All Comments for: Same Song, Second Verse | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > October (Web-only)

Christianity Today, October (Web-only), 2008 |

Same Song, Second Verse

Rana's anti-evolution arguments are well worn, but his portrait of cells' inner workings conveys the beauty of creation.

Review by Craig M. Story | posted 10/23/2008 09:31AM

The Cell's Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator's Artistry
by Fazale Rana
Baker Books, 2008
336 pp., $16.99

The culture war between evolutionary science and creationism continues unabated in a ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

John	Posted: October 25, 2008 1:37 PM

If Dr. Story, a biology professor at a Christian college, can so readily dismiss God's design from the complex interactions of the cell, what is he teaching his students as to why they should still have faith in the Christian story? He even cites authors who fear an undermining of intelligent design will accordingly undermine faith in God, but Dr. Story offers no alternative, which in a journal supporting Christian faith is a major error.

Dan	Posted: October 25, 2008 12:41 PM

Oh you priestly class we call evolutionary biologists: We bow in glassy eyed submission at your illustrious feet and receive all of your wisdom about creation (it does seems to change daily though with new discoveries that overturn old theories - but we'll overlook that) and continue to believe all that you tell us (even though at times it is flatly contrictory). Continue to nourish our intellects with your evolutionary truths. We pray this to our father (who at one time lived in a tree) and through his annointed one, Darwin. Okay, all you Christians who are stupid enough to believe in creation, back to the re-education camps. That means you too Fazale Rana.

Greg	Posted: October 24, 2008 2:18 PM

Ruth comments that Dr. Rana is an evolutionist, which is completely wrong. Reasons To Believe absolutely does not teach theistic evolution. You should read when they believe, it is easy to find, and not accept somebody else telling you it is theistic evolution. The model they have come up with for creation is scripture based and quite sound. I am reading the book and it is technically very detailed. This can make parts of it hard for a layman such as myself but I would rather a writer challenge me as opposed to dumbing down his thoughts. I should say it isn't so technically oriented that you need to keep looking up information from other resources. As for the comment that Behe's (who is a theistic evolutionist) thoughts were proven wrong, I have read a number of these papers and the amount of pure guess work and convoluted twists to make these models work is, to be generous, quite a stretch.

Curtis

Posted: October 24, 2008 1:40 PM

I'm sorry but I found this review to be utterly wrong. The author says "But his portraits of cellular workings will fail to convince most mainstream scientists for the same reason that Behe's book has been roundly dismissed: The analogy between man made machines and cells is a poor one at best." The reviewer has missed the point completely. It makes me wonder whether the reviewer read the book or perhaps was the wrong sort of person to review the book. I am an engineer and I was astounded at how close the analogy was. I simply did not know that this complex factory (the cell) existed and the various points are inter-dependent. When I explain it to my fellow technical people, they are also astounded. They did not know either. This book is exceptional in its clarity and any technical person will have a very hard time shaking the strong feeling of design. Behe looked at various biological systems. This book focussed on the unit of life - the cell.

Dale	Posted: October 24, 2008 12:33 AM


Those who review books should not use the opportunity push their own point of view by finishing up with a 'correction' of the books content. The reviewer was obviously threatened when his faith in evolution was questioned.

Ruth Bard

Posted: October 23, 2008 11:43 PM


This writer, like all evolutionists, never gets around to addressing the question: How? And BTW, Reasons to Believe does not teach Biblical creationism, but theistic evolutionism, involving some bizarre eisegetic twisting of Scripture. Don't be deceived.

Philip Williams

Posted: October 23, 2008 3:33 PM


Craig Story's arguments against the design argument are utterly glib.

tony	Posted: October 23, 2008 3:32 PM


and the earth is flat and the center of the universe, and evil spirits cause schizophrenia .... some of the people can still be fooled all of the time

Rick	Posted: October 23, 2008 3:29 PM

bobxxxx - Keep in mind, it was "tiny and defective" brains that came up with evolution, so if you're going to reduce all of creation into a mechanistic system, you cannot really trust the outputs of such a mindless process. If you don't invoke a rational God into your system somewhere, you're left trusting the end result of a process that has nothing as it's goal except reproductive superiority. Evolution doesn't select for "truth". So how can you trust it's results? By reducing everything in this way, you're effectively cutting off the very branch you're sitting on. At some point, we invoke a rational God into the mix, evolutionist or not.

Gregory Peterson

Posted: October 23, 2008 3:28 PM

As an intelligent designer myself (graphic illustrator), my experience is: Complexity is easy. It's simplicity that's difficult. Evolution theory is simply more fun and productive than creationism...look at any science index. Day-age schemes only roughly fit with Genesis, and then only if one shamelessly cherry picks. My understanding of Genesis is: day=everyday. Today is Thursday, Thor's Day...with Genesis, I know that Thor, the god of this or that, has nothing at all to do with today. I don't have to worry about appeasing that social construct. Whatever Thor is the god of, he's not. God is the Creator, not capricious gods. Everything is just as it is...an ever changing nature, and not capriciously supernatural at all. Genesis is part destruction story...the seven planetary gods of the Middle East are simply and logically dismissed, unnamed, as irrelevant...their domains, their reason for being, destroyed. What idols and gods do we mindlessly worship today?

DrAl	Posted: October 23, 2008 3:27 PM

bobxxxx:The fact that judges have confused Intelligent Design and "invoking God" tempts me to make similar accusations of "too stupid" and "too lazy"--but name calling does little to advance intelligent discussion. And are you actually unaware that many of the great scientific pioneers of history (from Newton to Faraday) TOOK FOR GRANTED that their pursuits involved figuring out how a designer had set up the scientific laws and structures of the universe? If you disagree with them, fine. But don't pretend that the existence of EVIDENCES OF DESIGN within the complexities of the universe does not merit scientific investigation of that hypothesis. To smugly dismiss it out of hand is NOT what the scientific method is about. No, that blanket REPRESSION AND DENIAL(should I say CENSORSHIP?) of a valid and ancient hypothesis is more akin to the close-minded bias of a rigid FAITH SYSTEM. Name calling and fear are not science. (In other contexts we call close-minded thinking "superstition"!)

DrAl	Posted: October 23, 2008 3:15 PM

bobxxxx: The fact that judges have confused Intelligent Design and "invoking God" tempts me to make similar accusations of "too stupid" and "too lazy"--but name calling does little to advance intelligent discussion. And are you actually unaware that many of the great scientific pioneers of history (from Newton to Faraday) TOOK FOR GRANTED that their pursuits involved figuring out how a designer had set up the scientific laws and structures of the universe? If you disagree with them, fine. But don't pretend that the existence of EVIDENCES OF DESIGN within the complexities of the universe does not merit scientific investigation of that hypothesis. To smugly dismiss it out of hand is NOT what the scientific method is about. No, that blanket REPRESSION AND DENIAL (should I say CENSORSHIP?) of a valid and ancient hypothesis is more akin to the close-minded bias of a rigid FAITH SYSTEM. Name calling and fear are not science. (In other contexts we call close-minded thinking "superstition"!)

DrAl	Posted: October 23, 2008 3:11 PM

bobxxxx: The fact that judges have confused Intelligent Design and "invoking God" tempts me to make similar accusations of "too stupid" and "too lazy"--but name calling does little to advance intelligent discussion. And are you actually unaware that many of the great scientific pioneers of history (from Newton to Faraday) TOOK FOR GRANTED that their pursuits involved figuring out how a designer had set up the scientific laws and structures of the universe? If you disagree with them, fine. But don't pretend that the existence of EVIDENCES OF DESIGN within the complexities of the universe does not merit scientific investigation of that hypothesis. To smugly dismiss it out of hand is NOT what the scientific method is about. No, that blanket REPRESSION AND DENIAL (should I say CENSORSHIP?) of a valid and ancient hypothesis is more akin to the close-minded bias of a rigid FAITH SYSTEM. Name calling and fear are not science. (In other contexts we call close-minded thinking "superstition"!)

DrAl	Posted: October 23, 2008 3:07 PM

bobxxxx: The fact that judges have confused Intelligent Design and "invoking God" tempts me to make similar accusations of "too stupid" and "too lazy"--but name calling does little to advance intelligent discussion. And are you actually unaware that many of the great scientific pioneers of history (from Newton to Faraday) TOOK FOR GRANTED that their pursuits involved figuring out how a designer had set up the scientific laws and structures of the universe? If you disagree with them, fine. But don't pretend that the existence of EVIDENCES OF DESIGN within the complexities of the universe does not merit scientific investigation of that hypothesis. To smugly dismiss it out of hand is NOT what the scientific method is about. No, that blanket REPRESSION AND DENIAL (should I say CENSORSHIP?) of a valid and ancient hypothesis is more akin to the close-minded bias of a rigid FAITH SYSTEM. Name calling and fear are not science. (In other contexts we call close-minded thinking "superstition"!)

mark	Posted: October 23, 2008 1:50 PM

People feel so threatened when their religion is thretened. The religion behind the blind faith of Darwinism is the greatest example. I wonder if I will ever cease to be amazed at the vitriol against the ID movement. If you choose to believe randomness provides the explanation of origins, go with it, and accept that others see more sense and order than that. The problem for the Christian evolutionsist still remains a theological one of order in origins. Evolution requires death. Death requires sin. Sin requires man. That fundamental order is too basic a tenet to ignore or justify with same song verse two of the meaning of death, spiritual or physical, blah blah blah. Again, this is for the Christian evolutionist who understands basic entropy and secondary magnitude of cause and effet, not for the naturalist who chooses to avoid those discussions.

wndblwngir

Posted: October 23, 2008 1:49 PM


You might like to check out other reviews posted on Amazon regarding this breakthrough book.

bmmh	Posted: October 23, 2008 1:12 PM

And just as Behe's flagella arguments have now been shown to be entirely bogus, I'm sure science will show these arguments to be bogus as well. The problem is you cannot conclusively prove that evolution cannot account for something. All you can do is say that something is complex and that it might be difficult. Of course, Behe's arguments were disproven by the results of real, discovery-oriented science done by scientists who accept evolution. If you think it is all designed by an omnipotent creator, there's no reason to try to discovery how it evolved. But most importantly, evolution is not a threat to the Christian faith. So, sit back, read some John Haught, and just accept evolution into your heart. Evolution is the truth. If you feel you have to choose between this truth and Jesus, well then, instead of thinking about how evolution must be wrong, perhaps spend some time thinking about how you might be wrong about Jesus.

Anastasia

Posted: October 23, 2008 12:51 PM

bobxxxx - that's a specious argument at best. If you look at a bicycle and see the genius of design and function, while intending to take it apart and figure out how it works when it's put back together, is it lazy to credit the designer/manufacturer of the bicycle? Silly bobxxxx - that's a lazy argument and untrue. Just because you see that someone HAD to design and assemble things doesn't mean we don't want to figure it all out.

bobxxxx

Posted: October 23, 2008 11:22 AM

Intelligent Design scientists? There are no intelligent design scientists because invoking intelligent design, also known as invoking God, is not doing science. It's called preaching. Intelligent design means: "I'm too stupid and too lazy to solve this scientific problem, nobody else alive or not even born yet will be able to solve it, therefore I invoke the magic fairy who lives in my tiny defective brain."

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment