 |
| |
| |
|
Science v. Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution
|
|
|
Average Rating:  out of 4 Reviews
|
Price: $19.95
|
|
Sale: $15.33
|
| |
|
Manufacturer: Polity
|
|
EAN (European Article Number): 9780745641225
|
|
Number of Items: 1
|
| |
|
|
|
Binding: Paperback
|
|
Author: Steve Fuller
|
|
Publisher: Polity
|
|
Edition: 1
|
|
Dewey Decimal Number: 576
|
|
Publication Date: 2007-10-15
|
|
Reading Level: 192
|
|
|
| |
Description: For centuries, science and religion have been portrayed as diametrically opposed. In this provocative new book, Steve Fuller examines the apparent clash between science and religion by focusing on the heated debates about evolution and intelligent design theory. In so doing, he claims that science vs. religion is in fact a false dichotomy. For Fuller, supposedly intellectual disputes, such as those between creationist and evolutionist accounts of life, often disguise other institutionally driven conflicts, such as the struggle between State and Church to be the source of legitimate authority in society.
Nowadays many conservative anti-science groups support intelligent design theory, but Fuller argues that the theory's theological roots are much more radical, based on the idea that humans were created to fathom the divine plan, perhaps even complete it. He goes on to examine the unique political circumstances in the United States that make the emergence of intelligent design theory so controversial, yet so persistent. Finally, he considers the long-term prognosis, arguing that the future remains very much undecided as society reopens the question of what it means to be human.
This book will appeal to all readers intrigued by the debates about creationism, intelligent design and evolution, especially those looking for an intellectually exciting confrontation with the politics and promise of intelligent design theory.
|
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
Customer Reviews
|
| |
|
Review Summary: A diagonal look at the controversy |
Date: 2007-12-09 |
|
| |
|
Details: In this book, Fuller displays an expertise which is neither science nor religion yet nevertheless relevant - most relevant? - to whether intelligent design (or, for that matter, evolution) should be taught in public school science classes. It basically draws in equal measures from the history, philosophy, and sociology of science to argue that while Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory has the best empirical track in biology, that is not entirely for scientific reasons, and moreover it is by no means clear that its success will be to science's benefit in the long term. The main question Fuller poses to evolutionists is how to motivate science itself - especially as the grand theoretical project of Newton, Einstein, etc. - given that it has no immediate survival value, and arguably causes many problems for our survival (e.g. nuclear energy). On the other hand, creationists have some questions to answer too: Why don't they take the biblical message of humans created in the image and likeness of God more seriously? Why do they shy away from ideas like `playing God' and `getting into the mind of God', when clearly the biblical analogy between human and divine intellects motivated the likes of Newton? In a sense, Fuller seems to be arguing that theologians need to embrace the more free-ranging scientific ambitions to really keep up with the Bible. I doubt the fundamentalists will like this message very much but it may secretly appeal to the high-tech types in places like the Discovery Institute. In any case, it strikes me as a very original line in a discussion that (especially as Levitt's comments suggest) can otherwise easily descend into a punch-and-judy show. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Kerfluffle |
Date: 2007-11-17 |
|
| |
Details: For years, Fuller has been peddling the line that the superior insight vouchsafed him by his ostensible analysis of the social background of science makes him better able to understand science than mere scientists ever can. But his work is shot through with overwhelming evidence that specific scientific theories are well beyond his competence to understand. No matter; he babbles on ad nauseam, citing himself and his voluminous if redundant writings as the supreme authority at every turn. He provides the ultimate example of the academic careerist who can hector and bully his way to the top in a field where nobody is very eager to call anyone else's bluff.
It is interesting to note, however, that work like "Science vs. Religion" represents a sharp turn in Fuller's ideological commitments. For years, he sold himself as the purest and most militant of leftists, scorning the tepid politics of rival gurus in the dubious field of "science studies", from Kuhn to Bruno Latour, in his relentless ambition to be recognized as King of the Hill. He was, for instance, a prominent contributor, along with such as Sandra Harding, Richard Levins, and Joel Kovel, to the doomed "Science Wars" volume of "Social Text" (doomed, that is, by its gullible inclusion of Alan Sokal's hoax article, which bamboozled Fuller as badly as it snookered the hapless editors). Now, however, he has jumped headlong into the embrace of the Discovery Institute and such, some of the most virulently right-wing characters in the landscape of American politics, offering only the weakest of rationalizations for his defection in the form of a lamebraned populism.
Apparently, this sociological Deep Thinker is unable to recognize the most transparent truths about politics and society, of which the most relevant to this book is the fact that the Intelligent Design movement, as spearheaded by such as P.E. Johnson and W. Dembski, is unambiguously committed to transforming the USA into a theocratic society dominated by fundamentalist Christianity. Fuller seems now determined to be the leading professorial Useful Idiot of this movement. Needless to say, the specific evaluations he offers on scientific questions related to ID or to evolutionary biology as such are uncontaminated by any real insight into the science. This goes as well for his obiter dicta in other areas, such as the mathematics of chaos and complexity, where his opinions are unsullied by anything so vulgar as knowledge of the matter at hand.
Those who have followed the Kitzmiller case may have noted that Fuller was presented as an "expert" witness by the hapless Thomas More Center lawyers trying to defend the medieval thinking of the Dover school board. He was put on to demonstrate that ID Theory is a legitimate science; he succeeded magnificently in persuading Judge Jones that exactly the opposite was true. Lord help the litigant who depends on such as Fuller to win over anyone with a grain of common sense! But, faut il mieux, the ID crowd continues to cling to Fuller, as he to them. Easily diddled as sociologists and cultural anthropologists may be, there are few of them so harebrained as to sign up with the madmen of the Discovery Institute.
So what makes Stevie run? Beyond noting an egotism so vast as to transcend mere calculation, one can only speculate about the darker reaches of the human mind. We cannot look to Fuller himself for candor. But we can be grateful that P.E. Johnson and Associates are now stuck with this curious specimen, who can no longer claim any legitimate influence over progresssive politics. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Another excellent book by Fuller |
Date: 2007-11-12 |
|
|
| |
Details: Steve Fuller is one of the leading scholars in the field of the philosophy and sociology of science. He is widely published. His Kuhn vs. Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science published by Columbia University Press reviews the Kuhn Popper perceptions of what is science, and his The Knowledge Book: Key Concepts in Philosophy, Science, and Culture published by McGill-Queen's University Press is a unique interdisciplinary reference work concerned with the nature of knowledge, and The Intellectual does an excellent job trying to define "what is an intellectual." In the book reviewed here he continues with some of the questions he has asked and topics he has raised in his many other books. In many ways this is his best book as it seems to be a summary of his other books. Fuller is extremely well read, an excellent writer, and takes a different position than many on the so called religious science war going on today. Fuller stresses that this war is a false dichotomy that gets in the way of our efforts to understand all of reality. He concluded that the ID evolution controversy will not go away any time soon, so each side needs to get together and begin laying the ground work for answering some of the really importantly questions of life that face us all, such as those we all struggle with as what it means to be human (what is a human, and what is our place in reality) and such questions. We are in this world together and need to work together and learn from each other, and this means that ID advocates will sooner or later have to have a place at the table of discourse. One can not keep over half of the population away forever.
|
| |
|
Review Summary: A Dynamite Book |
Date: 2007-10-25 |
|
|
| |
|
Details: "Science Vs Religion?: Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution" is a review of the author's testimony in the Dover Intelligent Design case. He admits that he is not an expert in biology or evolution but rather his field is on the nature of science and it is here where Fuller is a widely peer reviewed published expert. In contrast to what I have found is typical of the writings by sociologists and philosophers, this book is relatively easy reading. I will try to summarize his basic argument. My imperfect attempt may not do justice to Fuller's excellent work, but will give the reader an idea where he is going with it. If one side of an argument is science, it seems reasonable to conclude that the negative side is probably also science. For example, the often cited example of poor design is the putative backward human retina. I have seen this used in at least two dozen science books which argue that the retina could not have been designed because it is backward, and any camera designer who would design a camera film system that was backward, as the human retina is, would be fired. The evidence that the retina is not optimally designed is science but evidence that it is well designed is commonly regarded as religion. A friend with a doctorate from an American Ivy League University, wrote a scientific article documenting that, if the retina was reversed, it would not only not be improved, but would not even function. He documented that the existing design is optimal for over a dozen scientific reasons. The article was rejected because the journal editor stated he did not want to publish the article for the reason that it was religion and not science. My friend did not mention religion or the Bible or even G-d in the article, but it was seen as religion because it argued for a view that supported Intelligent Design and, therefore, was not science. Fuller argues that to label scientific arguments as religions because they support design, and exclude them from the debate for this reason, is pernicious in the extreme. He stresses the judge's decision in the Dover case as harmful for science for this reason. Fuller also documents that the Darwinist's agenda is also at its core religious and science needs to divorce itself from both sides of this debate and focus on science regardless whether it supports one side or the other. Fuller also does an excellent job documenting that the current war against Darwin skeptics is in many ways very much like the witch hunt against communists in the 1950s. He also discusses in some detail the bullying tactics commonly used by the various organizations fighting the Darwin skeptics of all stripes (p. 118). |
| |
|
| |
Similar Products
|
|
|
| |
This Product is similar to and may be found in the Following Categories:
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
