FI June-July 2006 Pages 4/27/06 12:49 PM Page 59 REVIEWS SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST “. the scientist or science Nick Matzke fan who wants to do his intellectual duty and attempt The Evolution-Creation Struggle, by Michael Ruse (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2005, ISBN 0-674- to actually understand where 01687-4) 336 pp. Cloth $25.95. seemingly bizarre phenomena like twenty-first-century creationism come from does not face an easy task.” rnst Mayr had a saying: “Most sci- intellectual duty and attempt to actually personal reading and interpretation of entific problems are better under- understand where seemingly bizarre the Bible over church tradition, and this Estood by examining their history phenomena like twenty-first-century led to many people coming up with their than their logic.” This is even more true creationism come from does not face an own interpretations of the Scriptures, for unscientific problems like creation- easy task. resulting in the bewildering proliferation ism, where the core issues underlying While it is easy enough to find gener- of Christian denominations seen today. the problem are not scientific at all. The ic histories of Christianity or science, the At one end, there was skepticism of the difficulty, however, is that history is topics are so immense that it is difficult literal reading of the Bible, which fit well extremely complex and broad—even to figure out what the relevant connec- with the advancements of science and getting your head around the important tions are between the broad historical what was later called “higher criticism” figures and movements can be a chal- scene and obscure particulars like cre- of the Bible. On the other hand were lenge, let alone the relative importance ationism. We need a guide. Thanks to many religious sects then considered and interrelationships of each. Ronald Numbers’s book, The Creationists, radical—Methodists and Baptists, for Worse, modern assumptions, modern we have an excellent survey of the devel- example—that split from other Pro- language, and the like are quite likely to opment of scientific creationism as a testant sects. These “evangelicals” tend- lead the nonspecialist astray—to pick a modern movement, tracing back to the ed to emphasize faith and emotional Darwinian example, in modern usage, founder of the Seventh-day Adventists, commitment rather than reason or, par- the term gradual has taken on the con- Ellen G. White. But the Seventh-day ticularly, state churches, and, because of notation of smooth change at a slow-but- Adventists are just one part of Christian this, they were often oppressed by the constant rate. However, in Darwin’s evangelicalism, and evangelicalism in establishment. writing, gradual refers to stepwise, i.e., general is the fertile soil in which cre- Oppression favored two important incremental, change. Paleontologist Kev- ationism took root and flourished, and developments: emigration to the in Padian likes to point out that, on the which nurtures it to this day. The evan- American Colonies and a particular Beagle voyage, Darwin observed an gelical churches and a huge network of apocalyptic reading of Revelation, earthquake that suddenly raised a piece allied bookstores, cable channels, and premillenialism. Under premillenialism, of South American coastline twenty feet radio stations provide the market for Christ will soon return, overthrow the out of the ocean, and he described that creationism and faithfully pass it on oppressors, and rule for a thousand change as gradual! The original mean- from generation to generation. Ruse’s years. A different Protestant interpreta- ing of gradual can still be found in many task in the evolution-creation struggle is tion, postmillenialism, was equally reli- words that stemmed from the same root, to help us understand why this group is gious but more compatible with the as in college graduations and the inter- so vehemently antievolution. establishment, and stated that Christ vals marked on graduated cylinders. Ruse’s first chapter contains a very would come after the thousand years of How much strife might have been spared useful short summary of the complex good times. According to this interpreta- in the debate over punctuated equilibria religious context in Europe in which tion, Christians were to help bring about versus gradualism if this term had been both evangelicalism and modern science and prepare for the good times to come. better understood? arose. Most of us know something vague Ruse uses the premilliennial/post- For these sorts of reasons, the scien- about the Catholic Church, the Refor- millenial divide as the central organizing tist or science fan who wants to do his mation led by men like Luther and thesis of the book. Calvin, and the ruckus that followed, but Chapters 2 through 6 summarize the Nicholas J. Matzke is Public Infor- it has always been difficult to find a con- origins of the science of evolution and mation Project Director for the cise summary of the relevance of these the progressive philosophy of evolution- National Center for Science Educa- ancient events to creationism. The short ism. Ruse argues rather compellingly tion, Inc. (www.ncseweb.org). version is this: Protestantism favored that the philosophy came first historical- 59 http://www.secularhumanism.org June/July 2006 FI June-July 2006 Pages 4/27/06 12:50 PM Page 60 REVIEWS ly; useful evolutionary science only progressivist speculations, progressive began in 1859 with Darwin’s The Origin evolutionism was still promoted by evolu- of Species, and did not really mature tionary biologists at the popular level, “. Bryan-inspired bans on until the 1930s with the modern synthe- and frankly shared some of the charac- sis. On the other hand, progressive evo- teristics of a secular religion. This line is teaching evolution were not lutionism got going in the 1700s, inspired traced straight through to the modern ruled unconstitutional until by dramatic cultural change and techno- sociobiologists, who think that evolution logical advancement. Ruse argues that it can explain away religion and provide us 1968, and, as a direct contin- was cultural evolution that inspired nat- with a secular creation myth. uation, we have seen three uralists to explore the question of bio- Ruse’s history leaves us with two ques- logical evolution. The progressive view tions: is he right, and if so, what is to be successive antievolution legal got a big boost with the success of The done? There is much to be said for the Origin of Species and the evermore premillennialist-vs.-postmillennialist the- strategies: creation science, dramatic technological and social sis. Although it is, of course, an oversim- Intelligent Design, and progress of the late 1800s and early plification, and Ruse points out the many 1900s, reaching a high-water mark with figures and events that don’t fit the pat- so-called critical social Darwinism and eugenics, both of tern exactly, it is extremely useful to be analysis of evolution.” which claimed that the science of biolog- able to organize complex history within a ical evolution justified particular general framework. Catholics, who are schemes for social policy. traditionally amillennialist, prove some- illegitimately mixes the promotion of In chapters 7 and 8, Ruse reviews the what resistant to Ruse’s scheme, but evolution with the promotion of atheism. religious responses to these develop- despite Michael Behe and a few other Criticizing Dennett et al. is fine, but Ruse ments. Basically, the postmillennialist Catholics in the ID movement, modern then forwarded the dispute, cursing and denominations that were well-estab- creationism remains predominantly the all, to Dembski, who posted the ex- lished in Europe, such as the Church of domain of conservative Protestants. change on his blog. England, and the amillennialist Catho- Despite some recent propaganda from the Ruse has vigorously opposed the cre- lics, came to terms with evolution after Discovery Institute, there is little indica- ationists for his entire academic life, and some wrangling over details. Their tion that the Catholic Church is going to his devotion to good science is unques- American representatives followed suit. fall for twenty-first-century Paleyism, par- tionable, but just maybe he has gotten a However, American evangelicalism grew ticularly after the ID movement’s roots bit too chummy with the ID advocates dramatically after the American Revo- were exposed during the recent and is putting too high a priority on feud- lution, during the Second Great Awaken- Kitzmiller v. Dover case as a literal rela- ing with atheists. At least the atheists ing, and much of it became even more beling of creation science in reaction to a know their science. ID is crank science, disenchanted with progressivism and the 1987 Supreme Court ruling. on the same level as Bigfoot and UFOs, Northern establishment after the Civil Regarding the question of what is to and should be exposed as such as often War. By the early twentieth century, the be done, Ruse emphasizes that foes of as possible. If atheists, who, by the way, insults of modernism were many, and creationism should be careful to distin- have as much right to promote their this led to many evangelicals adopting guish between evolution and evolution- views on religion as anyone else, were to fundamentalism in reaction. In the 1920s, ism, and not hide their metaphysics in disappear tomorrow, the creationists William Jennings Bryan crisscrossed the the guise of science. Ruse also calls for would simply invent similar opponents country, convincing evangelicals that greater understanding on both sides. out of thin air in order to justify their evolution was the root of all of the other These are both excellent suggestions, guerrilla war on science. They already evils, and this is substantially the situa- and, with his concise summary of the accuse all evolutionists of being effec- tion that remains today.