Customer Reviews

Did Darwin Get It Right?: Catholics and the Theory of Evolution

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This book is a marvelous consideration of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. It's bristling with insights, and the suggested reading list, which includes biologists such as Gould and Mayr and Christian writers like Maritain, Chesterton, and C. S. Lewis, is a great starting point for further research, both scientific and philosophical.

I found out about Johnston from one of his pieces in the Wall St. Journal. I was looking for a good, readable critique of current evolutionary theory. Despite the Catholic subtitle, I found this little gem to be almost entirely free of any religious dogma. It was exactly what I was looking for. Johnston is obviously very smart, well-read, and writes marvelously. He first defines and then lays bare the weak scientific evidence for natural selection. All of our modern conception of human beings is based on Darwin's flawed premise. This book demonstates that you can question evolutionary theory without being a Bible-thumping fundamentalist.

A brilliant, insightful, concise, beautifully written (and blessedly footnote-less) summary of Darwin's theory, the scientific evidence, and the Church's actual (albeit frequently misrepresented and widely misunderstood) position. Johnston argues convincingly that there is and can be no conflict between religious faith and true science - - and hence between the Biblical Creation story as read through the Church's eyes and such scientific evidence as exists (and may yet be found) on the "origin of species." Johnston supports his thesis with an impressive marshalling of the facts, the product of prodigious research, and with razor sharp analysis -- all presented in crisp and lively prose, with a balanced exposition of the principal arguments on all sides. The result is a taut, fascinating, closely-reasoned, non-demagogic, reader-friendly volume of less than 200 pages, fit for scholars and laypersons alike. "Did Darwin Get It Right" aims at the truth, punctures the myths, and scores a bullseye. It makes a singular contribution by demonstrating in itself that those who seek scientific truth need not surrender their faith while those who understand the Church's actual position (as articulated in our time by John Paul II, and in far earlier times by such giants as Augustine and Aquinas) need never flee from the fruits of scientific research in order to live their faith. Indeed, says Sim Johnston, just the opposite.

First, I must unexpectedly respond to the "Creationism for Catholics?" review (if you can call it that) of July 27, 2005. Having read and appreciated the excellent quality of Mr. George Sim Johnston's little book, I can attest that either J. Keith "Agastache" has never read DID DARWIN GET IT RIGHT?, or else he is a militant atheist with an uncontrollable name-calling reflex which brands anyone not sharing his pseudoscientific beliefs as a "hard-lined [sic] fundamentalist" promoting "creationism." That mudslinging is an unfortunate slander of Mr. George Sim Johnston (not "Johnson," as repeatedly stated by that reviewer) and a gross misrepresentation of DID DARWIN GET IT RIGHT? (An antidote for such poisonous tirades from "I'm a scientist, so my athiesm must be true" types might be Alister McGrath's DAWKINS' GOD. McGrath earned his Ph.D. in biophysics at Oxford.) And what was with that "Darwin was brilliant and Mr. Johnson [sic] is not." barb? Anyone who reads Johnston's book will surmise that Mr. Johnston is a very modest gentleman with no pretensions of brilliance (though I did some research and discovered that he graduated from Harvard), who would heartily agree that Darwin was a very bright fellow indeed.

There is also a bizarre comment in a more recent review, stating that "like so much of the Neo-Catholic stuff that gets published these days, there's nothing really profound nor hard hitting." There is absolutely nothing "Neo-Catholic" in this fine little tome, so whether this slur is supposed to be insulting, dismissive, directed at the author, or directed at the publisher (I have no idea...), it simply doesn't apply to the book in question. As to there being nothing profound or hard-hitting, that might refer to the absence of the proper polemical tone expected by that reviewer. In fact, DID DARWIN GET IT RIGHT? is not at all a polemical work. It does not hurl insults at anyone, nor does it hold to the biblical or pseudoscientific absolutism of so many tracts. Rather, it seeks to combine both the reason one might expect from the Roman Catholic scholastic tradition with a proper skepticism of scientism (as opposed to science).

I came here, however, primarily to post a positive recommendation of "DID DARWIN GET IT RIGHT? -- Catholics and the Theory of Evolution" for its carefully constructed analysis and levelheaded discussion of the various issues and angles involved in the debate. I found the book's major weakness to be its now-dated (1998) summary of the status of theoretical and empirical inadequacies in the neo-Darwinian synthesis. While some of the weaknesses and outright dishonesty attached to the teaching and promotion of that synthesis still stand, there have since been published some exciting efforts attempting to resolve the weaknesses of neo-Darwinism. Examples include James W. Valentine's (UCLA Berkeley) mammoth and breathtaking ON THE ORIGIN OF THE PHYLA (2004) and Sean Carroll's (Wisconsin/Madison) ENDLESS FORMS MOST BEAUTIFUL: THE NEW SCIENCE OF EVO DEVO (2005).

For succinctly illuminating a variety of historical, philosophical, political threads of the debate, Johnston's little book remains among the most intelligent and least dogmatic efforts. This is an admirable accomplishment. The single chapter which deals specifically with Roman Catholic teaching (and popular misinformation about that teaching) is also well written, so that even non-Roman Catholics (this reviewer included) can appreciate it.

The answer to the title question is "with modifications, maybe". The author, citing many writers, presents the arguments from both sides. Science shows that natural selection causes varieties but it has never discovered changes in species. Because useless appendages disappear as the species adapts, gradual transitions to forms differing by more than just a variation are contrary to reason. The currently popular modification of Darwin's theory is called punctuated evolution in which species change over short periods of time, then remain unchanged for long periods of time. The periods of change are supposedly so short that specimens are not caught in the fossil record. To date, the changes have not been duplicated in the laboratory, despite the many years of bombarding fruit flies with radiation. This theory, that something has occurred for which there is no evidence, is based on the fact that there are many species. It is unscientifically based on the having the ends justify the hypothesized means. Because the theory includes the hypothesis that there is no evidence, it is safe from disproof. Thus we are left with "maybe." Thus also does the hypothesis fail to meet Popper's falsification criterion to qualify as science. It is no more scientific than a statement that every species we observe appeared instantaneously. But we do know that our schoolchildren are being misled by the dioramas that appear in the museums of natural history, which show monkeys in transition to man and dogs in transition to horses. These transitions have been proven untrue. No wonder children are poor in science when we teach them such poor science.

Because the Bible is not a science book, we cannot appeal to the Bible to determine scientifically how the first instance of man appeared. Evolution, like all of objective science, is not contrary to religion. God can create gradually or instantaneously, by any sequence He chooses. Most Christians are taught how to interpret the Bible; only those limited to a literal interpretation find a conflict between science and the Bible. Genesis was written for the people of its time. It identifies the order of their universe, as designed by God. That this very order underpins all science is ironic.

Why, then, is evolution held by so many? Many scientists, perhaps in attempting to keep theology and science separate, start by hypothesizing that there is no God. Evolution is their only alternative. Their theory is, at its very foundation, a mixture of theology and science - just what they are trying to avoid. The rest of us are taught this theory as if it were scientific fact. Never once do we face the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Never once do we ask, "What existed before the big bang?" Never once do we test the theory in light of the science of thermodynamics, which implies that nature is devolving rather than evolving?

This book should make us less gullible and more open-minded in our personal search for the meaning of man.

George Sim Johnston wrote in the "Note to the Reader" of this 1998 book, "This book was written in response to the widespread confusion among Catholics about how to deal with the theory of evolution. While the book may be read with profit by scholars, it is aimed at the general reader..."

Here are some quotations from the book:

"As is often the case, there is a reasonable Catholic middle ground between the poles of biblical and scientific absolutism. It is a ground that was claimed by St. Augustine and is comfortably occupied by modern Catholic thinkers like Chesterton, Maritain, and Gilson. It is also where the Magisterium locates itself, especially during the pontificate of John Paul II, who has a keen interest in science." (Pg. 14)
"(St. Augustine) speculated that in the beginning God had planted 'rational seeds' ... in nature that eventually fructified into plants and animals. This would be 'evolution' in the strict sense of the word... however, St. Augustine's version of evolution is utterly non-Darwinian; it is, rather, creation on the installment plan." (Pg. 24)
"G.K. Chesterton remarked at the time that the Catholic Church, which does not have a philosophical problem with evolution (properly understood), and does not treat the Book of Genesis as a sourcebook of scientific data, was entirely outside the fray." (Pg. 72)
"On October 22, 1996, Pope John Paul II delivered a message to the Pontifical Adacemy of Sciences regarding the theory of evolution... that produced screaming headlines around the world, 'Pope Vindicates Darwin!' The pope, in fact, did no such thing. Darwin's name was nowhere mentioned in the document, and the pope made it clear that Darwinism in its pure, materialistic form is not acceptable to Catholics." (Pg. 111)
"The creation account in Genesis is true, but it is not scientifically 'true.'" (Pg. 123)

I read this book because someone I respect more or less foisted it on me. I am not a religious person, and I presumed this was some sort of creationist dogma. Were my eyes ever opened. This book does not say, "Darwin bad, Creationism good." (In fact, it points out that Creationism was primarily a construct of the American Southern Protestant movement of the nineteenth century. The Catholic Church does not promote it.) This book simply points out that Darinism is deeply flawed, and that it is open season to explain how we actually got here.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect for me was to see that those who cling hardest to Darwinsm are, in fact, guilty of the same thing that they accuse their opponents of; that is, blind faith in an idea with no supporting evidence.

I just want to make a short remark here, because the previous reviewer represents a common misunderstanding. The ancient Greeks (most of them anyway) did not practice "science" in the way we understand it. Ask yourself this question, what sorts of experiments did the ancient Greeks do? What they did practice, and should most assuredly be acredited for is a sort of "natural philosophy". Science properly understood had its roots in individuals like William of Ockham, who although later excommunicated was Catholic, and Francis Bacon.

This book does not represent the views of any of the Catholics I know, so I am left to wonder whether Mr. Johnson is appealing to some obscure hard-lined fundamentalist faction in the church. This book's contents particularly saddened me because the Catholic Church--being a church comprised of highly educated clergy--has historically accepted evolution.

I first learned about church views of evolution from my grandfather who was a Professor of paleontology (The study of the fossil record of past geological periods) at a well-respected Catholic University. My grandfather was a believer in evolution and a Third Order Dominican, simultaneously. Catholics who believe in evolution accept that our belief in God, the Bible's teachings and evolution are compatible. God is great and mysterious and God's universe (history included) is great and mysterious.

In addition to being neither enlightened nor insightful, Mr. Johnson's "scientific" arguments show that he has a very shallow, piecewise understanding of evolutionary biology and its theories. I'm qualified to say this because I am both a Catholic and an evolutionary biologist.

It is difficult to see so many other readers applauding such linear and fundamental thinking. Darwin was brilliant and Mr. Johnson is not.

Unlike "Tornado in a Junkyard" and "Darwin's Black Box", "Did Darwin Get It Right?" takes a slightly more dogmatic Catholic/Christian take on the Creation/evolotion debate. Like "Tornado in a Junkyard" The arguments against Evolution are explained in a straight foward manner that does not require a degree in biology or chemistry to understand.

An excellent suggested reading list as well as a bibliography are included and are a nice touch. This book is an excellent book for people just beginig thier search for the truth about evolution as it is less technical than "Darwin's Black Box" and a quicker less in depth read than "Tornado in a Junkyard".