reconciling the discipline of science with the dedication of faith, Ruse follows the labyrinthine path of Christian teachings. His Quaker upbringing and background in the history of science has prepared him well for this torturous task. His sense of wit allows him to achieve this without becoming ensnared in arcane theological questions or sectarian strife. Few, if any scholars have accomplished this level of detachment with such charming style.

Ruse establishes his credentials promptly, offering a succinct account of "Darwinism" [a term i loathe]. He explains the history and mechanisms of evolution by natural selection with aplomb. The book is valuable for this summation, if nothing else. He explains various forms of evidence such as the similarity of animal body structures [homology]. He continues with various dialogues between Christians who view evolution as a threat to morals, society, ethics and the other tired arguments and why they have no basis.

Finally, Ruse states the obvious: many scientists are and have been, successfully practicing Christians. Whether or not they've made the effort to rationalise this disparity, he saves them the effort in examining how the reconciliation can be achieved. For centuries, he reminds us, the study of Nature was in order to glorify a deity. He uses Augustine frequently in support of the view that Nature deserves serious study. Ruse calls this "the Augustinian option", that Christianity has no room for the ignorant. Nature's wonders and laws follow a divine plan, which must be recognized and respected. Science then, is not an enemy, but rather an ally.

Ruse concludes with a firm "Absolutely!" to the book's title. He warns of the difficulties: one must choose from among the various Christian ethics and values, recognize that not all questions have been answered nor all issues resolved, be prepared for some in-depth study. The path is difficult, but having been traversed by some, others may follow. Given the nature of the topic, Ruse has performed an outstanding service in addressing this complex question with such finesse and clarity. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Asked in reverse order, "Can a Christian be a Darwinian?", Ruse's answer is really two-fold. If you are taking a very conservative or fundamentalist view of Christianity, then you probably are not, nor do you wish to be a Darwinian. For the liberal, and mainstream-secularized Christian, however, there isn't much incompatibility between Christianity and Darwinism. Because, both Christianity and Darwinism compass a wide range of views (as Ruse points out), some point of agreement and intersection is inevitable, as is some range of polar conflict. Ruse has written an engaging and entertaining book, and while many may disagree or challenge his conclusions, for those who value both the Christian tradition and Darwinian science this is an important book.

Ruse's book is an exciting journey along the interface between science and religion. Although one might say that it's title should be "How can a darwinian be a christian?", the book does deal very seriously with the relationship between science and religion, and does thet in an original way. As a student of both philosophy of religion and life sciences I found that Ruse presents both sides' arguments very clearly and without distorting them at all (which isn't usualy easy to do). And as for the question of taking the biblical story literaly (which a few of the reviewers here thought as a must and as a destruction of Ruse's ideas) , it was the great jewish philosopher Meimonides who said that it (the story told in Genesis I 1-11) is only a story which should be interpreted according to science.

This is a very informative and helpful book, and a real delight to read. It is written in a charitable spirit and irenic tone with liberal doses of good humor. I happen to be both an ardent Darwinian and a devout Christian (Reformed with Roman Catholic leanings, and also very admiring of the Greek Orthodox tradition), and as such I wish to commend Ruse not only for writing so passionately yet soberly about Darwinism but also for engaging the Christian faith in such a thoughtful and respectful manner. In reading this book, I have come to realize how complicated some of the issues are. Yet his central argument-that one can affirm both Christian theism and Darwinian evolutionism-is not at all complicated. Among contemporary philosophers writing in this area, Ruse is much better informed about science and--surprisingly for one who is not himself a Christian--about the breadth and flexibility of the Christian tradition than, say, Alvin Plantinga is. Plantinga, the foremost Christian philosopher of religion in our time (and a friend and former coparishioner whom I greatly love and admire), has not taken the time to learn the science as Ruse has, nor the effort to seriously question the assumptions of literalist readings of Genesis. In this book Ruse gives Plantinga, if not exactly a butt-kicking, at least a spanking, and a well-deserved one at that. At the other end of the spectrum, blowhard atheists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett come off looking rather shortsighted and, in some ways, rather stupid in Ruse's book, even though Ruse has the utmost respect for them. I particular like the way that Ruse unpacks and clarifies the issues of pain (the problem of evil), freedom, and determinism. For me it is especially the Augustinian doctrine of original sin that needs serious rethinking in light of evolution, but on this point Ruse's treatment is so brief as to be only suggestive. Overall, I doubt that Ruse's book will gain a hearing from atheistic Darwinians, and certainly not from young-earth creationists. Agnostics might be willing to broaden their horizons with Ruse as their guide, but the real audience--and those with the most to gain--will be Christians who consider the evidence for evolution overwhelming and its implications glorifying to God. If Darwin made it possible for many people to be intellectually fulfilled atheists, Ruse has brightened the prospects for a lot of us becoming (even more) intellectually fulfilled theists.

I don't say this lightly. He comes from a real Friendly Quaker perspective on things, in the process strongly affirming Christ's presence and reality in all places, and looking to see the Light of Truth wherever he looks. As a biologist Ruse affirms evolution, but he also shows how one can understand how this impacts the walk with God, and who God is in light of this. He honestly grapples with the difficulties that evolution poses- and equally honestly points out that the difficulties are largely nothing new in theology or philosophy. The problem of suffering, for instance, remains a problem, no larger nor smaller with the presence of evolution. Ruse also approaches the myriad possible understandings of this controversy, both scientifically and religiously, with care and compassion, affirming the search for truth by others, even if it does not agree with his understanding of the truth.

I found this book most helpful as a parallel to my own spiritual journey. I felt like Ruse was walking alongside me, helping me to clarify my own thoughts as he clarified his. Evolution doesn't bring up new problems for theology, true. But it magnifies those problems. So if we can solve those problems through the theory of evolution, or begin to, we come a lot closer to understanding God.

This was overall an okay book, I suppose. It was not anything deeply profound, but it was worth the read, for sure. What I most liked about this book was the fact that there is really no prior knowledge needed about the subject. For example, he basically explains everything that you have to know about the biological aspects of evolution, some central church dogma, etc, before delving into the actual heart of the issue. In addtion, I thought that the presentation style was extremely clear, which made it much more informative for the casual reader. The organization of the book was pretty amazing, I'd have to say. Ruse breaks down each individual topic into little sub-topics that all make a lot of sense and follow a logical progression.

On this other hand, the fact that it for the most part does not assume prior knowledge also meant that one may get really bored at certain portions. Especially (for me, at least) the parts which introduced scientific concepts related to evolution, I just wanted to get those topics over which. For the most part, the religion side of the arguments were well presented, I think, although he does jump right in and start using words like ontology and teleology, which definitely confused me because I'm not particularly well read in this particular area. But I mean, overall the presentation was really good.

As far as the content, you definitely get the sense at certain points in the book that it's not really an evolution vs. Christianity debate but rather science vs. religion, and I guess some parts in the book I just didn't feel were really that applicable to the subject at hand. But the arguments overall made a lot of sense to me and I think this was really informative on the whole.

I was also really impressed by how much outside information Ruse brought into his book. He definitely did a lot of historical and contemporary research, Huxley, Darwin, Gould, Wilson, were mentioned many many times throughout the book and it definitely provides us with a good context with which to evaluate the arguments Ruse presents. What I thought was kind of interesting is that throughout the book he makes it pretty clear that he distains Richard Dawkins' position on the whole issue(like...A LOT of distain), which makes sense, I guess, since Ruse is a big fan of intelligent design, basically the opposite of Dawkins' advocacy. Lastly, I just really appreciate Ruse's attempt to write this book in such a clear and distinct manner, it's really good to see that a believer in intelligent design can just come out and admit that he is indeed himself a Darwinian and believes in evolution right from page 1. That was pretty good.