looking for a book on evolution

[abadsign]

Does anyone know of any books by Christians that explain how evolution happens and why we can be confident of it? I have a friend who is struggling with this and I know he doesn't trust non-Christian perspectives the same way he trusts Christians. It doesn't particularly matter to me whether the authors are scientists or not, as long as the work is accurate and fairly up to date. Bonus points if it has a "so what does evolution mean for us as Christians" sort of section or theme. The more books from different thrological backgrounds I can come up with, the better. Websites are fine too!

(I am certain that evolution by natural selection is the means by which humans have come to be. I've studied this for a long, long time. So if anybody feels the need to make this into a debate, that's your prerogative, but it's really not what I'm trying to get out of this thread.)

Not sure if this is the most useful place to bring this up, but it's at least where I feel most comfortable asking.

 

[Im_A]

i'd say, start out with Origin of Species.

i think the rest may be hard to find. i mean, i would wonder if one on one dialogue with this person would be the best?

only because, the issues would need to be pointed out. for somebody who disagrees with an idea/belief to be presented that same idea that they disagree with by somebody else, i would predict to be a really hard road.

bring up the Creation story...by showing the different things going in the same Creation story...specifically in chapter 1 and 2. discuss, which would entail research of Jewish mythology and ways of understanding, and in my opinion, if there is many ways of understanding, then maybe the point isn't "literal", but i guess that would depend on how you would give what you believe in the dialogue.

i think a lot of dialogue in a deep manner is needed before just switching one's view...if one is die-hard about wanting to believe either one

here's another book:

Finding Darwin's God-Kenneth R. Miller

God Bless! <><

 

[abadsign]

Origin of Species won't work since while Darwin was a Christian when he wrote it, he was an atheist at the end of his life, and my friend has a background which has put, shall we say, a very bad taste in his mouth at hearing the name "Darwin." I think it would be impossible for him to read Darwin's own words with an open mind. Anyway I think it's best to go with something very current, with all the exciting new data that begs for investigation. Something on the level of Daniel C. Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" would be awesome for this purpose if only Dennett was writing as a Christian for Christians.

I will definitely be trying to engage him on a personal conversational level but I admit I have a hard time with it, because he seriously brings up the flood and says that fossils in geologial strata were mixed up by a worldwide 40 day deluge. I am literally left speechless by these things. I don't know if my jaw drops, it's for me hard to notice at the time. I am just totally unprepared to engage that kind of thinking.

I will look up Miller's book Thanks for the heads-up on that.

 

[Im_A]

Origin of Species won't work since while Darwin was a Christian when he wrote it, he was an atheist at the end of his life, and my friend has a background which has put, shall we say, a very bad taste in his mouth at hearing the name "Darwin." I think it would be impossible for him to read Darwin's own words with an open mind. Anyway I think it's best to go with something very current, with all the exciting new data that begs for investigation. Something on the level of Daniel C. Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" would be awesome for this purpose if only Dennett was writing as a Christian for Christians.

I will definitely be trying to engage him on a personal conversational level but I admit I have a hard time with it, because he seriously brings up the flood and says that fossils in geologial strata were mixed up by a worldwide 40 day deluge. I am literally left speechless by these things. I don't know if my jaw drops, it's for me hard to notice at the time. I am just totally unprepared to engage that kind of thinking.

I will look up Miller's book Thanks for the heads-up on that.

i wouldn't say he was an atheist. he may not have believed in a beneficient god, but that doesn't mean he's an atheist. here's a quote:
In later life, when asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."
^ The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Ch. VIII, p. 274. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1905 [1]: quotation in which he describes himself as "agnostic"
all of this is gathered from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#_note-0

in relation to the flood issues, the scientific issues, i'm like you. i really don't know. but, i would get in more along the lines of discussion in regarding to the biased nature of science that is out to prove Biblical passages as literal fact as being not credible, as compared to a science having a non-biased agenda in regards to Biblical passages and proposing what the findings give good reason to speculate, and then in relation to how myths, fables, that are all similiar amongst the religions but different to remain professing their surpremacy in their own religion. to which, in my opinion, the heart of the matter is the issue of how stories, fables, all existed between pagan, Judiac religions, and how for some reason we find a justification method to justify the Judeo-Christian myths but condemn all the other myths, which doesn't make sense to me, but i don't know if it is applicable for discussion either in your case

here's a site to check out more in regards to the scientific stuff:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

 

[abadsign]

i wouldn't say he was an atheist. he may not have believed in a beneficient god, but that doesn't mean he's an atheist. here's a quote:
In later life, when asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."
^ The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Ch. VIII, p. 274. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1905 [1]: quotation in which he describes himself as "agnostic"

Ahh, that's a good point. I was using "atheist" to mean "one who lacks a belief in a god or gods," what may otherwise be called "negative atheism." The quote from his Autobiography that had stuck in my mind was this:
"That there is much suffering in the world no one disputes. Some have attempted to explain this with reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of all other sentient beings, and they often suffer greatly without any moral improvement. This very old argu*ment from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent First Cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the pres*ence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection."
And that, sticking clearly in my mind, had made me regularly imagine him as an atheist. But I opened up the Autobiography again and he does go on to bring up an early formulation of the Anthropic Principle and says that he finds it compelling (of course Hugh Everett III had not yet lived to offer his compelling counterargument). On the next page Darwin does in fact say "I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic." I'll try to remember to take him at his word next time.

Thanks for reminding me about talkorigins. That is indeed a great site.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I agree that Miller's book is very good.

 

[steen]

Presumably the ASA would be an OK source:
http://www.asa3.org/asa/topics/Evolution/index.html

 

[stumpjumper]

I've read some Haught too but Miller is a great intro...

ETA: John Haught God after Darwin I mean....

 

[abadsign]

Thank you all for the suggestions

Can anyone who read Miller's book tell me, am I correct in understanding that he spends some (significant?) time advocating the anthropic principle? Does he address opposing viewpoints such as Everett's many-worlds interpretation?

It seems from the reviews I read that his book attempts to both present evolution to creationists and theism (or deism) to atheists. Am I off-base?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Thank you all for the suggestions

Can anyone who read Miller's book tell me, am I correct in understanding that he spends some (significant?) time advocating the anthropic principle? Does he address opposing viewpoints such as Everett's many-worlds interpretation?

It seems from the reviews I read that his book attempts to both present evolution to creationists and theism (or deism) to atheists. Am I off-base?

I don't think that that is a completely accurate interpretation of Miller's work. Rather it is more about his own view of what evolution is, how it works, and why YEC and ID are insufficient explanations of how it works. He also spends a fair amount of time taking Dawkins et al. to task for there assertions regarding religion and atheism (that science cannot address these topics tho Dawkins et al. seem to think so.)

He also addresses the topic of how he synchronizes his scientific work with his religious outlook (sort of interspersed in the other topics) -- but, I wish he would have added another 50 pages for specifics.

He is definitely a Christian (RC, I think) and believes in miracles (e.g., transubstantiation.).

IOW, I suppose you could view Miller's work as the reviews suggested to you, but I don't think that that was his intent.

HTH