Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Agnostic sociologist on the “Darwinian wars”

arroba Email

Darwin's Pious Idea: Why the Ultra-Darwinists and Creationists Both Get It Wrong Steve Fuller, reviewing Conor Cunningham’s Darwin’s Pious Idea: Why the Ultra-Darwinists and Creationists Both Get It Wrong (Eerdmans, 2011) for Times Higher (24 March 2011), comments,

Let me start by conceding the central, most controversial thesis argued in this book: that neo-creationism and ultra-Darwinism are opposing offshoots of the same modernist root. Both read the Bible literally and take nature itself to possess a crackable code. Neither wishes science and theology to exist in separate spheres. To be sure, William Dembski and Richard Dawkins, say, differ radically on what should happen once the two are brought together: one infers natural theology, the other atheistic naturalism. These are the terms on which the ongoing “Darwin wars” are fought.My disagreement starts with the suggestion in the subtitle that “both get it wrong” and that the author’s preferred stance – a quasi-mystical version of theistic evolution – makes for good science and good theology.

[ … ]

… if Cunningham did not regularly remind the reader that his take on God and nature is compatible with a close, albeit non-dogmatic, reading of Thomas Aquinas, it would be easy to confuse him with one of those benevolent pagans consigned by Dante to the outskirts of Hell.

Fuller studies the ID community; it’s one of his specialties. He’s not always right (of course), but unlike some, he is a real expert.

Other reviews here.

Why is Dembski identified with neo-creationism? Or is neo-creationism supposed to mean ID? Pretty sure Dembski does not read Genesis literally. tragic mishap

Leave a Reply