Several others have written about Del's book, and I will not
duplicate too much in my comments. I would like to endorse the
general opinion expressed by others that this is a book worth
reading.
At the time of the Arkansas trial, it was said (I forget who)
that Morris and Gish could not be called as witnesses because the
lawyers would have a field day exploring (exposing?) their
published arguments. Having read Del's book, I can appreciate
this better than I've ever done before. This is not a book for
anyone who has heroes on either side of the "Battle" - all the
leading figures seem to have fallen short - an indication that
the vast majority of readers will learn something.
I particularly appreciated the philosophy of science sections.
For some time, it has seemed to me that positivistic approaches
to science have characterised much of the debate. Popper and
Kuhn are referred to - but their challenge to positivism has not
been absorbed and digested. This book is a very helpful, concise
presentation of the issues. This paragraph caught my attention:
"So our perceptions, theorising and evaluations of theories all
seem to have an inescapable human tinge to them. And given the
significant interflow among those various components, human
tinges in any one of the areas have at least the potential to
seep into other areas as well. Thus we cannot eliminate
humanness from science (as inductivists wanted to do), nor can
we quarantine that humanness in one small corner of science (as
hypothetico-deductivists wanted to do. Science is done by
humans, and it cannot escape what is inescapably human. Our
science is limited to humanly available concepts, humanly
available data, humanly available patterns of reasoning, humanly
shaped notions of understanding and explanation, and humanly
structured pictures of what the world must be like. How could
it be otherwise? Science seems to have a serious and incurable
case of the humans". (page 129).
Who are the creationists? There is no doubt the focus is on the
YECs, but several names crop up which are not generally linked
to the YEC camp. I noted Johnson, Bradley, Thaxton, Moreland,
Hartwig and Meyer. I found this rather confusing - but I think
the explanation appears on page 180: a creationist is anyone who
rejects (or appears to reject) a mechanistic explanation of the
origins of living things. This definition emerges, I think, from
Del's analysis of attitudes to theistic evolution.
Whilst this attitude may be a unifying feature for creationists,
there are undoubtedly very serious and significant differences
within this broader grouping of creationists. Del refers to an
"upper tier" of creationists, but the situation seems to me to
be rather more complex than is suggested by this upper/lower
distinction.
The TE chapter is a real puzzle. There is much good reading, for
example, on the various misunderstandings that exist between TEs
and "creationists". But then the discussion moves on to consider
various approaches to "intervention" - and in my experience,
"intervention" is not an ingredient of TE thinking. TEs
emphasise continuity and they do not accept that explanations of
origins need or should involve "intervention" in any way. Much
of this discussion seems far more appropriate to PCs.
Considerations of design are discussed and it is shown that the
concept of design, including design by an intelligent Creator
God, is not to be excluded from science. This, of course, is a
major part of Johnson's case against TE, which has no place for
design in its scientific thinking - because it is committed to
methodological naturalism. Yet, in Del's conclusion, he says
that "None of the above objections to TE seems to work very well"
(p.195). It seems to me that Johnson's arguments do "work very
well"!
The conclusions are also, in my view, rather strange. Having
looked at weaknesses in arguments, I would want to provide a
framework in which fruitful debate could be undertaken. Although
some arguments may be presented wrongly, this does not mean that
there is no argument! People are just not getting on top of
their logic. What are the key arguments that creationists need
to address; and what criticisms of evolution have substance?
Focusing on some issues where work has to be done seems to me to
be a worthy outcome of this study. Del does not need to provide
answers, but just highlight the questions where satisfactory
answers have not been forthcoming. However, from the book, Del's
goal was not to steer the debate, but to suggest that
participants in the debate clean up their act, unhitch their egos
and "do some hard, maybe even painful work. And maybe the
various sides should talk. Not debate - talk" (p.198). My
preference would have been for a somewhat stronger and more
pointed conclusion to promote this objective.
Overall, a "must" read. From what I know of "Talk-Origins":
required study for all participants. Thanks, Del, for giving
us the benefits of this research.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***