Ayala's short book, a required reading for one of my classes, describes the background of evolution and the Christian response to it. Much of this should be incontroversial: Darwin in his novel theory of natural selection was attempting to provide a scientific explanation for appearance of design rather than Paley's invocation of God to explain a natural order. Ayala briefly discusses the evidence for evolution from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, embryonic development, molecular biology, and "the geography of life." He debunks certain intelligent design or anti-evolution arguments, such as the claim that we lack key transitional species in the fossil record. We don't. We have clear and detailed records of hominid evolution from ardipithecus to homo erectus, habilis, and sapiens. We also have fossil evidence for the transitional species between fish and tetrapods (tiktaalik) and between reptiles and birds (archaeopteryx). Furthermore, we have an abundance of literature on key questions that IDers argue no "Darwinist" has ever answered, such as the evolution of bacterial flagellum and the human eye.

However, Ayala is less luminous when discussing more philosophical issues. While he does give some good reasons why intelligent design is not science - its hypotheses are untestable and unfalsifiable - he doesn't do as good a job explaining why religion and science don't conflict. He gives the NOMA theory: science and religion cover different territory so don't conflict. He cites Aquinas and John Paul II for this point. But what about Pius XII's contention that while evolution is true, there must have been a point where God put a soul into a hominid species. Is this in the territory of science? In this and other ways, Christianity holds that God is not some allegorical figure we encounter in the depths of our soul, but a being that acts in the universe in observable ways. God cures people from illness, not natural causes. While Ayala is right that Darwin bestowed a gift onto theology by explaining the violence and suffering intrinsic in the natural world is not caused by God's creation but by un-designed natural selection, he seems to miss other crucial issues that lie at the root of different methodologies for examining reality: one methodologically naturalistic, one open to miracles and divine intervention. And what about the belief of some Christians that the universe has the appearance of age, created with fossils in place, but is in fact only 6000 years old? Perhaps I am being too harsh with his brevity, but Ayala misses these key issues. ( )

DISCO D: BACKUP / TEOLOGIA
TEOLOGIA CRISTIANA / APOLOGETICA

DISCO D: BACKUP / TEOLOGIA
TEOLOGIA CRISTIANA / APOLOGETICA