What do you think?
Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion
With the publication in 1859 of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Charles Darwin established evolution by common descent as the dominant scientific explanation for nature's diversity. This was to be his gift to science and society; at last, we had an explanation for how life came to be on Earth. Scientists agree that the evolutionary origin of animals and plants is a scientific conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. They place it beside such established concepts as the roundness of the earth, its revolution around the sun, and the molecular composition of matter. That evolution has occurred, in other words, is a fact. Yet as we approach the bicentennial celebration of Darwin's birth, the world finds itself divided over the truth of evolutionary theory. Consistently endorsed as "good science" by experts and overwhelmingly accepted as fact by the scientific community, it is not always accepted by the public, and our schools continue to be battlegrounds for this conflict. From the Tennessee trial of a biology teacher who dared to teach Darwin's theory to his students in 1925 to Tammy Kitzmiller's 2005 battle to keep intelligent design out of the Dover district schools in Pennsylvania, it's clear that we need to cut through the propaganda to quell the cacophony of raging debate. With the publication of Darwin's Gift, a voice at once fresh and familiar brings a rational, measured perspective to the science of evolution. An acclaimed evolutionary biologist with a background in theology, Francisco Ayala offers clear explanations of the science, reviews the history that led us to ratify Darwin's theories, and ultimately provides a clear path for a confused and conflicted public.
250 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2007
About the author
Francisco J. Ayala
72 books26 followersSpanish-American evolutionary biologist and philosopher at the University of California, Irvine. Member of the National Academy of Sciences, recipient of the 2001 National Medal of Science and the 2010 Templeton Prize.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
February 8, 2008
An argument for the peaceful coexistence of evolution and religion. As well-reasoned as possible, I think, but, sadly, fundamentalist religious believers can't seem to get past the idea that the Bible is not a scientific text, so I don't think they'll cotton to coexisting no matter how lucid the argument.
There is introductory information about how DNA works and information on how molecular biology has definitive evidence on the evolution of all creatures great and small now. Also the fossil record is discussed. And there are many references to books that will be good for further reading. I enjoyed reading this.
There is introductory information about how DNA works and information on how molecular biology has definitive evidence on the evolution of all creatures great and small now. Also the fossil record is discussed. And there are many references to books that will be good for further reading. I enjoyed reading this.
April 20, 2021
Excelentă pentru o rapidă re/acomodare cu teoriile evolutioniste si selecția naturală. Totuși, cartea ratează însăși demonstrația ipotezei din titlu: practic, autorul afirmă că teoria lui Darwin este un dar pentru religie, fără, însă, să spună... cum și de ce! Și, după cum susține Ayala însuși, o ipoteză nedemonstrată, nesusținută empiric, rămâne doar o ipoteză, fără să intre în patrimoniul cunoașterii. De altfel, e greu de închipuit că sufletul, de pildă, este o emanație întâmplătoare, o adăugire spontană la proiectul "întocmit pe genunchi" de către Dumnezeu.
Aș fi așteptat mai mult de la un fost preot dominican, actual biolog și filozof. Asta mă face să cred că s-a despărțit cu părere de rău de cel de odinioară...
Aș fi așteptat mai mult de la un fost preot dominican, actual biolog și filozof. Asta mă face să cred că s-a despărțit cu părere de rău de cel de odinioară...
July 3, 2010
Ayala's intention, as one might guess from the book's title, is to demonstrate that a rejection of evolution is not just bad science but bad theology. As with, it seems, so many books these days, he spends most of his time talking about matters other than his stated topic, in this instance with lengthy explanations of natural selection and the many ways in which it has been shown beyond doubt that "Darwinism" is the way thinks work, and with extremely competent dissections of the pretensions of the IDiots. All of this stuff is very well done and, not only was I greatly absorbed and entertained, I learned quite a deal that was new to me; especially useful were his discussions of the precursors of the modern ID movement -- people like William Paley, whose ID hypotheses might well have been woefully wrong but who was at least doing his best within the boundaries of the science available in his age.
But what of the 10% or so of the book, maybe less, that focuses on Ayala's supposed subject matter? His primary contention seems to be that evolutionary theory does theology a great service by solving at a stroke the theodicy problem -- that is, the problem of having to explain why a benevolent and omnipotent God permits so much cruelty and evil in the world. The argument goes that all this cruelty and evil we see around us is a natural consequence of the way that natural selection works, and therefore not God's fault -- even though it was God who chose to use natural selection as a means of producing the living world we know, us included.
In other words, thanks to evolution and natural selection, theologians would no longer need to trouble their heads about David Hume's famous quibble, summarizing Epicurus:
Is [God:] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?
It's difficult to follow this rationale, because it seems that -- evolution or no -- Hume's first two questions seem answerable only thus: "He's either unwilling or unable or both." The problem is that, outside the human species (and possibly one or two others) the concept of evil has no meaning, as neither does the concept of good. For sure, the operation of natural selection is immensely cruel and immensely wasteful, but there's nothing evil involved: that's just the way evolution works. On the other hand, it can be argued that, if God has indeed chosen to operate His planet through the mechanism of natural selection, with all its necessary suffering, then there is evil involved.
Or is the argument that human beings became infected by evil through evolutionary happenstance? But, if so, surely an omniscient God would have known this could happen and taken steps to insure against it.
What Ayala and his teachers seem to be arguing for is an ever-diminishing role for God, who is blameless for all disagreeable things because, heck, they're outside His province. But if God doesn't do anything, and if He isn't responsible for anything, what reason can there be for His existence at all? Even if one argues that, Him being God and all, He doesn't need a reason for existence, the related question remains: What reason can there be to believe in the existence of a God who takes no part in the running of His Creation and washes His hands of anything in it that goes awry? It's as if Ayala and his cohorts were calling on the principle of the God of the Gaps and then making the Gap infinitesimally small.
This same issue seems to arise when he claims:
However, we know some basic features that account for human distinctness and therefore can serve as foundations for a religious view of humankind: the large brain and the accelerated rate of evolution of genes such as those involved in human speech. (p110)
So God's role was to wait some billions of years while natural selection did its stuff and then, a few thousand years ago, to intercede in order to speed up the evolution of particular genes and increase cranial capacity, after which He pushed off and left us to our own devices? This sounds very much like Intelligent Design, which is what Ayala elsewhere roundly (and rightly) disparages; moreover it again leaves God with only a very small Gap within which to operate. If I've misunderstood Ayala and this isn't at all what he means, then of course we're back to the Hume/Epicurus dilemma.
It's at about this time that I expect someone to come charging in to tell me that if only I'd studied theology a bit more exhaustively I wouldn't be making any of these foolish observations, to which my response must be: I can read all the fairy stories in the world and that still won't convince me that fairies exist, or that the hypothesis of a fairies-populated world makes internally consistent sense -- or any sense at all.
They say that the sign of a good book (or movie or play, whatever) is how much you talk about it afterwards, even if the "talk" takes the form of an internal conversation. Ayala's book is good enough that, as well as being a very pleasurable and stimulating read, it made me think. I suppose that for many that won't excuse the fact that so much of the text is, as it were, off-topic; but it's okay by me. As I'm sure everyone has frequently remarked, digressions are often the best bits.
But what of the 10% or so of the book, maybe less, that focuses on Ayala's supposed subject matter? His primary contention seems to be that evolutionary theory does theology a great service by solving at a stroke the theodicy problem -- that is, the problem of having to explain why a benevolent and omnipotent God permits so much cruelty and evil in the world. The argument goes that all this cruelty and evil we see around us is a natural consequence of the way that natural selection works, and therefore not God's fault -- even though it was God who chose to use natural selection as a means of producing the living world we know, us included.
In other words, thanks to evolution and natural selection, theologians would no longer need to trouble their heads about David Hume's famous quibble, summarizing Epicurus:
Is [God:] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?
It's difficult to follow this rationale, because it seems that -- evolution or no -- Hume's first two questions seem answerable only thus: "He's either unwilling or unable or both." The problem is that, outside the human species (and possibly one or two others) the concept of evil has no meaning, as neither does the concept of good. For sure, the operation of natural selection is immensely cruel and immensely wasteful, but there's nothing evil involved: that's just the way evolution works. On the other hand, it can be argued that, if God has indeed chosen to operate His planet through the mechanism of natural selection, with all its necessary suffering, then there is evil involved.
Or is the argument that human beings became infected by evil through evolutionary happenstance? But, if so, surely an omniscient God would have known this could happen and taken steps to insure against it.
What Ayala and his teachers seem to be arguing for is an ever-diminishing role for God, who is blameless for all disagreeable things because, heck, they're outside His province. But if God doesn't do anything, and if He isn't responsible for anything, what reason can there be for His existence at all? Even if one argues that, Him being God and all, He doesn't need a reason for existence, the related question remains: What reason can there be to believe in the existence of a God who takes no part in the running of His Creation and washes His hands of anything in it that goes awry? It's as if Ayala and his cohorts were calling on the principle of the God of the Gaps and then making the Gap infinitesimally small.
This same issue seems to arise when he claims:
However, we know some basic features that account for human distinctness and therefore can serve as foundations for a religious view of humankind: the large brain and the accelerated rate of evolution of genes such as those involved in human speech. (p110)
So God's role was to wait some billions of years while natural selection did its stuff and then, a few thousand years ago, to intercede in order to speed up the evolution of particular genes and increase cranial capacity, after which He pushed off and left us to our own devices? This sounds very much like Intelligent Design, which is what Ayala elsewhere roundly (and rightly) disparages; moreover it again leaves God with only a very small Gap within which to operate. If I've misunderstood Ayala and this isn't at all what he means, then of course we're back to the Hume/Epicurus dilemma.
It's at about this time that I expect someone to come charging in to tell me that if only I'd studied theology a bit more exhaustively I wouldn't be making any of these foolish observations, to which my response must be: I can read all the fairy stories in the world and that still won't convince me that fairies exist, or that the hypothesis of a fairies-populated world makes internally consistent sense -- or any sense at all.
They say that the sign of a good book (or movie or play, whatever) is how much you talk about it afterwards, even if the "talk" takes the form of an internal conversation. Ayala's book is good enough that, as well as being a very pleasurable and stimulating read, it made me think. I suppose that for many that won't excuse the fact that so much of the text is, as it were, off-topic; but it's okay by me. As I'm sure everyone has frequently remarked, digressions are often the best bits.
January 11, 2012
During a public lecture held in the Spring of 2008 at the City College of New York, eminent evolutionary geneticist Francisco J. Ayala castigated biochemist Michael J. Behe for his inane espousal of Intelligent Design creationism, asserting that, as a biochemist, Behe ought to know better. Ayala's criticism was not one replete with venom, but instead, tinged with sorrow and pity, while still accusing Behe of being derelict in his professional scientific duty by not recognizing the overwhelming scientific facts in support of modern evolutionary theory. That lecture was truly an excellent summary of the main points of Ayala's 2007 book, "Darwin's Gift To Science", which is still one of the very best summations of the evidence for evolution and a most effective condemnation of - what eminent philosopher of science Philip Kitcher has referred to as "dead science" and yours truly as "mendacious intellectual pornography" - Intelligent Design creationism. Ayala, a former Roman Catholic monk, has rendered in elegant, exquisite, prose a most valuable service by using clear, concise logic in explaining how and why biological evolution is valid science, while Intelligent Design creationism isn't. Ayala's is a compelling line of logic, which doesn't founder on the hidden shoals of religious fervor, making the best, most persuasive, case I have read lately explaining why science and religion can co-exist successfully.
Ayala's introductory chapters discuss the origins of both Intelligent Design and Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection. In Chapter Two, Ayala presents Intelligent Design as seen originally by English theologian William Paley, presenting an excellent historical survey of its religious origins within the early Christian Church. In Chapter Three, not only does Ayala provide us with a concise summary of Darwin's research, beginning with the HMS Beagle voyage, he argues persuasively that what Darwin did with his theory of evolution was to offer proof that design could exist in nature without requiring the existence of a Designer, in short, "Design without a Designer". How? By demonstrating that by the process of natural selection, complex organic structures could emerge without recourse to some external, "divine" intervention.
The most important chapters (Chapters Four to Eight) in Ayala's book deal with the evidence for evolution and against Intelligent Design. Chapter Four is an especially lucid, quite persuasive, overview of Natural Selection, and how it has been confirmed, not only by ecological and paleobiological data, but especially, in recent years, by overwhelming evidence from genetics and molecular biology. Ayala also explains how natural selection has served as the "engine" responsible for organismal complexity, refining further his earlier point (Chapter Three) as to how there could be "Design without a Designer". Chapter Five is an admirable summary of the ample evidence for evolution, from embryonic development and the fossil record, to biogeography and genetics. Chapter Six summarizes human evolution, emphasizing recent molecular data that affirms the close kinship between humanity and our nearest living relatives, the chimpanzees. Chapter Seven emphasizes the importance of recent developments in molecular biology which merely affirm the fact of evolution, discussing the degree of similarity of macromolecules such as nucleotides, and how they have been used in constructing molecular phylogenies and estimating the "molecular clock" of evolutionary divergence between lineages. Chapter Eight makes especially short work of such ludicrous Intelligent Design concepts as "Irreducible Complexity", explaining, for example, how the evolution of the molluscan eye from primitive mollusks to the most complex, modern cephalopods like the octopus and squid, demonstrates that a complicated structure such as the eye, can arise independently in two lineages - cephalopods and vertebrates - as the product of natural selection, not by direct intervention by an "Intelligent Designer".
Almost as an afterthought, Ayala addresses how and why religion and science should be viewed as separate, equally valid, aspects of human intellectual thought. He summarizes and stresses how mainstream Christian religions have reconciled themselves to the ample weight of scientific evidence for biological evolution (Chapter Nine), citing the views of some prominent contemporary theologians. Finally, in the concluding chapter (Chapter Ten), Ayala discusses the empirical nature of science itself, using as the two key illustrative examples, Darwin's field research during the HMS Beagle voyage and Mendel's pea inheritance experiments.
Ayala's introductory chapters discuss the origins of both Intelligent Design and Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection. In Chapter Two, Ayala presents Intelligent Design as seen originally by English theologian William Paley, presenting an excellent historical survey of its religious origins within the early Christian Church. In Chapter Three, not only does Ayala provide us with a concise summary of Darwin's research, beginning with the HMS Beagle voyage, he argues persuasively that what Darwin did with his theory of evolution was to offer proof that design could exist in nature without requiring the existence of a Designer, in short, "Design without a Designer". How? By demonstrating that by the process of natural selection, complex organic structures could emerge without recourse to some external, "divine" intervention.
The most important chapters (Chapters Four to Eight) in Ayala's book deal with the evidence for evolution and against Intelligent Design. Chapter Four is an especially lucid, quite persuasive, overview of Natural Selection, and how it has been confirmed, not only by ecological and paleobiological data, but especially, in recent years, by overwhelming evidence from genetics and molecular biology. Ayala also explains how natural selection has served as the "engine" responsible for organismal complexity, refining further his earlier point (Chapter Three) as to how there could be "Design without a Designer". Chapter Five is an admirable summary of the ample evidence for evolution, from embryonic development and the fossil record, to biogeography and genetics. Chapter Six summarizes human evolution, emphasizing recent molecular data that affirms the close kinship between humanity and our nearest living relatives, the chimpanzees. Chapter Seven emphasizes the importance of recent developments in molecular biology which merely affirm the fact of evolution, discussing the degree of similarity of macromolecules such as nucleotides, and how they have been used in constructing molecular phylogenies and estimating the "molecular clock" of evolutionary divergence between lineages. Chapter Eight makes especially short work of such ludicrous Intelligent Design concepts as "Irreducible Complexity", explaining, for example, how the evolution of the molluscan eye from primitive mollusks to the most complex, modern cephalopods like the octopus and squid, demonstrates that a complicated structure such as the eye, can arise independently in two lineages - cephalopods and vertebrates - as the product of natural selection, not by direct intervention by an "Intelligent Designer".
Almost as an afterthought, Ayala addresses how and why religion and science should be viewed as separate, equally valid, aspects of human intellectual thought. He summarizes and stresses how mainstream Christian religions have reconciled themselves to the ample weight of scientific evidence for biological evolution (Chapter Nine), citing the views of some prominent contemporary theologians. Finally, in the concluding chapter (Chapter Ten), Ayala discusses the empirical nature of science itself, using as the two key illustrative examples, Darwin's field research during the HMS Beagle voyage and Mendel's pea inheritance experiments.
June 16, 2009
Ayala does a decent job explaining the facts of evolution -- but not more than decent. (Better, more thorough, more scientifically bracing: "Why Evolution is True," by Jerry Coyne. I'm beginning to think longer really is better in evolution books. There are no shortcuts to the evidence and a reader unwilling to gird for a long argument will probably refuse to be persuaded anyway, or is incapable of being persuaded.) It's comforting to see a genre evolving as authors vie to be the best explainer of the science of evolution, mentioning but minimizing the threadbare objections that fill popular understanding. And I praise the author for trying to bridge science and belief, and for taking the stand during the Dover school board travesty as the voice of religious believers who are intelligent, genuinely curious, and humane. His work there is heroic.
That said, I think Ayala fails. Bridging religion and naturalism will take, well, a miracle, and I was disappointed that this book contains no miracles. We're still stuck at Gould's prayer for "non-overlapping magisteria" (translation: Can't we all get along? Pleeease?) and the reader of this book is left, at the close, in the heavenly waiting room. Ayala's defense of the religious magisterium is only pious. As a veteran of Catholic schools I heard the echo of countless well-meaning, church-loyal religion teachers who thought they were giving intellectually restless children an answer by saying science is science, revelation is revelation. Sadly, they weren't. The evidence is not the same, and never will be. What science offers is provable and disprovable, it moves forward, assassinating pieties (including its own) along the way. It destroys paradigms, scatters clouds and peers into space and time and finds nobody there.
It simply isn't good enough to say that what religion says (and which religion? the world is made up of more than Dominicans. Is the palm reader's word as good as the pope's?) should be accorded the same authority as what chemistry says. Or astronomy, or physics. Compared to science, scriptures and oracles are a foundation of sand--a worldwide, ever drifting, mountain of sand.
Among other traps, Ayala falls into the because-I-say-so method of reconciliation: I am religious, and I believe science tells us true things about the world (including biological evolution), therefore there is no conflict between science and religion. QED. So: I, Mark Sanford, am a devout Christian who believes infidelity is wrong, and yet I jetted away to canoodle with my Argentine girlfriend, therefore Christian faith and infidelity can coexist harmoniously. Not QED. We know the name of that argument, and it's not reconciliation. Speaking kindly, we call it cognitive dissonance. Less charitably, we call it hypocrisy. I'd label it, in "Darwin's Gift," wishful thinking.
I was hoping to discover (again, in my miracle) that Ayala had thought it all through. Instead, he felt it through.
Augustine's and Aquinas's proofs for God's existence haven't persuaded anybody outside of seminary for hundreds of years. Nor does William Paley deserve the fulsome treatment Ayala provides. Paley's watch was demonstrably wrong, as wrong as geocentrism, as wrong as the theory of bodily humours. The more thorough class of evolution-explaining books lays this out. Nor is theology evidence. In these excursions the author weakens his book significantly.
The title, by the way, is the author's distinctive assertion that evolution can solve the theodicy problem. He no longer has to blame God for nature's manifest cruelty, inefficiencies, massacres and mysteries. Whew. It's all because of natural selection and its wobbly, non-intelligently-designed path. Somehow I'm not reassured. Ayala proves that God is not a shoddy designer after all -- he's no designer at all! Except as the secondhand shaper of unchallengeable "revelation" somehow collected in a volume of peculiar short stories and homilies (myths, as they say, to die for), or perhaps as the still, small voice one feigns to hear in a cathedral nave. This is an old, old problem: the more one learns about the world, the less space remains for the old sky god, the punisher, the inexplicable he-who-must-be-obeyed. Humanists say this god has run out of road entirely--but yet ethics, morality, and something forward-seeming remains. This is a profound, painful challenge to the old pieties, and it's been raging for a couple of centuries now. It will keep raging. Barring a miracle.
That said, I think Ayala fails. Bridging religion and naturalism will take, well, a miracle, and I was disappointed that this book contains no miracles. We're still stuck at Gould's prayer for "non-overlapping magisteria" (translation: Can't we all get along? Pleeease?) and the reader of this book is left, at the close, in the heavenly waiting room. Ayala's defense of the religious magisterium is only pious. As a veteran of Catholic schools I heard the echo of countless well-meaning, church-loyal religion teachers who thought they were giving intellectually restless children an answer by saying science is science, revelation is revelation. Sadly, they weren't. The evidence is not the same, and never will be. What science offers is provable and disprovable, it moves forward, assassinating pieties (including its own) along the way. It destroys paradigms, scatters clouds and peers into space and time and finds nobody there.
It simply isn't good enough to say that what religion says (and which religion? the world is made up of more than Dominicans. Is the palm reader's word as good as the pope's?) should be accorded the same authority as what chemistry says. Or astronomy, or physics. Compared to science, scriptures and oracles are a foundation of sand--a worldwide, ever drifting, mountain of sand.
Among other traps, Ayala falls into the because-I-say-so method of reconciliation: I am religious, and I believe science tells us true things about the world (including biological evolution), therefore there is no conflict between science and religion. QED. So: I, Mark Sanford, am a devout Christian who believes infidelity is wrong, and yet I jetted away to canoodle with my Argentine girlfriend, therefore Christian faith and infidelity can coexist harmoniously. Not QED. We know the name of that argument, and it's not reconciliation. Speaking kindly, we call it cognitive dissonance. Less charitably, we call it hypocrisy. I'd label it, in "Darwin's Gift," wishful thinking.
I was hoping to discover (again, in my miracle) that Ayala had thought it all through. Instead, he felt it through.
Augustine's and Aquinas's proofs for God's existence haven't persuaded anybody outside of seminary for hundreds of years. Nor does William Paley deserve the fulsome treatment Ayala provides. Paley's watch was demonstrably wrong, as wrong as geocentrism, as wrong as the theory of bodily humours. The more thorough class of evolution-explaining books lays this out. Nor is theology evidence. In these excursions the author weakens his book significantly.
The title, by the way, is the author's distinctive assertion that evolution can solve the theodicy problem. He no longer has to blame God for nature's manifest cruelty, inefficiencies, massacres and mysteries. Whew. It's all because of natural selection and its wobbly, non-intelligently-designed path. Somehow I'm not reassured. Ayala proves that God is not a shoddy designer after all -- he's no designer at all! Except as the secondhand shaper of unchallengeable "revelation" somehow collected in a volume of peculiar short stories and homilies (myths, as they say, to die for), or perhaps as the still, small voice one feigns to hear in a cathedral nave. This is an old, old problem: the more one learns about the world, the less space remains for the old sky god, the punisher, the inexplicable he-who-must-be-obeyed. Humanists say this god has run out of road entirely--but yet ethics, morality, and something forward-seeming remains. This is a profound, painful challenge to the old pieties, and it's been raging for a couple of centuries now. It will keep raging. Barring a miracle.
June 1, 2024
AN EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST SAYS SCIENCE AND RELIGION ARE NOT CONTRADICTORY
Author and evolutionary biologist Francisco J. Ayala wrote in the Preface of this 2007 book, “The message that this book conveys can be simply stated: Science and religious beliefs need not be in contradiction. If they are properly understood, they CANNOT be in contradiction because science and religion concern different matters. Science concerns the processes that account for the natural world… Religion concerns the meaning and purpose of the world and of human life, the proper relation of people to their Creator and to each other, the moral values that inspire and govern people’s lives…. I will belabor two points primarily addressed to people of faith. The first point is that science is here to stay… A second point … [is] that scientific knowledge, the theory of evolution in particular, is consistent with a religious belief in God, whereas Creationism and Intelligent Design are not… Darwin’s theory of evolution is a gift to science, and to religion as well. This book gives my reasons.”
He points out, “About nature’s imperfections… [William Paley’s] account is unconvincing. If functional design manifests an Intelligent Designer, who should not deficiencies indicate that the Designer is less than omniscient, or less than omnipotent? Paley cannot have it both ways… Carnivorous predators behave in ways that by human standards would be judged cruel; parasite seem designed with a sadistic purpose, since they exist by harming other organisms. The mating interactions between male and female in some insects … would be judged cruel and even sadistic by human standards.” (Pg. 22-23)
He notes, “Comparative anatomy also reveals why most organismic structures are not perfect. Like the forelimbs of turtles, horses, humans, birds, and bats, and organisms body parts are less than perfectly adapted because they are modified from an inherited structure rather than designed from completely raw materials for a specific purpose. The anatomy of animals shows that it has bene designed to fit their lifestyles, but it is ‘imperfect’ design, accomplished by natural selection, rather than ‘intelligent’ design, as it would be if designed by an engineer. The imperfection of structures is evidence for evolution and contrary to the arguments for intelligent design.” (Pg. 89)
He observes, “Human embryos also exhibit, by the fourth week of development, a well-defined tail, which reaches maximum length at six weeks… the tail eventually shortens, persisting only as a rudiment in the adult coccyx. Embryonic rudiments are inconsistent with claims of intelligent design. Why would some structure be designed to form during early development if it will disappear before birth? Evolution makes better sense of embryonic rudiments.” (Pg. 91)
He argues, “Some Christian believers will save that the fundamental difference between humans and apes is that we have a soul, created by God, which the apes do not have. This is a religious or theological answer that will be satisfying for many believers, but it is not SCIENTIFICALLY satisfactory… what scientists seek to understand… are the genetic and other features that distinguish our species from apes and other animals. Consider, by analogy, a human individual. People of faith may believe that it is the soul infused by God that that accounts for what each person is. But surely, this does not deny that each individual develops from a fertilized egg in the mother’s womb and later by multiple cell divisions… Biological knowledge does not eliminate religious belief. Rather, scientific knowledge may provide a basis for theological insights.” (Pg. 110-111)
He asserts, “There is probably no other notion in any field of science that has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as the evolutionary origin of living organisms.” (Pg. 132) He acknowledges, “The theory of evolution goes far beyond the general affirmation that organisms evolve… Some conclusions are well established. One, for example, is that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than is either of those two species to baboons or to other monkeys… Another conclusion is that natural selection… explains the configuration of such adaptive features as the human eye and the wings of birds. Many matters are less certain, others are conjectural, and still others---such as the characteristics of the first living things and the precise time when they came about---remain largely unknown. However, uncertainty about these issues does not cast doubt on the fact of evolution. Similarly, we do not know all the details about … the origin of the galaxies, but this is not a reason to … throw out all we have learned about their characteristics.” (Pg. 141-142)
He rejects the probabilistic calculations of Intelligent Design advocate William Dembski, “this calculation… is totally irrelevant because Dembski’s assumptions are wrong. Natural selection proceeding stepwise can accomplish outcomes with prior probabilities immensely smaller than Dembski’s calculations… the probability that one single bacterium would acquire resistance to the antibiotic streptomycin … is four in ten thousand trillion… Yet all 20 to 30 billion bacteria in the final culture exhibit these properties. This adaptation has been accomplished by natural selection in response to environmental changes in just a few days.” (Pg. 154)
He points out, “It is not only that organisms and their parts are less than perfect, but also that deficiencies and dysfunctions are pervasive, evidencing ‘incompetent’ rather than ‘intelligent’ design. Consider the human jaw. We have too many teeth for the jaw’s size, so that wisdom teeth need to be removed… Would we want to blame God for this blunder?... Consider the birth canal of women, much too narrow for the easy passage of the infant’s head, so that thousands upon thousands of babies and many mothers die during delivery… More disturbing yet for ID proponents has to be … [that] About 20 percent of all … human pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage during the first two months of pregnancy… Do we want to blame God for the deficiencies in the pregnancy process? Is God the greatest abortionist of them all?” (Pg. 155-157) He adds, “Proponents of ID would do well to acknowledge Darwin’s revolution and accept natural selection as the process that accounts for the design of organisms, as well as for the dysfunctions, oddities, cruelties, and sadism that pervade the world of life. Attributing these to specific agency by the Creator amounts to blasphemy.” (Pg. 160)
He observes, “The well-known evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explicitly denies design, purpose, and values…If a commitment to naturalism does not allow science to derive values, meanings, or purposes from scientific knowledge, it surely does not allow it, either, to deny their existence… they have no warrant whatsoever to ground their materialistic philosophy in the accomplishments of science.” (Pg. 173-174)
He concludes, “The theory of evolution conveys chance and necessity jointly enmeshed in the stuff of life; randomness and determinism interlocked in a natural process that has spurted the most complex, diverse, and beautiful entities in the universe… This is Darwin’s fundamental discovery, that there is a process that is creative though not conscious. And this is the conceptual revolution that Darwin completed: the idea that the design of living organisms can be accounted for as the result of natural processed governed by natural laws. This is nothing if not a fundamental vision that has forever changed how mankind perceives itself and its place in the universe.” (Pg. 201-202)
This book will be of great interest to those studying the relationship between evolutionary theory and religion.
Author and evolutionary biologist Francisco J. Ayala wrote in the Preface of this 2007 book, “The message that this book conveys can be simply stated: Science and religious beliefs need not be in contradiction. If they are properly understood, they CANNOT be in contradiction because science and religion concern different matters. Science concerns the processes that account for the natural world… Religion concerns the meaning and purpose of the world and of human life, the proper relation of people to their Creator and to each other, the moral values that inspire and govern people’s lives…. I will belabor two points primarily addressed to people of faith. The first point is that science is here to stay… A second point … [is] that scientific knowledge, the theory of evolution in particular, is consistent with a religious belief in God, whereas Creationism and Intelligent Design are not… Darwin’s theory of evolution is a gift to science, and to religion as well. This book gives my reasons.”
He points out, “About nature’s imperfections… [William Paley’s] account is unconvincing. If functional design manifests an Intelligent Designer, who should not deficiencies indicate that the Designer is less than omniscient, or less than omnipotent? Paley cannot have it both ways… Carnivorous predators behave in ways that by human standards would be judged cruel; parasite seem designed with a sadistic purpose, since they exist by harming other organisms. The mating interactions between male and female in some insects … would be judged cruel and even sadistic by human standards.” (Pg. 22-23)
He notes, “Comparative anatomy also reveals why most organismic structures are not perfect. Like the forelimbs of turtles, horses, humans, birds, and bats, and organisms body parts are less than perfectly adapted because they are modified from an inherited structure rather than designed from completely raw materials for a specific purpose. The anatomy of animals shows that it has bene designed to fit their lifestyles, but it is ‘imperfect’ design, accomplished by natural selection, rather than ‘intelligent’ design, as it would be if designed by an engineer. The imperfection of structures is evidence for evolution and contrary to the arguments for intelligent design.” (Pg. 89)
He observes, “Human embryos also exhibit, by the fourth week of development, a well-defined tail, which reaches maximum length at six weeks… the tail eventually shortens, persisting only as a rudiment in the adult coccyx. Embryonic rudiments are inconsistent with claims of intelligent design. Why would some structure be designed to form during early development if it will disappear before birth? Evolution makes better sense of embryonic rudiments.” (Pg. 91)
He argues, “Some Christian believers will save that the fundamental difference between humans and apes is that we have a soul, created by God, which the apes do not have. This is a religious or theological answer that will be satisfying for many believers, but it is not SCIENTIFICALLY satisfactory… what scientists seek to understand… are the genetic and other features that distinguish our species from apes and other animals. Consider, by analogy, a human individual. People of faith may believe that it is the soul infused by God that that accounts for what each person is. But surely, this does not deny that each individual develops from a fertilized egg in the mother’s womb and later by multiple cell divisions… Biological knowledge does not eliminate religious belief. Rather, scientific knowledge may provide a basis for theological insights.” (Pg. 110-111)
He asserts, “There is probably no other notion in any field of science that has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as the evolutionary origin of living organisms.” (Pg. 132) He acknowledges, “The theory of evolution goes far beyond the general affirmation that organisms evolve… Some conclusions are well established. One, for example, is that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than is either of those two species to baboons or to other monkeys… Another conclusion is that natural selection… explains the configuration of such adaptive features as the human eye and the wings of birds. Many matters are less certain, others are conjectural, and still others---such as the characteristics of the first living things and the precise time when they came about---remain largely unknown. However, uncertainty about these issues does not cast doubt on the fact of evolution. Similarly, we do not know all the details about … the origin of the galaxies, but this is not a reason to … throw out all we have learned about their characteristics.” (Pg. 141-142)
He rejects the probabilistic calculations of Intelligent Design advocate William Dembski, “this calculation… is totally irrelevant because Dembski’s assumptions are wrong. Natural selection proceeding stepwise can accomplish outcomes with prior probabilities immensely smaller than Dembski’s calculations… the probability that one single bacterium would acquire resistance to the antibiotic streptomycin … is four in ten thousand trillion… Yet all 20 to 30 billion bacteria in the final culture exhibit these properties. This adaptation has been accomplished by natural selection in response to environmental changes in just a few days.” (Pg. 154)
He points out, “It is not only that organisms and their parts are less than perfect, but also that deficiencies and dysfunctions are pervasive, evidencing ‘incompetent’ rather than ‘intelligent’ design. Consider the human jaw. We have too many teeth for the jaw’s size, so that wisdom teeth need to be removed… Would we want to blame God for this blunder?... Consider the birth canal of women, much too narrow for the easy passage of the infant’s head, so that thousands upon thousands of babies and many mothers die during delivery… More disturbing yet for ID proponents has to be … [that] About 20 percent of all … human pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage during the first two months of pregnancy… Do we want to blame God for the deficiencies in the pregnancy process? Is God the greatest abortionist of them all?” (Pg. 155-157) He adds, “Proponents of ID would do well to acknowledge Darwin’s revolution and accept natural selection as the process that accounts for the design of organisms, as well as for the dysfunctions, oddities, cruelties, and sadism that pervade the world of life. Attributing these to specific agency by the Creator amounts to blasphemy.” (Pg. 160)
He observes, “The well-known evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explicitly denies design, purpose, and values…If a commitment to naturalism does not allow science to derive values, meanings, or purposes from scientific knowledge, it surely does not allow it, either, to deny their existence… they have no warrant whatsoever to ground their materialistic philosophy in the accomplishments of science.” (Pg. 173-174)
He concludes, “The theory of evolution conveys chance and necessity jointly enmeshed in the stuff of life; randomness and determinism interlocked in a natural process that has spurted the most complex, diverse, and beautiful entities in the universe… This is Darwin’s fundamental discovery, that there is a process that is creative though not conscious. And this is the conceptual revolution that Darwin completed: the idea that the design of living organisms can be accounted for as the result of natural processed governed by natural laws. This is nothing if not a fundamental vision that has forever changed how mankind perceives itself and its place in the universe.” (Pg. 201-202)
This book will be of great interest to those studying the relationship between evolutionary theory and religion.
October 27, 2008
This book is a very readable discussion of the topic of science and religion, written by a well-known geneticist who is also a Dominican Priest.
He argues that the theory of evolution, far from being an "enemy" of Christian religion, instead should be seen a savior. This is because evolution provides us with a coherent solution to the age-old question of why there we suffer, and why so many features of our frail bodies appear to be less-than-optimal.
Ayala goes out of his way to take potshots at creationists and intelligent design writers. He wonders, tongue-in-cheek, that since some 20% of all pregnancies result in spontaneous miscarriages, God might be the "greatest abortionist of them all". Similarly, he notes the narrow human birth canal that results in many deaths, our trouble-prone spine (clearly derived from four-footed ancestors), the human coccyx (a rudimentary tail), the appendix (used to ferment vegetable matter in long-ago ancestors), and numerous other imperfections that make a mockery of the notion that our bodies were meticulously "designed" by a supernatural Designer.
But this is no "debunk" volume. Ayala is a deeply religious person. He emphasizes how important religion is in modern life, and how it addresses questions very different from the technical details that we learn from science. He notes, more generally, that we can learn much from the human predicament from reading Shakespeare's King Lear, contemplating Rembrandt's Self Portraits, or listening to Tschaikovsky's Symphonie Pathetique. None of these works are works of science, yet they add immeasurably to the experience of being human. Thus there is no need to wage a "war" between science and religion, or between science and the humanities in general.
If you enjoy this book, you might also like these two, written by Kenneth Miller, a leading biology textbook author and a practicing Roman Catholic:
Kenneth R. Miller, "Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul", Viking, 2008.
Kenneth R. Miller, "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution", Harper, 2007.
He argues that the theory of evolution, far from being an "enemy" of Christian religion, instead should be seen a savior. This is because evolution provides us with a coherent solution to the age-old question of why there we suffer, and why so many features of our frail bodies appear to be less-than-optimal.
Ayala goes out of his way to take potshots at creationists and intelligent design writers. He wonders, tongue-in-cheek, that since some 20% of all pregnancies result in spontaneous miscarriages, God might be the "greatest abortionist of them all". Similarly, he notes the narrow human birth canal that results in many deaths, our trouble-prone spine (clearly derived from four-footed ancestors), the human coccyx (a rudimentary tail), the appendix (used to ferment vegetable matter in long-ago ancestors), and numerous other imperfections that make a mockery of the notion that our bodies were meticulously "designed" by a supernatural Designer.
But this is no "debunk" volume. Ayala is a deeply religious person. He emphasizes how important religion is in modern life, and how it addresses questions very different from the technical details that we learn from science. He notes, more generally, that we can learn much from the human predicament from reading Shakespeare's King Lear, contemplating Rembrandt's Self Portraits, or listening to Tschaikovsky's Symphonie Pathetique. None of these works are works of science, yet they add immeasurably to the experience of being human. Thus there is no need to wage a "war" between science and religion, or between science and the humanities in general.
If you enjoy this book, you might also like these two, written by Kenneth Miller, a leading biology textbook author and a practicing Roman Catholic:
Kenneth R. Miller, "Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul", Viking, 2008.
Kenneth R. Miller, "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution", Harper, 2007.
May 20, 2010
This book is very good to explain the science behind natural selection and emphasizes that there is no longer a missing link. It claims that natural selection is a gift to religion because natural selection is the reason for the cruelty in nature rather than God. I did not feel this really made the case from taking the onus from God, if God is omnipotent.
The book gets a little too scientific in places for layperson, but if you enjoy science and are interested in natural selection, it's a good read.
The book gets a little too scientific in places for layperson, but if you enjoy science and are interested in natural selection, it's a good read.
June 16, 2018
The book is like others, explains the processes of evolution and arguing for them, yet in a more concise manner and it seemed to be more directed towards people who have very basic knowledge of biology, or have just heard about the evolution/religion controversy and wanted to get a grasp of what it says and if evolution is incompatible with religion. The final chapter is more of a historic record or a discussion of how the scientific method works, and -as the writer said- is aimed at more deep and through readers.
What I disliked about the book is that I expected more elaboration on how Ayala sees evolution as a solution and theodicy to the evil problem; I guess I got his idea and understood what he means, but it needed more discussion given that it's a main aim of the book.
What I disliked about the book is that I expected more elaboration on how Ayala sees evolution as a solution and theodicy to the evil problem; I guess I got his idea and understood what he means, but it needed more discussion given that it's a main aim of the book.
April 16, 2026
darwin nunez
November 19, 2016
The title of this book is misleading. One might expect that it would deal with the intersection of science and religion, but more than anything, it's just an introduction to evolutionary biology. In that respect, it's actually pretty good, but it feels like they put the wrong dust jacket on the book.
When Ayala does get around to discussing the title, he points out that evolution by natural selection makes sense of why there are so many imperfections, birth defects, and other sub-optimal features in the natural world. Otherwise, one is left with rather unpalatable options: either God is an imperfect designer, an absent God (deism), or some supernatural force other than God created these peculiarities of nature.
One interesting passage in the book is a defense of non-scientific knowledge. Critiquing the positivist view that only modern science can lead to real knowledge, Ayala remarks that before the 17th century there were still plenty of advanced human civilizations, cities, infrastructure, political systems, and cultural endeavors. Human activities and endeavors were already robust and successful before science rose to prominence.
When Ayala does get around to discussing the title, he points out that evolution by natural selection makes sense of why there are so many imperfections, birth defects, and other sub-optimal features in the natural world. Otherwise, one is left with rather unpalatable options: either God is an imperfect designer, an absent God (deism), or some supernatural force other than God created these peculiarities of nature.
One interesting passage in the book is a defense of non-scientific knowledge. Critiquing the positivist view that only modern science can lead to real knowledge, Ayala remarks that before the 17th century there were still plenty of advanced human civilizations, cities, infrastructure, political systems, and cultural endeavors. Human activities and endeavors were already robust and successful before science rose to prominence.
June 21, 2014
The parts of this book discussing Darwinian evolution were very readable. However, I found myself frequently wishing the author was present to respond to basic objections to his arguments -- not a great quality in a book aimed at convincing the skeptical. For example, his arguments involving genetics were fine if you accept his premise of gradual evolution and natural selection, but thoroughly unconvincing if you believe that some genes are present in different species because God used them multiple times. It is the same reason that pointing to all the animals with eyes is not a convincing argument for common ancestry unless you already adhere to evolutionary theory.
I'm not trying to defend creationism in this review, just pointing out that Ayala seemed blind to the fact that some of his premises are too much for his intended audience to swallow.
Ayala's treatment of the Problem of Evil was an abject failure, but that wasn't surprising since he grants the usual definition of evil. Once you do that, there is no theodicy that is adequate.
I'm not trying to defend creationism in this review, just pointing out that Ayala seemed blind to the fact that some of his premises are too much for his intended audience to swallow.
Ayala's treatment of the Problem of Evil was an abject failure, but that wasn't surprising since he grants the usual definition of evil. Once you do that, there is no theodicy that is adequate.
October 29, 2009
MUM Book Club for Nov. 2009
This is not an easy read for me so that's why I gave it 2 stars. However I think it is an important book and stretched me, so I'm glad that I read it. Evolution or natural selection is given a strong voice here. It is not is conflict with God. Actually ID (Intellectual Design) is questioned in how could an omipotent God make imperfect beings like in some of our hereditary features and also why so many spontaneous abortions if fetuses were all perfectly formed. Good thinking stuff is found here.
This is not an easy read for me so that's why I gave it 2 stars. However I think it is an important book and stretched me, so I'm glad that I read it. Evolution or natural selection is given a strong voice here. It is not is conflict with God. Actually ID (Intellectual Design) is questioned in how could an omipotent God make imperfect beings like in some of our hereditary features and also why so many spontaneous abortions if fetuses were all perfectly formed. Good thinking stuff is found here.
March 5, 2011
first for a while in what i've been reading that actually even bothers to "prove" darwinian evolution . . and it does a good job of that as well . . a good chapter on the different roles of religion and science and some stinging critique of the "ID movement" as well . . the main idea though--that evolution is a "gift" to religion in that it solves the problem of evil--isn't dealt with nearly enough . . i agree that it removes the issue a step, but there are other issues that emerge at that point and this text doesn't go there at all . . still, very good for what it does . .
March 1, 2009
Using a really good logical argument Francisco Jose Ayala shows the reader why Creation and Intelligent design should NOT be taught in schools.
He also praises Evolution as the answer to the most asked question "Is God not powerful enough, or is he not good enough"
At times it reads like a really really long science college term paper, but that is only because it is packed with so much information.
Still it makes for a handy go to book
He also praises Evolution as the answer to the most asked question "Is God not powerful enough, or is he not good enough"
At times it reads like a really really long science college term paper, but that is only because it is packed with so much information.
Still it makes for a handy go to book
September 21, 2009
Outstandingly clear discussion of the elements of evolution and how evolution supports religion.
October 15, 2009
I attended a panel discussion on science and religion which made me want to be back in science. This book is by one of the panelists.
December 31, 2014
YAWN... I guess I've been spoiled by writers like Richard Dawkins, because this was a big disappointment.
November 15, 2010
Great book on Evolution and God.
Good read for atheists and Christians alike.
Good read for atheists and Christians alike.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews