Customer Reviews

Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism

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

 

 

Anyone examining the debates surrounding evolution and various alternatives, including "intelligent design," cannot help but be struck by the vehemence with which advocates of the former attack the latter. Whether on Amazon reviews and discussion boards, or in the broader scientific and popular literature, Darwinists attack those who disagree with them in an manner that far exceeds what one would expect from one scientist simply disagreeing with another's interpretation of the data. This is because the question literally involves the personal religion of those who support the current neo Darwinian synthesis. Despite the claims that supporters of evolution routinely make, namely that they are opposing "religious" fundamentalism, the fact remains that their basic suppositions are religious. This new book by biophysicist Cornelius Hunter examines these religious assumptions and lays bare their strengths and weaknesses in the historical sciences.

The story of modern science begins with Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes, each of whom rejected the rationalist theories of Aristotle. They did so, however, in very different ways. Bacon supported a moderate empiricism. Stressing observation and experimentation, he suggested science as such limit itself to observable and testable hypotheses. In contrast, Descartes advocated a new rationalism: one in which all science would pursue naturalistic explanations and use these explanations, even if they did not yield useful predictions, because such explanations were inherently superior to supernatural (or non-natural) paradigms. The approaches found in the work of both Bacon and Descartes have had an enormous influence on the world of science today, but in terms of what Hunter describes as the "historical" sciences (the origins of the universe, the solar system, and, of course, the "Origin of Species") Descartes rationalism has been by far the dominant influence.

People, however, are not generally aware of the extent to which rationalism, particularly in its naturalist expression, is the result of religious influences. The heart of Hunter's book outlines these influences. Theological naturalism was a solution to the problem of reconciling creation with a wise and loving creator. For theological naturalists, assigning creation to various natural laws isolates God from perceived imperfections or "evils" in the world. Hunter dwells into the history of naturalism, highlighting the often neglected whig theologian Thomas Burnet along with better known figures like Immanuel Kant. But ultimately, this theological naturalism led to a methodological naturalism in the sciences. The search for exclusively natural clauses became something of a game rule in science, but the theological basis for it is often overlooked.

Nonetheless, naturalism presents problems, not the least of which is the "blind spot" referenced in the title of the book. When a naturalistic paradigm fails, it does not occur to scientists to examine non-natural explanations. Indeed, there is a tendency to create false dichotomies (either evolution is "true" or all observations of species must reveal only some sort of ideal perfection--otherwise there would be a "bad" design which a creator or other designer could not possibly make.) Needless to add, this sort of reasoning effectively pre-empts alternative suggestions. But it also includes stunning theological suppositions that its adherents are loath to acknowledge. Why, for example, must we assume that a designer would always opt for what we consider a perfect design? As Hunter correctly notes, that this was an assumption of some 18th century natural theologians hardly means it is prescriptive for all natural theology.

There are a number of important implications to the arguments in Hunter's book. One is that religious assumptions are far more common in the sciences than many would be willing to acknowledge. Indeed, much of the "evidence" in Darwin's 'Origin of Species' is essentially theological arguments about how nature "should be" rather than simply an empirical discussion of how it is. Historians have known this for some time. (Readers interested in pursuing this subject further should examine historian Gertrude Himmelfarb's masterful Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution.) But amazingly enough, such reasoning persists into the modern era. When SJ Gould declares the Panda's Thumb an inadequate design, he is making a theological claim, not a scientific one. Similar arguments abound in supposedly scientific literature. That these same writers are often critical of design theorists for supposedly bringing "religious" values and ideas into science merely demonstrates the extent of the blindspot Hunter describes.

But this book raises a broader question as well. Is "science" possible without some metaphysical insight. Although Hunter does not mention it, in the broadest sense the answer to this question is no. We must, as Einstein admitted, acknowledge that a prerequisite of science is the presumption that the universe is understandable at all. But beyond that, can a science be constructed that is truly empirical? Or are we stuck between the theological naturalism of many modern biologists, and the theological alternative(s) suggested by intelligent design. Hunter suggests it can by returning to Bacon's "moderate" empiricism. But what would such an empiricism entail? For one thing, it would require the admission that naturalism really is only a game rule, and not an overarching theological construct as it is for such scientists as Howard Van Till and Kenneth Miller. It would also require that we reject the few atheists (Daniel Dennet and Richard Dawkins come to mind here) who attempt to appropriate naturalism for their own purposes. As a game rule, naturalism is not a "universal solvent" that dissolves all religious claims, whatever our atheist friends might wish. Accepting Hunter's moderate empiricism would not even "destroy" evolution as a useful working hypothesis. But it would have the effect of seriously limiting what questions science could answer. More important, it would require that we again integrate learning. As Hunter so eloquently notes, there "are rich multifaceted problems that include reasoning from a variety of disciplines. We cannot understand such problems with narrow appeals to just science, or just philosophy, or just theology, or just history. The full range of knowledge ought to be considered."(p.145) The research possibilities such a moderate empiricism offers are tremendous, but they undermine the dominance theological naturalism currently enjoys under the label of "science," and it is unlikely the high priesthood of this religion will give up so easily. Indeed, they currently enjoy a monopoly on the presentation of their religious views in the public sector and they are unlikely to share it. After all, it is easier to accuse one's opponents of religious fanaticism than to examine the mote in one's own eye.

I am a legal intern at Discovery Institute where this review was originally published.

In law, one who sells a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user is held strictly liable for the physical harm to the injured party. One way for the injured party to win a case is to successfully argue that there is a design defect in the product. Put another way, the plaintiff is entitled to damages because there is something wrong with the blueprints for the product. At this point, expert witnesses are found to testify to the design's integrity or its defectiveness.

Perhaps the most common blind spot that inhibits the proper functioning of a product is the quite literal blind spot we experience when driving our cars. If modern science and the pre-suppositions that support it were an automobile, then Dr. Hunter's new book would be the testimony of an expert witness who has found a significant design defect. The defect has created a blind spot that is not necessary for the proper functioning of science.

Dr. Hunter begins his book by pointing out the design defect: "The problem is that religion has joined science." (Hunter, 2007, pg. 9) He goes on to explain that, while today's science is thought to be empirical and free of theological premise, nothing could be further from the truth. Dr. Hunter examines the complex interaction between religion and science in history and arrives at what may be a surprising conclusion for many: the modern design of science is based on theological naturalism, a phrase he uses to describe the restriction of science to naturalism for religious reasons.

But Hunter goes further and refutes a common argument that naturalism is a result of atheism or empirically based findings. Instead, he lays the responsibility for naturalism at the doorstep of theists, who were largely thinkers inside the church hundreds of years ago. Hunter explains that theological naturalism is not opposed to religious ideas, because the philosophy is itself religious. It makes theological assumptions for a number of different reasons and then mandates a non-intervening "god." This mandate allows the stream of thought to necessarily flow from theological naturalism to methodological naturalism--the idea that science ought to pursue naturalistic explanations. According to Dr. Hunter, this philosophy of theological naturalism predated the theories that we argue about today.

Dr. Hunter then makes the connection between the philosophies and the blind spot that was created in science: "The problem with science is not that the naturalistic approach might occasionally be inadequate. The problem is that science would never know any better. This is science's blind spot. When problems are encountered, theological naturalism assumes that the correct naturalistic solution has not been found. Non-natural phenomena will be interpreted as natural, regardless of how implausible the story becomes.... Theological naturalism has no way to distinguish a paradigm problem from a research problem. It cannot consider the possibility that there is no naturalistic explanation for the DNA code. If a theory of natural history has problems -- and many have their share -- the problems are always viewed as research problems and never as paradigm problems."
(Cornelius G. Hunter, Science's Blind Spot: Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism, Brazos Press, 2007, pg. 44-45)

Dr. Hunter follows theological naturalism through many of the significant ideas of science in the modern era and analyzes how the blind spot affected the results. However, he doesn't just analyze the problem, for Hunter also suggests another design that will not produce such a blind spot. His suggestion is moderate empiricism in lieu of the heavy reliance on the assumptions of theological naturalism. Hunter explains that moderate empiricism is not a new idea; it was used by Boyle and Newton and pursues the experimental sciences largely unhindered by axioms or historical science frameworks. He sees this method being used by the intelligent design theorists and applauds them for it.

As an expert witness, Dr. Hunter excels. Not only does he examine the current design of modern science, he also offers a design that will address the defect and allow science to function properly. Perhaps it may function even better. With his testimony complete, the jury is out. Will the scientists of today and the next generation choose to drive an automobile with this defect, or will they choose a different design, one without this blaring blind spot? Regardless, they would all do well to read Cornelius G. Hunters' Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism.

In "Science's Blind Spot," biophysicist Dr. Cornelius G. Hunter provides an insightful look at the role of metaphysics in modern science. In particular, he gives readers a succinct overview of the role naturalistic theological assumptions that have influenced the historical sciences in recent times, moving from cosmology to biology.

For Hunter, metaphysical influences are all but inevitable and by themselves pose no necessary impediment to scientific understanding and progress. He argues that it is essential that we be aware of the constraining impact of those influences in to avoid force-fitting data into preconceived conclusions. But important scientific findings, suggests Hunter, reveals how our modern demand that only undirected processes be considered in science has prevented other explanations that might better account for what we observe in the natural world. Along the way, Hunter examines the metaphysical influences behind ideas such as multiverse theory and the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution.

In the concluding pages, Hunter makes a plea for the scientific community to embrace a modest empiricism that focuses more narrowly upon empirical findings that can be observed and verified through experimentation. Particularly where the historical sciences are involved, Hunter calls for a more modest approach to the scientific enterprise that is conscious of its own limits. He goes on to suggest that the theory of intelligent design fits within such an inquisitive atmosphere and that it be given careful consideration. (But Hunter just scratches the surface in this last respect, as this book is NOT about intelligent design.)

In two previous books, Hunter focused upon the metaphysics inspiring and affirming Darwin's theory of evolution and its modern form. But it is not necessary to have read those books in order to get the full benefit from "Science's Blind Spot." Given the scope of this book, readers might want to read this book before considering Hunter's intriguing work "Darwin's God."

Despite whatever technical or semi-technical jargon appears in this review, "Science's Blind Spot" is a very accessible book. It reads quickly, too. This book is thought provoking and is recommended to those interested in the role of metaphysics in modern science.


Darwins God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil
A Meaningful World: How the Arts And Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature

The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery

When trying to understand the fanatical Darwinist, I have often been puzzled by the claim that bad design means no design at all. Hunter's "Blind Spot" finally helped me understand what underlies such an obviously mistaken belief (for example, consider the Edsel). I recommend this book to anyone who is trying to understand the religious basis of Darwinism.

The book offers considerable insight into the way in which those who deny design in nature are often trying to protect God's reputation. Far from being "closet atheists", they feel that nature is so often bad, pointless, and cruel that no reputable God could be associated with it.

They tend to be rationalists, as well, Hunter explains, so they don't mind insisting that everything supports their theory. But then, they only accept the existence of the things that do support their theory ....

Reading Blind Spot helped me understand the reasoning behind the insistence of many truly committed Darwinists that the human mind does not really exist, and that human behaviour can be explained better by the influence of selfish genes.

Often the evidence they cite sounds far-fetched and forced - but they must accept such theories, no matter how ridiculous. They cannot accept any theory that suggests design at any point, let alone the reality of any non-material entity. Of course it is an implausible position doomed to collapse, but watching it teeter is - admittedly - fun.

Ideas have consequences. This book is about science's commitment to naturalism to the point of being scientism, essentially a religion where anything that does not fit the naturalistic presupposition is ruled out as irrelevant and irrational, that includes anything that is religious unless your religion is of the type that only concerns your personal experience and says nothing objective about the nature of the real world or society. For those of us who believe that our religion informs all areas of life, this is unacceptable. Since the author, Cornelius Hunter, is himself a scientist as well as a Christian, his book is especially helpful.

Cornelius Hunter was senior vice president of Seagull Technology, Inc., a high-tech firm in Silicon Valley. He is currently, at least at the time of the writing of this book, engaged in molecular biophysics post-doctoral and engineering research in Cameron Park, California. He is also adjunct professor of science and religion at Biola University. He completed his Ph.D. in biophysics at the University of Illinois. He has, in addition to this book under review, authored Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil, and also Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion over Science. With these books, Hunter has joined the ranks of a growing number of scholars who find scientific naturalism, and more specifically Darwinian evolution, without much, if any, scientific merit, and based more on aberrant philosophy and theology than on science. Phillip Johnson approvingly quotes Hunter from previous books in his observation that "at its core, evolution is about God, not science." Michael Behe notes that in "lucid and engaging prose, Hunter shines a light on Darwinian theology, making plain what is too often obscured by technical jargon." And William Dembski says that "Hunter unmasks [the] theological mode of argumentation and argues convincingly that it is not merely incidental but indeed essential to how Darwinists justify evolution." Guillermo Gonzalez writes of the current book: "Science's Blind Spot is a must-read for anyone wishing to understand why those who oppose intelligent design are becoming more entrenched as the evidence for it continues to build."

The book Science's Blind Spot contains a Preface and nine chapters. Chapter 1 is titled What's Wrong with Science. Chapter 2 is titled The Revolution That Wasn't. Chapter 3 is titled Science's Blind Spot. Chapter 4 is A God in the Machine. Chapter 5 is Nature's Innovative Power. Chapter 6 is When Predictions Go Wrong. Chapter 7 is Inherit the Wind All Over Again. Chapter 8 is Theological Naturalism. And Chapter 9 is titled Moderate Empiricism.

In Chapter 1, Hunter, who is himself a scientist, introduces the theme of his book, and argues that there is something wrong with science: what is wrong is religion being involved in it. However, surprising to some, the religion that corrupts science is not Christianity or some other organized religion, but the religion of naturalism. He suggests that "The problem is that religion has joined science. . . . science itself, according to many commentators, is free of theological guide or constraint. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . the primary theological ground rule is that scientific explanation must be purely naturalistic. . . . The term theological naturalism reminds us that the assumption of naturalism in science is neither a result of atheistic influence nor an empirically based scientific finding. It is a consequence of metaphysical reasoning, and the implications for science are profound."

Chapter 2 is a little heavy in philosophy and theology, but that is at the root of where we are in science today so it appears to be unavoidable. Where theology went astray is where science went astray, precisely because it was erroneous developments within Christianity that led to incorrect theological assumptions within science. The basic split was between those who take the Scriptures as necessary revelation for proper religious understanding and those who assumed that reason alone was sufficient for a complete Christian understanding of men and God. Hunter focuses upon Bacon and Descartes as prominent representatives of the two approaches, because they were both Christians and both scientists. Bacon was the pragmatist who argued for limits to science, focused on the practical, and was the empiricist. However, Descartes argued for no limits to science, promoted speculation in the sciences, and was the rationalist. Descartes won out, but why was that? Hunter answers that question in this chapter. Surprising to some, Descartes won by his theological arguments. The arguments are a bit complex and perhaps even a little foreign to our thinking today, but they were based on such things as the problem of evil in the world, and that it would be somehow unbecoming for God to have to intervene in His own creation. Again, this sort of development occurred in the heady days of rationalism, where surely man with his own intelligence alone should be sufficient to figure all of these things out without the need for any revelation from God. These were the days of the development of Deism, and later liberal theology. Lest we think this is just historical and of little relevance to us today, Hunter quotes Ken Miller, a professing Christian, scientist, and leading exponent of evolution as asking the rhetorical question, would God "really want to take credit for the mosquito"? Among other developments that led to naturalism within science was the growing sentiment within religion as well as science against miracles, again against the revelation of Scripture and based solely on rational concerns: some theologians found miracles to be, well, awkward. For similar reasons, the tradition of uniformitarianism was embraced by many in the sciences not because of growing evidence for it, but for rational, theological concerns. The upshot of Chapter 2 is that scientific naturalism did not develop from atheism, but from theological naturalism. Theological naturalism, as well as scientific naturalism, "is not opposed to all things religious - it is religious." It is not God that is excluded, it is an intervening God that is excluded, contra to the Scriptures. From thence comes methodological naturalism. Hunter develops these ideas throughout the remainder of the book.

In Chapter 3, Hunter addresses directly what he calls science's blind spot. The blind spot is that science does not recognize that scientific pursuits are based on two main components: a certain amount of rationalism and also empiricism. Some seem to think that it is all empirical, and it isn't. One long quote seems to summarize the chapter fairly well: "The problem with science is not that the naturalistic approach might occasionally be inadequate. The problem is that science would never know any better. This is science's blind spot. When problems are encountered, theological naturalism assumes that the correct naturalistic solution has not yet been found. Nonnatural phenomena will be interpreted as natural, regardless of how implausible the story becomes. Science has no mechanism to detect the possibility of nonnatural phenomena. It does not consider the likelihood that a phenomenon might not be purely naturalistic. . . . Theological naturalism has no way to distinguish a paradigm problem from a research problem. It cannot consider the possibility that there is no naturalistic explanation for the DNA code. If a theory of natural history has problems - and many of them have their share - the problems are always viewed as research problems and never as paradigm problems."

In Chapter 4, cosmology is considered. In recent years, a great deal has been made by some of the high degree of fine tuning that seems to be apparent in the universe in order for intelligent life to occur on planet earth. Most cosmologists seem to recognize this problem, and that is why something as bizarre as proposed multiple universes (now isn't that an oxymoron!) are actually being considered. "The universe's fine-tuning seems quite peculiar, but theological naturalism mandates a naturalistic explanation. The multiverse hypothesis provides such an explanation. For some cosmologists, multiverses make the fine-tuning seem `much less miraculous.' The multiverse hypothesis is another example of science's blind spot."

In Chapters 5, 6, and 7, evolution is considered. In Chapter 5 Hunter presents the idea that nature, according to some, is inherently innovative and has produced all of the wide variations of life by natural means through the mechanism of evolution. To some this is obvious. "According to Darwinists, the theory of evolution is so obvious and compelling that it should be considered to be a fact rather than a theory. Just as gravity and the roundness of the earth are facts, so too evolution is a fact. As Darwinists explain, there really is no counterevidence. Everything in biology is what we would expect if evolution were true. Evolution's predictions, they claim, have all come true." However, Hunter states that the problem with this last statement is that it isn't true: "The problem is that evolution has a great many fundamental predictions gone wrong." He points out a rather obvious problem that dates back to the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species: while modern adherents say that Darwin provided a mechanism through which evolution occurs, namely variation followed by natural selection, and that this is one theory by which micro-evolution may occur, the content of Darwin's book was on the origin of species: a problem that is unresolved and for which little if any progress has been made. Even the simple problem of adaptation seems to involve more than random variation and natural selection: the ability to adapt seems to be hardwired. Another basic problem is many complex functions that exist in a variety of species cannot conceivably have a common ancestor with that function. Another problem is that similar functions in what appear to be cousin species cannot be shown to have similar genes or developmental pathways, which evolution would logically predict.

In Chapter 6 Hunter continues with the problem of predictions based on evolutionary theory that have gone wrong. Hunter asks the following: "But what happens when similar designs are discovered in distant species, so distant that a common ancestor cannot be used to explain their origin? What happens when common solutions are found in species that, even according to evolution, are widely divergent? These cases are unexpected surprises to evolutionists, for they contradict evolution's prediction that biology is beholden to a contingent process. . . . Furthermore, there are too many known examples where similar designs appear in distant species, in spite of different environments and in spite of the availability of competing designs." Hunter also criticizes evolutionary theory due to a lack of consistency when it comes to evolutionary tree diagrams that are supposed to at least suggest potential developmental pathways. An "evolutionary tree based on one set of data (say the visible features of the species) should be similar to a tree based on a separate set of data (say the molecular features of the same set of species). It would be a daunting task to document the multitude of falsifications of this prediction that have been tallied so far. . . . Instead of a single evolutionary tree emerging from the data, there is a wealth of competing evolutionary trees." However, Hunter observes that "In the face of daunting evidential problems, evolutionists are oblivious to any hint of a theoretical breakdown."

In Chapter 7 Hunter reconsiders the play and movie by the title of Inherit the Wind. The play, and then the movie, were loosely based on the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in Dayton, Ohio. For many, Inherit the Wind "reveals what they believe to be the core essentials of the origins debate: objective science versus religious dogma." However, Hunter believes it is just the opposite: whatever we had in 1925, today we have those blindly committed to evolution, and naturalism in general, who are "now part of a new kind of anti-intellectualism." It is those committed to naturalism who will not even permit serious objections to be raised against the theory of evolution. No counterevidence is allowed. No questions are allowed. Objections such as those raised in this book by Hunter are not permitted in the classroom: not at the high school level nor at the university level. Even in a court of law, highly qualified scientists giving testimony concerning serious scientific objections to the theory of evolution will be subjected to intense cross examination, looking into their motives and religious affiliations, while those presenting the party line receive no such examination.

In Chapter 8 Hunter investigates the underlying philosophy that has caused the reverse Inherit the Wind scenario and the blind spot in modern science. He demonstrates how philosophical naturalism, theological naturalism, and methodological naturalism are related. Hunter had shown in previous chapters that naturalism was actually developed by religious people for religious concerns, no matter how wrong they may have been, (see the index entry for theological naturalism), and therefore naturalism was not developed by atheists to promote atheism, as some Christians may assume it to be. The problem is laid directly at the feet of religious people, and it is still today that professing Christians give support to scientific naturalism. Although the ideas were not developed to promote skepticism, that has been the result. "Although the driving concern for naturalists was theological and they were not promoting atheism, there can be little doubt that today their ideas have fueled religious skepticism. If there is no divine action, or at least no detectable divine action, then it is understandable that some might take the next logical step to religious skepticism." As examples of two misguided modern professing Christians who are scientists, Hunter refers to Ken Miller and Howard Van Till: "Biology professor Ken Miller argues that God would never want to take credit for such evils as the mosquito. Furthermore, Western religion mandates evolution. `The freedom to act and choose enjoyed by each individual in the Western religious tradition,' explains Miller, `requires that God allow the future of His creation to be left open.' In other words, evolution must be true and it must be independent of God; otherwise `how could the future truly be open.' Physicist Howard Van Till argues that a god who created the world and then subsequently set about creating species at different times is `theologically awkward.'" Hunter refers to a number of other scientists as well, who think they serve God well by embracing naturalistic evolution. "These views are typical of today's theological naturalists. Their theological views are varied, but the common thread is methodological naturalism. Divine action must not be detectable. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that theological naturalists accept evolution as a scientific fact." Hunter's main point is that just like today, in Darwin's day and before naturalism and evolution were developed for religious reasons, no matter how wrongheaded, and not because scientific evidence led to naturalism and evolution. And yet, many today are ignorant of such historical developments and even of the theological naturalism of today!

In Chapter 9, the last chapter, Hunter makes his positive case for what he calls moderate empiricism. In my opinion, although not specifically mentioned in the Preface and therefore maybe I am extrapolating, the contents of Chapter 9 are really the purpose for this book being written. In a delightful contrast with most books, all of the previous chapters come together in the last chapter allowing for a cogent positive statement of how things ought to be. In other words, the previous chapters were analysis of where we are in terms of the philosophy of science and what's wrong with it, and Chapter 9 is a positive statement of the way things should be. Chapter 9 is the most impassioned plea for proper scientific investigation that I have read, and all of the earlier chapters explain how we went wrong. It sheds great light on the differences between empiricism and rationalism (and related presuppositionalism). The prevailing philosophy of science is based on rationalism, not, as many suppose, empiricism. It is based on a specific presupposition of naturalism, and excludes any line of investigation that does not presume naturalism. Hunter's insights here, as developed throughout the book, are very helpful and penetrating. He does not embrace full empiricism, but rather makes good arguments for what he calls "moderate empiricism." His appeal is not to embrace something really new, but rather the position that had been championed by Francis Bacon (father of the modern scientific method, according to Encyclopedia Britannica online at http://www.britannica.com), Robert Boyle, and others. It is a modest, humble approach to the pursuit of knowledge about the world, and therefore will not likely appeal to the arrogant, proud, adherents to the prevailing philosophy of science (even if, as is probably true of most, they have no idea of what their philosophy of science is), which assumes that the only acceptable answer to any question is a naturalistic one. This is, at the fundamental level, a philosophical or even theological position, not one based on empirical evidence. Moderate empiricism, while appreciating what science has accomplished and the power of the scientific method, also realizes how very little we understand and attempts to be open to where the evidence may lead. This seems like a modest appeal, and it is one that well-known scientists of an earlier era embraced, yet one rejected today.

This book takes on the basic approach that science as practiced today pursues. It illustrates how this is not how science has always been pursued, and gives good reasons why it is inferior to moderate empiricism. It makes a very important contribution to the current debate over intelligent design theory, as well as evidence for and against the theory of evolution. These current debates, in the light of this book, appear to be more over philosophy and theology than over science per se. Unfortunately, many, perhaps most, practicing scientists have no background, either formal or informal, in philosophy and/or theology. Their lack of education (either formal or informal) in these subjects, even though their degree may be Doctor of Philosophy (historically, pursuing a professional degree in science was recognized as an area of natural philosophy), certainly does not contribute anything positive to the current debate, and suggests that we, as a society, have become much too narrow in our professional degrees. This book, hopefully, will be widely read and serve to correct what is apparently a significant misunderstanding in our society.

For more information, please see my web site Paarmann's Post located at http://members.cox.net/ldpaarmann

Larry D. Paarmann

This book helped me understand why Scientific Naturalists are blinded to seeing anything other than thier way. They say Theists are the one's who are not open minded, but if you a priori exclude even the merest hint of even the slightest possibility of a different paradigm, then how are you any more enlightened?

And excellent presentation of the issues. Beware when people like T. Makinson dismiss an author merely because they are writing out of their specialty. (I wonder if he objects to Richard Dawkin's out-of-speciality writing.) This book is well done, and worth the time. Read it and make up your own mind.

Ignore the individuals who either don't read the book and comment, or read it and don't understand the science anyway. This book is a solid historical approach detailing the cultural and moral pathways leading to the current cultural climate in realms of academia. He addresses easily verified facts, countless references to works from all walks of life, and does a great job of separating rationlism from scientific empiricism. An excellent read for those with the intellect to grip it and the willingness to accept facts for what they are.

This was an interesting book but somehow lacking a complete focus. The author is clearly a learned scientist with a good knowledge of the history of science but in his discussion about the basis of scientific naturalism and the failings of evolution his alternative, the Intelligent Design theory, was never really explained and it left the book feeling incomplete.

This could have been another evolution-bashing book but instead it approached the subject in a rather novel manner, suggesting that scientists who oppose Intelligent Design do so for theological reasons, not because of empirically-based arguments. His explanations of some of the failures of evolutionary proofs were helpful, along with many of the reasons that naturalists, many of whom have a strong Christian faith, believe that God's mode of creation must have been rather 'hands off' because the results that we see today are so variable. However his central premise, that of Intelligent Design, was never really delineated and was in fact barely mentioned; the book seemed to be trying to discredit evolution without giving a valid alternative in place. The sections on cosmology were most interesting, the parts about the rise of naturalism sometimes felt rather rushed and weren't adequately explained, but overall this was a good book with some failings. It in no way convinced me to change my view on the overall issue but did offer some very interesting food for thought and it was good to read a book written by a scientist who held to his scientific method as well as his beliefs.

If you ever suspected that the ideas underlying modern evolutionary theory lean toward being theological in nature, you should read this book. And if you tend toward a theistic worldview you might be surprised at the source of contemporary "theological naturalism", as Hunter terms the problem of modern science. Well researched and fair in his approach to describing the problem facing modern origins science, Hunter also offers a solution--one which all but the most dogmatic on either side of the origins spectrum will find attractive.