Best book to learn about evolution

[food4thought]

Hello everyone. I am a gap theory creationist at this point, but am curious to learn about evolution accurately. I have read some of the popular works against evolution, but would like to get a defense of evolution. Seems to me there is quite a bit of crying foul by evolutionists against creationists saying that we do not correctly understand evolution and therefore our arguments against it are strawmen. I hate being ignorant, but of course I can't study EVERYTHING in depth...

I do not have a degree in anything but theology at this point, but am looking into psychology... anyways, I don't speak scientese, and my advanced math is either very rusty (precalc) or nonexistant (anything beyond that). So what book should I read to understand evolution accurately that is written in "layman's terms", or at least one that does a good job of defining terms when they are not a part of common usage and avoids lots of mathematical proofs.

This could be a christian or nonchristian work, but a christian work would be preferable as long as it accurately portrays naturalistic evolution.

God bless you, and thanks in advance;

Mike

 

[gluadys]

Hello everyone. I am a gap theory creationist at this point, but am curious to learn about evolution accurately. I have read some of the popular works against evolution, but would like to get a defense of evolution. Seems to me there is quite a bit of crying foul by evolutionists against creationists saying that we do not correctly understand evolution and therefore our arguments against it are strawmen. I hate being ignorant, but of course I can't study EVERYTHING in depth...

I do not have a degree in anything but theology at this point, but am looking into psychology... anyways, I don't speak scientese, and my advanced math is either very rusty (precalc) or nonexistant (anything beyond that). So what book should I read to understand evolution accurately that is written in "layman's terms", or at least one that does a good job of defining terms when they are not a part of common usage and avoids lots of mathematical proofs.

This could be a christian or nonchristian work, but a christian work would be preferable as long as it accurately portrays naturalistic evolution.

God bless you, and thanks in advance;

Mike

I would recommend starting with "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr. It's available as a compact paperback and written for a lay audience. This is strong and simple on the science but not a Christian work.

For a Christian perspective, I would follow up with one or both of "Finding Darwin's God" by Ken Miller or "The Language of God" by Francis Collins--both scientists and both Christians.

BTW, I would be interested in knowing what the word "naturalistic" means to you.

Do you connect "naturalistic" with God? If not, why not?

 

[food4thought]

I would recommend starting with "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr. It's available as a compact paperback and written for a lay audience. This is strong and simple on the science but not a Christian work.

For a Christian perspective, I would follow up with one or both of "Finding Darwin's God" by Ken Miller or "The Language of God" by Francis Collins--both scientists and both Christians.

BTW, I would be interested in knowing what the word "naturalistic" means to you.

Do you connect "naturalistic" with God? If not, why not?

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll look into them.

Naturalistic means to me natural processes only, not originating from God. Of course, I see natural processes as a creation of God, and so normally have no problems with science. Yet when science makes claims about reality that, at least as I understand it, undermine parts of the Biblical doctrine of salvation, I do have issues with it. Yet I am willing to learn about evolution as more than just an attempt to refute it. If I come to believe in evolution, you can expect me back here to figure out how the heck you guys reconcile evolution with certain NT passages.

 

[gluadys]

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll look into them.

Naturalistic means to me natural processes only, not originating from God. Of course, I see natural processes as a creation of God, and so normally have no problems with science. Yet when science makes claims about reality that, at least as I understand it, undermine parts of the Biblical doctrine of salvation, I do have issues with it. Yet I am willing to learn about evolution as more than just an attempt to refute it. If I come to believe in evolution, you can expect me back here to figure out how the heck you guys reconcile evolution with certain NT passages.

I know that I see all natural processes as not only originating from God, but continually sustained and kept in motion by God's providential action.

I think many theistic evolutionists see natural processes in this way and therefore do not see science as ever making claims which undermine any part of Biblical doctrine especially in reference to salvation.

If you check some theological history, you will soon find that this was the most prevalent view of nature among Christians until very recent times (19th century to present).

I think the divorcing of nature from God was a pernicious effect of the rise of Deism in early modern times.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think the divorcing of nature from God was a pernicious effect of the rise of Deism in early modern times.

I would agree that God is never divorced from his creation, at the same time God remains independent of natural phenomenon. God is not subject to what we might consider normative natural phenomenon aka supernatural acts such as creation. Deism would be a categorical rejection of God subsequent to creation and any miracle would be suspect in the mind of a deist.

 

[gluadys]

I would agree that God is never divorced from his creation, at the same time God remains independent of natural phenomenon. God is not subject to what we might consider normative natural phenomenon...

I agree, but what about the reverse? Are natural phenomena ever independent of God or not subject to God---not just in the context of miracle---but in the context of the ordinary?

Deism would be a categorical rejection of God subsequent to creation and any miracle would be suspect in the mind of a deist.

I agree, but it is not just the miracle side of things that concerns me about Deism. It is also the Deistic blindness to God in the ordinary.

That is why I object to definitions of "natural" that exclude God. Christians did not use to think of "nature/natural" in those terms. In fact, they saw nature as pre-eminently the field where God alone is active (as opposed to God and humans).

"Natural processes not originating from God" was an oxymoron. How could that which does not come from human artifice be anything other that divine work?

 

[food4thought]

I agree, but what about the reverse? Are natural phenomena ever independent of God or not subject to God---not just in the context of miracle---but in the context of the ordinary?











I agree, but it is not just the miracle side of things that concerns me about Deism. It is also the Deistic blindness to God in the ordinary.

That is why I object to definitions of "natural" that exclude God. Christians did not use to think of "nature/natural" in those terms. In fact, they saw nature as pre-eminently the field where God alone is active (as opposed to God and humans).

"Natural processes not originating from God" was an oxymoron. How could that which does not come from human artifice be anything other that divine work?

I define natural processes that way because that is how evolutionists tend to define it... it may stem from deism, but it has been embraced wholeheartedly by the modern materialistic scientific establishment.

 

[gluadys]

I define natural processes that way because that is how evolutionists tend to define it... it may stem from deism, but it has been embraced wholeheartedly by the modern materialistic scientific establishment.

You are assuming that everyone who has a favorable view of science (and of evolution in particular) is an atheist and a materialist.

That is not the case.

The materialist view of nature (=that which exists on its own without God) is a matter of philosophy, not of science.

There is no reason for a Christian to adopt a materialist's philosophical view of nature whether they agree or disagree on matters of science.

And my interest is in what Christians believe or used to believe. And what we should be teaching Christians to believe.


btw, how would you answer my question to mark?

 

[food4thought]

You are assuming that everyone who has a favorable view of science (and of evolution in particular) is an atheist and a materialist.

That is not the case.

The materialist view of nature (=that which exists on its own without God) is a matter of philosophy, not of science.

There is no reason for a Christian to adopt a materialist's philosophical view of nature whether they agree or disagree on matters of science.

And my interest is in what Christians believe or used to believe. And what we should be teaching Christians to believe.

Oh I know that not everyone who accepts evolution is a materialist, but that is definitely the impression I get from most of the non-creation scientists the popular media interviews on the subject. For the purpose of debating with the people I encounter on the "Exploring Christianity" board, understanding evolution from the materialistic/naturalistic viewpoint is important... the whole point is to be able to intelligently debate their beliefs by truly understanding their position, not attacking one of those darn always propagating strawmen .

btw, how would you answer my question to mark?

This one?

How could that which does not come from human artifice be anything other that divine work?

Obviously I agree that whatever is not mandmade is God made, whether by miraculous intervention or by "natural" processes. God is actively at work sustaining the "natural" world and it's laws.

 

[gluadys]

Oh I know that not everyone who accepts evolution is a materialist, but that is definitely the impression I get from most of the non-creation scientists the popular media interviews on the subject. For the purpose of debating with the people I encounter on the "Exploring Christianity" board, understanding evolution from the materialistic/naturalistic viewpoint is important... the whole point is to be able to intelligently debate their beliefs by truly understanding their position, not attacking one of those darn always propagating strawmen .



This one?

Yes, and also this one:


Are natural phenomena ever independent of God or not subject to God---not just in the context of miracle---but in the context of the ordinary?

Obviously I agree that whatever is not mandmade is God made, whether by miraculous intervention or by "natural" processes. God is actively at work sustaining the "natural" world and it's laws.

Then, since you personally do not agree that natural="without God", it would strengthen your case in debating with them to put that on the table rather than accepting their definition without a murmur.

You give up too much of the debating turf to them when you allow them to set the rules of what "natural" means.

After all, for debating purposes, it is just as important that they understand where believers are coming from as for us to understand their position. And how will they know if we don't tell them?

 

[KhaosTheory]

Personally, I think you'll learn way more about evolution by watching Youtube!

I know, sounds crazy, but there are some excellence videos explaining things like natural selection and creationism/evolution topics.

6 -- Natural Selection Made Easy - YouTube

Lets Test Them: Evolution vs. Creationism - YouTube

 

[philadiddle]

I would very highly recommend "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul " by Kenneth Miller. It cuts right to the heart of the matter and focuses on the non-scientific barriers people have put up so that they can't even consider evolution. It's a short book, and Miller is a Christian and a biologist. (Another book of his was already recommended to you.)

 

[Philonephius]

Hello everyone. I am a gap theory creationist at this point, but am curious to learn about evolution accurately. I have read some of the popular works against evolution, but would like to get a defense of evolution. Seems to me there is quite a bit of crying foul by evolutionists against creationists saying that we do not correctly understand evolution and therefore our arguments against it are strawmen. I hate being ignorant, but of course I can't study EVERYTHING in depth...

I do not have a degree in anything but theology at this point, but am looking into psychology... anyways, I don't speak scientese, and my advanced math is either very rusty (precalc) or nonexistant (anything beyond that). So what book should I read to understand evolution accurately that is written in "layman's terms", or at least one that does a good job of defining terms when they are not a part of common usage and avoids lots of mathematical proofs.

This could be a christian or nonchristian work, but a christian work would be preferable as long as it accurately portrays naturalistic evolution.

God bless you, and thanks in advance;

Mike

I second Philadiddle's recommendation of Ken Miller's book. Interestingly, I too was once a Gap Theory Creationist. I think it's a fairly common stepping stone in the right direction.