What do you think?
Rate this book
Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil
A study of Darwin that argues that he was driven by theological concerns and the prevailing ideas about God at the time in his formation of his theory of evolution.
192 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2001
About the author
Cornelius G. Hunter
5 books4 followersCornelius G. Hunter (PhD, University of Illinois) is formerly senior vice president of Seagull Technology, Inc., and is currently engaged in molecular biophysics post-doctoral and engineering research in Cameron Park, California. He is adjunct professor of science and religion at Biola University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
December 12, 2008
This book was a complete waste of time, and I wish I had the hours back I spent on it. Hunter bases his “entire” book on the fact that Darwin commented several times in On the Origin of the Species about how God would not have deliberately engineered a world with so much savagery in it and with so many poorly designed structures. Hunter points out, rightly, that this presupposes a view of God as essentially a benevolent, merciful, and competent creator.
After this single point, however, Hunter states the same thing over and over and over throughout 175 boring pages. His primary addition to this argument is that the very fact that Darwin mentioned God in his book means that evolution is really “entirely” an argument against the positive view of God rather than for evolution. Of course, Darwin made such comments in his book. Any new theory is going to point out how it is different from the prevailing theory.
When he’s not reemphasizing the above point, Hunter is claiming that the evidence for evolution is simply not evidence. He makes this claim over and over…, with no justification whatsoever. He has to know that he’s engaging in “baffling with bullshit.”
Finally, though, the worst part of this book is its cowardice. I wondered if Hunter would have the guts to say what lies at the heart of his argument. He didn’t. I wasn’t surprised, since it would have horribly insulted the Christians who probably make up the book’s primary audience. If we follow Hunter’s arguments to their logical conclusion it would mean that God, according to Hunter, is capricious, vicious, and hateful. Hunter’s God is a trickster and a liar, and he should have had the cojones to say so.
After this single point, however, Hunter states the same thing over and over and over throughout 175 boring pages. His primary addition to this argument is that the very fact that Darwin mentioned God in his book means that evolution is really “entirely” an argument against the positive view of God rather than for evolution. Of course, Darwin made such comments in his book. Any new theory is going to point out how it is different from the prevailing theory.
When he’s not reemphasizing the above point, Hunter is claiming that the evidence for evolution is simply not evidence. He makes this claim over and over…, with no justification whatsoever. He has to know that he’s engaging in “baffling with bullshit.”
Finally, though, the worst part of this book is its cowardice. I wondered if Hunter would have the guts to say what lies at the heart of his argument. He didn’t. I wasn’t surprised, since it would have horribly insulted the Christians who probably make up the book’s primary audience. If we follow Hunter’s arguments to their logical conclusion it would mean that God, according to Hunter, is capricious, vicious, and hateful. Hunter’s God is a trickster and a liar, and he should have had the cojones to say so.
August 26, 2020
This is a good book! It clearly shows how evolutionists have to use metaphysical arguments in defense of evolution because scientific arguments clearly are not enough. The author quotes from so many evolutionist authors beginning even before Darwin until the present day and shows how they all paint a picture of God that is not Biblical but bolsters their reasons for accepting evolution. He also shows the weakness of scientific arguments that make metaphysical reasons necessary. The author also shows the weakness of the theistic evolution views. They are acceptable neither to evolutions nor to Biblical creationists. I recommend it.
July 15, 2014
His main point - that Darwinism serves as a kind of theodicy - is a good one and commonly seen; especially in the "God wouldn't have done it that way" type arguments which are clearly not scientific arguments, but theological ones.
While we usually see these arguments used by atheists as an attempt to discredit the Bible, I would add that many Christians also accept Darwinism not because they distrust the Bible but because they believe evolution is the best way to explain the problem of natural evil and suffering. Hunter shows how this results from an incorrect view of the nature of God, and the doctrine of the fall.
While we usually see these arguments used by atheists as an attempt to discredit the Bible, I would add that many Christians also accept Darwinism not because they distrust the Bible but because they believe evolution is the best way to explain the problem of natural evil and suffering. Hunter shows how this results from an incorrect view of the nature of God, and the doctrine of the fall.
August 10, 2019
Specious arguments against evolution
Cornelius Hunter's thesis is that Darwinism and the theory of evolution in general rest on metaphysical "presuppositions" that are themselves unscientific, and that therefore Darwinism is really theology in disguise. To support his case Hunter repeatedly makes the argument that Darwin and various evolutionists are saying in effect, "God would never have made the world this way; therefore there was no divine creation."
Although some evolutionists, usually through carelessness of expression or contextual ambiguity, have made statements similar to that--Hunter quotes Stephen Jay Gould as writing something similar on page 48--when they have, they are mistaken, just as Hunter is mistaken in supposing that such an argument underpins Darwinism.
Evolution has a lot more going for it than a specious argument. Hunter is aware of this and in the course of the book tries to cast doubt on the overwhelming tide of evidence for evolution from the fossil record through molecular biology. Here's a typical example from page 38: "We have no idea how the genetic code originated; therefore we can hardly appeal to its existence as evidence for evolution." But that doesn't follow. I may not be able to account for the origination of the rock that went through my window, nonetheless I can appeal to it as the proximate cause of the broken glass. And on pages 31-32 we find, "At the core of evolutionary theory is Darwin's law stating that in most instances it is the fittest that reproduce. But due to the complexities of nature and its life forms, we usually cannot measure fitness aside from counting offspring. Those organisms that leave more offspring are usually more fit, but we are not sure precisely why." Here Hunter reveals that he doesn't understand that evolutionary fitness is defined strictly in terms of reproductive success, period. It has nothing to do with "complexities of nature," and there is no more precise way to measure fitness.
Hunter also argues at length that Darwin was led in part to his theory of evolution through a desire to "reconcile the ways of God to man" (Milton) and especially to account for the existence of evil in this world. Again this is specious. Darwin may have been led, in part, to his theory of evolution because of his religious beliefs, but that has no bearing on the validity or effectiveness of the theory of evolution. Indeed, whatever Darwin's motivation was, it is irrelevant to the validity of evolution.
However the main fault of this book is simply a misrepresentation of just what it is that has made evolution the enormously persuasive theory that it is. Hunter writes on page 162, "But in fact the theory of evolution relies on the belief that God never would have created the world as we find it." But this is emphatically NOT what evolutionists are saying. It's not that God would never have created the world this way (or any other way, for that matter) but that the intricacies of the fossil and molecular record are better explained by evolution than by an appeal to a metaphysics. God might have divinely created everything in seven days and made it look like billions of years. That supposition can never be disproved. It is also the case that the moon could be made of green cheese and the experience of NASA and our scientific instruments are being fooled by the Green Cheese God. If I say that "God wouldn't work that way" (as Hunter accuses evolutionists of saying), I would indeed be committing myself to knowledge I can't possibly have, and if I say this is proof that the moon is made of rock and mineral, etc., I have made a simple logical error. But I would not say that, and neither do evolutionists say (if they are careful with their words) that evolution is proven because God would not work in such and such a way. What IS being said is that the report of our senses is better evidence than an arbitrary appeal to metaphysics, which is exactly the way science cannot work. The Green Cheese God may indeed exist and he may be fooling us to test our faith in him, but to paraphrase Damon Runyon, that ain't the way to bet.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “Understanding Evolution and Ourselves”
Cornelius Hunter's thesis is that Darwinism and the theory of evolution in general rest on metaphysical "presuppositions" that are themselves unscientific, and that therefore Darwinism is really theology in disguise. To support his case Hunter repeatedly makes the argument that Darwin and various evolutionists are saying in effect, "God would never have made the world this way; therefore there was no divine creation."
Although some evolutionists, usually through carelessness of expression or contextual ambiguity, have made statements similar to that--Hunter quotes Stephen Jay Gould as writing something similar on page 48--when they have, they are mistaken, just as Hunter is mistaken in supposing that such an argument underpins Darwinism.
Evolution has a lot more going for it than a specious argument. Hunter is aware of this and in the course of the book tries to cast doubt on the overwhelming tide of evidence for evolution from the fossil record through molecular biology. Here's a typical example from page 38: "We have no idea how the genetic code originated; therefore we can hardly appeal to its existence as evidence for evolution." But that doesn't follow. I may not be able to account for the origination of the rock that went through my window, nonetheless I can appeal to it as the proximate cause of the broken glass. And on pages 31-32 we find, "At the core of evolutionary theory is Darwin's law stating that in most instances it is the fittest that reproduce. But due to the complexities of nature and its life forms, we usually cannot measure fitness aside from counting offspring. Those organisms that leave more offspring are usually more fit, but we are not sure precisely why." Here Hunter reveals that he doesn't understand that evolutionary fitness is defined strictly in terms of reproductive success, period. It has nothing to do with "complexities of nature," and there is no more precise way to measure fitness.
Hunter also argues at length that Darwin was led in part to his theory of evolution through a desire to "reconcile the ways of God to man" (Milton) and especially to account for the existence of evil in this world. Again this is specious. Darwin may have been led, in part, to his theory of evolution because of his religious beliefs, but that has no bearing on the validity or effectiveness of the theory of evolution. Indeed, whatever Darwin's motivation was, it is irrelevant to the validity of evolution.
However the main fault of this book is simply a misrepresentation of just what it is that has made evolution the enormously persuasive theory that it is. Hunter writes on page 162, "But in fact the theory of evolution relies on the belief that God never would have created the world as we find it." But this is emphatically NOT what evolutionists are saying. It's not that God would never have created the world this way (or any other way, for that matter) but that the intricacies of the fossil and molecular record are better explained by evolution than by an appeal to a metaphysics. God might have divinely created everything in seven days and made it look like billions of years. That supposition can never be disproved. It is also the case that the moon could be made of green cheese and the experience of NASA and our scientific instruments are being fooled by the Green Cheese God. If I say that "God wouldn't work that way" (as Hunter accuses evolutionists of saying), I would indeed be committing myself to knowledge I can't possibly have, and if I say this is proof that the moon is made of rock and mineral, etc., I have made a simple logical error. But I would not say that, and neither do evolutionists say (if they are careful with their words) that evolution is proven because God would not work in such and such a way. What IS being said is that the report of our senses is better evidence than an arbitrary appeal to metaphysics, which is exactly the way science cannot work. The Green Cheese God may indeed exist and he may be fooling us to test our faith in him, but to paraphrase Damon Runyon, that ain't the way to bet.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “Understanding Evolution and Ourselves”
March 25, 2025
In some ways, I am surprised that this is not a five-star review for me. I would likely agree with Hunter on most things regarding content and beliefs about evolution and creation. Yet, even in agreement, I found the book lacking in certain areas that left me wanting more.
I commend Hunter for developing a thesis and consistently reemphasizing and building upon that thesis throughout the book. You cannot finish the book without knowing that Hunter's basic point is that underpinning evolution is a metaphysical presupposition regarding God and the presence of (natural) evil. He poses a question that sums this up well: "How could an all-good God create such a gritty reality?" (15). He argues that Darwin's metaphysical beliefs drove him to establish a theory that answered the questions these beliefs raised: "Darwin constructed his theory of evolution to explain the quandaries of the natural world. He believed that God could not be responsible for nature's carnage and inefficiency, so he proposed a purely naturalistic explanation" (173). The problem was not that he failed to establish a thesis and build a solid case, but rather that he was so adamant about proving this point that he missed opportunities to engage more deeply with some of the material he presented. There were times I felt that the "other side" would have had solid answers to the questions and complaints he raised about evolution. In many cases, his response to evolutionists' claims was simply, "Well, that's just speculation," without offering substantial scientific counterarguments. That’s what I was looking for.
The repetitive nature also made the book somewhat laborious. As one reviewer pointed out, this could have been more of a journal article than a book. I agree with that.
I applaud the effort because his thesis is important. Evolution is not pure science; there is a large dose of metaphysics foundational to it. In this sense, I did learn a lot from Hunter. This is a helpful book for understanding some of Darwin's background beliefs.
I applaud the effort, because his thesis is important. Evolution is not pure science; there is a large dose of metaphysics that are foundational. In this sense, I did learn a lot from Hunter. This is a helpful book in understanding some of Darwin's background beliefs.
I commend Hunter for developing a thesis and consistently reemphasizing and building upon that thesis throughout the book. You cannot finish the book without knowing that Hunter's basic point is that underpinning evolution is a metaphysical presupposition regarding God and the presence of (natural) evil. He poses a question that sums this up well: "How could an all-good God create such a gritty reality?" (15). He argues that Darwin's metaphysical beliefs drove him to establish a theory that answered the questions these beliefs raised: "Darwin constructed his theory of evolution to explain the quandaries of the natural world. He believed that God could not be responsible for nature's carnage and inefficiency, so he proposed a purely naturalistic explanation" (173). The problem was not that he failed to establish a thesis and build a solid case, but rather that he was so adamant about proving this point that he missed opportunities to engage more deeply with some of the material he presented. There were times I felt that the "other side" would have had solid answers to the questions and complaints he raised about evolution. In many cases, his response to evolutionists' claims was simply, "Well, that's just speculation," without offering substantial scientific counterarguments. That’s what I was looking for.
The repetitive nature also made the book somewhat laborious. As one reviewer pointed out, this could have been more of a journal article than a book. I agree with that.
I applaud the effort because his thesis is important. Evolution is not pure science; there is a large dose of metaphysics foundational to it. In this sense, I did learn a lot from Hunter. This is a helpful book for understanding some of Darwin's background beliefs.
I applaud the effort, because his thesis is important. Evolution is not pure science; there is a large dose of metaphysics that are foundational. In this sense, I did learn a lot from Hunter. This is a helpful book in understanding some of Darwin's background beliefs.
November 2, 2017
Interesting thesis, but could have been an essay rather than a book. Should have spent more time on the counter-factuals that he claims undermine evolutionary theory, and less time repeating himself. He’s correct that many proponents of evolution make theological claims that go beyond the bounds of the evidence they rely on. Most interesting was his account of the the problem of evil vs the problem of morality, and the enduring influence of Gnosticism in scientific and religious arguments.
March 16, 2023
Highly technical explanation of several theories of evolution and explanations of those theories proofs.
Dante is cited. He explained evil as being rooted in man. Author gives multiple examples of cruelty in lower animals.
Amazed to discover how evolution could be traced in chemical developments in organisms of several levels.
The most important idea I found was that Darwin's theories aren't perfect, but they're still the best thing we've got.
Dante is cited. He explained evil as being rooted in man. Author gives multiple examples of cruelty in lower animals.
Amazed to discover how evolution could be traced in chemical developments in organisms of several levels.
The most important idea I found was that Darwin's theories aren't perfect, but they're still the best thing we've got.
September 1, 2011
Darwinian evolution teaches that all humans are inherently good. The problem, as stated clearly in the book's subtitle, is that evil exists in this world and many humans bear responsibility for causing and condoning the suffering of others. When evolutionary evidence is examined with an open mind, the metaphysical and philosophical aspects of the theory really come into the open. Unfortunately, the evidence is rarely examined in this matter in our nation's primary schools or universities.
October 13, 2014
Overall, I found the author of Darwin’s God to be successful in elucidating the theological underpinnings of evolution. However, this does not disprove Darwinian Theory. Nevertheless, Hunter’s work does weaken the proposed evidence for evolution by exposing some of it to be not empirical science but theology.
June 12, 2008
GOOD BOOK
April 20, 2010
Whew. This was exhausting. Although the overall arguments were interesting, one has to trudge through quite a lot of biological detail to get there.
June 20, 2010
I disagree with some of his points, but I think the theme that Darwinian theory serves as a kind of theodicy is interesting and accurate.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews