Abstract

Who was it, when asked whether or not he believed in infant baptism, that replied, “Believe in it? Hell, I've seen it done!”? One might anticipate a kindred reply to the question “Can a Darwinian be a Christian?” from the irreverent pen of the philosopher Michael Ruse: “Can one be both a Darwinian and Christian? Well, one ought not be,” we might imagine his reply, “but I've actually encountered them … so evidently a Darwinian can be a Christian.”The rationale behind Ruse's affirmative answer is not so simple, although affirmative it most certainly is. Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? provides an energetic, balanced, and thoughtful consideration of the issues populating contemporary discussion about Darwinian evolution and the Christian religion. Historians of “The Evolution Wars”—the title, by the way, of Ruse's second‐most‐recent book —will remember Richard Dawkins's 1986 boast that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” . Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? stands as the most objective objection to Dawkins's claim from one who, like Dawkins, insists that “Darwinism rules triumphant” . This is the first way in which the book is praiseworthy: Ruse takes both Darwinism and Christianity seriously. While writing with zeal, good humor, and punch, Ruse, for the most part, eschews caricature, condescension, and patronizing remarks about the Christianity that he personally rejects.The result is a very rewarding book, especially for those seeking a survey of the issues and points for fruitful conversation. Following two very nicely done introductory chapters on “Darwinism” and “Christianity,” respectively, the book ambitiously devotes a chapter to each of ten subjects—every one a fitting book topic in its own right—relevant to assessing the compatibility of Christianity with Darwinian evolution: “Origins,” “Humans,” “Naturalism,” “Design,” “Pain,” “Extraterrestrials,” “Christian Ethics,” “Social Darwinism,” “Sociobiology,” and “Freedom and Determinism.” Following each focused investigation of the hurdles Christianity and Darwinism present to each other, Ruse offers some variety of this conclusion: “There is no reason now to cast aside your Christian faith” . In some cases his appreciation of Christianity is especially keen: “If you are a Darwinian looking for religious meaning, then Christianity is a religion which speaks to you. Right at its center there is a suffering god, Jesus on the Cross. This is not some contingent part of the faith, but the very core of everything. … Darwinism, a science which so stresses physical suffering, looks to Christianity, a religion which so stresses physical suffering and the divine urge to master it” .Ruse's unwillingness to cast Christianity and Darwinism into the roles of embattled irreconcilable foes requires him to oppose both Christians and Darwinists who believe their views are mutually exclusive. By insisting that Darwinism need not be embraced as “a secular religion for a new age” , Ruse places himself in opposition to such Darwinists as E. O. Wilson, Julian Huxley, Richard Dawkins, and Richard Lewontin, folks with whom he also shares much common ground. Of course Christian anti‐Darwinians, from the philosopher Alvin Plantinga to the adherents of the new Intelligent Design movement, like Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, and William Dembski, come in for a good thrashing. In short, by suggesting the compatibility of Christianity with Darwinism, Ruse will irritate his vigorous opponents who see such peacemaking efforts as a mistaken compromise.Whether or not it is a mistaken compromise, Ruse's conclusion still stands: “If there is a unifying conclusion to this book it is that while the comparison of Darwinism and Christianity may be challenging and difficult, it is also stimulating and fruitful. … Time and again what might seem to be firm barriers to the Darwinian and the Christian existing in one and the same person prove, on examination, to be precisely the points where advances can be made and understandings can be achieved” .This book would be very difficult for a young scholar to write. It successfully covers much ground quickly. This is a testimony to Ruse's writing ability and his devotion of decades to studying and writing about the history and philosophy of evolution. Even so not all the details are on mark. For example, Ruse misidentifies the Seventh‐Day Adventist prophetess Ellen G. White as “Mary Ellen White” and overstates the case for hopefulness in origin‐of‐life studies . These problems and others of Ruse's debatable contentions, however, do not detract from the book's value within its most promising venue: the college classroom. It succeeded most admirably for a course I taught in science and Christianity this past academic year. Students read it, engaged with it, even claimed that it challenged them as they enjoyed it. For anyone seeking a guide to the issues upon which further study and conversation can be fruitfully built, Ruse has provided a valuable source