On Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:16:41 -0800 Adrian Teo <ateo@whitworth.edu> writes:
> Has anybody read the book God after Darwin by John Haught and would
> be
> willing to comment on it, please?
>
> Adrian
>
>
First, I would call your attention to the review on p. 278 of
Perspectives for December by Martin LaBar. There is another review by
John Wilson in Christianity Today, May 22, 2000, pp. 52ff. Michael Behe
has one on line at
http://www.pc4rs.org/newsletters/2000_01/Haught_Behe.html.
Then, I have read the book more than once and engaged in a book
discussion for several weeks with the faculty at Grand Canyon University.
I have less use for the book than Martin has. Haught quotes a verse when
it serves his purpose, usually twisting it to his shape. For example, his
kenosis applies to the Creator, who lets the world develop progressively
on its own, though he is an attractor somewhat like Chardin's Omega
point. (I think the total picture is inconsistent, but demonstration
would be lengthy.) This forms the basis for his "justification" of evil
in the world, a hands-off god. What he says of the deity fits the
pantheism or panentheism of process theology, not the I AM of revelation.
He does not mention the divine intervention of the incarnation, but has
an evolutionary development of the universe which ignores the fact that
the sun is destined to become a red giant and eventually the universe
will suffer a heat death--unless, as scriptures teach, God intervenes and
there is a new heavens and a new earth. But he indicates that everything
will turn out OK through, apparently, natural process. If you want to see
how to construct a god in the image of man, read Haught. But the book is
otherwise disappointing. An obvious fault, whether for evangelicals or
others, is that he posits a number of claims without any justification,
and uses them to develop his position. Had he presented a reasonable
argument for his basis, it would have been a better book. But then he
might have seen its lack of foundation and not written it.
It has been suggested that this book manifests deconstructionism. I am
not sufficiently familiar with that version of irrationalism to comment
rationally on that claim.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 06 2000 - 22:56:44 EST