What do you think?
Rate this book
Evolution: The Disguised Friend of Faith?
Arthur Peacocke, eminent priest-scientist, has collected thirteen of his essays for this volume. Previously published in various academic journals and edited books, the provocative essays expand upon the theme of the evolution of nature, humanity, and belief. They are grouped in three parts.
272 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2004
2 people are currently reading
57 people want to read
About the author
Arthur Peacocke
22 books6 followersBritish theologian and biochemist. Taught Biochemistry at the University of Birmingham and the University of Oxford. In 1971 he was ordained Anglican priest. Winner of the 1983 Lecomte du Noüy Prize and the 2001 Templeton Prize. In 1993 he was appointed Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 2, 2016
I purchased EVOLUTION: THE DISGUISED FRIEND OF FAITH? 8 or 9 years ago. I read about one third before setting it aside in favor of what I found to be more engaging literature at the time. That’s because Arthur Peacocke’s essays are far from an easy read! Earlier this year I picked the book up again and finished it. I am glad I did.
The central idea which binds the different essays together is that Darwin’s theory of the evolving nature of the biological world and of the role in it of natural selection-- which so many people of faith find threatening-- actually reinstates and reinforces the idea of God as creating all the time through natural processes. “Darwinism… under the disguise of a foe, did the work of a friend” (p. 235). “God did not make the things, we may say, but He made them make themselves" (79, 95).
The world can now, with the aid of the sciences, be seen more convincingly than ever before as the creation of an ever-working, ever-present Ultimate Reality, who transcends and yet is immanent in it—and can also be present in and to us humans (240).
In making things which make themselves, creation becomes “a self-limiting activity of God rendering Godself vulnerable, for in it God takes the risk of letting everything be and become itself, and this in human persons, who are free and autonomous, means allowing them to be capable of falsity as well as truth, ugliness as well as beauty, and evil as well as good” (80).
With regard to humanity, Peacocke states that, apparently, by a continuous development under the control of the regular processes of natural laws, new forms of matter have creatively emerged out of the nuclear particles and atoms of several thousand million years ago and have now in man become conscious of themselves. From man’s consciousness, new creativities of a specifically human kind have erupted, notably in men of genius but, just as significantly, also in the very real individual creativity of each human being within his own social environment—a creativity which, however humble, far transcends that of the highest animal (59).
Peacocke states that man is the first organism to be conscious of the possibilities and potentialities which are open to him. He is aware of his freedom to choose by altering both himself and his environment. Yet man is the only creature who, aware of the pinnacle on which he stands, is also tragically aware of the possibility of his not fulfilling his own potentialities. That is the paradox of humankind: Man is the summit of the cosmic development of evolution up to this point. His mental activities transcend all. Yet at the same time he is tragically aware of his personal and social shortcomings. He is subject to the tension between the awareness of the finitude of his individual life and the infinity of his longings. He is aware both of that from which he has evolved and of his tendency always to fall short of the full realization of his own individual and corporate potentialities.
Creation Psalms such as Psalm 104, which stress that God is not just the Creator of the Universe but also its daily Maintainer, remind me of Peacocke’s central emphasis: “As God creates all the time in and through the processes of the world, His relation to the world is through and through sacramental, both instrumentally and symbolically in revelation of God’s self” (180). Peacocke promotes the idea of “panentheism”: the Being of God includes and penetrates the whole universe, so that every part of it exists in Him, but (as against Pantheism) that his Being is more than, and is not exhausted by, the universe” (98).
God has to be imagined as continuously creating, continuously giving existence to what is new. God is creating at every moment of the world’s existence through perpetually giving creativity to the very stuff of the world” (96).
God “explores” in creation, actualizes all the potentialities, improvises fugally all the derivations inherently possible from the tune he originally called (47).
“Panentheism” culminates in the person of Jesus. His disciples and their followers encountered in him a presence of God which fused God’s transcendence and immanence in a way that engendered the language of “incarnation.” He is the locus of the dynamic nature of the relation between God’s immanent creative activity focused and unveiled in him and the processes of nature and of human history and experience, which are all “in God,” and from which God is never absent (220).
In addition to the above (which I consider to be strengths of the book albeit somewhat difficult to read through), these essays sent up a few warning flags for me as well. First, Peacocke states that the affirmation of Jesus’ resurrection does not depend on there having been an empty tomb, so that “resurrection,” if it is to be a possibility for all human beings, cannot involve a transformation of our actual bodily, physical constituents (195). I did not find this thought developed further elsewhere in any of the essays so will not comment further upon it here.
Secondly though, Peacocke dismisses the miracle of the virgin birth, insisting that for both biological and theological reasons, Jesus had to have a human father as well as a human mother. For him, the doctrine of the virginal conception is theologically inadequate as Jesus would not have had a complete human nature in addition to his divine nature. But because of his insistence upon God creating through natural processes, the virgin birth is in his opinion also scientifically inadequate. Could Jesus be deemed truly human if his X, Y, and other chromosomes were not passed on to him in the same way as they have been for the rest of humanity? Jesus must be “bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh, and DNA of our DNA” (227).
In his desire to stress the idea of theistic and sacramental “panentheism” as laid out above, has Peacocke deified science, leaving no room at all for a Transcendent God to work supernatural miracles? I’m not able to go that far myself Between the above two red flags and what I sometimes found to be difficult slogging, I give this book only 3 stars, but still recommend it as thought-provoking and stimulating.
The central idea which binds the different essays together is that Darwin’s theory of the evolving nature of the biological world and of the role in it of natural selection-- which so many people of faith find threatening-- actually reinstates and reinforces the idea of God as creating all the time through natural processes. “Darwinism… under the disguise of a foe, did the work of a friend” (p. 235). “God did not make the things, we may say, but He made them make themselves" (79, 95).
The world can now, with the aid of the sciences, be seen more convincingly than ever before as the creation of an ever-working, ever-present Ultimate Reality, who transcends and yet is immanent in it—and can also be present in and to us humans (240).
In making things which make themselves, creation becomes “a self-limiting activity of God rendering Godself vulnerable, for in it God takes the risk of letting everything be and become itself, and this in human persons, who are free and autonomous, means allowing them to be capable of falsity as well as truth, ugliness as well as beauty, and evil as well as good” (80).
With regard to humanity, Peacocke states that, apparently, by a continuous development under the control of the regular processes of natural laws, new forms of matter have creatively emerged out of the nuclear particles and atoms of several thousand million years ago and have now in man become conscious of themselves. From man’s consciousness, new creativities of a specifically human kind have erupted, notably in men of genius but, just as significantly, also in the very real individual creativity of each human being within his own social environment—a creativity which, however humble, far transcends that of the highest animal (59).
Peacocke states that man is the first organism to be conscious of the possibilities and potentialities which are open to him. He is aware of his freedom to choose by altering both himself and his environment. Yet man is the only creature who, aware of the pinnacle on which he stands, is also tragically aware of the possibility of his not fulfilling his own potentialities. That is the paradox of humankind: Man is the summit of the cosmic development of evolution up to this point. His mental activities transcend all. Yet at the same time he is tragically aware of his personal and social shortcomings. He is subject to the tension between the awareness of the finitude of his individual life and the infinity of his longings. He is aware both of that from which he has evolved and of his tendency always to fall short of the full realization of his own individual and corporate potentialities.
Creation Psalms such as Psalm 104, which stress that God is not just the Creator of the Universe but also its daily Maintainer, remind me of Peacocke’s central emphasis: “As God creates all the time in and through the processes of the world, His relation to the world is through and through sacramental, both instrumentally and symbolically in revelation of God’s self” (180). Peacocke promotes the idea of “panentheism”: the Being of God includes and penetrates the whole universe, so that every part of it exists in Him, but (as against Pantheism) that his Being is more than, and is not exhausted by, the universe” (98).
God has to be imagined as continuously creating, continuously giving existence to what is new. God is creating at every moment of the world’s existence through perpetually giving creativity to the very stuff of the world” (96).
God “explores” in creation, actualizes all the potentialities, improvises fugally all the derivations inherently possible from the tune he originally called (47).
“Panentheism” culminates in the person of Jesus. His disciples and their followers encountered in him a presence of God which fused God’s transcendence and immanence in a way that engendered the language of “incarnation.” He is the locus of the dynamic nature of the relation between God’s immanent creative activity focused and unveiled in him and the processes of nature and of human history and experience, which are all “in God,” and from which God is never absent (220).
In addition to the above (which I consider to be strengths of the book albeit somewhat difficult to read through), these essays sent up a few warning flags for me as well. First, Peacocke states that the affirmation of Jesus’ resurrection does not depend on there having been an empty tomb, so that “resurrection,” if it is to be a possibility for all human beings, cannot involve a transformation of our actual bodily, physical constituents (195). I did not find this thought developed further elsewhere in any of the essays so will not comment further upon it here.
Secondly though, Peacocke dismisses the miracle of the virgin birth, insisting that for both biological and theological reasons, Jesus had to have a human father as well as a human mother. For him, the doctrine of the virginal conception is theologically inadequate as Jesus would not have had a complete human nature in addition to his divine nature. But because of his insistence upon God creating through natural processes, the virgin birth is in his opinion also scientifically inadequate. Could Jesus be deemed truly human if his X, Y, and other chromosomes were not passed on to him in the same way as they have been for the rest of humanity? Jesus must be “bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh, and DNA of our DNA” (227).
In his desire to stress the idea of theistic and sacramental “panentheism” as laid out above, has Peacocke deified science, leaving no room at all for a Transcendent God to work supernatural miracles? I’m not able to go that far myself Between the above two red flags and what I sometimes found to be difficult slogging, I give this book only 3 stars, but still recommend it as thought-provoking and stimulating.
Displaying 1 of 1 review