Science v. Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution 1st Edition

''Were Darwin transported to today’s world, and educated in such largely design-based sciences as genetics and molecular biology that were developed after his death, would he continue to interpret the balance of the evidence as telling against intelligent design in nature?''

''Evolutionists take for granted that the answer would be “yes.”

''However, if you believe (as I do) that the advent of genetics and molecular biology in the first half of the 20th century, culminating in the discovery of DNA’s double-helix structure in 1953, outweighs the significance of Darwin’s own work, you would be forced to conclude that Darwin would reinterpret natural selection as a design-based mechanism, possibly propelled by a divine engineer who could even command Newton’s respect.'' (164)

Why Darwin so revered?

''Darwin’s humility remained but his faith disappeared. In today’s secular culture, Darwin is more readily embraced than Newton as a scientific icon, though Newton remains unquestionably the greater scientist. Whereas Newton’s life appears to imply that the Bible can provide a sure path to great science, Darwin’s biography projects the politically correct image of a Christian who loses his faith through scientific inquiry.''

So Darwin's religious path is seen superior to Newton's. Therefore, Darwin's 'science' is defended. Newton's anti-Trinitarian, Bibical faith, is unknown. Darwin's philosophy dominates.

As the above conclusion indicates, Fuller pulls in current science to reassess Darwin, and forthrightly explains what (he believes) it implies.

Additionally, he analyses scientific/religious history; ethical and political development; philosophical and epistemological impact - all with the goal of searching out the foundations of current debate.

Serious addition to understanding this fundamental conflict of ideas. Well done!

1 Historical Bases for the Problem
1. Science: Western Religion by Secular Means
2. Science vs Religion or State vs Church?
3. Converting the Divine Spark into the Scientific Pulse
4. The Two Faces of Design in Creation and Evolution

2 Ideological Dimensions of the Problem
1. The Changing Ideological Temper of Our Times
2. The Problematic Status of Humanity in Intelligent Design
3. Conclusion: Science as the Ultimate Means of Human Transcendence

3 Complexity as a Conceptual Battleground
1. The Problem of Defining Complexity
2. Kuhn and the Complexity of Science
3. Darwin and the Complexity of Nature
4. The Normative Dimensions of Complexity
5. Conclusion: Computerized Evolution as Intelligently Designed Complexity

4 America as a Legal Battleground
1. Expertise on the Nature of Science
2. Supernaturalism as Figment and Fact in the Naturalistic Imagination
3. Philosophical Resistance to Scientific Naturalism
4. America’s Unique Legal and Political Culture
5. Conclusion: The Threat Posed by Intelligent Design

5 Life after Darwinism
1. Darwinism as Rhetorical Achievement
2. The Artificiality of Darwinism’s Dominance
3. Life Spared of Darwin: The Case of Sociology
4. Conclusion: Alternative Scenarios for Life after Darwin Conclusion: The Larger Lessons

A key cause of animosity . . .

''When “Science” and “Religion” are capitalized as irreconcilable cultural forces, a specific sociological problem is referenced: secular privilege for sacred knowledge . In that respect, the supposed intellectual conflict between science and religion has really transpired as a political struggle between state and church.'' (11)

Why did ''science'' developed in the West (Christendom/Islam) only?

''These so-called Religions of the Book trace the origin and character of reality to a single deity in whose “image and likeness” human beings were created, specifically in order to fathom the divine plan. Of course, virtually every culture has fostered a holistic understanding of reality, but typically reality is not portrayed as having been “created” by a deity with whom humans have a unique relationship that implies our privileged cognitive access and practical control of this reality –including perhaps a final convergence with the deity itself.'' (11)

What implied? Many scholars explain . . .

''It presumes that science is a unique development of Western consciousness, It amounts to a secular version of the Christian salvation story.'' (13)

Therefore -

''Thus, whereas India and China had their own versions of a “Renaissance man” like Leonardo da Vinci, who excelled at many different things, they never produced a single-minded “scientific revolutionary” like Newton. This was not through lack of talent but lack of motive.'' (14)

Fuller refers to Newton and Priestley, both devout Christians and adamant anti-trinitarians, over a hundred times. . .

''Priestley, the great luminary of Unitarian Christianity, enters the picture as part of the hidden religious backdrop to this discussion that provides a link that extends back from Newton and forward to Huxley. Priestley was notorious among theologians for denying the immortality of the soul while affirming the resurrection of the body.'' (65)

''However, Priestley followed Newton in treating the immortality of the soul as a pagan atavism, traceable to Plato and filtered through the Gospel of John the Evangelist, that ascribed diminished ontological significance to matter, not least the human body. For Priestley and Newton, this was tantamount to denigrating the person of Jesus.'' (67)

Fascinating!

''To be sure, Newton and Priestley never disputed the ontological significance of the spirit. Rather, they defended a version of materialism that they believed was necessary for humans to make the most of their earthly endeavors. This version of materialism aimed to steer a middle course between the ideological extremes of pagan skepticism and Gnostic spiritualism that we saw in evidence at the start of this chapter.'' (67)

As a sociology major, I really appreciated Fuller's book. As a humanist, I think he really gives an objective look at the false dichotomy between religion and science, and gives intelligent design theory the respect it deserves. After reading the book I walked away with a better understanding of the relationship that coincides between science and religion. To my astonishment, religion was the paradigm that made science such a successful pursuit. The theist used science to understand the mind of God, where science was useless for the materialist, because life was ultimately meaningless. If it was not for the theist, Darwin wouldn't off got his theory of evolution off the ground. 40 years after the theory of evolution was headed to the scrapheap, another Christian, Mendel, resurrected it to become the paradigm it is today.

Fuller also shows how intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory, that has nothing to do with religion, as well as the bias that judicial system shows to the materialists in the never ending battle between evolution and intelligent design advocates. The book is short, but challenging. I will definitely have to re-read Fuller's book to pick up on anything I may have missed, but overall I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in the battle between these two theories.

Steve Fuller is one of the leading scholars in the field of the philosophy and sociology of science. He is widely published. His Kuhn vs. Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science published by Columbia University Press reviews the Kuhn Popper perceptions of what is science, and his The Knowledge Book: Key Concepts in Philosophy, Science, and Culture published by McGill-Queen's University Press is a unique interdisciplinary reference work concerned with the nature of knowledge, and The Intellectual does an excellent job trying to define "what is an intellectual." In the book reviewed here he continues with some of the questions he has asked and topics he has raised in his many other books. In many ways this is his best book as it seems to be a summary of his other books. Fuller is extremely well read, an excellent writer, and takes a different position than many on the so called religious science war going on today. Fuller stresses that this war is a false dichotomy that gets in the way of our efforts to understand all of reality. He concluded that the ID evolution controversy will not go away any time soon, so each side needs to get together and begin laying the ground work for answering some of the really importantly questions of life that face us all, such as those we all struggle with as what it means to be human (what is a human, and what is our place in reality) and such questions. We are in this world together and need to work together and learn from each other, and this means that ID advocates will sooner or later have to have a place at the table of discourse. One can not keep over half of the population away forever.

Haven't read it yet, but am very exited about it.