Darwin's Proof, chapter 8

I am up to chapter 8 in my continuing review of Cornelius Hunter's Darwin's Proof. By this point of the book, it has ceased any pretense of science and has become a religious apologetic. Here Hunter promises to discuss what God really is. There is still the promise that he might produce a positive argument about God or creation, rather than just attacks on the God presumed by Evolutionists. Such hopes would be misplaced.

Hunter again claims that evolution explains evil in the world, but it has failed to explain the wonders of the world. "We can barely believe that evolution's unguided forces somehow produce the most complex things we know of." Says who? This is simply an argument from incredulity at the core of so much evolution denial. His argument is simply that he can't imagine evolution produces complex things. It is not a demonstration why it cannot. A few paragraphs later he states "On the one hand, the brain obviously could not have evolved." He offers no argument for this. He simply expects his readers will see it as obviously true. He doesn't discuss the odd way our mammalian brain is built on top of a reptilian brain, or any other evidence.

He then moves to scripture, for most of the remainder of the chapter. He says that God did tell us how he created the ostrich, in the book of Job:

The wings of the ostrich flap joyfully,
but they cannot compare with the pinions and feathers of the stork.
She lays her eggs on the gournd
and lets them warm in the sand,
unmindful that a foot may crush them...

This is not a description of how the ostrich was created, or why it has these traits. It is simply a description of an ostrich. This is supposed to show us the intentions of the true God, as opposed to the evolutionists non scriptural God. But all this says is the ostrich is the way it is. Hunter repeatedly explains that scripture shows a God who creates "according to his good pleasure" (twice) or "as he wishes". In other words, anything goes.

Hunter then explains all of the evils and imperfections of the world, including death, as a result of the fall. Although it has been unclear until this point whether Hunter was ID, old earth creationist, or young earth creationists, this puts him in the young earth crowd. Hunter says that only after the fall would the ground produce thorns and thistles. Doesn't this mean that God continued to create after the fall? Species with thorns and thistles did not exist prior to the fall. Yet the Bible clearly says creation occurred prior to the fall. Which is it? Every species on earth has hundreds of traits to protect against the evils of the fallen world--protection against predators, disease, etc. Did God only create our immune systems after the fall? Did the gazelle only run fast after the fall? Did predators get sharp teeth after the fall? Every creature on earth was created after the fall, if Hunter is correct on this.

Hunter explains that creation is the Glory of God, so it is good and wonderful. But it is also fallen, so it is bad. There is no need to separate the two. Anything can now be explained.

Hunter poisons the well against reason and evidence. He says that in a fallen world, humanity will produce deceptive philosophies and we won't think clearly. Deceptions will sound like fine-sounding arguments. In other words, he his saying don't trust your reason, and although evolution makes perfect sense, it is the work of the devil and the fall.

As usual, Hunter then does a good job of making points for science. He has two pages of quotes from biologists pointing out that creation cannot be tested. Anything is possible with creation. For example, he quotes John Rennie of Scientific American "when and how did a designer intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones?" Perfect question, in my opinion. How does Hunter respond?

Hunter complains that since we cannot answer these questions, scientists insists we not consider God from science. Instead of complaingin, how about trying to answer them? Make a real theory. It is possible to imagine a creationism that does tell us whether God created once or a few times, whether he created the first cell or the first human, and test it. We aren't saying God must be excluded, just that all non specific vague statements and untestable hypothesis are excluded, whether they involve God or not.

Likewise Hunter quotes Paul Moody: "it is really not an explanation at all; it amounts to saying 'things are this way because they are this way'. Furthermore, it removes the subject from scientific inquiry. One can do no more than speculate as to why the creator chose to follow one pattern in creationing animals rather than to use differing patterns." Again I say right on. What is your answer? But there is no answer. He has two pages of such spot on critiques of creationism but there is no reply at all. I reread the pages several time to see if I am missing anything. As far as I can tell, he just expects his readers to be indignant at these people excluding God, without bothering to explain why we should be.

The closest he comes it to object that this amounts to defining God out of the picture. But he makes no attempt to show how we could do science with the supernatural. He certainly does not understand that excluding God from science does not mean excluding him from reality. It is simply recognizing a limit of science: science can only study the natural. Hunter complains because scientists willingly admit science cannot answer every question. He says that in the guise of neutrality, science rejects God outright. Science no more rejects God than it rejects Picasso because we do not invoke Picasso for explanations.

Then there is one paragraph in which Hunter is right. He says that

Science says that we need not invoke God. Science can make good progreess and describe the world accurately without reference to God. If God created the world, he could have done so only via natural laws. There must be no direct divine intervention.

He is right. Science asks how much of the world can be explained with natural laws, and so far it has found no place where natural laws are inadequate. It still might in the future, but there is no need now. If science is a problem for religion, it is not because science actively contradicts God, but simply that God doesn't seem to be necessary. However, Hunter has no problem with the fact that we can explain the weather without reference to God, or chemical reactions without reference to God, or explain the motions of the planets without reference to God. I have never understood why this indignation arises only against evolution, instead of all of science.

The last two pages of the chapter tells that we are all sinners and God saves us. I have no idea what any of this has to do with the topic of the book or the chapter. It is simply a pure Sunday sermon, with no relevance to creation. Perhaps it means something to people who are sure that evolution leads to damnation, and that is why it is here. Certainly these pages make it clear that this book does not even pretend to be a scientific treatise and it not intended for anything other than the true believer in creationism.