- Save 10% on selected children’s books, compliments of Amazon Family Promotion exclusive for Prime members .
Science Vs. Religion?: Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution Paperback – 30 Oct 2007
|New from||Used from|
- Choose from over 13,000 locations across the UK
- Prime members get unlimited deliveries at no additional cost
- Find your preferred location and add it to your address book
- Dispatch to this address when you check out
Special offers and product promotions
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
"A balanced, detailed and well–presented introduction to all aspects of the argument."
Father John–Paul Sheridan, Sunday Business Post
"An engaging book. It will provide fuel for Fuller’s critics who have accused him of ′pomo science′ (postmodern science); energize ID theorists in their efforts to ′widen the wedge′; and serve food for thought for those still sitting ′on the fence′ between ID and mainstream science. These are marks of a good book."
Science in Christian Perspective
“Steve Fuller’s book is a philosophic and historical tour de force. I know no other book that provides such a balanced, timely, in–depth, account of the historical and philosophic origins and affiliations of contemporary Intelligent Design (ID) and Darwinism. Each chapter is informative, sharply analytic, provocative, probing, witty and superbly written. The historical roots of modern science in ID thinking that Fuller traces will be a much–needed eye–opener to many and a wholesome antidote to the historical amnesia that characterizes most contemporary discussion of the scientific status of ID and of Darwinian theory.”
John Angus Campbell, Memphis State University
“Whether you are outraged by ‘Intelligent Design’ theory or annoyed by the attacks on it, Fuller’s book is an indispensable guide to the controversy. He manages to not only supply the intellectual context, showing how much of this debate is traditional and how much is new, but makes clear what is reasonable on both sides, and why the debate matters so much to us.”
William Keith, University of Wisconsin
From the Back Cover
For centuries, science and religion have been portrayed as diametrically opposed. In this provocative new book, Steve Fuller examines the apparent clash between science and religion by focusing on the heated debates about evolution and intelligent design theory. In so doing, he claims that science vs. religion is in fact a false dichotomy. For Fuller, supposedly intellectual disputes, such as those between creationist and evolutionist accounts of life, often disguise other institutionally driven conflicts, such as the struggle between State and Church to be the source of legitimate authority in society.
Nowadays many conservative anti–science groups support intelligent design theory, but Fuller argues that the theory′s theological roots are much more radical, based on the idea that humans were created to fathom the divine plan, perhaps even complete it. He goes on to examine the unique political circumstances in the United States that make the emergence of intelligent design theory so controversial, yet so persistent. Finally, he considers the long–term prognosis, arguing that the future remains very much undecided as society reopens the question of what it means to be human.
This book will appeal to all readers intrigued by the debates about creationism, intelligent design and evolution, especially those looking for an intellectually exciting confrontation with the politics and promise of intelligent design theory.See all Product description
Top customer reviews
The key to this failure is revealed in the title: evolution is seen as a 'problem'. But evolution is no more of a problem than gravity: it just happens to be the way in which the world is constituted. Nor is evolution 'just a theory': it is the foundation of the entire discipline of biology. In contrast, Intelligent Design has never been a theory so much as a tactic (based on ignorance - or, in its own words, 'irreducible complexity') designed to finding a hiding place for the 'God of the gaps'.
The confusion inherent in the title reverbarates throughout the book. Though much is made of the limitations of the, so called, Modern Synthesis (the neo-Darwinian theoretical model from the 1940's which combined evolutionary and genetic thinking) there seems to be no awareness that this synthesis is no longer modern nor accepted by scientists. It has been completely replaced by the More Modern Synthesis based on the new science of evolutionary embryology or development (Evo Devo)which has emerged over the last twenty years. This has forced biologists to completely rethink how forms evolved, based on a growing understand of the genetic tool kit. In doing so it has taken the lid off the so-called 'black box' beloved by creationists as the site of irreducible complexity and design. There is no evidence of design only endless tinkering.
None of this is really reflected in the thesis of this book. The truth is that as far as evidence is concerned the debate between Intelligent Design and evolution is over. Intellegent design has been entirely discredited and remains the last resort of the willfully ignorant. Which is not a very intelligent position to defend.
It will be clear that Fuller does not equate ID with `young earth creationism'. The latter view promotes the idea that the universe and the earth and all living things were created somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. It is worth emphasising that much criticism of IDT - almost universally in `popular' blogs, but also often in more serious writing too - quite foolishly and utterly wrongly takes these two views as identical. Most supporters of ID accept the general scientific view that the universe is about 14 billion years old and the earth about 4.5 billion years, with life beginning about 3.7 billion years ago. It is childish (and irritating) to read put-downs of `young earth creationsim' as if they discredited ID. No way. It is also, in my view, childish to suggest that a believer in religion makes a less competent scientist than an agnostic or atheist.
The most interesting feature of this book is its extended treatment of the 2005 legal case in the US, `Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.', where ID, and specifically a biology textbook, `Of Pandas and People', in many ways linked to supporters of ID, were challenged by ID opponents as being explicitly religious, and these opponents therefore claimed that to teach ID or use the named textbook in schools would be to teach religion, which would be contrary to the United States Constitution. I leave it to the reader to study for himself or herself the intricacies of the US Constitution on exactly what contradicts its position on the public teaching of religious views.
I also leave it to the reader to decide whether the final ruling of Judge John E Jones III, on 20 December 2005, in the Kitzmiller case, is correct: that ID is only religious, Christian, biblical `creationism' in disguise, that it is not science, and that it is unconstitutional to teach it in the US public education system. (There is massive information on Google.)
The significance here is that Steve Fuller was one of three `expert witnesses' who testified in defence of the ID position. I think, on my first reading of his book, that he probably thinks that the judge's verdict was inevitable on the evidence as presented, but that the pro-ID case was not well presented.
Fuller makes the point, as others increasingly do, that although the motivation for many of the pro-ID scientists (including philosophers and historians of science) to begin supporting ID may have been triggered by religious considerations, ID is now developed as a proper scientific critique of neo-Darwinism. ID defenders insist that none of their objections to the prevailing neo-Darwinist consensus depend in any way on biblical quotations for their validity. Fuller says (p. 122): "But how seriously should a theory's origins be taken as a mark of its validity? ... While IDT may appeal to those who believe in divine creation, its knowledge claims, and their evaluation, are couched in terms of laboratory experiments and probability theory that do not make any theistic references. Of course, this does not make the theory true, but (so I [i.e.Fuller] believe) it makes it scientific."
In other words, I [the reviewer!] believe that if the Kitzmiller case were re-tried today, in the light of the careful re-assessments made in just the past three years, the verdict would have to be different. The unsatisfactoriness of the neo-Darwinian position that increasingly finds there is everywhere evidence of "design" but [of course!] "without a designer" would be highlighted, and the ID case would more firmly distance itself from Christian fundamentalism and the weak 'science' found in 'Of Pandas and People'.
Fuller quotes an interesting statistical analysis. "Published biological research makes surprising little reference to evolution or its principal Darwinian process, `natural selection'. This point had been already made over a decade ago by the historian of 20th-century biomedical sciences, Nicholas Rasmussen (1994), who contended that neo-Darwinism was largely a philosophical cottage industry with little bearing on day-to-day biological research. I updated his finding. Based on the 1,273,417 articles from 1960 to 2006 indexed on the two main on-line biology databases on October 1, 2005, `evolution' and its variants appeared in the keywords and abstracts of 12 percent of articles, and `natural selection' in a mere 0.4 percent" (p. 131).
On his last page (164) Fuller says: "Were Darwin transported to today's world, and educated in such largely design-based sciences as genetics and molecular biology that were developed after his death, would he continue to interpret the balance of the evidence as telling against intelligent design in nature? Evolutionists take for granted that the answer would be `yes'. However, if you believe (as I [i.e. Fuller] do) that the advent of genetics and molecular biology in the first half of the 20th century, culminating in the discovery of DNA's double-helix structure in 1953, outweighs the significance of Darwin's own work, you would be forced to conclude that Darwin would reinterpret natural selection as a design-based mechanism, possibly propelled by a divine engineer who could even command Newton's respect." [Fuller has often mentioned Newton's search for an overarching blueprint for the entire universe.]