Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Theological Aesthetics After Von Balthasar. Edited by Oleg V. Bychkov and James Fodor.

Theological Aesthetics After Von Balthasar. Edited by Oleg V. Bychkov and James Fodor. 462 BOOK REVIEWS In Chapter Three, ‘Is There Middle Ground Between Creation and Evolution?’, Fuller maintains that the perceived conflict between science and religion was manu- factured in the 19th century. Therein, he dismisses ‘theistic evolution’ as an ‘intellec- tual mirage’ and a feeble compromise between the two worldviews, a position with which I personally disagree. In Chapter Four, Fuller chides Michael Behe for taking Darwin’s ‘bait’, that is, for attempting to demonstrate that a complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive modifications. Though I do not think that Behe has provided the requisite organ/system to invali- date Darwin’s theory, it is my opinion that Darwin sincerely believed that an instance of such would invalidate his theory, and thus it was not an example of rhetorical flourish, countering the claims of Fuller (p. 146). Fuller points out several aspects of modern evolutionary theory that place it, just as much as any positing of ID, on scientifically shaky ground. Indeed, he notes that evolutionary theory has not attained consensus on whether the overall process of evolution is Lamarckian or Darwinian. Moreover, it has not answered the question of whether design is something that genuinely http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Literature and Theology Oxford University Press

Theological Aesthetics After Von Balthasar. Edited by Oleg V. Bychkov and James Fodor.

Literature and Theology , Volume 23 (4) – Dec 17, 2009

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/theological-aesthetics-after-von-balthasar-edited-by-oleg-v-bychkov-PWmcVUrBbA

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press 2009; all rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
ISSN
0269-1205
eISSN
1477-4623
DOI
10.1093/litthe/frp034
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

462 BOOK REVIEWS In Chapter Three, ‘Is There Middle Ground Between Creation and Evolution?’, Fuller maintains that the perceived conflict between science and religion was manu- factured in the 19th century. Therein, he dismisses ‘theistic evolution’ as an ‘intellec- tual mirage’ and a feeble compromise between the two worldviews, a position with which I personally disagree. In Chapter Four, Fuller chides Michael Behe for taking Darwin’s ‘bait’, that is, for attempting to demonstrate that a complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive modifications. Though I do not think that Behe has provided the requisite organ/system to invali- date Darwin’s theory, it is my opinion that Darwin sincerely believed that an instance of such would invalidate his theory, and thus it was not an example of rhetorical flourish, countering the claims of Fuller (p. 146). Fuller points out several aspects of modern evolutionary theory that place it, just as much as any positing of ID, on scientifically shaky ground. Indeed, he notes that evolutionary theory has not attained consensus on whether the overall process of evolution is Lamarckian or Darwinian. Moreover, it has not answered the question of whether design is something that genuinely

Journal

Literature and TheologyOxford University Press

Published: Dec 17, 2009

There are no references for this article.