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

For those of you reviewing this book as though Ruse is somehow acting simply as one interested in finding "reasonable" sides to a very complex issue, you need to get off the fence! This book is about as self-serving (for Darwinism, that is) as it gets. Ruse has a ridiculously simplistic view of Christianity, considering only such "doctrines" and such doctrines to such depths as make for easy strawmen against his beloved Darwinian beliefs. He's no "thinker" in which the tenets and proofs (yes, there are proofs!) of Christianity are justly and thoughtfully considered against the assumed "facts" of evolution. And by facts, I mean the accepted ideas that evolution can even begin to account for the complexity and diversity of life, not to mention the metaphysical instances of life that yet defy any cogent explanation. No one! not even strict religionists have ever argued against natural selection, micro-evolutionary shifts in all species, or primative life-forms. But acknowledging these basic facts is not proof of evolution! So-called evolutionary theory posits on the basis of what it now encounters, and attempts to create "origins" (like the Big Bang) on which to base its proposed tenets.

I have this book so marked with questions and rebuttal comments (highlighted throughout where Ruse's reasoning appears to short-circuit) that I would need to write a book in response.

Actually, there's little point in rehearsing this because Darwinians are going to agree with every evolutionistic point Ruse makes, and weak-kneed Christians are going to "assume" Ruse is trying to deal honestly with competing factions. Ruse's motive seems clear, however: remain firmly entrenched in his evolutionary beliefs while posing as a diplomat between science and religion. As he quotes his fellow apostle of science, Richard Darwkins, make no mistake about his position. Quote: "Modern physics teaches us that there is more to truth than meets the eye; or than meets the all too limited human mind, evolved as it was to cope with medium-sized objects moving at medium speeds through medium distances in Africa." To which Ruse replies, "Amen!"

Still think he's interested in somehow sharing the stage with religionists, specifically Christians? Think again! This is just another anti-religion attack, made from the sidelines instead of coming head-on.

My point, then, is not to debate his science or his credentials, but to take issue with his "seemingly honest" reconciliation of religion and science, which is no reconciliation at all. In every instance, his belief in the paucity of religious verifiability is overwhelmed by his predominant trust in Darwinism.

Nevertheless, serious students of religion and evolution should read this book to understand how one equivocates on important issues!

In this book, Ruse does what he says he will do: he tackles the question given in the book's title head on and does not avoid, or short shrift, the really diffiulct areas. Not only does Ruse write chapters on the differences and similarities between Christian and "Darwinian" ethics (rightly showing that the latter is subject to much variety), but the question of free will, consciousness, the problem of evil, and human origins.

And to the quesiton "Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?" Ruse answers with a "yes." But really, the yes has a bit caveat - as long as one is a CERTAIN TYPE of Christian, a type not always the easiest to be, a Christian can be a Darwinian.

Ruse shows that a Christian can be a Darwinian in a few ways. Sometimes, he shows that the views of Christianity and evolution do intersect quite nicely. For instance, Christians tend to believe that the appearance of humans marks the apotheosis of God's creation of sentience. Likewise Ruse indicates there have been evolutionists that have believed in an idea of evolutionary progress that leads up to humans (though this is not a NECESSARY belief for a Darwinian evolutionist to have and isn't taken as seriously in recen years).

In other areas, Ruse shows that there is, at least, nothing to rule out a Christian interpretation form being grafted onto a Darwinian belief. A good example here is the matter of human souls. Darwinian evolution does indeed show us that we are the result of a long evolutionary chain and closely related to "lower forms" like Chimpanzees. (Christians who deny this are rightly in a small minority.) What Darwinism has not done (cannot do?) is rule out the idea that not only was the process guided, but the humans were infused with souls by God along the way. (This is the route taken by current Catholocism.)

Thirdly, Ruse shows that in some really vexing areas, Darwinism and Christilanity may be compatible because NEITHER really solves the problem at hand. This is the case with an issue like the (seemng) existence of free will or consciousness. While many a Darwinist and many a Christian would like to think that they have solved the issue of how we can be determined (by physics or God) yet have a world full of apparent contingency, neither side (says Ruse) has really done this; nobody's answer really makes great sense. Therefore, at least for the time being, there is nothing barring a Christian from being a Darwinian.

All of this is well and good, except for the fact that we cannot get around the idea that certain areas NECESSITATE a giving of the way either of one's faith or one's scientific beliefs. The issue of miracles, for example, is one where, I think, Ruse may be blinded by his want for reconciliation. He suggests - rightly - that science cannot recognize miracles if we mean that a miracle is a suspension of physical law. (The scientist will always look for the explanation that can be incorporated into physical law.) Ruse goes on, though, to say that it is possible to say that, "many if not all of the miracles happened according to the law, their miraculous nature comes from their meaning or significance." (p. 96) Ruse then goes on to suggest an example: Jesus didn't "turn loaves of fish into a banquet," but moved people to uncharacteristically share their food.

Would this be acceptable to most Christians? It is true that many postmodern theologians explain miracles thus. But even to a non-believer like myself, this does not seem like the type of "miracles" the Bible wants to tell us about or that Christians want to hear about. (If miracles are best seen as extraordinary things happening within physical bounds, then the secularist Tom Paine performed a miracle iwth his "These are the times," essay.) And of course, if one wants to be a Darwinian Christian, then one has to take an extremely metaphoric reading of much of the Bible, which leaves the book on the same par as Aesop's fables, another very moral book of parables and fables.

So, for all of Ruse's trying - and he gives very good treatments of most matters - one can hardly say that he has succeeded in his task. In order to be a Darwinian Christian about miracles, one has practically define miracles out of existence. And in order for one to be a Darwinian Christian when it comes to the idea of human inevitability, one has to take a tortuous view of the role of contingency in evolution, and even take a nod form a very contentious lot of Dawrinissts who believe in the inevitability that consciousness would appear.

In other words, for all of Ruse's work, he still only gets to where others before him got: one can be a Darwinian Christian if one either waters down their Christianity to fit Darwinian views, or waters down their Darwinian views to fit Christianity. Yes, this is a good book. But I am not quite sure that Ruse gives any really great insights. (For possiblky a better book on the topic, check out Catholic evolutionist Ken Miller's "Finding Darwin's God.")

This was overall an okay book, I suppose. It was not anything deeply profound, but it was worth the read, for sure. What I most liked about this book was the fact that there is really no prior knowledge needed about the subject. For example, he basically explains everything that you have to know about the biological aspects of evolution, some central church dogma, etc, before delving into the actual heart of the issue. In addtion, I thought that the presentation style was extremely clear, which made it much more informative for the casual reader. The organization of the book was pretty amazing, I'd have to say. Ruse breaks down each individual topic into little sub-topics that all make a lot of sense and follow a logical progression.

On this other hand, the fact that it for the most part does not assume prior knowledge also meant that one may get really bored at certain portions. Especially (for me, at least) the parts which introduced scientific concepts related to evolution, I just wanted to get those topics over which. For the most part, the religion side of the arguments were well presented, I think, although he does jump right in and start using words like ontology and teleology, which definitely confused me because I'm not particularly well read in this particular area. But I mean, overall the presentation was really good.

As far as the content, you definitely get the sense at certain points in the book that it's not really an evolution vs. Christianity debate but rather science vs. religion, and I guess some parts in the book I just didn't feel were really that applicable to the subject at hand. But the arguments overall made a lot of sense to me and I think this was really informative on the whole.

I was also really impressed by how much outside information Ruse brought into his book. He definitely did a lot of historical and contemporary research, Huxley, Darwin, Gould, Wilson, were mentioned many many times throughout the book and it definitely provides us with a good context with which to evaluate the arguments Ruse presents. What I thought was kind of interesting is that throughout the book he makes it pretty clear that he distains Richard Dawkins' position on the whole issue(like...A LOT of distain), which makes sense, I guess, since Ruse is a big fan of intelligent design, basically the opposite of Dawkins' advocacy. Lastly, I just really appreciate Ruse's attempt to write this book in such a clear and distinct manner, it's really good to see that a believer in intelligent design can just come out and admit that he is indeed himself a Darwinian and believes in evolution right from page 1. That was pretty good.

This is a very informative and helpful book, and a real delight to read. It is written in a charitable spirit and irenic tone with liberal doses of good humor. I happen to be both an ardent Darwinian and a devout Christian (Reformed with Roman Catholic leanings, and also very admiring of the Greek Orthodox tradition), and as such I wish to commend Ruse not only for writing so passionately yet soberly about Darwinism but also for engaging the Christian faith in such a thoughtful and respectful manner. In reading this book, I have come to realize how complicated some of the issues are. Yet his central argument-that one can affirm both Christian theism and Darwinian evolutionism-is not at all complicated. Among contemporary philosophers writing in this area, Ruse is much better informed about science and--surprisingly for one who is not himself a Christian--about the breadth and flexibility of the Christian tradition than, say, Alvin Plantinga is. Plantinga, the foremost Christian philosopher of religion in our time (and a friend and former coparishioner whom I greatly love and admire), has not taken the time to learn the science as Ruse has, nor the effort to seriously question the assumptions of literalist readings of Genesis. In this book Ruse gives Plantinga, if not exactly a butt-kicking, at least a spanking, and a well-deserved one at that. At the other end of the spectrum, blowhard atheists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett come off looking rather shortsighted and, in some ways, rather stupid in Ruse's book, even though Ruse has the utmost respect for them. I particular like the way that Ruse unpacks and clarifies the issues of pain (the problem of evil), freedom, and determinism. For me it is especially the Augustinian doctrine of original sin that needs serious rethinking in light of evolution, but on this point Ruse's treatment is so brief as to be only suggestive. Overall, I doubt that Ruse's book will gain a hearing from atheistic Darwinians, and certainly not from young-earth creationists. Agnostics might be willing to broaden their horizons with Ruse as their guide, but the real audience--and those with the most to gain--will be Christians who consider the evidence for evolution overwhelming and its implications glorifying to God. If Darwin made it possible for many people to be intellectually fulfilled atheists, Ruse has brightened the prospects for a lot of us becoming (even more) intellectually fulfilled theists.

A more appropriate title for this book might have been _Is It Logically Possible for a Darwinian to Be a Christian?_ (but from an aesthetic perspective this would have been awful). Ruse deals with his subject soberly and respectfully, not something that can be said for all who have undertaken this project. Still, I have an objection, and I'm not sure Ruse himself would disagree with it. It is Ruse's position that the fact of evolution is not something over which reasonable people can disagree -- no problem so far. He also says that there are certain metaphysical conclusions (like supernatural creation of the universe) about which we cannot be absolutely sure. Again, I agree. However, acceptance of Darwinism (or science generally) has certain epistemological requirements, one of which is the basic assumption that the world is a predictable place -- the whole endeavor of science would be a waste of time without such a starting point. An easy corollary of this premise is that the laws of nature are never broken -- there is no such thing as magic. Yet Ruse counsels that when others claim that we can't be sure God didn't create the universe we should leave open the possibility, even though this violates the premise from which we began. He is aware of this (he deals with it in the form of a response from Daniel Dennett), and says the Darwinian should show some humility and accept the possibility of such a proposition. I guess I can go this far if he means we should accept the logical possibility of divine creation, but this is pretty weak. After all, there are many propositions -- some patently ridiculous -- that are not ruled out logically. One must sacrifice epistemological consistency to get on board with this Rusean compromise, something not all of us are willing to do.