Deeper Than Darwin: The Prospect for Religion in the Age of Evolution

Rating:
Summary: God survives Darwinism
Review: John Haught has no problem reconciling his religious beliefs with evolution. He argues that evolution, and all science, only goes so deep in explaining the world. He points out his objection to scientists, such as Dawkins, using evolution as a weapon to promote their own atheistic beliefs. He sees this as science overstepping it's bounds and becoming a religion of it's own. I am an evolutionist, butI agree with him here.

He also takes strict creationists and "intelligent designers" to task for trying to recast their religious beliefs as science. The "God of the Gaps" approach of taking anything currently under debate in the scientific community as evidence of evolution being wrong, and therefore creationism or intelligent design being right, ultimately will backfire as science progresses to fill in the gaps. He sees this as poor reasoning, since science isn't done yet.

But Haught goes on to say that untimately science cannot provide the final answers or final truth, and this is where religion can step in and reach deeper. I agree with this; science can only explain so much and religion has plenty to explain after that.

All in all, a very positive book that presents a "middle way" in the current evo-creation debate. Science and religion are compatible if the two side will recognize where science ends and religion begins.

Rating:
Summary: big title - little delivery
Review: Mr. Haught's book initially raises great expectations for the reader due to his supposed familiarity with his subject material. But IMHO nothing was delivered. He seems skilled in introduction and critical appraisals. But he has nothing tangible to offer except vacuous prose. I would say the book is worth reading for those interested in what an opposing view to Dawkins or Dennett might entail. In my mind one of Daniel Dennett's footnotes from Darwin's Dangerous Idea nicely sums up such an attempt to offer an alternative view to real darwinism in a criticism of Paul Tillich's theological approach as "bombastic redescription."

Rating:
Summary: big title - little delivery
Review: This is one of the most annoyingly schizophrenic books I have ever read.

The author launches off into many wonderful attacks against literalism then employs literalism himself! The author points out the problems of metaphysics and especially the problems we encounter when we are not able to put off "metaphysical gratification" then lapses into his own brand of feeble metaphysics, the idea that there is "in fact" inexhaustible "depth" to the universe or that the Cosmos is "narrative to the core."

I believe the author gets pulled off course because his personal agenda requires conclusions that his arguments do not allow him to reach, so he leaps. In fact, to some extent this book is a fascinating record of a learned mind veering away from its own awesome conclusions. I do not use the word "awesome" lightly. Indeed, I think the book's strengths far, far outweigh its weaknesses. The attacks on literalism and metaphysics (though undercut) are highly inspirational and informative, the straining toward a new view of religion essential, the attack on scientific literalism necessary.

This book does not heal the rift between science and religion as much as it shows the width and depth of a chasm that continues to open. With all its flaws, "Deeper Than Darwin" is an engrossing and important book that should be read and reread by anyone interested in religion, science or philosophy.

Rating:
Summary: FLAWED BUT AMAZINGLY INTERESTING
Review: This is one of the most annoyingly schizophrenic books I have ever read.

The author launches off into many wonderful attacks against literalism then employs literalism himself! The author points out the problems of metaphysics and especially the problems we encounter when we are not able to put off "metaphysical gratification" then lapses into his own brand of feeble metaphysics, the idea that there is "in fact" inexhaustible "depth" to the universe or that the Cosmos is "narrative to the core."

I believe the author gets pulled off course because his personal agenda requires conclusions that his arguments do not allow him to reach, so he leaps. In fact, to some extent this book is a fascinating record of a learned mind veering away from its own awesome conclusions. I do not use the word "awesome" lightly. Indeed, I think the book's strengths far, far outweigh its weaknesses. The attacks on literalism and metaphysics (though undercut) are highly inspirational and informative, the straining toward a new view of religion essential, the attack on scientific literalism necessary.

This book does not heal the rift between science and religion as much as it shows the width and depth of a chasm that continues to open. With all its flaws, "Deeper Than Darwin" is an engrossing and important book that should be read and reread by anyone interested in religion, science or philosophy.