Ridley selected some of Darwin's most important passages from his various works- from "Voyage of the Beagle" to his well-known "Origin of Species". Although some of Darwin's original passages are a bit hard to read, Ridley does a great job in summarizing beforehand the aspects of each selection in the introductions to the passages. Ridley also points out some of the truths and misinterpretations made by Darwin without bias.

If you want a compilation of Darwin's important passages in one book, or just a solid introduction to Darwin, his theories and works, this book will be sufficient for everyone.

The Darwin Reader, Second Edition, is well worth the read. I have yet to find a more helpful and interesting compilation of Darwin's works. With the second edition, Ridley expands the book with more information about Darwin's life and gives helpful hints on where to continue research in this field. In my opinion, this book is targeted for the college student with the new preface. A top ten in my library!

I recommend this autobiography to anyone interested in any field of science, or anyone who wants to read about one of the most influential men of all time. It is a very well written autobiography, and is easy to follow. It contains material to catch the interest of anyone form the biological scientist in the field to the average person making up their summer reading list. For the student that has taken any biology class that talked about Darwin, it adds an entire new dimension to his theories when you feel like you know a part of the man by reading his very words. I would recommend this autobiography, to anyone who wants to read a well-written autobiography about the life of an extraordinary scientist and man.

A man of such renown has been written up in many volumes. His letters and his self-knowledge have won readers for more than a century now. A few of his intimate recollections are presented here in one small volume, most helpfully. But to Darwin's own candor and depth of memory the editor--a scholar and a person plainly admiring this great and modest man--has linked the living witness of a dozen people of many kinds who visited, questioned, even quarreled with the biologist.

As in a well-made play, the qualities of Darwin's character unfold from the tales. Here is the child with a conscience, who admitted to made-up wonders--and soon regrets the deception. Here is Alfred Wallace, the specimen collector from Indonesia, who wrote a brief paper to Darwin himself to seek aid in publishing the essay that described in brief the very theory Darwin had spent twenty years documenting to convince the wide world. Alfred Walllace sent it to that very man just as Darwin's big treatise was newly ready. What is wonderful is how Darwin and Wallace understood that stroke of fate, and remained lifelong friends in the face of the celebrity Darwin won and deserved, as Wallace's insight was given what was due him.

Here are Darwin's friends--Huxleys, Hooker, his cousin Galton, his devoted sons--recalling family life. Here too is the feminist author Harriet Martineau, guest at the Darwin's a few times, and her estimate of this man. The power of this pageant of commentary is all but unique among biographies, even though nothing really new is here.

Most touching--and most winning--of all is the little-read narrative by father Charles himself of the life of his oldest daughter Ann, who died at ten years age of a delayed effect of scarlet fever. With no sentimentality, but with discernment and love, he writes: "She had a truly feminine interest in dress...such undisguised satisfaction escaping somehow all tinge of conceit & vanity beamed from her face, when she got hold of some ribbon...of her mamma's."

True simplicity, dignity, and precise perceptions shine from this book of many writers (a few of them enemies of Darwin's). It is a model of compilation, and would repay a wide readership even if it were the drama of a comfortable undistinguished Victorian, and not that of arguably the most influential of scientists and his wide circle.

Philip & Phylis Morrison

This book discusses the origins of Darwin's ideas of competition, natural selection and adaptation in the context of Malthus's socio-economic ideas. See also 'Origins of Mendelism' by R. Olby and 'The Mendellian Revolution' by P. J. Bowler for the contrast with Mendel's ideas. Darwin was influenced by vague ideas from economics, whereas Mendel, who independently laid the groundwork for understanding evolution at the cellular level, started with a foundation in physics.

An outstanding review of Darwin's work in a religous and philisphical context written by the premier scholar of Darwiniana.

Mr. Keynes (great-grandson of Charles Darwin) re-plays the voyage of the Beagle, with some interesting back-up material. We read of Darwin's early life and his family connections, and the Beagle's Capt. FitzRoy's interest in returning to Tierra del Fuego. Included are plenty of extracts from others' letters and logs, plus many original drawings & paintings. And there is a nice touch; at the top of each page is the month and year, so you are continually reminded of just how much time has passed.

Having read and enjoyed Darwin's 'Voyage of the Beagle', I was not expecting much in the way of startling new evidence re his discoveries & theories. And there is not; but what IS there, is more focus on his time in Patagonia, which surprisingly covered 2 years - nearly half the 5 year trip ... which is not apparent in the 'Voyage' (in my faulty memory) ... And the Beagle only spent 5 weeks in the Galapagos, but that short stay provided most of the hard evidence which fuelled Darwin's later theorising.

Further visits to N.Z., Australia and Tasmania showed the devastation to the indiginous wildlife caused by introduced species, which prompted more thoughts on survival. Had more time been available in Mauritius or Madagascar, his theorising might have been more concentrated and conclusions derived earlier (but of course, 20/20 hindsight always provides the best view!).

Mr. Keynes provides a modern perspective on the scientific method of the young (23) Darwin, especially in his noting exactly which strata fossils were found, and his meticulously accurate un-biased descriptions of specimens (not a predominant trait in the scientific community at that time!). Particular focus is placed on his geological and fossil studies - largely glossed over by Darwin himself - revealing some deep background thinking which was formative in constructing his Theory of Evolution. The penultimste chapter reveals how Darwin spent the 20-odd years leading up to the publication of 'Origin'; how his Father and reading Malthus simulated his imagination; how his friendship with Lyell and Wallace proved crucial in the book's publication. It also underlines the idea that luck, having independant means (something denied to Wallace), and being in the right place at the right time (like Capt. Cook) probably had more to do with his success than his brilliance did.
In a touching final chapter we feel the love and friendship that grew between FitzRoy and Darwin during those 5 years on board, FitzRoy's subsequent jobs, then his final descent into depression and suicide..

Not an easy read; Mr. Keynes' writing style is not as fluid or easy on the eye as some other writers in the popular science arena, and some of the attached letters are hard going. I found myself frequently re-reading passages to ensure that I had the correct gist of the text.
However, that apart, this is an illuminating, fresh look at what was probably the most important voyage - ever - for philosophical science.

Peter Bowler presents a synopsis of Charles Darwin's contributions to science, history, and culture. This book tries to provide a quick summary of the important periods in Darwin's life, touching briefly on each significant aspect.

Much of the book is written in a somewhat technical way and is a bit too wordy. I had a difficult time maintaining my interest while I was reading some of the chapters. Certain areas deserved more coverage, like the reaction when Darwin went public with his theories.

On the positive side, this book does give some good insight on Darwin's relationships with the other prominent scientists of his time and there are some moments where the slowness of the book becomes more interesting, like the section that covers Darwin's voyage of discovery aboard the Beagle. Overall, however, Bowler does not really present anything new or profound that we haven't heard before.

While you may not come away from this book feeling you would've called him Charlie, you will have derived a more than nodding acquaintance with an exceptional person. In the beginning -of the book- there seems to be an overemphasis on theological & philosophical issues but that is a clever construction that skillfully leads you to a profound grasp of Darwin's iconoclastic interpretations of mundane phenomena from which his theories grew. In the end, you regret even more never having met the man.

In his biography of Charles Darwin, Peter Bowler dispels many of the misconceptions surrounding Darwin's immediate influence on the scientific world. Bowler argues that Darwin's theory did not spark a scientific revolution which caused a majority of scientists to abandon their former views on natural history. Bowler explains that Darwin was not the first naturalist to advance a theory of evolution. Most importantly, Bowler reveals that Darwin's theory was not accepted blindly by the scientific community. In fact, many of Darwin's most faithful supporters found scientific weaknesses in his theory. As Bowler states, "Darwin's gereatest achievement was to force the majority of his contemporaries to reconsider their attitudes towards the basic idea of evolution" (p. 128).

Bowler's book was the first biography I have read of Darwin, and I found it very enjoyable. It is one of the college books that I have kept. I definitely recommend it to any reader interested in Darwin's work and influence.

As a recent convert to Darwinism, I found myself comparing my reasons for accepting evolution against Hunter's thesis that evolutionists are influenced more by metaphysical than strictly scientific arguments. While demonstrating that evolutionists from the time of Darwin have argued their case by appealing to a Victorian notion of God (e.g., "God would not have directly created things the way we see them..."), he fails to consider that many of these arguments may be reformulated to avoid the mention of God while nonetheless retaining their evidentiary value. For example, Hunter discusses the fact that all mammals except guinea pigs and primates are able to synthesize their own vitamin C. Guinea pigs and primates, including humans, have an apparently non-functional gene that corresponds to the gene responsible for vitamin C production in other mammals. Hunter maintains that, without certain presuppositions concerning the nature of God, this argument fails as evidence for human-primate shared ancestry. Hunter includes the following quote by theistic evolutionist Terry Gray:

"Further analysis shows that this gene is a pseudogene, i.e., it looks like a real gene, but it is not expressed due to a mutation in the gene itself or in the region of DNA that controls the expression of that gene. Now we could argue that in God's inscrutable purpose he placed that vitamin C synthesis look-alike gene in the guinea pig or human DNA or we could admit the more obvious conclusion, that humans and primates and other mammals share a common ancestor" (p. 168).

By highlighting Gray's appeal to God's nature, Hunter justifies dismissing such evidence as metaphysical rather than scientific. Throughout the book, Hunter employs this novel approach to circumvent some of the strongest evidence for common descent. As is the case with pseudogenes, however, textual critics routinely use copyist errors for determining the ancestral relationships among historical manuscripts. It would be beyond coincidence to suppose that there exists no ancestral relationship in a series of texts containing the same set of differences vis-à-vis the majority of other manuscripts. The vitamin C pseudogene is just one example of many shared between humans and primates, and the differences in the pseudogenes grow with distance from humans in the standard phylogenic tree. Contrary to Hunter's claim that evolution makes no significant, testable predictions, the existence of the human vitamin C pseudogene was predicted and then discovered by Nishikimi et al in 1992. Do pseudogenes prove common decent in a mathematical sense, and are such arguments free from all metaphysical assumptions? Perhaps not, but at the end of the day, when we look into the mirror, we must ask ourselves, are we playing games with the evidence, trying to find loopholes to excuse us from its weight, or did we in fact descend from earlier primates?

Ironically, intelligent design theorist Michael Behe, who offers praise for Hunter's book, finds the evidence for common descent from pseudogenes to be conclusive (see Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God, p. 164). One wonders how Behe and Hunter can coexist in the same camp, given their diametrically opposed views on such a fundamental question as common descent.

Though I agree with Hunter that the nature of God should be left out of any strictly scientific discussion, there is a place for such considerations when evaluating ID claims. Whatever else might be supposed about God's nature, it is generally agreed that, if He exists, He is not deceptive. This is why many creationists are now abandoning the young-earth creationists' "appearance of age" theory. Yet Hunter is disturbed when evolutionists provide evidence for evolution and assert that "God would not have done it that way." Perhaps He did do it that way, but at the risk of introducing the strong appearance of evolution.

In addition to highlighting the metaphysical underpinnings of many of the arguments for evolution, Hunter presents an array of scientific difficulties in evolutionary theory. Foremost among them is the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. He is not content to focus simply on the relatively sparse record leading up to the Cambrian explosion, but amazingly turns the very dense record of the reptile-mammal transition in his favor:

"Douglas Futuyma echoes this sentiment: 'The gradual transition from therapsid reptiles to mammals is so abundantly documented by scores of species in every stage of transition that it is impossible to tell which therapsid species were the actual ancestors of modern mammals.' If it is 'notoriously difficult to decipher true ancestral-descendant relationships,' then how can evolutionists be so sure there is one? Certainly we can select our favorite sequence, but the fossils cannot tell us which is the correct sequence, or even whether there is a correct sequence at all" (p. 77).

The upshot is that if the record of transition is sparse, that is evidence against evolution, and if it is dense, that is also evidence against evolution. However, if we find texts that appear to be intermediate between Latin and French (a descendent of Latin), but we do not know whether they are on a direct line to modern French or on a line to a dead French patois, can this be construed as an argument that French did not evolve from Latin? As a largely historical science, evolution suffers from many of the same difficulties as historical linguistics. If Hunter were sufficiently motivated, he could no doubt uncover many difficulties with historical linguistics (e.g., Japanese is apparently not related to any mainland languages), but this would not prove that, for example, Latin did not evolve into Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and French.

I give three stars to Hunter for introducing a novel and thought-provoking argument into the tired debate over evolution, as well as for not hesitating to include a number of quotes supporting evolution. Though he attempts to refute these arguments, this may be the only exposure that many readers ever receive to the evidence for evolution.

Darwin's God is a fast, fun, enjoyable read that should be read by anybody interested in the origins controversy. Cornelius Hunter does an excellent job of separating science and scientific theories from the idea of Darwinism. There is this false notion held by some that Creation is unscientific while Darwinism is scientific. Mr. Hunter, however, shows that this is not true, that Darwinism is built upon a certain concept of God, and that the evidence that is often used to support Darwinism is really nothing more than arguments against a specific idea of creation:

"We often hear that evolution is an objective, scientific theory...But this is a great myth of our time. Evolution is not a story of bold scientific stroke that has been beautifully borne out by the advancement of science, against metaphysical resistance. It is nearly the exact opposite. It is not that evolution is utterly scientific or that it completely lacks evidence. Evolution can be properly formulated as a scientific theory with plenty of supporting evidence, but as such, it is unremarkable. Evolution's supporting evidence is outrun by the counterevidence. Both nineteenth-century and twentieth-century science provide more than enough challenges to put evolution's validity in doubt, but the nineteenth century's metaphysical trends have continued through and beyond the twentieth century. Evolution's compelling arguments, and the reason for its stunning success, comes not from its scientific support but from indirect arguments against creation." Pg 155

Hunter shows that evolution, wrapped inside metaphysical arguments, is given a special scientific status. Moreover, he shows that evolutionists often use "negative theological arguments about the nature of God" (i.e. that God wouldn't have done it this way, or that the eye is imperfect so it must not have been created) to support their theory. Evolutionists often claim that because there is no better argument for life's origins then evolution must be correct, or must remain so until a better theory comes along. But Hunter shows that this argument put forward by Darwinists "is itself a non-scientific statement". Pg 157

Natural evil was a problem for Darwin. So in order to "get God of the hook" for evil Darwin removed God from nature. This however is not a scientific question but a metaphysical one, and Hunter shows that when Darwin did this he left the realm of science and entered the theological arena. Problems arise about the evolution-creation controversy because people fail to understand the metaphysical and theological assumptions that evolutionists make. And, as Mr. Hunter points out, the evolution-creation controversy will remain confusing to the public until this fact is recognized. "Evolution", Hunter writes, "is about God." Pg 175

Good job Mr Hunter, keep up the good work.

At its Root.

A book review by Dan Schobert

It is fair to say that the question of evil has long vexed the human mind. What may not be so obvious is the relationship between this concern and the idea of organic evolution.

Cornelius Hunter delves into this realm with his recent book, Darwin's God. (Brazos Press, 2001) Subtitled 'Evolution and the Problem of Evil,' this work of just under 200 pages takes a close look at the arguments usually put on the table in support of the evolutionary paradigm. At their heart, as Hunter points out, these thoughts are not so much evidence for evolution but are arguments against Creation. This being the case, as the thought goes, since creation cannot be supported, evolution wins by default. In essence these things are classic 'straw man' arguments. Hunter, described on the book's cover as a student at the University of Illinois working on a Ph.D. in biophysics, points to argument after argument and shows that these are generally drawn up in response to an individual's particular view of God, and how God works or doesn't work. Having constructed this view, nature is studied and found to not harmonize with the preconceived notions. Therefore any creationary perspective must be wrong; at least incorrect.

There are nine chapters in this book. They are: (1)-Where Science Meets Religion, (2)-Comparative Anatomy, (3)-Small-Scale Evolution, (4)-The Fossil Record, (5)-One Long Argument, (6)- Modernism before Darwin, (7)-The Victorians, (8)-Evolution and Metaphysics and (9)- Blind Presuppositionalism.

What Hunter has done is to elucidate something most thinking scientists have long recognized. It is that at the heart of this discussion about ultimate origins rests a number of metaphysical concepts. As these have been pushed further and further away from public consideration, they attract less and less attention until we arrive at the present hour when they are completely absent...and people think the debate is (incorrectly) about science vs. religion.

By coming to grips with the foundational thoughts of so many in the evolutionary camp, (both now and in the past) scientists can more honestly address the real concerns. "Many wonder," says Hunter, "why evolutionists make such high claims of success while the theory incurs scientific difficulties that would do away with most theories. The answer is that evolutionists find their confidence not in positive arguments for evolution but in negative arguments against the modern idea of creation. When evolutionists claim that a particular scientific observation proves their theory, they are not committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent of the premise they wish to prove, rather, they are denying the consequent of the premise they wish to disprove. Evolution is proved not because it is verified but by the process of elimination. As Ernst Mayr wrote...it must be admitted that Darwinism has achieved acceptance less by irrefutable proofs in its favor and more by the default of opposing theories." (Toward a new Philosophy of Biology, Harvard University Press, 1988)

Hunter concludes by comparing the teaching of evolution with the statement issued some years ago by the National Academy of Sciences, a statement which stated that only 'science should be taught in science classes.' ".... the evolutionists become their own judge," says Hunter. 'The only possible conclusion is that evolution should not be taught in science classes, for Darwin's theory goes far beyond "scientific observation, interpretation, and experimentation." It includes religious presuppositions outside of science. Evolutionists argue that homologies and small-scale changes in species can only be explained by evolution, and that the fossil record makes evolution a fact. Evolutionists come to these conclusions because they believe in a certain type of God and creation, beliefs that are not open to scientific debate."

"Ultimately," says Hunter, "evolution is about God."

Hunter's book is an easy read and is one which any student of science, especially students working toward a degree involving biology would want to read. It should be required reading in any high school or college biology class. Sadly it probably won't be. Not that the things said are untrue but that they expose the sinking sand upon which so many in science have built their houses. To expose the sand is to expose the heart of those individuals choosing to ignore God.

April 2001

Although there are many racist and sexist ideas, this was the climate in which Darwin wrote this book. Many of the details are grossly in error, but the book was written over 100 years ago. Many advances in knowledge have been made since then. The basic premise, and the fact that Darwin looked to the African apes as a point of origin for humans is the real beauty of the book. Darwin is many times falsely blamed for "Social Darwinism" which he never proposed nor advocated. Just because someone uses Darwin as a justification for negative ideas and or actions, does not mean that Darwin should be vilified for it. Descent was not a social commentary, but a scientific treatise, and should be treated as such.

This book contains a wealth of facts, compiled during Darwin's life on matters which were highly controversial at the time. His prior book, Origin of Species, provided the scientific framework for thinking that mankind might, in some way, be a descent from the animal kingdom. For personal reasons, there was some doubt, at the time, whether it would ever be diplomatic to admit such a thing to the human beings themselves, right in their very faces. The title which Darwin placed on this book showed how easy it would be to imagine that the fundamental distinction was closely linked to the question of whom an individual might choose to have sex with, given the great parallels to a wide range of behavior in the animal kingdom. I have looked in this book for evidence that philosophy is a set of ideas adopted mainly in relation to sex, but the philosophy of the fittest for that kind of activity seems to be a bit more modern than Darwin. On a scale of stillborn to born with a brain, Darwin was definitely born with a brain, but it didn't make him crazy enough to suggest that which we may imply ourselves. There are a lot of facts in this book, compared to the number of suggestions, but it shows a considerable amount of thought.

While I would never presume - as some reviewers might - to misstate what is said in this classic volume and then presume to suggest that "now you don't need to read the book," I will say that this is an excellent edition of a classic work. All who have any interest in the history of Darwinian evolution and particularly the historical views of the evolution of man will find this fascinating reading, particularly if the context can be juxtaposed with what has been discovered since Darwin's time. Of course, times have changed, our hopefully less euro-centric views have been altered and there has been considerable progress through the generations since the original publication by Darwin, and that makes the progress of human knowledge all the more fascinating, as well as the insight Darwin obviously possessed in his day. This one's a "must-read" for anyone interested in the history of science.

Michael Ruse deserves alot of credit for seriously tackling the subject of the compatibility of Darwinism and Christianity. He also deserves credit for understanding and acknowledging basic Christian beliefs, something that unfortunately cannot be said for some others, like Stephen Jay Gould, who have written on the intersection of science and religion.

Before reaching the substance of Ruse's work, we need to clear up some matters raised by other reviewers. Several young earth creationists have pointed out that the Bible teaches that death--not only human death but animal death, predation and bloodshed, as well--is a result of Adam's sin and the resulting fall of the human race. Rom. 5:12; 8:18-22, I Cor. 15:21-22. But if the fossiliferous strata are interpreted according to conventional uniformitarian geology, it proves that death has been around for millions of years before humans existed, and thus before the first human sin. This is a valid point, but we Bible-believing Christians need to realize that our problem on this point is with uniformitarian geology, (something I call Lyellism), not with evolution or Darwinism. Charles Lyell had already won the day for uniformitarian geology almost 30 years before the publication of Darwin's "Origin of the the Species." The men who agreed with Lyell that vast ages were needed to form the fossiliferous strata were creationists, many of them Anglican clergymen like Coneybeare and William Buckland. Thus, we cannot blame Darwin for theological problems created by uniformitarian geology (and I agree that there are many). Ruse only spends a couple of pages breifly discussing these developments in geology.

This book is addressed to the possible conflicts between Darwinism, with its teaching that humans evolved from lower primates, and Christianity, with its teaching that humans were created by God in God's own image. The central doctrine of Christianity is that Christ is the Son of God, and that Christ died to save fallen humanity. This is not a doctrine peculiar to any particular brand or branch of Christianity. All Christians believe that Christ died to save us; He is our Redeemer. How might this central doctrine conflict with Darwinism? Because it presupposes the need for a Redeemer. It presupposes that there was a fall, that man sinned and fell from grace, something that is taught in Genesis but denied by Darwinism. It seems to me that this is the central conflict between Darwinism and Christianity, and I think, after reading the relevant parts of this book, that Ruse would agree.

To my mind, Ruse gets alot of credit for recognizing that there is a real and substantial conflict here. "an essential component of Christian theology, . . . is that humans are descended from a unique pair (monogenism). That part of the Adam and Eve story cannot be interpreted symbolically. . . . the trouble is that this goes completely against our thinking about the nature of the evolutionary process. Successful species like humans do not pass through single-pair bottlenecks: there is certainly no evidence that this was true of Homo sapiens, a species which seems to have been well spread around the earth" (pp. 75-76). Ruse admits that "we seem to have reached an impasse." (p. 77).

Thus, by page 77, Ruse has spotted the problem. Although the book goes on to page 218, I don't think he ever came close to solving it. The general thrust of the book is that something like what has come to be known as "theistic evolution" is compatible with Christianity. "It is not by chance that the universe exists and it is not by chance that we exist within the universe." (p. 83) But is the idea that God guided the evolutionary process compatible with what Ruse calls "full-blooded Darwinism"? Doesn't evolution teach exactly that it is just by chance that we exist? Those readers familiar with the writings of Stephen Jay Gould, especially "Wonderful Life", know that he teaches that evolution need not have resulted in the human race. Indeed, it was just the luck of the draw that humans ever evolved. Ruse thrashes around on the horns of this dilemma for several pages, never mustering up the courage to say that Gould is just flat wrong. So what remains of "theistic evolution"? "The Christian would be foolish to think that Darwinism insists that humans are uniquely significant and bound to appear." (p. 91). Wow! Not much remains even of theistic evolution.

Ultimately, Ruse admits that there had to be a fall in order for Christianity to work. "In the course of evolution, there must have been a first moment of conscious moral choice. That is the point at which the 'fall of humanity' began and humans were estranged from that natural fellowship with God which should have been theirs, and from their natural ability to relate unselfishly to one another." (p. 205, quoting Ward) But, again, it is not compatible with Darwinism: "And the whole business of an original, unique Adam and Eve goes flatly against modern evolutionary biology. . . . Is one supposed to believe that the parents of Adam and Eve--for they will have had such in the evolutionary story, if not in Genesis-- were soulless or sinless or what? And what about their brothers and sisters, and the next generation of homo sapiens, most of whom were not descended from Adam and Eve?" (p. 209)

Ruse just never solves this basic contradiction. He never comes close. But I salute him for trying. If nothing else, the fact that a man as clever and well educated as Ruse could not solve the basic contradiction between Darwinism and Christianity confirmed for me what I already suspected: the contradiction is insoluble.

Michael Ruse seriously considers whether the major tenets of Christianity are compatible with Darwinism. He convincingly shows that a Christian view of human nature which includes free will, original sin and the soul are not excluded by science in general nor by Darwinism in particular. Questions such as why there is pain and suffering are also shown to have mutually supportive answers in Christianity and Darwinism. Michael Ruse clearly shows how opponents of methodological naturalism, such as Phillip Johnson, engage in bad theology as well as bad science. As a biologist, I found that although he deals with serious theological issues, Michael Ruse writes in a highly engaging and accessible style. I would highly recommend this book (along with the "Tower of Babel" by Robert Pennock and "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller) for anyone who wonders whether methodological naturalism is anti-religious. The copy of "Can a Darwinian be a Christian?" which I read was checked out from our local library. Will I now be purchasing my own copy? Absolutely!

Ruse's book is an exciting journey along the interface between science and religion. Although one might say that it's title should be "How can a darwinian be a christian?", the book does deal very seriously with the relationship between science and religion, and does thet in an original way. As a student of both philosophy of religion and life sciences I found that Ruse presents both sides' arguments very clearly and without distorting them at all (which isn't usualy easy to do). And as for the question of taking the biblical story literaly (which a few of the reviewers here thought as a must and as a destruction of Ruse's ideas) , it was the great jewish philosopher Meimonides who said that it (the story told in Genesis I 1-11) is only a story which should be interpreted according to science.