Customer Reviews

Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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.

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

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.

As a recent convert to Darwinism, I found myself comparing my reasons for accepting evolution against Hunter's thesis that evolutionists are influenced more by metaphysical than strictly scientific arguments. While demonstrating that evolutionists from the time of Darwin have argued their case by appealing to a Victorian notion of God (e.g., "God would not have directly created things the way we see them..."), he fails to consider that many of these arguments may be reformulated to avoid the mention of God while nonetheless retaining their evidentiary value. For example, Hunter discusses the fact that all mammals except guinea pigs and primates are able to synthesize their own vitamin C. Guinea pigs and primates, including humans, have an apparently non-functional gene that corresponds to the gene responsible for vitamin C production in other mammals. Hunter maintains that, without certain presuppositions concerning the nature of God, this argument fails as evidence for human-primate shared ancestry. Hunter includes the following quote by theistic evolutionist Terry Gray:

"Further analysis shows that this gene is a pseudogene, i.e., it looks like a real gene, but it is not expressed due to a mutation in the gene itself or in the region of DNA that controls the expression of that gene. Now we could argue that in God's inscrutable purpose he placed that vitamin C synthesis look-alike gene in the guinea pig or human DNA or we could admit the more obvious conclusion, that humans and primates and other mammals share a common ancestor" (p. 168).

By highlighting Gray's appeal to God's nature, Hunter justifies dismissing such evidence as metaphysical rather than scientific. Throughout the book, Hunter employs this novel approach to circumvent some of the strongest evidence for common descent. As is the case with pseudogenes, however, textual critics routinely use copyist errors for determining the ancestral relationships among historical manuscripts. It would be beyond coincidence to suppose that there exists no ancestral relationship in a series of texts containing the same set of differences vis-à-vis the majority of other manuscripts. The vitamin C pseudogene is just one example of many shared between humans and primates, and the differences in the pseudogenes grow with distance from humans in the standard phylogenic tree. Contrary to Hunter's claim that evolution makes no significant, testable predictions, the existence of the human vitamin C pseudogene was predicted and then discovered by Nishikimi et al in 1992. Do pseudogenes prove common decent in a mathematical sense, and are such arguments free from all metaphysical assumptions? Perhaps not, but at the end of the day, when we look into the mirror, we must ask ourselves, are we playing games with the evidence, trying to find loopholes to excuse us from its weight, or did we in fact descend from earlier primates?

Ironically, intelligent design theorist Michael Behe, who offers praise for Hunter's book, finds the evidence for common descent from pseudogenes to be conclusive (see Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God, p. 164). One wonders how Behe and Hunter can coexist in the same camp, given their diametrically opposed views on such a fundamental question as common descent.

Though I agree with Hunter that the nature of God should be left out of any strictly scientific discussion, there is a place for such considerations when evaluating ID claims. Whatever else might be supposed about God's nature, it is generally agreed that, if He exists, He is not deceptive. This is why many creationists are now abandoning the young-earth creationists' "appearance of age" theory. Yet Hunter is disturbed when evolutionists provide evidence for evolution and assert that "God would not have done it that way." Perhaps He did do it that way, but at the risk of introducing the strong appearance of evolution.

In addition to highlighting the metaphysical underpinnings of many of the arguments for evolution, Hunter presents an array of scientific difficulties in evolutionary theory. Foremost among them is the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. He is not content to focus simply on the relatively sparse record leading up to the Cambrian explosion, but amazingly turns the very dense record of the reptile-mammal transition in his favor:

"Douglas Futuyma echoes this sentiment: 'The gradual transition from therapsid reptiles to mammals is so abundantly documented by scores of species in every stage of transition that it is impossible to tell which therapsid species were the actual ancestors of modern mammals.' If it is 'notoriously difficult to decipher true ancestral-descendant relationships,' then how can evolutionists be so sure there is one? Certainly we can select our favorite sequence, but the fossils cannot tell us which is the correct sequence, or even whether there is a correct sequence at all" (p. 77).

The upshot is that if the record of transition is sparse, that is evidence against evolution, and if it is dense, that is also evidence against evolution. However, if we find texts that appear to be intermediate between Latin and French (a descendent of Latin), but we do not know whether they are on a direct line to modern French or on a line to a dead French patois, can this be construed as an argument that French did not evolve from Latin? As a largely historical science, evolution suffers from many of the same difficulties as historical linguistics. If Hunter were sufficiently motivated, he could no doubt uncover many difficulties with historical linguistics (e.g., Japanese is apparently not related to any mainland languages), but this would not prove that, for example, Latin did not evolve into Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and French.

I give three stars to Hunter for introducing a novel and thought-provoking argument into the tired debate over evolution, as well as for not hesitating to include a number of quotes supporting evolution. Though he attempts to refute these arguments, this may be the only exposure that many readers ever receive to the evidence for evolution.

Hunter captures the eagerness of Darwin and his disciples to debunk the necessity of a creator from the natural world. Darwinians have their own view of God, of how he should create if he does so, and then Darwinians find species, adaptations, vestigial organs, homologies, whose functions don't fit in with their view of God and how he should create. Therefore, evolution is true. God wouldn't have done it this way is repeated by evolutionists accoss the board as proof of evolution. Hunter does an excellent work, well worth reading.

With precise detail, author Cornelius Hunter methodically exposes the underlying metaphysical foundation of evolution. He begins by carefully laying out the main scientific arguments of evolution, and showing how they only "prove" evolution when you accept the metaphysical mindset of an evolutionist. "Darwin's God" also goes further than any book I've read, to show how Darwinists use negative theological arguments to support their theory. Unfortunately, evolutionists have been overwhelmingly successful in building on the false conception of the God of the Bible (a conception perpetuated by 18-19th century thought--discussed by Hunter in Ch's 6-7) and using it to undermine Creation.

It can only be "clear" to an evolutionist that "evolution is the only convincing interpretation of the facts" when you already accept the metaphysical presuppositions of an evolutionist(consciously or unconsciously--more often the latter as Hunter show). Therefore, the way to make progress in origins science is to openly acknowledge the presuppositions we have, both for creationists and evolutionists. This will undoubtedly be like pulling teeth for some, but is necessary for the honest progression of science.

I strongly recommend this book to anyone reading about the evolution/creation controversy. It is a revealing insight into the way we approach both science and ultimate truths. If this book is truly taken to heart, the changes in science may be remarkable. Therefore it must not be ignored or misunderstood. This book would make an excellent text for discussion in any college science, religion, or philosophy class.

I like the way Mr. Hunter writes. He might not be as witty as Berlinski, but his phraseology is certainly enjoyable. I've read a lot of books on the controversy over Charles Darwin and his "theory". This one exposed a tangent that I had never been exposed to, helping me to flesh out the big picture with even more clarity. This tome is full of quotable material.
Donald James Parker
Author of All the Voices of the Wind

For decades, evolutionists have insisted that their theory is as good as proven, even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. Hunter's book presents an interesting and persuasive explanation for this quasi-religious adherence to a supposedly scientific theory - he posits that it is, in fact, religous.

Throughout the book, he gives examples of how older and modern evolutionists have attempted to "prove" evolutionary theory not by rigorous experimentation or accepted rules of evidence and causation, but by trying to disprove the only real alternative - a supernatural cause, specifically creationism. To show this, Hunter provides an abundance of quotes from leading evolutionists claiming *as evidence for their theory* that, essentially, "God wouldn't have done it this way, so evolution is the only explanation". Hunter points out, correctly, that this foundational assumption of evolutionary theory rests not on a scientific proposition, but on a religous judgment about the nature of God. (See, for example, Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" - the entire book rests on his personal assumptions about the way God should do things and concludes that, since the observable universe doesn't match what he thinks God would have made, evolution must be true.)

Some of the previous critical reviewers (those who did not misunderstand the book's reasoning, at least - several did) claim that Hunter's thesis is useless because it presents an ultimately untestable claim - "God can create things however He likes, so nothing we see in nature can possibly contradict creationism." This is quite true. However, what these reviewers fail to see is that Hunter points out throughout the book that evolutionary theory does exactly the same thing. It takes fundamentally neutral observations - the fact that genetic code is identical for all creatures, for example - and, based on a nonscientific assumption about God's nature, declares that such a thing cannot possibly be the work of God and therefore must be a result of evolution, regardless of whether or not the observation at issue is really evidence for evolution.

Resting as it does on a metaphysical presupposition, this basic tenet of evolution provides evolutionists with the ability to claim that any observation must be evidence for evolution because "God wouldn't have done it like that" or "even if we can't fathom how this might have happened, evolution must have done it, because there's no other possible explanation". In essence, they assume evolution to prove evolution. This may be a valid philosophical approach, but it is not science.

Ultimately, what this book reveals is that creationism and evolutionary theory are not "religion vs. science" - rather they are two competing varieties of religious thinking, *each* resting on untestable assumptions about the nature and purpose of God, and as such neither is really science. This is fine, every theory has a right to compete in the marketplace of ideas, but evolutionists have for far too long been passing off their metaphysical theory as scientific fact. Hunter's book is another step toward finally forcing them to acknowledge the truth.

A final note: I give this four stars only because, as a non-scientist, I occasionally had difficulty understanding Hunter's terminology. This is hardly a fatal flaw, though, and I would recommend the book to other laymen with an interest in this subject.

Darwin's God is a fast, fun, enjoyable read that should be read by anybody interested in the origins controversy. Cornelius Hunter does an excellent job of separating science and scientific theories from the idea of Darwinism. There is this false notion held by some that Creation is unscientific while Darwinism is scientific. Mr. Hunter, however, shows that this is not true, that Darwinism is built upon a certain concept of God, and that the evidence that is often used to support Darwinism is really nothing more than arguments against a specific idea of creation:

"We often hear that evolution is an objective, scientific theory...But this is a great myth of our time. Evolution is not a story of bold scientific stroke that has been beautifully borne out by the advancement of science, against metaphysical resistance. It is nearly the exact opposite. It is not that evolution is utterly scientific or that it completely lacks evidence. Evolution can be properly formulated as a scientific theory with plenty of supporting evidence, but as such, it is unremarkable. Evolution's supporting evidence is outrun by the counterevidence. Both nineteenth-century and twentieth-century science provide more than enough challenges to put evolution's validity in doubt, but the nineteenth century's metaphysical trends have continued through and beyond the twentieth century. Evolution's compelling arguments, and the reason for its stunning success, comes not from its scientific support but from indirect arguments against creation." Pg 155

Hunter shows that evolution, wrapped inside metaphysical arguments, is given a special scientific status. Moreover, he shows that evolutionists often use "negative theological arguments about the nature of God" (i.e. that God wouldn't have done it this way, or that the eye is imperfect so it must not have been created) to support their theory. Evolutionists often claim that because there is no better argument for life's origins then evolution must be correct, or must remain so until a better theory comes along. But Hunter shows that this argument put forward by Darwinists "is itself a non-scientific statement". Pg 157

Natural evil was a problem for Darwin. So in order to "get God of the hook" for evil Darwin removed God from nature. This however is not a scientific question but a metaphysical one, and Hunter shows that when Darwin did this he left the realm of science and entered the theological arena. Problems arise about the evolution-creation controversy because people fail to understand the metaphysical and theological assumptions that evolutionists make. And, as Mr. Hunter points out, the evolution-creation controversy will remain confusing to the public until this fact is recognized. "Evolution", Hunter writes, "is about God." Pg 175

Good job Mr Hunter, keep up the good work.

Cornelius Hunter does a job virtually no one else in the Origins debate has done: reveal the theological influence that led to naturalistic evolution.

After the Puritans took over England, so did their theology. They taught the Biblical doctrines of Original Sin and the subjection of the natural world to futility (Romans 3:9-18, 8:20). As a result of their belief in man's fallen state (which included his belief-forming faculties), they emphasized the Reformed belief that Scripture alone was the guide to theology, anthropology, morals, philosophy, and a general worldview.

When the Puritans were thrown out of England, there was a strong reaction to their Biblical theology. The Anglicans rejected the belief that man was so fallen that he could not acquire Divine Truth apart from Scripture. Thus, they replaced the doctrine of "Scripture alone" with a mixture of Scripture and "Enlightenment" philosophy. This form of "Enlightenment" philosophy, which sought to give credence to Christianity, was called "Natural Theology". It sought to determine Divine Truth using unaided, autonomous human Reason independent of Scripture. [Notice that I used the capital "R" which refers to the Enlightenment philosophy rather than the lower case "r" which refers to logical reasoning in general.] However, just like the Continental form of Rationalism, "Natural Theology" was shown to be personal, subjective, and emotive rather than logically necessary. The resulting theology was: a.) the belief in a God that created everything to maximal perfection *and remains so in its current state* [remember: the post-Puritan Anglicans rejected the full effects of the Fall] and b.) the belief that God wants the absolute best for his creatures including man. So, instead of the Puritan belief in the subjection of nature to futility, Natural Theology stated that God sustained nature in beauty and perfection and "wishes the happiness of His creatures" (Paley). In place of the Westminster Catechism's statement that "man's chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever" (but fails to live up to it), Natural Theology gave David Hume and other enemies of the Faith ammunition when it stated that "God exists for the felicity of man". After Newton, it added the belief that God's creation would be more glorious if God set it in motion and never had to tinker with it afterward. Thus, instead of the Reformed belief that God primarily created the world with His eternal decree and story of Redemption in mind (along with aesthetics), Natural Theology truncated God's purpose in creation solely to aesthetic reasons. Lastly, it also entailed non-Biblical, philosophical speculations like the "fixity of species".

These are the beliefs in which Charles Darwin grew-up and was taught to believe were THE doctrines of Creation. However, when his experiences out in the wild easily dispelled the notions of his post-Puritan, Victorian era, idealistic Natural Theology, he rejected the Christian doctrine of Creation altogether. He saw that there was much suffering in nature such as parasitism, disease, and, especially, death. He saw that contrary to Linnaeus' belief in the "fixity of species", organisms changed with their environment. So idealistic were his views of nature that he even came to doubt creation because of all the wasted reproductive seed such as pollen! With all this combined, Darwin argued that God had nothing to do with the universe after He created it. This was because (according to Darwin's teddy-bear conception of God) God would not allow his created organisms to suffer if He indeed had created them. So, instead of ditching Natural Theology for the Reformed Theology of Original Sin and the subjection of nature to futility, Darwin opted for Deism.

As Hunter ably points out, modern defenders of Darwinism still operate under the assumption that the doctrines of Natural Theology are THE Christian doctrines of Creation. Many of them accept evolution simply because they believe that the doctrine of Creation (as made up by Natural Theology) is contrary to what nature is actually like. Thus, no matter how much evidence is piled up against neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory and common descent, the problem of natural evil and other "[my made up, Natural Theology version of] God wouldn't have done it that way" style arguments are always the weights that tip the scales back in favor of naturalism.

For example, take homology and the common genetic code. The naturalistic solution is to say that creatures had a common ancestor. The creationist solution is to say that they had a common designer. Now, on the face of it, one cannot argue for either solution without begging the question (i.e. circular reasoning). However, in order to tip the scales, the Darwinists would argue that the common designer hypothesis can't be true since (according to their idealistic Natural Theology view of God) God would never repeat a pattern but rather make everything different and beautiful. Of course, the argument: a.) is personal, subjective, and emotive, b.) is an argument against a rival theory rather than for the proposed theory [making it a "god-of-the-gaps" (or shall I say "chance-of-the-gaps") argument], and c.) assumes that God's sole purpose in Creation was aesthetic.

I would now like to respond to a few negative reviews below. One (i.e. Mark E. Miller) stated that Hunter's thesis was all wrong: "The numerous quotes he gives in the book of metaphysical musings by evolutionists, are, in the main, reflective of attempts to reconcile their own metaphysical views with the facts their investigations have uncovered, and are *not* the motivating principle behind their conclusions - which are based solidly on those facts."

However, it is indeed the other way around: major evolutionists (including Darwin himself) eliminated Creationism altogether because of the problem of evil and other "[my made up, Natural Theology version of] God wouldn't have done it that way" style arguments. For instance, during the Peter Ward (Darwinist) vs. Stephen Meyer (I.D.) debate, one of Ward's major arguments against I.D. was that there were millions and millions of extinct species, and of course, he asked: if there was a God who created these creatures, why didn't he take care of them? [The answer, of course, is that God subjected nature to futility because of man's sin, but you'd never know that with a Natural Theology mindset.] In my personal experience with Darwinists, I have found that they will often use theodicy and other old, Natural Theology arguments against Creation as their reason for believing in Darwinian evolution. One example was when an atheist argued that, if God really had created us, then he would have given us better defense mechanisms such as wings to quickly fly away. This, he argued, is proof that man was not created, but rather, he evolved through a blind, natural process of random mutation and natural selection. [Of course, the atheist was assuming that God originally intended man to be out in the wild amongst predators instead of in a secure enclosed garden (which he was then expelled from when he fell into sin).]

Whenever you back a Darwinist into a corner by refuting his mainstay arguments for NDET or common descent, he will always resort to the problem of evil and other "[my made up, Natural Theology version of] God wouldn't have done it that way" style arguments. At bottom, after you remove the thin scientific wrapping, the main reason for believing in evolution (whether consciously or unconsciously) is theodicy with an old, Victorian era, un-Biblical view of God.

Another criticism of this book (found below) is that it fails to provide an answer to the "Why would God create 15 different species of elephant? He sure must have been busy!" style argument by Kenneth Miller. Of course, if the reviewer had read the book more closely or actually read *modern* Creationist literature, he would know that NO MODERN CREATIONIST BELIEVES IN THE FIXITY OF SPECIES!!! In fact, the newest Creationist movement, called Baraminology, states that many species have evolved from an ancestor within their "kind". So, a modern Creationist would say that those 15 species of elephant micro-evolved as they migrated to different climates of the earth (through a process that was pre-programmed into their genes) from a common elephant ancestor that God had created.

The last criticism that I would like to deal with comes from the review by Ken W. Daniels below: "Whatever else might be supposed about God's nature, it is generally agreed that, if He exists, He is not deceptive. This is why many creationists are now abandoning the young-earth creationists' "appearance of age" theory. Yet Hunter is disturbed when evolutionists provide evidence for evolution and assert that "God would not have done it that way." Perhaps He did do it that way, but at the risk of introducing the strong appearance of evolution."

First of all, this is a common straw-man version of the "appearance of age" argument. No Creationist that I know of believes that God created the world with an appearance of age *for the purpose of* making it look old. Rather, God created it that way for utilitarian purposes. For example, He intended a fully-formed tree to be used as a dwelling place for animals or firewood for humans rather than to be used as a clock by scientists many years later. Second, Ken's argument for common ancestry from pseudogenes is constantly being debunked with new research. Scientists are finding out that pseudogenes do, in fact, have a function, and they also have an insertion bias (which dispels the need for a common ancestry conclusion). Like the list of vestigial organs, the arguments for NDET and common descent grow smaller with each new scientific discovery.

I highly recommend Cornelius Hunter's book, Darwin's God. It is a great look at the metaphysical presuppositions of common Darwinian arguments.