Alexander "de-bate" - Rated 
In honesty, I marked this book down, not becasue it was poorly written or researched, but because I disagreed with so much of the 'naturalistic' emphasis that comes across in the overall story - even though this would be denied.
From the outset, the writer states that all Christians are by defintion 'creationists' - I agree. But I couldn't find much in the book that would differ from "The Blind Watchmaker" and a host of other similar books - albeit that DA believes that God brought the universe into existence and sustains it. Everything else differs little from 'almost' deistic beliefs (even though this too would be denied). I'm itching to know "What exactly did God do then?" Not an unreasonable question (to which I searched in vain for a coherent theistic answer), bearing in mind that biblically He raised people from the dead - which can have no naturalistic/scientific explanation!
DA doesn't deny miracles (even though the scientific community generally does) and is cautious to point out that the Genesis account does not indicate that miracles actually occured. This is quite true, but it's almost illogical. If He is capable of miracles at all (and He is) I would expect God to have acted miraculously in the Created order at certain key stages, perhaps in his direct creation of information to produce man (without common ancestry), thereby demonstrating His power, so that we are without excuse in providing fully naturalistic Just-So stories that exclude any acknowledgement of His Being.
In the Postscript, DA implies that scientists "investigate and seek to understand the works of God." That may be true of some, but not the majority, that are either atheistic or agnostic. They do what they do because they love the science and get paid for it.
As pointed out by ID theorists, such scientists are also committed to the reigning philosophical paradigm of naturalism. Awkward 'design' evidence is simply malleable enough to fit the a priori naturalistic conclusions (i.e. there can be no Divine Foot in the Door) - even if the evidence is crying out to the contrary.
DA is very critical of ID in the book, even though the motive for it is not to 'close down' scientific discovery, but point towards actions of 'intelligent agency' - which is surely what a creationist would predict to be the case....
I'm not a 'head in the sand' Creationist who believes in the God-of-the-Gaps. Far from it. Scientists need to be free to investigate everything as if the full workings of any material or biological scenario etc.., can be established in a fully plausible way - but where there does appear to be evidence for very specific design (say, in the genetic code), this should also be freely debated openly, rather than hear yet more story-telling in popular science literature!
Part of the difficulty of being a Christian within our world, is admitting, without embarrasment or shame, that we believe things, such as miraculous stories in the New Testament, that have no scientific explanation - and we should be content to accept that this is so and give God the glory for it.
This is a book that I would still recommend to all Christians to read, for the simple reason that within it there is a challenge to get to grips with the science (and theology) that is covered - and applauded by highly respected people such as Dr Francis Collins and Professor J I Packer. It can then be discussed further, particularly within a Christian context.
|
