Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion over Science

Rating:
Summary: Evolution: It Isn't Just for Science Anymore
Review: "Darwin's Proof" is the follow-up to Cornelius Hunter's successful first book, "Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil" (Brazos Books, 2002). In that book, he exposed the theological underpinnings of the evolutionary argument as put forth by Charles Darwin. According to Hunter, beginning with Darwin, and carried through to the present, runs a strong thread of theological argument. Hunter illuminates that argument in "Darwin's God".

In "Darwin's Proof", Hunter offers several fresh insights and juxtaposes his original ideas against some of the more common arguments and examples that evolutionary Biology uses to defend evolution. In so doing, the strength of Hunter's underlying argument - that at root evolution is built on a theological premise - becomes readily apparent. Indeed, after reading Darwin's Proof, it is difficult to see how to formulate a deductively valid argument that concludes evolution must have occurred without resorting to a theological premise. That insight, drawn from Hunter's obviously in-depth study of both the scientific and theological historical roots and influences of evolution, will add a new and valuable dimension to the ongoing debates regarding the scientific status of both evolution and Intelligent Design.

"Darwin's Proof" is a very readable, understandable, and clear book. Hunter writes in a brisk, crisp style that keeps the reader interested in the material. Thanks to that, there was no place in the book where I felt I had to "scratch my head" to figure out where he was taking his argument. For people not that familiar with this debate, that clarity will be very helpful.

As difficult as it must have been, Hunter managed to keep most of the text jargon free. Introductory readers won't have to scramble to their Oxford Dictionary of Biology in order to figure out what the author is talking about. Where he does use jargon, he manages to clearly describe exactly what the jargon refers to. For example, on pages 72-74 he engages a discussion on pseudogenes making reference to the L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase pseudogene. Often books of this nature get jargon laden and those unfamiliar with the territory will have their eyes glaze over when they encounter such terms. Hunter takes the extra pains to explain exactly to what such terms refer, and thus helps his readers appreciate the true nature of his argument. Would that all writers on this subject would take such pains when writing for a popular audience.

There were two fresh insights that I personally found to be especially illuminating. The first was that in establishing the theological arguments used by evolution, he provides several useful counter-arguments based on Biblical theology drawn from several scriptural sources, and not just the book of Genesis. So often, it seems, the argument lies in science versus, not the Biblical view of creation as a whole, but only the book of Genesis. By drawing on several references that go beyond just Genesis, Hunter demonstrates the non-Biblical, non-orthodox theological view that serves as the foundation for the entire evolutionary argument. In so doing, Hunter makes clear his view that evolution is not so much atheism in disguise, as so many have claimed, but a theological heresy in disguise -- a heresy at considerable odds with orthodox Christian theology. This takes much of the starch out the oft heard claim that evolution is "just science".

The second insight that Hunter provides is that, yes indeed, we can admit that there is a mountain of evidence for evolution. However, absent the non-Biblical, non-orthodox theological underpinning of the evolutionary argument, the mountain of evidence not-with-standing, the power of the evidence is greatly reduced if not made outright negligible. In other words, it's not the quantity, but the quality of the evidence. Stripped of the theological foundation, the quality diminishes rapidly. This insight should provide the basis for healthy and fruitful discussions in the ongoing debates in the whole area of origins.

Hunter also added a very useful appendix that includes summaries of the strong and weak arguments for both Darwinism and Creation with appropriate responses and challenges to those arguments. This should prove helpful to those less familiar with the subject as well as provide some good "talking points" for those engaged in ongoing discussions on these matters from opposing points of view.

For those already familiar with the nuances of the ongoing debates between evolution and intelligent design, this book will offer some additional and useful insights. For those not that familiar with the nature of these debates or the subjects at issue, this book offers some good foundational perspectives that can supplement further study. Either way, Hunter has made another positive contribution to the discussion and one that should be taken seriously.

Rating:
Summary: Well thought out critique of Evotheism
Review: Cornelius Hunter does a very good job of describing how Darwinism is truly a naturalistic religion. In debates with Darwinists, I always use the term evotheism and it is extremely effective. Hunter has given me more tools as an apologist.

The strongest part of the book is his discussion of evil and the impact of sin. He forcefully points out that Evotheists use the problem of pain and evil to further their doctrine that no God would have created species that would die out or be subjected to imperfections. Most readers should find his point of view extremely compelling.

My complaint about the book is that it is too short and I felt as if I were always waiting for just a little more information. He really should build a textbook citing examples of how evotheists use specious materials to promote their religion.

Rating:
Summary: unconvincing
Review: I am not a biologist, and so I will not focus my review on Hunter's critique of Darwinism, other than to note that he appears to raise some arguments that have been repeatedly debunked by evolutionists. I also note that he makes an appeal to common sense. The fact that common sense notions of causality don't allow for complex organisms to evolve is not itself a good scientific argument. There are many things about science that disagree with common sense, such as the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. I will leave the remainder of the scientific debunking to someone better versed in science than I am.

I would like to focus instead on Hunter's philosophical and theological arguments against what he sees as a religious conception underlying evolutionary theory. He acknowledges that there are aspects of nature that seem cruel, wasteful, inefficient and evil to human eyes. Yet he finds no reason to conclude from this that God did not create the animals, plants and human beings we see around us every day pretty much as a finished product. (Hunter gives a passing nod to the idea that nature is fallen, but this is far from his primary focus.)

These premises seem to cast doubt on the idea of a perfect God. After all, a perfect tenor doesn't sometimes deliberately sing badly out of tune. The consequences of Hunter's view of God fit better with amoralism, the idea that nature does not follow moral principles. (To be fair, Hunter asserts in passing that God designed nature to teach us something, but his argument on this point lacks specificity.) Amoralism has a long and distinguished pedigree, found in thinkers from Spinoza and Nietzsche, but it is not usually associated with Christian theism.

There is a reason that amoralism is not usually associated with Christian theism. A logical corollary of amoralism is that the faults and flaws we see in human beings are ultimately God's responsibility. As Spinoza puts it, God's infinite nature suffices to create human beings with every possible shade of rationality or moral perfection, from greatest to least.

In a world which contains violence, evil and gratuitous suffering, human beings must be tough enough to survive and reproduce. For our own peace of mind and the good of society, we ought to curb these impulses; however, it would be absurd to envision God punishing or judging human beings for what they are, given that he is ultimately responsible for their nature. (For those who insist on the Fall, I would only note that even under that scientifically unsupported idea, human beings must have been created in such a way that they were liable to stupidly give up complete happiness and to utterly ruin a "perfect" world in favor of the dubious benefits of self-direction.)

Hunter does not follow his premises to this logical conclusion. Instead, where human beings are concerned, his unknowable order of nature suddenly gives way to a perfect and knowable moral order, an abstract, transcendent set of values by which human beings will be judged and punished for their moral imperfections (including "sinful" thoughts!) The attitude of ignorance we are to adopt when judging whether God's nature is "good" or "bad" has no place where human beings are concerned. We, of all God's creations, are expected to adopt an extremely punitive and overbearing attitude of introspection and self-judgment. (If Hunter's world view is true, I would rather be a dog than a human being. At least a dog can be itself without confessing "sins" all day or being afraid of eternal torture!)

All notions of true justice evaporate before such a concept. Hunter urges us to take the "escape hatch" and be forgiven for our sins. If eternal hellfire is truly the just punishment for our transgressions, however, we ought to embrace it. Let me make this clear: all who love justice should be willing to be punished to the extent that justice requires. Anything less is cowardice, and immorality that destroys justice. Hunter contends that somebody else already paid for our sins; any such notion, however, destroys the whole concept of justice itself. Besides which, evidently this "payment" is available only to those (predominantly white Europeans, historically speaking) who happen to be Christians.

Hunter criticizes the "gnostic" approach to the world, which rejects the idea that the physical world demonstrates the existence of a good creator. But the gnostics simply apply the Biblical criteria of truth: "by their fruits, you shall know them" to the Creator himself. The tough question is, what does a world full of suffering and human tragedy tell us about its creator? Hunter totally misreads David Hume, who would agree with the Gnostics that no one who looks at the world with an unbiased eye would reasonably conclude from that alone that there is a perfectly good, all-loving creator who made it. There is a serious Problem of Evil in the world, and Hunter's attempt to tap dance around it by rejecting Darwinism proves completely unavailing.

Rating:
Summary: Poof
Review: PROOF

The campaign against the nonsense of evolutionary thinking continues with a new book. Darwin's Proof by Cornelius G. Hunter has recently been released by Brazos Press, a division of Baker Book House of Grand Rapids. This work is subtitled: "The Triumph of Religion over Science." Hunter is the author of Darwin's God which came out several years ago.

Hunter points out that the evidence so often cited in support of
evolution is not evidence at all. In a way, perhaps the book should be Darwin's Poof! It isn't that evidence isn't presented but when viewed closely, these evidences don't stand up.

The main thrust of this work is to review the historical context into which Charles Darwin appeared. Hunter helps his readers appreciate the various popular ideas of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, ideas which made the thoughts of Darwin acceptable. One of these ides is what Hunter calls the paradigm of perfection. It is the thought that God created all things "very good." Since we can see less than perfect things in nature,
it follows that God must not have created. What this amounts to is to create God in our own image and when that image doesn't fit what is thought to exist in nature, this god can be rejected.

The problem here is that those who hold to this view neglect to
understand the effects of the Fall. This failure tends to blame God for imperfections and since God would not do anything less than perfect, He must not be much of a God.

It is an interesting thing, says Hunter, to realize that the idea of evolution, though said to be non religious, actually rests on religion. "Darwinists claim religion plays no role in their theory," he says, "but religion lies at its very foundation. It is the constant thread running
throughout Darwinism. Evolutionists reject a particular religious explanation, but in doing so they proclaim their own religion. Declaring what or how God may not create is just as religious as declaring what or how he does create."

This concept of creating their own God is nothing new among those who would reject the Gospel's message. Hunter takes his readers back to a cross outside Jerusalem. There men taunted Jesus by demanding that `if He is really the savior, He should get down from the cross.' These men had made up their own minds as to what a saviour would look like. They hadn't taken the time to read the scriptures and to understand that the saviour would not be one to rescue them from Roman rule but one who would
lead the way back to God. They could not envision themselves in need of such a savior so they missed the point of what was taking place on that hill.

Much the same thing can be seen occurring in the evolutionary camp. Instead of reading what God has said about things, people have used their tainted imaginations to make up stories about the past and stories about God. In general these have pushed God farther and farther away from any involvement in creation. "Darwinism is really all about God," says
Hunter. "God wouldn't have created this world, say the evolutionists. But Darwinists have a false god in mind."

Hunter concludes this short book, of some 150 pages, by reminding his readers that evolution is a religious idea. "Darwin's theory of evolution," he says, "has had a profound impact on society. Its claim that God is not needed to explain the origin of species has influenced many, and it certainly seems reasonable to say that evolution is
antireligious or atheistic. For example, evolution always opts for naturalistic explanations, no matter how unlikely, rather than admit any possibility of God. ....The problem with this argument is that it misses the historical roots and underlying motivation of Darwinism. The motivation behind Darwinsim is religious, not antireligious, and this makes a tremendous difference in how one understands the theory. Darwinism is the product of a long tradition of religious doctrine.
Though not biblical, this doctrine has always been popular in the church.

This non-Christian thought can be found in many influential figures leading up to Darwin and it remains popular today. It involves a nonbiblical version of God, who is distanced from the world. The divine attributes of wisdom and goodness are emphasized over those of providence, immanence and judgment."

When this is understood, a reader can appreciate how the religion of Darwin has been such a powerful tool to lead men and women away from science into a dark world of myth and imaginations.

The book has several pages of end notes which is a good source for those wishing to do additional study. This work should be read by anyone involved in the Origins issue.

July 2003

Rating:
Summary: Poof
Review: PROOF

The campaign against the nonsense of evolutionary thinking continues with a new book. Darwin's Proof by Cornelius G. Hunter has recently been released by Brazos Press, a division of Baker Book House of Grand Rapids. This work is subtitled: "The Triumph of Religion over Science." Hunter is the author of Darwin's God which came out several years ago.

Hunter points out that the evidence so often cited in support of
evolution is not evidence at all. In a way, perhaps the book should be Darwin's Poof! It isn't that evidence isn't presented but when viewed closely, these evidences don't stand up.

The main thrust of this work is to review the historical context into which Charles Darwin appeared. Hunter helps his readers appreciate the various popular ideas of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, ideas which made the thoughts of Darwin acceptable. One of these ides is what Hunter calls the paradigm of perfection. It is the thought that God created all things "very good." Since we can see less than perfect things in nature,
it follows that God must not have created. What this amounts to is to create God in our own image and when that image doesn't fit what is thought to exist in nature, this god can be rejected.

The problem here is that those who hold to this view neglect to
understand the effects of the Fall. This failure tends to blame God for imperfections and since God would not do anything less than perfect, He must not be much of a God.

It is an interesting thing, says Hunter, to realize that the idea of evolution, though said to be non religious, actually rests on religion. "Darwinists claim religion plays no role in their theory," he says, "but religion lies at its very foundation. It is the constant thread running
throughout Darwinism. Evolutionists reject a particular religious explanation, but in doing so they proclaim their own religion. Declaring what or how God may not create is just as religious as declaring what or how he does create."

This concept of creating their own God is nothing new among those who would reject the Gospel's message. Hunter takes his readers back to a cross outside Jerusalem. There men taunted Jesus by demanding that 'if He is really the savior, He should get down from the cross.' These men had made up their own minds as to what a saviour would look like. They hadn't taken the time to read the scriptures and to understand that the saviour would not be one to rescue them from Roman rule but one who would
lead the way back to God. They could not envision themselves in need of such a savior so they missed the point of what was taking place on that hill.

Much the same thing can be seen occurring in the evolutionary camp. Instead of reading what God has said about things, people have used their tainted imaginations to make up stories about the past and stories about God. In general these have pushed God farther and farther away from any involvement in creation. "Darwinism is really all about God," says
Hunter. "God wouldn't have created this world, say the evolutionists. But Darwinists have a false god in mind."

Hunter concludes this short book, of some 150 pages, by reminding his readers that evolution is a religious idea. "Darwin's theory of evolution," he says, "has had a profound impact on society. Its claim that God is not needed to explain the origin of species has influenced many, and it certainly seems reasonable to say that evolution is
antireligious or atheistic. For example, evolution always opts for naturalistic explanations, no matter how unlikely, rather than admit any possibility of God. ....The problem with this argument is that it misses the historical roots and underlying motivation of Darwinism. The motivation behind Darwinsim is religious, not antireligious, and this makes a tremendous difference in how one understands the theory. Darwinism is the product of a long tradition of religious doctrine.
Though not biblical, this doctrine has always been popular in the church.

This non-Christian thought can be found in many influential figures leading up to Darwin and it remains popular today. It involves a nonbiblical version of God, who is distanced from the world. The divine attributes of wisdom and goodness are emphasized over those of providence, immanence and judgment."

When this is understood, a reader can appreciate how the religion of Darwin has been such a powerful tool to lead men and women away from science into a dark world of myth and imaginations.

The book has several pages of end notes which is a good source for those wishing to do additional study. This work should be read by anyone involved in the Origins issue.

July 2003

Rating:
Summary: An astutely reasoned Christian scrutiny
Review: Written by Cornelius G. Hunter (a researcher in molecular biophysics), Darwin's Proof: The Triumph Of Religion Over Science is a critical and intelligent dissection of the scientific, philosophical, and theological weaknesses in Darwin's theory of evolution. Studying traditional fundamentalist arguments against evolution, surveying the scientific evidence in favor of evolution, examining the "Intelligent Design" theory, and more, Darwin's Proof offers the reader an astutely reasoned Christian scrutiny of a complex and controversial issue. Also very highly recommended reading in this subject area is Thomas Woodward's Doubts About Darwin: A History Of Intelligent Design (0801064430, $19.99).