Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil

by Cornelius G. Hunter

Book Overview

Cornelius Hunter brilliantly supports his thesis that Darwinism is a mixture of metaphysical dogma and biased scientific observation, that at its core, evolution is about God, not science. --Phillip... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 1587430533
• Release Date: June 2002
• Publisher: Brazos Press
• Length: 192 Pages
• Weight: 0.65 lbs.
• Dimensions: 8.8" x 0.8" x 5.8"

Customer Reviews

Clear exposition of real basis of Darwinian theories

This carefully argued, yet quite readable monograph presents an entirely new assessment of the origins and basis for the Darwinian theories of evolution. It points out that the scientific evidence is not very supportive of these theories of evolution. [Being heavily involved in structural biology, genomics, and related areas, I can confirm that most of the major discoveries in biology in recent decades were not anticipated by Darwinian theory and in many cases directly contradicted its basic principles.] The book provides an objective analysis of the science relating to evolutionary biology (the author's field is biophysics). The major point of the book however is that Darwinian metaphysics is what maintains the prominence of the theories, not science. He quotes extensively from the primary literature as well as from books written for the general public. I believe this is the best analysis offered to date of why Darwinism continues to be popular in certain circles despite its many contradictions and meager scientific accomplishments.

Metaphysics in Science?

With precise detail, author Cornelius Hunter methodically exposes the underlying metaphysical foundation of evolution. He begins by carefully laying out the main scientific arguments of evolution, and showing how they only "prove" evolution when you accept the metaphysical mindset of an evolutionist. "Darwin's God" also goes further than any book I've read, to show how Darwinists use negative theological arguments to support their theory. Unfortunately, evolutionists have been overwhelmingly successful in building on the false conception of the God of the Bible (a conception perpetuated by 18-19th century thought--discussed by Hunter in Ch's 6-7) and using it to undermine Creation. It can only be "clear" to an evolutionist that "evolution is the only convincing interpretation of the facts" when you already accept the metaphysical presuppositions of an evolutionist(consciously or unconsciously--more often the latter as Hunter show). Therefore, the way to make progress in origins science is to openly acknowledge the presuppositions we have, both for creationists and evolutionists. This will undoubtedly be like pulling teeth for some, but is necessary for the honest progression of science. I strongly recommend this book to anyone reading about the evolution/creation controversy. It is a revealing insight into the way we approach both science and ultimate truths. If this book is truly taken to heart, the changes in science may be remarkable. Therefore it must not be ignored or misunderstood. This book would make an excellent text for discussion in any college science, religion, or philosophy class.

Flanking Attack on Metaphysical underpinnings of Darwinism

Hunter captures the eagerness of Darwin and his disciples to debunk the necessity of a creator from the natural world. Darwinians have their own view of God, of how he should create if he does so, and then Darwinians find species, adaptations, vestigial organs, homologies, whose functions don't fit in with their view of God and how he should create. Therefore, evolution is true. God wouldn't have done it this way is repeated by evolutionists accoss the board as proof of evolution. Hunter does an excellent work, well worth reading.

Author responds

I am the author of Darwin's God and would like to respond to Dennis Littrell's review which appears below. Littrell is billed as a "Top 50 Reviewer" so I was interested to see what he had to say. But I was disappointed as Littrell ignored the bulk of my discussion and instead critiqued a few sentences out of context, leaving the reader with a gross misrepresentation of the book. Littrell then concluded his review with a diatribe which, ironically, supports my thesis that Darwinism is not atheism in disguise, nor is it merely good science at work, but that in a subtle and complex way relies on certain religious traditions; traditions that can be traced back long before Darwin.Littrell begins by saying I am mistaken that Darwinism hinges on religious assumptions. He notes a single quote on p. 48 that I use to support my claim, but by my count I included 117 specific examples of evolutionists using religious assertions. The examples are taken from mainstream sources, from Darwin right up to today's evolutionists. And importantly, the examples come from technical papers or books where the evolutionists are attempting to argue for their theory (as opposed to carelessly taking evolution for granted). Furthermore, I also provide many more examples of this sort of thinking in the pre Darwin era. Littrell's review gives the misleading impression that I have but scant evidence for my thesis.Littrell next uses two examples to critique my analysis of the scientific evidence for evolution. First, I have a three-page discussion arguing that the universal genetic code (i.e., the DNA code) is not good evidence for evolution. The discussion is somewhat involved, but Littrell quotes only a single sentence from the passage, giving the false impression that my discussion was rather simplistic. He then uses an analogy about a rock smashing through his window that does not address the points I was making in the passage.Second, Littrell believes he has found an error in my understanding of evolution. Evolutionists sometimes attempt to evaluate the adaptive value of some part of a species anatomy. And when what appears to be a poor design is detected, it is taken as evidence for evolution because the blind, imperfect process of evolution would be expected sometimes to produce inefficient designs. The problem with this reasoning is that fitness is difficult to measure. I give several examples of what are now known to be useful designs that in years past were erroneously assumed to be useless relics of the evolutionary process. Littrell rightly points out that Darwin's evolutionary process is driven only by reproductive success, no matter how it comes about. But in his search for errors, he reads one into my text. Again he quotes me out of context, and concludes that I fail to understand that "there is no more precise way to measure fitness" than by measuring reproductive success. But that was precisely my point: the causal factors behind reproductive success, ranging fro

At Its Roots

At its Root. A book review by Dan SchobertIt is fair to say that the question of evil has long vexed the human mind. What may not be so obvious is the relationship between this concern and the idea of organic evolution.Cornelius Hunter delves into this realm with his recent book, Darwin's God. (Brazos Press, 2001) Subtitled `Evolution and the Problem of Evil,' this work of just under 200 pages takes a close look at the arguments usually put on the table in support of the evolutionary paradigm. At their heart, as Hunter points out, these thoughts are not so much evidence for evolution but are arguments against Creation. This being the case, as the thought goes, since creation cannot be supported, evolution wins by default. In essence these things are classic `straw man' arguments. Hunter, described on the book's cover as a student at the University of Illinois working on a Ph.D. in biophysics, points to argument after argument and shows that these are generally drawn up in response to an individual's particular view of God, and how God works or doesn't work. Having constructed this view, nature is studied and found to not harmonize with the preconceived notions. Therefore any creationary perspective must be wrong; at least incorrect.There are nine chapters in this book. They are: (1)-Where Science Meets Religion, (2)-Comparative Anatomy, (3)-Small-Scale Evolution, (4)-The Fossil Record, (5)-One Long Argument, (6)- Modernism before Darwin, (7)-The Victorians, (8)-Evolution and Metaphysics and (9)- Blind Presuppositionalism. What Hunter has done is to elucidate something most thinking scientists have long recognized. It is that at the heart of this discussion about ultimate origins rests a number of metaphysical concepts. As these have been pushed further and further away from public consideration, they attract less and less attention until we arrive at the present hour when they are completely absent...and people think the debate is (incorrectly) about science vs. religion.By coming to grips with the foundational thoughts of so many in the evolutionary camp, (both now and in the past) scientists can more honestly address the real concerns. "Many wonder," says Hunter, "why evolutionists make such high claims of success while the theory incurs scientific difficulties that would do away with most theories. The answer is that evolutionists find their confidence not in positive arguments for evolution but in negative arguments against the modern idea of creation. When evolutionists claim that a particular scientific observation proves their theory, they are not committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent of the premise they wish to prove, rather, they are denying the consequent of the premise they wish to disprove. Evolution is proved not because it is verified but by the process of elimination. As Ernst Mayr wrote...it must be admitted that Darwinism has achieved acceptance less by irrefutable pro