Can a Darwinian be a Christian? : The Relationship between Science and Religion

Rating:
Summary: Liberal Christians can be Darwinians
Review: Asked in reverse order, "Can a Christian be a Darwinian?", Ruse's answer is really two-fold. If you are taking a very conservative or fundamentalist view of Christianity, then you probably are not, nor do you wish to be a Darwinian. For the liberal, and mainstream-secularized Christian, however, there isn't much incompatibility between Christianity and Darwinism. Because, however, both Christianity and Darwinism compass a wide range of views (as Ruse points out), some point of agreement and intersection is inevitable, as is some range of polar conflict. Ruse has written an engaging and entertaining book, and while many may disagree or challenge his conclusions, for those who value both the Christian tradition and Darwinian science this is an important book.

Rating:
Summary: Kudos for seriously addressing the subject
Review: Michael Ruse deserves alot of credit for seriously tackling the subject of the compatibility of Darwinism and Christianity. He also deserves credit for understanding and acknowledging basic Christian beliefs, something that unfortunately cannot be said for some others, like Stephen Jay Gould, who have written on the intersection of science and religion.

Before reaching the substance of Ruse's work, we need to clear up some matters raised by other reviewers. Several young earth creationists have pointed out that the Bible teaches that death--not only human death but animal death, predation and bloodshed, as well--is a result of Adam's sin and the resulting fall of the human race. Rom. 5:12; 8:18-22, I Cor. 15:21-22. But if the fossiliferous strata are interpreted according to conventional uniformitarian geology, it proves that death has been around for millions of years before humans existed, and thus before the first human sin. This is a valid point, but we Bible-believing Christians need to realize that our problem on this point is with uniformitarian geology, (something I call Lyellism), not with evolution or Darwinism. Charles Lyell had already won the day for uniformitarian geology almost 30 years before the publication of Darwin's "Origin of the the Species." The men who agreed with Lyell that vast ages were needed to form the fossiliferous strata were creationists, many of them Anglican clergymen like Coneybeare and William Buckland. Thus, we cannot blame Darwin for theological problems created by uniformitarian geology (and I agree that there are many). Ruse only spends a couple of pages breifly discussing these developments in geology.

This book is addressed to the possible conflicts between Darwinism, with its teaching that humans evolved from lower primates, and Christianity, with its teaching that humans were created by God in God's own image. The central doctrine of Christianity is that Christ is the Son of God, and that Christ died to save fallen humanity. This is not a doctrine peculiar to any particular brand or branch of Christianity. All Christians believe that Christ died to save us; He is our Redeemer. How might this central doctrine conflict with Darwinism? Because it presupposes the need for a Redeemer. It presupposes that there was a fall, that man sinned and fell from grace, something that is taught in Genesis but denied by Darwinism. It seems to me that this is the central conflict between Darwinism and Christianity, and I think, after reading the relevant parts of this book, that Ruse would agree.

To my mind, Ruse gets alot of credit for recognizing that there is a real and substantial conflict here. "an essential component of Christian theology, . . . is that humans are descended from a unique pair (monogenism). That part of the Adam and Eve story cannot be interpreted symbolically. . . . the trouble is that this goes completely against our thinking about the nature of the evolutionary process. Successful species like humans do not pass through single-pair bottlenecks: there is certainly no evidence that this was true of Homo sapiens, a species which seems to have been well spread around the earth" (pp. 75-76). Ruse admits that "we seem to have reached an impasse." (p. 77).

Thus, by page 77, Ruse has spotted the problem. Although the book goes on to page 218, I don't think he ever came close to solving it. The general thrust of the book is that something like what has come to be known as "theistic evolution" is compatible with Christianity. "It is not by chance that the universe exists and it is not by chance that we exist within the universe." (p. 83) But is the idea that God guided the evolutionary process compatible with what Ruse calls "full-blooded Darwinism"? Doesn't evolution teach exactly that it is just by chance that we exist? Those readers familiar with the writings of Stephen Jay Gould, especially "Wonderful Life", know that he teaches that evolution need not have resulted in the human race. Indeed, it was just the luck of the draw that humans ever evolved. Ruse thrashes around on the horns of this dilemma for several pages, never mustering up the courage to say that Gould is just flat wrong. So what remains of "theistic evolution"? "The Christian would be foolish to think that Darwinism insists that humans are uniquely significant and bound to appear." (p. 91). Wow! Not much remains even of theistic evolution.

Ultimately, Ruse admits that there had to be a fall in order for Christianity to work. "In the course of evolution, there must have been a first moment of conscious moral choice. That is the point at which the 'fall of humanity' began and humans were estranged from that natural fellowship with God which should have been theirs, and from their natural ability to relate unselfishly to one another." (p. 205, quoting Ward) But, again, it is not compatible with Darwinism: "And the whole business of an original, unique Adam and Eve goes flatly against modern evolutionary biology. . . . Is one supposed to believe that the parents of Adam and Eve--for they will have had such in the evolutionary story, if not in Genesis-- were soulless or sinless or what? And what about their brothers and sisters, and the next generation of homo sapiens, most of whom were not descended from Adam and Eve?" (p. 209)

Ruse just never solves this basic contradiction. He never comes close. But I salute him for trying. If nothing else, the fact that a man as clever and well educated as Ruse could not solve the basic contradiction between Darwinism and Christianity confirmed for me what I already suspected: the contradiction is insoluble.

Rating:
Summary: Can a Darwinian be a Christian? Absolutely!
Review: Michael Ruse seriously considers whether the major tenets of Christianity are compatible with Darwinism. He convincingly shows that a Christian view of human nature which includes free will, original sin and the soul are not excluded by science in general nor by Darwinism in particular. Questions such as why there is pain and suffering are also shown to have mutually supportive answers in Christianity and Darwinism. Michael Ruse clearly shows how opponents of methodological naturalism, such as Phillip Johnson, engage in bad theology as well as bad science. As a biologist, I found that although he deals with serious theological issues, Michael Ruse writes in a highly engaging and accessible style. I would highly recommend this book (along with the "Tower of Babel" by Robert Pennock and "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller) for anyone who wonders whether methodological naturalism is anti-religious. The copy of "Can a Darwinian be a Christian?" which I read was checked out from our local library. Will I now be purchasing my own copy? Absolutely!

Rating:
Summary: A serious and original book!
Review: Ruse's book is an exciting journey along the interface between science and religion. Although one might say that it's title should be "How can a darwinian be a christian?", the book does deal very seriously with the relationship between science and religion, and does thet in an original way. As a student of both philosophy of religion and life sciences I found that Ruse presents both sides' arguments very clearly and without distorting them at all (which isn't usualy easy to do). And as for the question of taking the biblical story literaly (which a few of the reviewers here thought as a must and as a destruction of Ruse's ideas) , it was the great jewish philosopher Meimonides who said that it (the story told in Genesis I 1-11) is only a story which should be interpreted according to science.

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]