89 of 106 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Author responds, July 24, 2001
This review is from: Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil (Hardcover)
I am the author of Darwin's God and would like to respond to Dennis Littrell's review which appears below. Littrell is billed as a "Top 50 Reviewer" so I was interested to see what he had to say. But I was disappointed as Littrell ignored the bulk of my discussion and instead critiqued a few sentences out of context, leaving the reader with a gross misrepresentation of the book. Littrell then concluded his review with a diatribe which, ironically, supports my thesis that Darwinism is not atheism in disguise, nor is it merely good science at work, but that in a subtle and complex way relies on certain religious traditions; traditions that can be traced back long before Darwin.
Littrell begins by saying I am mistaken that Darwinism hinges on religious assumptions. He notes a single quote on p. 48 that I use to support my claim, but by my count I included 117 specific examples of evolutionists using religious assertions. The examples are taken from mainstream sources, from Darwin right up to today's evolutionists. And importantly, the examples come from technical papers or books where the evolutionists are attempting to argue for their theory (as opposed to carelessly taking evolution for granted). Furthermore, I also provide many more examples of this sort of thinking in the pre Darwin era. Littrell's review gives the misleading impression that I have but scant evidence for my thesis.
Littrell next uses two examples to critique my analysis of the scientific evidence for evolution. First, I have a three-page discussion arguing that the universal genetic code (i.e., the DNA code) is not good evidence for evolution. The discussion is somewhat involved, but Littrell quotes only a single sentence from the passage, giving the false impression that my discussion was rather simplistic. He then uses an analogy about a rock smashing through his window that does not address the points I was making in the passage.
Second, Littrell believes he has found an error in my understanding of evolution. Evolutionists sometimes attempt to evaluate the adaptive value of some part of a species anatomy. And when what appears to be a poor design is detected, it is taken as evidence for evolution because the blind, imperfect process of evolution would be expected sometimes to produce inefficient designs. The problem with this reasoning is that fitness is difficult to measure. I give several examples of what are now known to be useful designs that in years past were erroneously assumed to be useless relics of the evolutionary process. Littrell rightly points out that Darwin's evolutionary process is driven only by reproductive success, no matter how it comes about. But in his search for errors, he reads one into my text. Again he quotes me out of context, and concludes that I fail to understand that "there is no more precise way to measure fitness" than by measuring reproductive success. But that was precisely my point: the causal factors behind reproductive success, ranging from dumb luck to superior design, cannot be accurately deciphered. Therefore, the evolutionist's argument that poorly designed organs are evidence for evolution is flawed because the fitness of those organs is so difficult to assess.
Finally, Littrell concludes by resorting to the sort of religious argument that he has previously agreed should not be used. He says that "the intricacies of the fossil and molecular record are better explained by evolution than by an appeal to metaphysics." In other words, the molecular clock may be full of anomalies, and explanatory devices may be required to rationalize the fossil record, but evolution is still better than creation. This of course is a religious statement which Littrell proceeds to expound upon. He compares evolution with a deceptive God who "divinely created everything in seven days and made it look like billions of years." He refers to this creator as the Green Cheese God and in typical fashion concludes that evolution is the best choice because his version of divine creation is so unlikely. Once again, the evolutionist finds traction in religious pronouncements rather than scientific reasoning. I do not take issue with the personal religious beliefs of evolutionists, but science should not be subjected to those beliefs.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
57 of 69 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
At Its Roots, May 17, 2001
This review is from: Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil (Hardcover)
At its Root.
A book review by Dan Schobert
It is fair to say that the question of evil has long vexed the human mind. What may not be so obvious is the relationship between this concern and the idea of organic evolution.
Cornelius Hunter delves into this realm with his recent book, Darwin's God. (Brazos Press, 2001) Subtitled `Evolution and the Problem of Evil,' this work of just under 200 pages takes a close look at the arguments usually put on the table in support of the evolutionary paradigm. At their heart, as Hunter points out, these thoughts are not so much evidence for evolution but are arguments against Creation. This being the case, as the thought goes, since creation cannot be supported, evolution wins by default. In essence these things are classic `straw man' arguments. Hunter, described on the book's cover as a student at the University of Illinois working on a Ph.D. in biophysics, points to argument after argument and shows that these are generally drawn up in response to an individual's particular view of God, and how God works or doesn't work. Having constructed this view, nature is studied and found to not harmonize with the preconceived notions. Therefore any creationary perspective must be wrong; at least incorrect.
There are nine chapters in this book. They are: (1)-Where Science Meets Religion, (2)-Comparative Anatomy, (3)-Small-Scale Evolution, (4)-The Fossil Record, (5)-One Long Argument, (6)- Modernism before Darwin, (7)-The Victorians, (8)-Evolution and Metaphysics and (9)- Blind Presuppositionalism.
What Hunter has done is to elucidate something most thinking scientists have long recognized. It is that at the heart of this discussion about ultimate origins rests a number of metaphysical concepts. As these have been pushed further and further away from public consideration, they attract less and less attention until we arrive at the present hour when they are completely absent...and people think the debate is (incorrectly) about science vs. religion.
By coming to grips with the foundational thoughts of so many in the evolutionary camp, (both now and in the past) scientists can more honestly address the real concerns. "Many wonder," says Hunter, "why evolutionists make such high claims of success while the theory incurs scientific difficulties that would do away with most theories. The answer is that evolutionists find their confidence not in positive arguments for evolution but in negative arguments against the modern idea of creation. When evolutionists claim that a particular scientific observation proves their theory, they are not committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent of the premise they wish to prove, rather, they are denying the consequent of the premise they wish to disprove. Evolution is proved not because it is verified but by the process of elimination. As Ernst Mayr wrote...it must be admitted that Darwinism has achieved acceptance less by irrefutable proofs in its favor and more by the default of opposing theories." (Toward a new Philosophy of Biology, Harvard University Press, 1988)
Hunter concludes by comparing the teaching of evolution with the statement issued some years ago by the National Academy of Sciences, a statement which stated that only `science should be taught in science classes.' ".... the evolutionists become their own judge," says Hunter. `The only possible conclusion is that evolution should not be taught in science classes, for Darwin's theory goes far beyond "scientific observation, interpretation, and experimentation." It includes religious presuppositions outside of science. Evolutionists argue that homologies and small-scale changes in species can only be explained by evolution, and that the fossil record makes evolution a fact. Evolutionists come to these conclusions because they believe in a certain type of God and creation, beliefs that are not open to scientific debate."
"Ultimately," says Hunter, "evolution is about God."
Hunter's book is an easy read and is one which any student of science, especially students working toward a degree involving biology would want to read. It should be required reading in any high school or college biology class. Sadly it probably won't be. Not that the things said are untrue but that they expose the sinking sand upon which so many in science have built their houses. To expose the sand is to expose the heart of those individuals choosing to ignore God.
April 2001
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
20 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Clear exposition of real basis of Darwinian theories, October 28, 2001
By A Customer
This review is from: Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil (Hardcover)
This carefully argued, yet quite readable monograph presents an entirely new assessment of the origins and basis for the Darwinian theories of evolution. It points out that the scientific evidence is not very supportive of these theories of evolution. [Being heavily involved in structural biology, genomics, and related areas, I can confirm that most of the major discoveries in biology in recent decades were not anticipated by Darwinian theory and in many cases directly contradicted its basic principles.] The book provides an objective analysis of the science relating to evolutionary biology (the author's field is biophysics). The major point of the book however is that Darwinian metaphysics is what maintains the prominence of the theories, not science. He quotes extensively from the primary literature as well as from books written for the general public. I believe this is the best analysis offered to date of why Darwinism continues to be popular in certain circles despite its many contradictions and meager scientific accomplishments.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
