Sign in with Facebook
Nate's Reviews > Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives
Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives
by
by
This is a good book to get a handle on the current debates between intelligent design (ID) creationists and the rest of the world. From Christians who accept evolution and teach science at Christian universities to adamant atheists like Richard Dawkins, this gives a very broad spectrum of current debates on the topic. Although it was compiled in 2001, the arguments are very relevant. I checked the Discovery Institute's website in 2013, and they were still touting Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" argument that was refuted more than a decade ago. The reality is they have no scientific program.
As a Christian who accepts evolution, I was at first reluctant to thoroughly examine the opposing viewpoints, but I'm glad I did because I was extremely unimpressed by what ID defenders have to offer. ID tries so hard to promote a negative and antagonistic view of evolution, gathering supporters with PhD's in diverse disciplines at respected institutions. In the end, though, the arguments are just a rehashing of tired objections slightly tweaked from the Scopes trials of the 1920's. Sad. Yes, Philip Johnson is a good lawyer. OJ Simpson had good lawyers, too.
The most disheartening aspect of the debate is that the most vocal supporters of ID (Philip Johnson, Alvin Plantinga, Michael Behe, and William Dembski) insist that there are only two options -- you MUST be either a critic of evolution (Darwinism, as they like to label it) OR an atheistic materialist.
I am personally allergic to this two-sided false dichotomy. I have seen so many Christians lose their faith because they buy into it. The fact is evolution is a scientifically sound explanation of biological history. It makes sense, and as time goes on and methods become more sophisticated, it continues to make MORE sense. It does not threaten faith. Actually, when given a fair hearing, the only honest response is wonder and awe at the amazing complexity of the universe and the origin of life. Yes, some atheists who happen to be scientists try to step into theological and philosophical territory and make extravagant claims against theists. They are just the loudest opposing voices to the IDs and creationists.
This book does a great job refuting both extremes, demonstrating that there is much more room for theists who accept evolution. The middle is much larger than both sides would have you believe.
As a Christian who accepts evolution, I was at first reluctant to thoroughly examine the opposing viewpoints, but I'm glad I did because I was extremely unimpressed by what ID defenders have to offer. ID tries so hard to promote a negative and antagonistic view of evolution, gathering supporters with PhD's in diverse disciplines at respected institutions. In the end, though, the arguments are just a rehashing of tired objections slightly tweaked from the Scopes trials of the 1920's. Sad. Yes, Philip Johnson is a good lawyer. OJ Simpson had good lawyers, too.
The most disheartening aspect of the debate is that the most vocal supporters of ID (Philip Johnson, Alvin Plantinga, Michael Behe, and William Dembski) insist that there are only two options -- you MUST be either a critic of evolution (Darwinism, as they like to label it) OR an atheistic materialist.
I am personally allergic to this two-sided false dichotomy. I have seen so many Christians lose their faith because they buy into it. The fact is evolution is a scientifically sound explanation of biological history. It makes sense, and as time goes on and methods become more sophisticated, it continues to make MORE sense. It does not threaten faith. Actually, when given a fair hearing, the only honest response is wonder and awe at the amazing complexity of the universe and the origin of life. Yes, some atheists who happen to be scientists try to step into theological and philosophical territory and make extravagant claims against theists. They are just the loudest opposing voices to the IDs and creationists.
This book does a great job refuting both extremes, demonstrating that there is much more room for theists who accept evolution. The middle is much larger than both sides would have you believe.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
January 4, 2008
– Shelved
January 13, 2008
– Shelved as:
evolution
January 13, 2008
– Shelved as:
theology
January 13, 2008
– Shelved as:
philosophy
January 17, 2008
– Shelved as:
science
May 23, 2013
–
Started Reading
November 13, 2013
–
Finished Reading
It's reasonable for Christians to "lose their faith" upon encountering scientific evidence to the contrary, because their faith constituted a rejection of that evidence. This weakens the authority of the religious professionals who originally told their followers what to believe. Since God does not communicate with any of us the way any ordinary real person communicates, any faith we may have in a religion can only ever be faith in the men who claim to speak for that religion. When those men turn out to be spectacularly wrong on something so fundamental that the Bible starts out with it, that should make anyone less inclined to trust them on other areas where they tell you what to believe without any evidence.
Also, people tend to believe the religion they were taught as children. They are less inclined to believe the nonsensical claims of other religions, because they weren't indoctrinated since childhood to believe those other claims. Thus atheism is the logical outcome for many who lose their faith in the one religion they can believe: the one they were brainwashed to believe since childhood. People who stop being Christians are no more likely to become Muslims or Hindus than they were while they were still Christians.
And even if you do find a way to interpret away most of the Book of Genesis, how do you then know which parts of the Bible to take literally, and which parts consist of God joking with us? That's the part that always puzzles me about "cafeteria Christians" (those who pick and choose which parts of the Bible to interpret literally, or figuratively).