Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?: The Relationship Between Science and Religion

by Michael Ruse

Book Overview

Can someone who accepts Darwin's theory of natural selection subscribe at the same time to the basic tenets of Christianity? Adopting a balanced perspective on the subject, Michael Ruse argues that,... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0521631440
• ISBN13: 9780521631440
• Release Date: October 2000
• Publisher: Cambridge University Press
• Length: 254 Pages
• Weight: 1.16 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.9" x 6.3" x 9.3"

Customer Reviews

Fair, Clear, and Funny

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.

Alone in the demilitarized zone

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]

Liberal Christians can be Darwinians

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, 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.

Can a Darwinian be a Christian? Absolutely!

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!

A serious and original book!

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.