Rating: 
Summary: Alone in the demilitarized zone
Review: Someone should buy Michael Ruse a new dictionary. The term "polemic" doesn't appear in his. He doesn't engage in polemics, and pours balm on those that occur. The "war between science and religion" is something he deplores. His subtitle sets the tone of this book in describing "The Relationship Between Science and Religion", deftly eschewing conflict at the outset. In reconciling the discipline of science with the dedication of faith, Ruse follows the labyrinthine path of Christian teachings. His Quaker upbringing and background in the history of science has prepared him well for this torturous task. His sense of wit allows him to achieve this without becoming ensnared in arcane theological questions or sectarian strife. Few, if any scholars have accomplished this level of detachment with such charming style. Ruse establishes his credentials promptly, offering a succinct account of "Darwinism" [a term i loathe]. He explains the history and mechanisms of evolution by natural selection with aplomb. The book is valuable for this summation, if nothing else. He explains various forms of evidence such as the similarity of animal body structures [homology]. He continues with various dialogues between Christians who view evolution as a threat to morals, society, ethics and the other tired arguments and why they have no basis. Finally, Ruse states the obvious: many scientists are and have been, successfully practicing Christians. Whether or not they've made the effort to rationalise this disparity, he saves them the effort in examining how the reconciliation can be achieved. For centuries, he reminds us, the study of Nature was in order to glorify a deity. He uses Augustine frequently in support of the view that Nature deserves serious study. Ruse calls this "the Augustinian option", that Christianity has no room for the ignorant. Nature's wonders and laws follow a divine plan, which must be recognized and respected. Science then, is not an enemy, but rather an ally. Ruse concludes with a firm "Absolutely!" to the book's title. He warns of the difficulties: one must choose from among the various Christian ethics and values, recognize that not all questions have been answered nor all issues resolved, be prepared for some in-depth study. The path is difficult, but having been traversed by some, others may follow. Given the nature of the topic, Ruse has performed an outstanding service in addressing this complex question with such finesse and clarity. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Rating: 
Summary: What do the Hebrew language experts have to say?
Review: The Bible uses allegory, figures of speech and other literary devices on occasion. Often this is obvious, but occasionally scholars disagree on whether a passage is literal or symbolic. But is this the case in Genesis 1-11? The answer is a resounding "no". There is no way in which the Hebrew text of Genesis 1-11 can mean anything other than what the fresh-faced child, picking it up for the first time without preconceptions, has always seen as obvious. What do the Hebrew grammarians, lexicographers and linguists have to say about various theologians attempts at reinterpreting the clear meaning of scripture to fit in with the popular philosophies of the day? The following is an extract from a letter written to David C.C. Watson on April 23, 1984, by Professor James Barr, who was at the time Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford. Please note that Professor Barr, consistent with his neo-orthodox views, does not believe that Genesis is literally true, he is just telling us, openly and honestly, what the language means. Professor Barr said, "Probably, so far as l know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the 'days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know." There are many theologians (as opposed to Hebrew language experts) who insist on long days, for example. But the above makes it clear that it is hardly likely to be the text itself that leads them to this conclusion. Rather, it is almost certainly the desire to accommodate and harmonize opinions and world views (in this case, the idea of long geological ages) which arise from outside Scripture. Of course, arising from outside Scripture does not necessarily make anything wrong; but in this case, the clear, unmistakable teaching of the scriptural text is completely incompatible with, even opposed to, the extra biblical viewpoint we are considering. It is, therefore, completely unacceptable to claim that Scripture may actually be teaching this view! Faced with such a unanimous consensus of scholarly linguistic opinion (backed by the common sense understanding of countless millions of Christians through the ages), it is no longer intellectually honest to say that the issue of the time and mode of creation (or the related issue of global versus local flood) is in the same category as disagreements over mode of baptism, church government, or prophecy. Disagreements over these latter issues arise from different understandings of Scripture itself, not from seeking to accommodate (or to defuse debate over) a world view that directly opposes a teaching of Scripture which is unanimously declared by experts to be the plain meaning of the text! I suggest that the only intellectually honest approach for a Christian is either to believe what the writer of Genesis is saying, or reject it as untrue. To disbelieve it brings the following problems: 1. How can you know which other parts of Scripture are in error as well--that is, how can you reliably know anything at all about Christianity? 2. What about the New Testament evidence that Jesus and the Apostles (including Paul) regarded Genesis 1-11 as inspired Scripture, giving us 'true truth' about historical characters and events? 3. What happens to the very basis of the Gospel - that is, the Fall into sin, death and bloodshed of the whole creation for which the Saviour shed His blood in death (I Corinthians 15:21, 22; Romans 5:12; Romans 8:19-22)? Those who insist that the days could be millions of years often forget that these "millions of years", in the popular view, are represented by layers of fossils which are interpreted not as the results of the biblical Flood, but as creatures having lived (with struggle and bloodshed) and died before anyone called Adam could have appeared. To put it simply, there were Genesis "days" before man appeared and if you read the days as "ages" (remember that these "ages" are said to be shown by layers containing dead things called fossils) you've just put death and bloodshed before Adam! If the reader is by now feeling despair, the answer to the dilemma is to look again at the modern world view you may have been trying to harmonize with Scripture. It is not - it cannot by definition be - based on the scientific method (repeatable testing and observation). It is based on faith in the opinions of men who were not there at the beginning, and who are part of a humanity in rebellion against its Maker. Finally, there is a large amount of scientific evidence consistent with a recent, six-day creation and a global flood. To accept, by faith, the biblical statement "Thy Word is true from the beginning" (Psalm 119:160) is a reasonable position, which reasonable people, including large numbers of highly qualified scientists, have accepted without committing some form of intellectual suicide. For volumes of additional information, I recommend visiting the "Answers in Genesis" and "True Origin" websites. Also, I'd recommend picking up a copy of books like, "Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe" by Steve Austin, "The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods" by John Woodmorappe and "The Revised Quote Book" (available from the Answers in Genesis online book store).
Rating: 
Summary: Yes
Review: There. I just saved you twenty bucks. Seriously, I don't think Ruse ever really comes close to solving the problem and ultimately this book will leave you more confused than when you started. Something that he never completely explores (and a fellow reviewer didn't consider when he deemed this problem "insoluble") is the idea that Genesis 1 and 2 are in fact a mixture of symbolic truth combined with actual theological truth. If you consider that the point of Genesis is to show "who and why," not "when and how" (which is the actual case with these chapters and in other extra-biblical writings of the same time period) then it is well within the realm of possibility that God did insert his image into man at some point, thus making him different from the rest of the animal kingdom. This allows for a fall of man and doesn't contain the need for God to create Adam and Eve from dust in order to do it. This is just one possibility that I don't think was properly explored, and ultimately no viable option is presented. I'd recommend Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" as a much more informative source, a book that actually provides answers and has the courage to challenge longstanding theories and theorists.
Rating: 
Summary: A lively inquiry addressed squarely to the Darwinian
Review: This is a serious, solid work by a Darwinian and philosopher. From the preface onward, it is clear that Ruse believes that something important -- the question of the title -- has been overlooked in the noisy debates on evolution and Christianity. In this book, Ruse develops a steady, evenhanded exposition of the central issues. He starts with overview of Darwinism and Christianity, and then moves on to address major points of contention, including origins, naturalism, design, pain, Social Darwinism, and even extraterrestrials (!), each in a separate chapter. In each case he presents the problems posed to Christianity by Darwinism, and possible resolutions that can be found within historical Christianity. Some of the issues, such as monogenism in the section on human origins, are particularly difficult, and may be irreconcilable for many readers. Other sections, such as the chapter on pain, make fascinating reading with or without a desire to span the gulf between Darwinism and Christianity. This is a welcome contribution by a Darwinian who takes Christianity seriously.
Rating:
Summary: Creationist Sour Grapes
Review: [....] Ruse does an excellent job showing that science and the Bible are indeed compatible. He clearly shows why the scientific evidence is clear and overwhelming. As he point out, other than a few creation "scientists" 99,999% of the scientific community considered YEC crackpot science. Ruse's arguments are devastating to the creationist philosophy, hence the disparate attack by creationists. This is an excellent read and fits in well with thoes by Ken Miller (Finding Darwin’s God), Steve Jones (Darwin's Gohst) and John F. Haught (God After Darwin) Fellow Christians, I highly recommend this if you want to stay away from the extremes of Fundamentalism and Atheism.
| 
