You can't get much more anti-science than a book about Adam and Eve. Nevertheless, Stephen Schaffner—a computational biologist at the Broad Institute of MIT in Boston—decided that such a book was worthy of a mostly favorable review in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world [Adam. Eve, and the evolution of humankind].
Schaffner is reviewing a book by William Lane Craig whom he describes as "a widely published philosopher, theologian, and Christian apologist." There are others who would dispute that laudatory description including Richard Dawkins in a ten-year-old essay published in The Guardian [Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig].
I won't bother to mention all of the issues with the review since Jerry Coyne has covered them on his website but I would like to quote part of the second-last paragraph of the review.
Craig’s goal in writing this book, of course, is not a scientific one, and it cannot be judged on scientific grounds. I suspect that for many scientists, including religious ones, the exercise will be seen as misguided or simply incomprehensible.
Having followed Craig's anti-science crusade for several years, I have no difficulty in understanding why he would write such a book. What I find truly misguided and incomprehensible is why Science would publish such a review. Perhaps it's because AAAS, the publisher of Science, has a history of accommodating religion?
6 comments :
This is becoming a cottage industry in religious circles, including Catholic ones: the cartwheels even theologians with an understanding of evolution will go through... to prop up the belief in 'First Parents'.
Wasn't Steve Schaffner a Howler?
What a memory! In 1999 Stephen F. Schaffner of talk.origins worked at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory at Stanford University and then he moved to MIT. It's the same guy!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
He took us on a brief tour of the Human Genome Project when we visited Boston c.2001
Post a Comment