Science and Religion

Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (P.S.)

by Kenneth R. Miller

Average Rating:

"As a person with an interest in evolutionary sciences, I was looking forward to see how Kenneth Miller tackled the question of rectifying the existence of God with the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution. Overall, he does an excellent job in summarizing the basic views of evolutionary theory and refutes in concise and convincing fashion, the viewpoints of young-earth creationists and intelligent design theory. Unlike most other books that deal with this topic, I could find no faults with his explanation of Darwinism, nor with the ample evidence from paleontology and biochemistry that he uses to support his views. He also addresses Michael Behe's arguments in "Darwin's Black Box" with a great deal of clarity. For his accurate analysis of evolutionary theory at work, his book deserves a special mention.Kenneth Miller's philosophical arguments about why evolution is consistent with the existence of God is not quite as well argued, however. His opinion, in a nutshell, is that God provided the universe with the properties that made the eventual formation of intelligent life extremely likely. The mechanism of evolution made it probable that at least one species would become advanced enough to be able to recognize and have a relationship with a creator, and that evolution was essential in the development of "free will" that would make individuals have a choice in choosing or rejecting the creator. Of course there is no scientific evidence to support this, but Mr. Miller does raise some interesting points with this argument. However, it seems to me that this would be an unsatisfactory argument to someone who wishes to have an "active" God in their individual lives who can intervene on their behalf. In addition, Mr. Miller provides no viewpoints on why a Judeo-Christian God (as he believes in) would be the prime deity. Why not Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, or any of the other major Eastern religions?Overall, I think that Mr. Miller's book is definitely worth reading for his excellent summary of the overwhelming evidence for evolution. His religious arguments are not as well argued, but they certainly will make you think, regardless of your religious (or non-religious) beliefs."

Publisher: Harper Perennial | More reviews: amazon.com

Thank God for Evolution: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World

by Michael Dowd

Average Rating:

"In a nation where nearly half the adult population denies or rejects the reality of Darwinian natural selection, Michael Dowd is a fresh voice. He's disturbed about that lack of acceptance of reality, so he applies the term in many forms to make his pitch. His cause is to incorporate various realities: deep time, the continuity of life, and the genetic underpinnings of our behaviour. All the while, however, keeping his "Christian" deity plugged into the equation. He wants, he says, a "marriage of Science and Religion". While he does this with enthusiasm, using prose skills honed in his travelling road show, the project ultimately fails. If nothing else, his desperation to convince his fellow unrealists shows through on every page. The result is rather like your Mum giving you bitter medicine in your orange juice. Looks good at first, but one swallow betrays the underlying reality of the dose.

Each chapter is preceded by an epigram, and the first - by John Haught: "Evolution is Darwin's gift to theology" - is sadly symptomatic. Haught, like Dowd, completely overlooks what led Darwin to abandon the need for the supernatural - 13 finch species on a scattering of East Pacific islands. What would prompt a deity to such "wasteful" divergence? Diversity, Darwin reasoned, rested on the notion of an ancient Earth. The time was required to allow the slow, incremental changes natural selection needs to produce the great variety of life-forms we see today. Dowd not only accepts this foundation, he insists on it. The book's opening deals with the vast story of the cosmos, while showing clearly that individual retains a role in such complex emptiness. The author wants his readers to accept the idea of "deep time" with all the variation it can produce as something to embrace. That puts the reader in the picture Dowd is introducing and pulls them through the remainder of the book. He justifies this by declaring the "universe is in a trajectory" carrying us along with it. Such a statement flirts with teleological concepts, which Dowd indirectly champions.

Dowd sets up a number of dividing lines which he feels will help the reader comprehend his message. Two are related to historical times - the Black Death's devastation of Western Europe challenged the notion of a "just" deity, leading to the beginnings of scientific investigation. The other, more amorphous, he calls the change from "Flat-Earth Faith" to "Evolutionary Faith". "Flat-Earth Faith" reflects a time when knowledge of the world was limited to experiences and beliefs of a given locality and time. "Evolutionary Faith" relies on awareness of all humans being interconnected through time within the vastness of the 14-billion-year-old cosmos. It's a significant leap for many, even today, but Dowd provides a one-man cheering section to encourage his readers to take that "leap of faith". The encouragement comes in the form of explanations of why things change, why change should be recognised and embraced, and why evolution is real. How Dowd can endorse natural selection without once mentioning the Galapagos finches that prompted it eludes this reviewer, but he manages the feat.

He manages it simply by ignoring it. For all his reading in cosmology, geophysics and the rest, the logic of natural selection has eluded him. He endorses deep time, but only as a wedge to insert his deity into the mechanism. Dowd pounds that wedge mercilessly with a constant reiteration of how his god is ultimately responsible for EVERYTHING. By the time we reach Section Four, Dowd's evangelical passion is at fever pitch. He's anxious to re-establish his credentials and lure his readership to his newfound cause. He even cites his wife's "conversion" and his own "gift of tongues" as obiter dicta in pleading his case. In a spoken form, this technique might work to a receptive audience. In print, it's wearying beyond measure. In the final analysis, this book is nothing more than another entry in the "Old Earth Creationist" collection. It offers little but enthusiasm and a deity that may - or may not, we remain blithely unclear on this - tinker with the universe and its living inhabitants. To what end, we remain unclear. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]"

Publisher: Viking Adult | More reviews: amazon.com

Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship

by John Polkinghorne

Average Rating:

"In this slim well written volume Polkinghorne gives us a succinct comparison of the rational processes of inquiry required in both quantum physics and Chistian theology. As he says in his preface if you're looking for a book on quantum physics he has written a different work treating that subject specifically. He has also written elsewhere about his Christian faith and theology. This book's real value lies in its encouragement towards further reading.

Polkinghorne reaffirms his commitment to "critical realism" largely derived from Michael Polanyi. He then takes us on a fascinating journey of the intellectual history of quantum physics and theology. He draws a series of parallels in the two disciplines. Starting with a discussion of how science uses experience and understanding in the process of discovery he explains how the relationship between theory and experiment played a part in Einstein's development of the theory of relativity. That is paralleled by a discussion of how Christology is shaped by the historical record of Christ found in the Gospels. That supports his adoption of "bottom up" theology. This format is followed throughout the book - first discussing an aspect of the history of science and quantum physics followed with a history of some aspect of theology. Overall, this makes for some fascinating reading, if at times a little confusing as to exactly how these different histories are paralleled.

Some of the scientific subjects covered are: the development of relativity, quarks, atomic structure, waves and particles, quantum indeterminacy and quantum field theory. The theological subjects include Christology, the historical Jesus, the incarnation, the doctrine of two natures, doctrine of the Trinity, miracles and eschatology. Polkinghorne finishes up with a discussion of some human aspects of intellectual inquiry such as the role of genius, insight, imagination, thought experiments and how the choice of words influences conceptual formulation.

Polkinghorne's aim is to get scientists to appreciate the rational inquiry demanded of theological reflection and perhaps to do some reading in theology. Likewise, he encourages theologians to appreciate the intellectual rigor of scientific inquiry and to study science to see what that might add to their own theological formulations. I think this book succeeds in stimulating the reader in those directions."

Publisher: Yale University Press | More reviews: amazon.com

The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom

by Gerald L. Schroeder

Average Rating:

"This book is far from perfect. It has some reasoning that is a bit ad-hoc. However, as a whole it is filled w/great information. It is an especially good book for atheists who believe they have it all figured out. From reading some of the negative reviews that accused Schroeder of being a bad scientist for believing in God, I must question their reason for reading the book in the first place (if they did, in fact read it). Also, it seems to me that people who are so narrow minded are doing nothing more than manipulating the terms. In other words, to them, being a good scientist = being an atheist. Even if your theories are incoherent & non-sensical, you're still a great scientist so long as you disbelieve in God. (Richard Dawkins would be a great representative of this motif). On the other hand, being a believer = being a bad scientist (or pseudo scientist). Even if you make revolutionary insights into the nature of the universe, but believe in God (Albert Einstein and Sir Isaac Newton would be examples of this), you are STILL bad scientists - by default. Now, if one rids oneself of silly pre-suppositions such as this, he might just learn something from Schroeder's book. If not, then there is no reason to read it. Furthermore, there is no reason to read any book as it means that the individual who subscribes to such an absurd set of "rules" has closed his mind to reason. One of the things this book does quite well is dis-inter so much "embarrasing" data that the august "scientific community" has decided to sweep under the rug. The Wistar Institute is a great example of this. Contrary to popular belief, science is hardly an "objective enterprise seeking the truth." To the contrary, metaphysical pre-suppositions run amok & theories are often based on them more than the data itself. Any philosopher of science knows this all too well. Thoughtful people who choose to read this book may find out as much for themselves."

Publisher: Broadway Books | More reviews: amazon.com

Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science

by Robert L. Park

Average Rating:

"Bob Park has done a great service in this book about current superstitions in mentioning the "superstitious nonsense" known as vitalism, the foundation of many 'alternative medicines,' including naturopathy [which ludicrously claims such survives scientific scrutiny!]. Here's a sample, and I quote:

"at the beginning of the twentieth century, the existence of a 'vital life force' or 'divine spark' still seemed necessary to some scientists [...] this is the ancient concept of vitalism, which long ago lost any meaning in science. The chemistry and physics that animates matter has ceased to be a mystery. Certainly since Watson and Crick resolved the mystery of DNA, there is no longer a need for a 'divine spark' [p.081...and] Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular gave rise to naturalism [...which] left no room for vitalism or other spiritual explanations. The germ theory of disease, emerging from the work of Pasteur and Koch after the death of Darwin, would prove to be the death of such superstitious nonsense as vitalism [p.151]."

I recommend all of Dr. Park's books -- including this excellent one -- and his "What's New" weekly online UM column.

-r.c."

Publisher: Princeton University Press | More reviews: amazon.com

The God Theory: Universes, Zero-point Fields, And What's Behind It All

by Bernard Haisch

Average Rating:

"Bernard Haisch is an eminent astrophysicist who is a member of an increasingly large group of prominent scientists who are trying to bridge the seemingly impossible divide between the conventional Reductionist worldview, Creationism and Intelligent Design. For over a century it has seemed as if there is no possible way to reconcile the camps that seem to be totally at loggerheads with each other.

Haisch begins with two observations: First, what we often call the "Goldilocks Theory:" why is it that certain key physical constants have just the right values to make life possible. The term is also applied to describe the key zones around a sun - not too hot and not too cold - in which planets are conducive to the development of carbon-based life forms. The second starting point is a phrase that is found in many religious traditions around the world, from the Middle East to India and China: "Let there be light, and there was light." He believes that consciousness is our connection to God, who, or which, is the source of all consciousness. This infinite conscious intelligence has infinite potential, and its ideas become the laws of physics. In his view the purpose of the Universe is the transformation of potential into experience. So consciousness is the origin of matter, the laws of natures and of all the universes that may exist.

Bernard is the co-author of a remarkable theory about inertia: that it is the property of matter that gives it substance, and that this solid matter is sustained by an underlying sea of quantum light: the zero-point. It is good to remember that one of the most celebrated theories of all time - Einstein's theory of special relativity - is based on the properties of light. Bernard proposes that light, in the form of a universal electromagnetic zero-point field, creates and sustains the world of matter that fills space-time.

One of the immediate implications of these ideas is that we are all imbued with some splinter of God consciousness, that God is experiencing through us, that we have purpose and that our relationship should be one of partnership rather than domination or servility. A second implication is that we should live a life that allows the expression of this intelligence, because in that way we evolve, grow and achieve ultimate satisfaction and happiness. The brain is a filter rather than a creator of consciousness and it is possible to develop the brain so that more of this consciousness is able to manifest. This squares well with the recent data on neuroplasticity and the impact of meditation on the structure and function of the brain. These ideas are familiar to anyone who has studied Hindu, Buddhist or Taoist philosophy, or the writings of mystics and contemplatives who have described the universe as the "body of God." But it has rarely been expressed so clearly and placed in a scientific framework.

Bernard Haisch has unique qualifications for writing this book. He was born in postwar Germany but came to the United States as a three year-old child. He had a strict Catholic upbringing, and his mother wanted him to be a priest, and he attended a high school dedicated to preparing boys for the seminary. He did spend one year in the seminary before leaving to become an astronomer and astrophysicist. So the philosophical and spiritual interests were seeded early on, and in later years he began to study other religions and philosophical systems.

This is an extremely well written and entertaining book by someone who has a fine grasp of science and can explain his wok without dumbing it down. It is small in size and only just over 150 pages, including a short bibliography. It is an easy read, but the ideas, whether they are right or wrong, will likely stay with you for a long time to come.

This is an excellent book for anyone interested in consciousness, spirituality and the subtle systems of the body.

Highly recommended."

Publisher: Red Wheel/Weiser | More reviews: amazon.com

The Third Basic Instinct: How Religion Doesn't Get You

by Alex S. Key

Average Rating:

"As a woman watching the opening ceremony for the Beijing Olympics, I was
reminded of the importance of books like Alex S. Key's " The Third Basic Instinct."
During the Saudi, Afghan, and United Arab Emirates' procession of athletes, we all heard Matt Lauer and Bob Costas discuss the fact that these countries do not allow women to play sports or compete. In many countries women are not even allowed to travel without a chaperone, ride a bike or drive a car. This book does a great job of highlighting the dangers of religious conformism, but it does so much more. It provides a new awareness of how the mind works and can actually educate people - and you don't have to have a PHD to read it. Living in the US were religious conformism is gaining a new foothold, I hope that more people will read this book to preserve our lifestyle of human rights and tolerance - and for some parts of the world, perhaps one day provide it for the
first time. "

Publisher: BookSurge Publishing | More reviews: amazon.com

The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism

by Michael J. Behe

Average Rating:

"Behe's all dog no pony Irreducible Complexity (IC) tour is back in town - fresh from a Dover, PA appearance where he literally brought down the house of Intelligent Design (ID) cards with a slapstick vaudeville routine that confusingly conflated astrology with astronomy, dismissed reams (literally) of research into the evolution of the blood clotting cascade, and routinely produced 'oh dear' deer in the headlights stares while under cross examination.

Much of "The Edge of Evolution" centers on the purported inability of evolutionary mechanisms to account for parasites such as malaria. Behe's preferred instrument of faith-based flagellation - the flagellum - stages an encore performance as the malarial cilium; which to Behe's doe eyes looks even more IC than it did before.

Research is cited to show that the production of cilium in eukaryotic cells depends upon the availability of another cellular system known as intraflagellar transport (IFT). Behe then asserts (as in provides no supporting evidence) that both the cilium and IFT are irreducibly complex - in fact he christens this section "Irreducible Complexity Squared" (note to the Discovery Institute: get that trademark application in soon, how about IC2). Behe writes on page 94:

"IFT exponentially increases the difficulty of explaining the irreducibly complex cilium. It is clear from careful experimental work with all ciliated cells that have been examined, from alga to mice, that a functioning cilium requires a working IFT. The problem of the origin of the cilium is now intimately connected to the problem of the origin of IFT. Before its discovery we could be forgiven for overlooking the problem of how a cilium was built. Biologists could vaguely wave off the problem, knowing that some proteins fold by themselves and associate in the cell without help. Just as a century ago Haeckel thought it would be easy for life to originate, a few decades ago one could have been excused for thinking it was probably easy to put a cilium together; the piece could probably just glom together on their own. But now that the elegant complexity of IFT has been uncovered, we can ignore the question no longer."

IC2 states that you can't have/build/produce cilia without a functioning IFT mechanism - evolutionary (natural) causations must explain the apparently choreographed origin of IFT and the origin of cilia - quod erat demonstrum. Unfortunately this claim is false. In the real world eukaryotes exist which have cilia but lack IFT.

One of these organisms belongs to a group called Apicomplexans. These protozoa are obligatory intracellular parasites that must spend part, if not all, of their life cycle in a host animal. The specific apicomplexan in question is Plasmodium falciparum. You probably know it better by its street name: malaria. The organism that Behe touts throughout as being an intelligently designed exemplar of irreducibly complex systems completely demolishes his entire claim that cilia and IFT constitute an irreducible system - squared or not.

Compounding the Plasmodium falciparum debacle is Behe's rubber-band reality utilization of fitness landscape arguments in a chapter that should have been titled "The Mathematical Limits of Beheism" since it only manages to showcase his profligate innumeracy. Here's how Behe turned a fitness landscape into a swamp (with thanks to Mark Chu-Carroll):

1. Restrict evolution to a static and unchanging fitness landscape - unfortunately in the real world fitness landscapes are never static. 2. Constrain the fitness landscape to a smooth surface made up of hills and valleys where a local minimum or maximum in any dimension is a local minimum or maximum in all dimensions - and ignore that a valley in one dimension can be a peak in another. 3. Assert that fitness function mapping from a genome to a point of the fitness landscape is monotonically increasing - in spite of the fact that things don't always go in a single direction - for example a virus may decrease in fitness over time but increase in transmissibility. 4. Define the fitness function as smoothly continuous, with infinitesimally small changes (single point base changes) mapping to equally small changes in position on the fitness landscape - in spite of experimental evidence that even a single base pair change (in a viral quasispecies for example) can eliminate one peak while creating another (and also ignore the consequences of gene duplication, recombination, insertional mutations, transposition, and translocation).

As Mark points out Behe doesn't even understand that he is making these assumptions - you can wade through his mathematics without getting your ankles wet. He then traipses into quicksand of his own design by basing all of his arguments on the flawed fitness landscape and straightjacketed search results they produce. William Dembski acted as an advisor to Behe - and it shows. The master of obscurantist pseudomathematics has found a willing apprentice.

Transmuting lush fitness landscapes into malarial swamps is quite a trick but Behe, ever the prankster, isn't finished yet. Behe accepts common descent and admits that overwhelming evidence links closely related species (e.g. humans and chimpanzees) to shared ancestors, but flatly asserts that evolution by natural means is incapable of facilitating genus or taxa level differentiation such as the emergence of tetrapods from Sarcopterygian fish. The horns of this dilemma should be obvious, even to Behe; how can all species be linked by common descent if evolution above the species level is impossible?

Behe never resolves this disconnect - no mechanism is ever offered. No hint of a hypothesis. No suggested experimental avenues. This logical lacuna can't be bridged by incessant appeals to 'design.' Behe further muddies the waters by surreptitiously substituting a concept much closer to creationist 'baramin' (created kinds) for biological species - created kinds and common descent are irreconcilable concepts.

Ultimately Behe's colleagues at Lehigh University are ideally positioned to comment on his work. The Department of Biological Sciences has posted the following statement on their website concerning Behe:

"The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others."

"The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of 'intelligent design.' While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

Behe's book is one long train wreck. Unlike Darwin who eloquently elucidated one long argument, Behe tosses off sloppy seconds as research, recycles sophomoric (and rejected) fitness landscape arguments, confusingly conflates or redefines common terms and proffers puerile probability assessments - standard creationist (excuse me, I meant to say IDist) fare.

Thanks to Nick Matzke for uncovering Behe's monumentally grotesque Plasmodium falciparum gaffe.

Special thanks as well to Behe's dysfunctional advisory team: Lydia and Tim McGrew, Peter and Paul Nelson, George Hunter, David DeWitt, Doug Axe, Bill Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Tony Jelsma, Neil Manson, Jay Richards, Guillermo Gonzalez, Bruce Chapman, Steve Meyer, John West, and Rob Crowther - a veritable bestiary of methodological supernaturalists operating at the edge of inanity - and only one 's' away from insanity."

Publisher: Free Press | More reviews: amazon.com

The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth

by Gerald L. Schroeder

Average Rating:

"As a physicist, I have been seduced by the awe and mystery (to borrow from "The Outer Limits") of quantum mechanics for years. Still, the esoteric nature of subatomic physics was never adequate to convince me of an intelligent design of the universe. Schroeder, however, has succeeded in convincing me of an underlying wisdom in nature through his eloquent description of the mind-boggling complexity of molecular biology. I came away from this book with a perplexing and contradictory sense of calm and breathlessness.Schroeder succeeds where others have failed; namely, he has convinced me that an honest and compelling argument can be made for the existence of God/Creator/universal intelligence without resorting to fundamentalist dogma or pseudo-science.Be warned: parts of the book are tedious; Schroeder admits this. If you are unwilling to put some thought behind the subject matter, then this book isn't for you. But if you're not afraid to think, then by all means read his book; your soul will thank you."

Publisher: Free Press | More reviews: amazon.com

The Counter-Creationism Handbook

by Mark Isaak

Average Rating:

"This book presents hundreds of common, creationist arguments, each one followed by a brief counter-argument or series of counter-arguments showing why the creationist argument is wrong or illogical. The book includes arguments in philosophy, theology, epistemology, abiogenesis, genetics, molecular biology, anatomy, cognition, behavior, botany, embryology, systematics, transitional fossils, macroevolution, geology -- including plate tectonics -- cosmology, physics, mathematics, Biblical creationism, flood geology, intelligent design -- including Dembski`s complex specified information and Behe`s irreducible complexity -- and other topics.

I thought this was a very good introduction to an extremely broad array of the most common creationist arguments. Although each individual argument gets only a brief discussion, the author compensated for that understandable brevity by including a list of suggested readings, many of which are available on the internet, on virtually every topic.

I did have a couple of minor complaints. Notwithstanding the obvious need for brevity, the author could have spent a little more time on some points. For example, merely stating that oxygen levels increased prior to the Cambrian Explosion might not mean very much to the audience this book is aimed at. It probably would have been worthwhile to have added one extra sentence explaining that increased oxygen levels just prior to the Cambrian may have contributed to animals' ability to develop the hard body parts that just happen to be found in the fossil record at that very time. Also, the two entries for Lake Baikal appear to conflict with each other. It's possible that the apparent conflict could be resolved, but it sure isn't obvious from the book itself.

Also, some very simple but effective counter-arguments are left out. For example, the creationist "appearance of age" argument is simply unscientific, because there is no conceivable way to test it; and the creationist "design is obvious" argument is obviously nonsensical, because even obvious things can be wrong, such as our home planet being "obviously" flat and "obviously" stationary. Finally, there was one obvious error: even if design can allegedly be detected only in living things, that still does not imply that non-living things were not designed. Saying something is not detectable is not the same as saying it doesn't exist. The author should have left that one counter-argument out, which would have given him room for an extra sentence on why oxygen was an important factor in the Cambrian Explosion!

In a book of this scope, those complaints are pretty trivial and hardly detract from the book's value.

One last point: given the book's focus on science-related issues, it's understandable that there is next to nothing in the book about the serious constitutional problems facing creationists of all types, including the so-called "intelligent design" creationists. For anyone who wants to learn more specifically about that, I suggest web-searching for "Brauer, Forrest, and Gey." That will lead you to a very recent, 149-page law review article, authored by those three individuals and published in the Washington University Law Quarterly. "

Publisher: University of California Press | More reviews: amazon.com