Book review by Fazale Rana, Ph.D.
Part 6

A Chapter-by-Chapter Response to Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth

Charles Darwin carefully side stepped the question of human origins in On the Origin of Species. But he wrote about it in detail in The Descent of Man, arguing that, like all species, humanity had evolved through a process of descent with modification from a common ancestor shared with apes. As Darwin put it, “In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term ‘man’ ought to be used.”Yet when Darwin wrote The Descent of Man, he lacked direct evidence for human evolution. He argued humans must have evolved from an ape-like animal based on anatomical comparisons and embryological similarities among humans and other mammals. For Darwin, evidence of humanity’s “lowly origin” came from circumstantial evidence—an “indelible stamp”—evolution had left in “his bodily frame.”

Still, Darwin lacked full proof of human evolution. Paleontologists had yet to discover fossils demonstrating the gradual transition from ape-like creatures into modern humans. Such fossils would have powerfully corroborated his idea.

The first so-called ape-human intermediate interpreted from the fossil record was discovered in 1890 on the Indonesian island of Java by Dutch paleontologist Marie Eugene François Thomas Dubois. This species was initially dubbed Pithecanthropus erectus and later became known as Homo erectus. In 1924, anthropologist Raymond Dart uncovered a small skull interpreted to possess a blend of ape and human features. This fossil, nicknamed the Taung Child, appeared to be humanity’s most primitive predecessor and was formally classified as Australopithecus africanus.In the late 1950s, Louis Leakey unearthed the first Homo habilis specimen in East Africa. Paleontologists considered this species as the connection between the more primitive ape-like australopithecines and Homo erectus. They also regarded Homo habilis as the first species to use stone tools.

Following these few-and-far-between discoveries, an avalanche of findings ensued. In the decades since the discovery of H. habilis, paleontologists have uncovered a treasure trove of hominid fossils encompassing a wide-range of species and accompanying archeological remains. These discoveries have occurred throughout East, Central, and South Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Europe—and the fossils continue to pour in.

For evolutionary biologists and the general public alike, each new hominid unearthed by paleontologists appears to fill in a gap in the evolutionary tree and clarify the pathway that human evolution took over the course of the last 6 million years.

In his latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth, evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins makes this very point. He argues that the hominid fossil record looks exactly as expected if humans evolved from an ancient primate.

I’m currently working on a chapter-by-chapter response to the case Dawkins offers for biological evolution in his latest work. (Go here, here, here, here,  and here for comments on chapters 1–6.)

This week I continue my critique, focusing on chapter seven and Dawkins’ discussion of the fossil record as evidence for human evolution

Chapter Seven

According to Dawkins, human evolution will be verified once paleontologists discover transitional forms displaying any of the following properties:

1. Intermediate gait and brain size
2. Human-like gait with a chimpanzee-sized brain
3. Walking on all fours with a large, more human brain

Dawkins spends most of the chapter masterfully describing an assortment of hominid fossil finds, which he interprets as fulfilling these requirements. Once again he returns to a tactic utilized throughout the book, lampooning ill-informed young-earth creationists and setting up easily defeated straw man arguments. In doing so Dawkins attempts to create the perception that there are no good arguments against the evolutionary framework.

In one instance, he provides a transcript of a TV interview he conducted with Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America. Throughout the exchange, Wright adamantly refuses to accept that a relatively rich abundance of hominid fossil finds exists, even though Dawkins keeps telling her to go to a museum, any museum and see the evidence first-hand. Instead she repeatedly maintains the evidence for human evolution is a product of the imagination of Darwinists reflecting an atheistic philosophy.

Dawkins also decries another common tactic used by some young-earth creationists: dismissing the entire fossil record based on the Piltdown man forgery and the initial controversy surrounding the discovery and analysis of the first H. erectus find. Again, Dawkins tries to give the impression that no good scientific challenges have been raised against human evolution and that evolution-deniers have to ignore the evidence in order to reject biological evolution.

Response

Although Dawkins himself ignores old-earth creationism, it does represent another approach to the hominid fossil record. Old-earth creationism recognizes the authenticity of the finds, but interprets them within a creation model framework.

In the book Who Was Adam?, Hugh Ross and I present a scientific model for human origins derived from the biblical text. As part of that model we account for the hominids as animals created by God. Accordingly, these creatures existed for a time and then went extinct. The hominids appear to have been remarkable creatures that walked erect, possessed some level of limited intelligence, and emotional capacity. This allowed these animals to employ crude tools and even adopt some level of ‘culture’ much like baboons, gorillas, and chimpanzees. Still, the hominids were not spiritual beings, made in God’s image. This status applies exclusively to modern humans.

The hominids could be thought of like the great apes. If so, then it’s expected that anatomical, physiological, biochemical, and genetic similarities will exist between the hominids and modern humans to varying degrees. But since the hominids were not made in God’s image, they are expected to be clearly distinct from modern humans, particularly in their cognitive capacity, behavior, ‘technology,’ and ‘culture.’

In other words, the evolutionary paradigm is not the only framework that makes sense of the hominids found in the fossil record. It is possible to view these creatures as part of God’s creation.

But I would agree with Dawkins that the hominid fossil record provides the chief means to determine whether or not humans actually evolved. This record functions as a proxy for the natural history of these primates. If indeed humanity evolved from an apelike ancestor, the fossil record must display telltale patterns and features.

As noted in Who Was Adam? in order to uphold the theory of evolution, the root of the hominid fossil record should be a single, knuckle-walking ape-like primate that existed between 5 and 6 million years ago. Over time, a variety of hominids should appear in a branching treelike pattern from this ancestral form, and a clear evolutionary pathway from this supposed ancestor to modern humans should be readily evident.

Hominid fossils should also document the gradual emergence of the anatomical and behavioral traits that define humanity—such as a large brain size, advanced culture, and the ability to walk erect. Lastly, transitional forms that connect australopithecines to primitive Homo specimens and then these to modern humans should be readily discerned in the fossil record. If these broad requirements cannot be met, then human evolution cannot be declared a fact. In this case, other models for humanity’s origin should be entertained.

A number of advances indicate that the fine features of the hominid fossil record don’t match the expectations if humans evolved. For example, paleoanthropologists have concluded that the fossil evidence available to evolutionary biologists can’t be used to build reliable evolutionary relationships. (See here.)  Scientists have also discovered that the ability to walk erect didn’t emerge gradually. Instead this defining feature of humanity appeared suddenly. And a number of other studies eliminate important hominids from the human lineage. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

The inability to identify transitional forms that document an unequivocal pathway from an ape-like ancestor to modern humans is intriguing in light of genetic diversity studies of people groups around the world. Geneticists can use this genetic variability to reconstruct early human history and in doing so have stumbled upon powerful evidence for the reliability of the biblical account of humanity. (See here.)

Collectively, the consensus that emerges from a large number of studies indicates that humanity originated recently (about 100,000 years ago) from East Africa (near the location theologians ascribe to the Garden of Eden) from a small population. Amazingly, studies using mitochondrial and Y-chromosomal DNA markers trace humanity’s origin back to a single man and woman. These studies also indicate that humanity’s migration around the world began at or near the Middle East.

Though these results are often presented and discussed within the context of the evolutionary paradigm, they have profound biblical implications. Evolutionary biologists refer to this account of humanity’s origin as the Out-of-Africa hypothesis, which looks like the biblical model awkwardly forced into the evolutionary framework. If humanity’s genesis happened in the way described in Scripture, the genetic diversity patterns observed among people groups around the world would be very similar to those discovered by geneticists and anthropologists.

Despite Dawkins’ claims, it looks as if Adam and Eve really existed, giving rise to all humanity.

Click here for original post.

Book review by Corum Seth Smith

The basic premise of the book is straightforward. Two people are talking about the ideas of moral relativism and moral absolutism. The “Isa” character is a Muslim who believes that there are moral absolutes. The “Libby” character is a feminist who believes there are not moral absolutes.

Moral absolutism is a position in which it is believed that the whole of humanity is obligated to act in certain ways. Moral relativism is the position in which there are no moral universals, or principles that compel all people.

Some of the philosophical concepts that are of interest in this book include:

1. There is a definite connection between epistemology and ethics. If we cannot know moral truths, we should not be expected to live by them.
2. Are the differences in cultures around the world a proof of moral relativism?
3. Which one is more oppressive politically and socially when it becomes the majority paradigm: relativism or absolutism?
4. Can a relativist “preach” about, or attempt to spread, the idea of moral relativism without compromising their ideals?

I couldn’t put the book down once I had started it. It is a great review of the “Great Conversation.” Like any Kreeft book, you will read about concepts explored in all the big philosophical names: Aristotle, Kieerkegard, etc. I also think he puts forth a convincing argument as to why moral absolutism is true.

Book review by William Lane Craig, Ph.D.

On July 22, 1985, the New Jersey Supreme Court suggested that county clerk Nicholas Caputo institute new procedures for determining the places of candidates’ names on county election ballots, since out of the last 41 drawings conducted by Caputo Democratic candidates had won the coveted top line on the ballot an astonishing 40 times. Observing that the odds against such results are 50 billion to 1, the Court remarked that few reasonable persons would think that blind chance was responsible for the results of Caputo’s drawings.

We all recognize the wisdom of the Court’s recommendation. But why? We are tempted to say that the results of Caputo’s drawings were simply too improbable to be attributed to chance. But that answer cannot be the whole story, since any result of a random drawing is as equally improbable as any other. What is it in addition to the improbability of the result that warrants our intuitive inference to design rather than chance?

This is the question which mathematician and philosopher William Dembski seeks to answer (in his book The Design Inference). The solution—which Dembski develops with great precision and detail—may be roughly summarized by saying that chance is ruled out when the highly improbable event conforms to a discernible pattern which is given independently of the event itself. A pattern is given independently of an event if we can formulate this pattern without any information concerning the event itself. Dembski calls a probability conjoined with such a pattern a “specified” probability and formulates the Law of Small Probability: specified events of small probability do not occur by chance.

In the Caputo case, knowing that Caputo was a Democrat and that he had control over the drawings, we can formulate various cheating patterns which would emerge if Caputo were rigging the drawings. Inquiring what pattern characterized the actual series of drawings, we find—lo and behold!—that the actual pattern of drawings is included in the set of pre–formulated cheating patterns. Therefore, we know that the pattern was not due to chance, but to design.

On the basis of his analysis, Dembski outlines a ten–step Generic Chance Elimination Argument:

1. One learns that some event has occurred.
2. Examining the circumstances under which the event occurred, one finds that the event could only have been produced by a certain chance process (or processes).
3. One identifies a pattern which characterizes the event.
4. One calculates the probability of the event given the chance hypothesis.
5. One determines what probabilistic resources were available for producing the event via the chance hypothesis.
6. On the basis of the probabilistic resources, one calculates the probability of the event’s occurring by chance once out of all the available opportunities to occur.
7. One finds that the above probability is sufficiently small.
8. One identifies a body of information which is independent of the event’s occurrence.
9. One determines that one can formulate the pattern referred to in step (3) on the basis of this body of independent information.
10. One is warranted in inferring that the event did not occur by chance.

This is a simplification of Dembski’s analysis, which he develops and defends with painstaking rigor and detail.

Dembski’s analysis will be of interest to all persons who are concerned with detecting design, including forensic scientists, detectives, insurance fraud investigators, exposers of scientific data falsification, cryptographers, and SETI investigators. Intriguingly, it will also be of interest to natural theologians. For in contemporary cosmology the heated debate surrounding the fine–tuning of the universe and the so–called Anthropic Principle will be greatly clarified by Dembski’s Law of Small Probability.

Consider the application of the above Generic Chance Elimination Argument to the fine–tuning of the universe:

1. One learns that the physical constants and quantities given in the Big Bang possess certain values.
2. Examining the circumstances under which the Big Bang occurred, one finds that there is no Theory of Everything which would render physically necessary the values of all the constants and quantities, so they must be attributed to sheer accident.
3. One discovers that the values of the constants and quantities are incomprehensibly fine–tuned for the existence of intelligent, carbon–based life.
4. The probability of each value and of all the values together occurring by chance is vanishingly small.
5. There is only one universe; it is illicit in the absence of evidence to multiply one’s probabilistic resources (i.e., postulate a World Ensemble of universes) simply to avert the design inference.
6. Given that the universe has occurred only once, the probability of the constants and quantities’ all having the values they do remains vanishingly small.
7. This probability is well within the bounds needed to eliminate chance.
8. One has physical information concerning the necessary conditions for intelligent, carbon–based life (e.g., certain temperature range, existence of certain elements, certain gravitational and electro–magnetic forces, etc.).
9. This information about the finely–tuned conditions requisite for a life– permitting universe is independent of the pattern discerned in step (3).
10. One is warranted in inferring that the physical constants and quantities given in the Big Bang are not the result of chance.

One is thus justified in inferring that the initial conditions of the universe are due to design.

Dembski emphasizes that in attributing an event to design, he is not characterizing it as a product of intelligence. For he defines “design” to mean “neither regularity nor chance,” that is to say, if something is not explicable in terms of natural law or chance, then by definition it is due to “design.” To say that something is due to “design” is just to say that it exhibits a certain kind of pattern. Nevertheless, Dembski thinks that proving that something is due to neither regularity nor chance is the logical pre–requisite for proving that it is due to intelligence.

He makes the move from “design” to a bona fide designer or intelligent agent by means of a three–step schema of actualization–exclusion–specification; that is to say, one finds that a certain possibility has been actualized (and therefore presumably requires a cause), one excludes accounts of the event based on natural law explanations (thereby showing that the event is physically contingent), and finally one specifies that contingency so as to show that it conforms to an independently given pattern (thereby distinguishing choice from mere chance as the cause of the event).

Since the hallmark of intelligent agency is choice, one has thus shown that the best explanation for the occurrence of the event is an intelligent agent. Obviously, this three–step schema simply retraces the steps of Dembski’s design inference, so that it turns out that one is getting to genuine design (a previsioned product of intelligent agency) after all. Thus, if the initial conditions of the universe are due to “design,” as argued above, then the inference to a Cosmic Designer is warranted.

Book review by Pete Hartwell 

It is clear from reading The End of Faith that Sam Harris is a strong minded individual. He expresses his arguments so starkly that anyone who reads them can’t remain neutral. Indeed, Harris does not want us to remain neutral about his primary subject of faith.

Harris is a powerful communicator who gives much colour to the issues he is dealing with. He has written this book in order to convince the reader that all religious beliefs are absurd and are, furthermore, hazardous to us. Harris is reacting against modern Islamic terrorists and the religious elitism of the American government.

Harris divides his book into seven chapters. He sets out his stall in chapter one, underlining the urgency of the situation. He seeks to demolish the credentials of religious faith in chapter two. Chapters three to five aim to illustrate the damaging effect of religious belief both historically and today. Harris argues simply that it is not acceptable for religious belief to have any public influence. Chapter six puts forward the value of science as opposed to religion for establishing morality. In chapter seven, Harris concludes by pointing the reader to a new kind of spirituality which is devoid of religious faith. Harris builds his spirituality on rational grounds thus rendering faith superfluous.

The subject of faith ties the book together, as the title suggests. Harris is careful to establish what he means by faith. Prompted by his American culture he uses what he calls the ‘scriptural sense’ of faith, referring to the Bible. He says that faith is ‘belief in, and life orientation toward, certain historical and metaphysical propositions’ (pp. 64-65). The individual not only intellectually accepts these propositions, but the way they live is also affected by them. Harris removes any distinction between religious faith and other beliefs that we hold.

As religious faith isn’t distinct from any other beliefs we may have, Harris demands that there be a reason for adopting it. This reason should be consistent with our knowledge of the way the world is and should be a consequence of this knowledge. Harris argues that if there is not a consistency between what we claim religiously and other areas of our knowledge or experience, then our religious beliefs are not really claiming anything objective at all. ‘To believe that God exists,’ he says, ‘is to believe that I stand in some relation to his existence such that his existence is itself the reason for my belief’ (p. 63).

Therefore Harris argues that someone who believes in the existence of God must ‘play the same game of justification’ that we all play when ‘claiming to know the most ordinary facts.’

Click here for the full article.

Book review by Fazale Rana, Ph.D.
Part Four

A Chapter-by-Chapter Response to Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth

In his latest work, The Greatest Show on Earth, Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins compares evolutionary biologists to detectives investigating a crime scene. They gather clues and by inference piece together a scenario for what might have happened. Detectives almost never have the luxury of being an eyewitness to the crime. This, Dawkins maintains, is where the analogy breaks down because biologists are direct witnesses to evolution happening in real time right before their eyes. For Dawkins, the direct observations of real-time evolutionary changes provide powerful evidence that evolution is, indeed, a fact.

I am currently working on a chapter-by-chapter response to the case Dawkins presents for biological evolution in The Greatest Show on Earth. (Go here, here, and here for comments on chapter one, chapters two and three, and chapter four, respectively.) This week I continue my critique, focusing on chapter five and Dawkins’ assertion that the evolutionary paradigm must be valid because we can see evolution in action.

Chapter Five

Observations of real-time evolution occurring in the course of a human lifetime are rare. Dawkins acknowledges this, but points out that more and more examples are surfacing. And some of these instances are quite dramatic, indicating that microevolutionary changes and speciation (or at least reproductive isolation) can happen rapidly. Dawkins focuses on three examples of evolution in action: the evolution of lizards on the island of Pod Mrcaru, Richard Lenski’s Long-term Evolution Experiment, and the evolution of guppies in the mountain streams of Trinidad, Tobago, and Venezuela.

I have previously discussed the lizards of Pod Mrcaru on an episode of our podcast Science News Flash (go here to listen) and wrote about the Long-term Evolution Experiment in a series of Today’s New Reason to Believe articles (go here, here and here). In this article, I will examine the evolution of wild guppies studied by John Endler.

Endler noticed that local populations of male guppies in the mountain streams of Trinidad, Tobago, and Venezuela could be either brightly colored with large spots or drab. Endler reasoned that in streams with no threat from predators, females preferred brightly colored males. But in streams where predators were present, drab males were more likely to survive. In other words, Endler guessed that the effects of sexual and natural selection were competing with each other. Natural selection, he thought, won out when predatory fish shared the mountain streams with guppies but mate preference carried the day in the absence of predators.

To test his hypothesis, Endler built ponds in a greenhouse and filled them with guppies. Some ponds were lined with large, course pebbles and the others with fine, sandy gravel. Within a few months the male guppies in both types of ponds were covered with large spots presumably because females preferred mating with males that stood out. Endler then added predatory fish to some of the ponds. Those without predators continued to harbor guppies with large colorful spots. But those with predators quickly became populated with guppies that blended into the background. Guppy populations exposed to predators were characterized by males with fewer spots. Interestingly, the spots sizes also changed. Males in ponds with large pebbles had larger spots and those with fine gravel had smaller spots.

Endler then repeated the experiment in the wild transferring guppies from streams with predators into mountain streams that previously had no guppies and no predators. Male guppies that were drab in the presence of predators rapidly transformed into brightly colored fish with large spots in the absence of any predatory threat. This work is a marvelous illustration of evolution in action and evolution acting in a hurry. But does it mean that the evolutionary paradigm is a fact?

Response

The examples of evolution in action cited by Dawkins are impressive, but they all involve microevolutionary changes or the evolution of microbes. Just because scientists have observed microevolution, speciation, and microbial evolution doesn’t mean that macroevolution is necessarily valid. The scale of the biological changes that take place in microevolution and speciation are radically different from the presumed changes that take place for macroevolution. As is true in other areas of science, processes happening at one level can’t automatically be extrapolated to other levels without proper validation. In my opinion, this validation doesn’t exist for macroevolutionary changes. (I will discuss this lack of support in more detail in the weeks to come as I continue to respond to Dawkins case for biological evolution.) But for now I refer the reader to the article I posted previously where I pointed out that there appears to be real boundaries that species can’t traverse.

As for the evolution of microbes, given their large population sizes, rapid generation times, and capability for horizontal gene transfer, it is not surprising that they evolve.

On the other hand, the capability of organisms to experience microevolutionary changes and undergo speciation can be understood as an elegant design feature and part of God’s providence. The ability of organisms to adapt to changes in the environment makes them robust, ensuring their survival. If species were truly immutable, they would quickly go extinct as environmental and predatory pressures intensified or changed. The ability to adapt also allows species to migrate from one region to another and in the process take advantage of new niches and habitats.

Even though evolutionary biologists claim that directly observing evolution in action provides proof positive that evolution is a fact, from a creation model perspective, when we happen to be eyewitnesses to microevolutionary changes and speciation we are seeing direct evidence for the Creator’s fingerprints in nature.

Post Script

Just recently, scientists witnessed another instance of evolution in action: The emergence of a new finch species on the Galapagos Island. Go here to listen to the Science News Flash episode in which I described this observation and its implications. Finches provide another example of microevolutionary changes and speciation having limited creative potential.

“Darwin’s attempt to explain the origins of all the magnificent species in the living world in terms of the struggle for survival is easily the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by science,” writes Dr. Granville Sewell, in his new book In the Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design published by Discovery Institute Press.

What do you get when you add together the big bang, the fine-tuning of the laws of physics and the evolution of life?  Definitely not a materialistic theory of origins, answers Sewell, a Professor of Mathematics at the University of Texas El Paso.

In this wide-ranging collection of essays, Sewell concludes that while there is much in the history of life that seems to suggest natural causes, there is little evidence to support Charles Darwin’s idea that natural selection of random variations can explain major evolutionary advances.

In the book, he explains why evolution is a fundamentally different and much more difficult problem than others solved by science and why increasing numbers of scientists are now recognizing what has long been obvious to the layman: there is no explanation possible without design. This book summarizes many of the traditional arguments for intelligent design and presents some powerful and unique arguments as well.

“In The Beginning provides delightful and wide-ranging commentary on the origins debate and intelligent design,” says biophysicist Dr. Cornelius Hunter. “Sewell provides much needed clarity on topics that are too often misunderstood, like his discussion of the commonly confused problem of entropy, which is a must read.”

Granville Sewell is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Texas El Paso.  He completed his PhD in Mathematics at Purdue University in 1972 and has worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Purdue University, the University of Texas Center for High Performance Computing (Austin), and Texas A&M University.  He also spent one semester teaching at Universidad Nacional de Tucuman in Argentina on a Fullbright grant.  Dr. Sewell has written three books on numerical analysis and is the author of a widely-used finite element computer program.

Discovery Institute

Selected book reviews:

“Douglas Wilson provides a good-natured but devastating point-by-point rebuttal to Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation.” Phillip E. Johnson, Professor of law emeritus, University of California, Berkeley.

“Douglas Wilson’s Letter from a Christian Citizen has enough bite to ridicule, enough compassion to inform, and enough facts to persuade. Sam Harris has more than met his match.” Dr. Larry Schweikart, Professor of History, University of Dayton.

“Douglas Wilson has done the near impossible. He made me glad that Sam Harris wrote his anti-God tract because it provided an occasion for Doug to write such a literate, compelling, and engaging response. I hope Bible study groups and Sunday school classes across the country set aside their normal lessons for a few weeks and gather together to study and discuss Wilson’s Letter from a Christian Citizen.” Craig J. Hazen, Ph.D., Director, Master of Arts Program in Christian Apologetics, Biola University.

“Douglas Wilson has written a book that can give Christians a place to stand in regard to Sam Harris’ book Letter to a Christian Nation. The primary usefulness of Wilson’s book is that it gives readers a point-by-point response to the arguments advanced by Harris in an engaging and compelling way.” Dr. Leland Ryken, Professor of English, Wheaton College.

“In the interaction between Doug Wilson and Sam Harris, one of them is wrong and one is right. If you can’t figure it out after reading this exchange, you never will.” Hanna Rosin, Washington Post staff writer & contributing editor, The Atlantic Monthly.

Book review by P. Boire

It will be difficult to do justice to the book. The concision, clarity and brilliance of Thomas Crean O.P’s book is a hard act to follow and it is a complete refutation of Dawkins’ delusions. While I have read several good responses to Dawkin’s less than sophomoric (Plantinga) ill-considered and poorly researched works, Crean’s book does precisely what it sets out to do and not just from a generalized theist perspective, but from the perspective of a Catholic theist and philosopher. He is very effective and provides helpful examples to help us grasp his subtler points.

With the utmost civility and good manners, a welcome contrast to some new atheist writers, he dismantles the house of cards in which the body of Dawkin’s book resides.

He first diagnoses the fundamental error of Dawkins thesis being an inductive argument from complexity which he thinks mistakenly can be applied to God. It can’t. He doesn’t attempt to even defend the principle, and as Crean argues and also illustrates with the example of a cathedral, the product of a simple idea, complexity cannot be the ultimate explanation of anything. Such an ultimate ‘explanation’ or cause must be simple.

Crean next addresses the unarticulated philosophy of Dawkins, materialism , defined as the belief that ‘Everything that exists is matter or a property of matter. This would include human free will and thoughts to a materialist. Here he points out, Dawkins is no longer doing science, but philosophy as no scientific grounds exist to embrace materialism and deny the spiritual. Mind is not banished from the universe so easily.

Crean asks if materialism is necessary or even possible. Referring to Thomas Jefferson’s refusal to move beyond the import of the senses, Crean points out that the idea of “being” and the idea of ‘material’ are quite distinct from each other. Materilism is not necessary. Oddly, Dawkins does not give a single reason in support of materialism.

In the case of human thoughts, Crean asks how an electron can be “about” something. An electron is what it is: it’s not ‘about’ something else like tomorrow’s weather. He shows how materialist attempts to explain thought involve other absurdities. How many electrons in the idea “Nothing in excess”? Does the circumference of circles as two times pi times the radius depend upon matter? Must there be round physical things for this to be true?

In a section on Aquinas and his five proofs for the existence of God, Crean shows clearly that Dawkins does not even understand what Aquinas was arguing, thinking it related to the Big Bang and not the real and immediate cause of being right now and always. He points out that a First Cause must cause changes without being changed itself. If it does change, it is not the first cause. This must be beyond change, unlike the varieties of physical change we commonly see.

Crean proceeds calmly and dispassionately dismantling the arguments made and presupposed by Dawkins on the possibility of miracles citing the predicted events at Fatima witnessed by some 70,000 people and to which Dawkins does not advance a single argument beyond his apparently blind faith in materialism. So too in textual criticism of the gospels Dawkins is revealed to be, how shall I say it, unreliable.

Crean in like manner demonstrates the glaring deficiencies of Dawkin’s treatment of the development of morality and religion, ending with a final chapter on Dawkins treatment of the Catholic Church.

This is an excellent, scholarly book from a man who has, unlike Dawkins, actually devoted his considerable talents and intelligence to the various subject matters addressed. It is a beautifully concise and lucid education in the most fundamental issues of our day and a complete refutation of Dawkin’s amateurish rants.It’s good that Dawkins wrote his forgettable book which has occasioned this vastly more interesting and informative work of Thomas Crean O.P.

You will enjoy this short, readable book immensely.

Book review by Seth Aaron Lowry

Fulton Sheen’s book Life of Christ is a literary masterpiece. Sheen brilliantly navigates through the life of our Lord and highlights some of the more touching moments, while really bringing to life the moments that often get overlooked. Most importantly, this book will help you to nurture and inculcate a deeper and more profound love for Jesus Christ.

Sheen’s treatment of Jesus’ childhood is masterful. His narrations of Jesus’ presentation in the Temple is so moving and spectacular that it will almost bring tears to your eyes. Sheen highlights that throughout Jesus’ young life the cross was always looming over him and accompanying him wherever our Lord went.

Most of the book deals with Jesus’ public ministry and Sheen does an excellent job of probing the gospel accounts for deeper spiritual insight. His constant references to the cross are always highlighted by His appeals to His resurrection and glory. Sheen illustrates how the apostles only wanted a bread king or a political Messiah, but never a suffering Messiah who was a sacrifice for our sins. It would be impossible for me to highlight all of the wonderful topics Sheen discusses in this book, but his treatment of Jesus’ public ministry and his true reason for becoming a man are always highlighted throughout the book.

This book is perfect for anyone wishing to understand Jesus on a more intimate level, but it is also perfect of pastors and church leaders who wish to use this material for future lessons and sermons. I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who wished to know more about Jesus because when it comes to our redemption, Jesus is the only thing that truly matters.

Book review by Fazale Rana, Ph.D.
Part Three

A Chapter-by-Chapter Response to Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth

In 1964, The Rolling Stones recorded “Time is on My Side.” Evolutionary biologists continue to sing this song today with the latest rendition coming from Richard Dawkins in his newest book, The Greatest Show on Earth. In it, Dawkins presents what he thinks is the best evidence for the evolutionary paradigm.

I am currently working on a chapter-by-chapter response to the case Dawkins presents for biological evolution in his latest work. (Go here and here for comments on chapter one, and chapters two and three, respectively.) This week I continue my critique, focusing on chapter four and Dawkins’ assertion that the vast history of the Earth provides sufficient time for evolution.

In the first few chapters of his book, Dawkins argues that species are not fixed entities, but malleable, capable of being shaped by the forces of artificial and natural selection. Even though the observed changes to species are relatively minor on the time-scale of human history, Dawkins (and other evolutionary biologists) commonly argue that microevolutionary changes can generate dramatic evolutionary transformations if given enough time. Time is on evolution’s side.

Chapter Four

This chapter argues that enough time does exist for evolution’s mechanism to generate life’s diversity. Dawkins spends most of the chapter describing methods scientists use to date the age of the Earth and of fossils, focusing mostly on radiometric techniques. Accordingly, Dawkins’ reasoning in this chapter goes something like this:

1. The Earth is old (about 4.5 billion years old).
2. Life is old (life has been present on Earth for at least 4 billion years).
3. There is enough time for evolution to have transformed life in a step-wise, gradual fashion from single-celled entities to the diversity of complex life-forms on the planet today.
4. Therefore, evolution is a fact.

Response

I found this chapter quite disappointing. Not so much with the quality of Dawkins’ argument for the antiquity of Earth (with which I happen to agree), but with his use of straw man tactics. Dawkins creates the perception that people who question the evolutionary paradigm are singularly young-earth creationists who believe that the Earth is about 6,000 years in age. And all he has to do to is demonstrate that the Earth is old in order to respond to the challenges that these creationists level against evolution. He ignores the fact, however, that a number of intellectuals have serious doubts about the capability of evolutionary processes to exclusively account for life’ history and diversity, yet at the same time accept the scientific evidence for an old earth. In fact, there are a number of creationists who think that the best biblical interpretation of Genesis 1 is fully compatible with an old Earth. (See Hugh Ross’s A Matter of Days for the biblical and theological case for an ancient Earth.)

This straw man approach creates a diversion from the real issue. The question is not how old the Earth is or even how much time is available for evolution to work. The question has to do with the capability of evolution’s mechanism. Can the mechanism that undergirds microevolutionary changes and speciation be extended to macroevolutionary transformations? We simply can’t assume that the answer is yes because of the antiquity of the Earth. As I pointed out last week, there does appear to be boundaries beyond which species can’t evolve.

In my view, we can’t really answer this key question because we lack a fundamental understanding of how changes in genotype relate to changes in phenotype. This is one of the central questions in modern biology. Until this understanding emerges, there is no way to know if the mechanism that explains microevolution and speciation can be applied to macroevolutionary transformations.

Currently, field studies and the fossil record represent the best way to assess the capability of evolution’s mechanism. Do we see evidence for microevolutionary changes operating over vast periods of time to effect macroevolutionary transformations in the fossil record? To date, the answer appears to be no.

It seems to me that the evolutionary paradigm is running out of time.

(Go here and here to read a couple of articles I’ve written on the failure of the fossil record to substantiate the evolutionary paradigm.)