What do you think?
Rate this book
God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution
In God After Darwin , eminent theologian John F. Haught argues that the ongoing debate between Darwinian evolutionists and Christian apologists is fundamentally misdirected: Both sides persist in focusing on an explanation of underlying design and order in the universe. Haught suggests that what is lacking in both of these competing ideologies is the notion of novelty, a necessary component of evolution and the essence of the unfolding of the divine mystery. He argues that Darwin's disturbing picture of life, instead of being hostile to religion-as scientific skeptics and many believers have thought it to be-actually provides a most fertile setting for mature reflection on the idea of God. Solidly grounded in scholarship, Haught's explanation of the relationship between theology and evolution is both accessible and engaging. The second edition of God After Darwin features an entirely new chapter on the ongoing, controversial debate between intelligent design and evolution, including an assessment of Haught's experience as an expert witness in the landmark case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District on teaching evolution and intelligent design in schools.
258 pages, Paperback
First published October 21, 1999
About the author
John F. Haught
45 books32 followersJohn F. Haught is a Roman Catholic theologian, specializing with systematic theology. He has special interests in science, cosmology, ecology, and reconciling evolution and religion.
Haught graduated from St. Mary's Seminary and University in Baltimore,, and he received a PhD in Theology from The Catholic University of America in 1970.
Haught received the 2002 Owen Garrigan Award in Science and Religion, the 2004 Sophia Award for Theological Excellence, and, in 2009, the degree of Doctor Honoris Causa by the University of Leuven.
He is Senior Research Fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. There, he established the Georgetown Center for the Study of Science and Religion and was the chair of Georgetown's theology department between 1990 and 1995.
Haught graduated from St. Mary's Seminary and University in Baltimore,, and he received a PhD in Theology from The Catholic University of America in 1970.
Haught received the 2002 Owen Garrigan Award in Science and Religion, the 2004 Sophia Award for Theological Excellence, and, in 2009, the degree of Doctor Honoris Causa by the University of Leuven.
He is Senior Research Fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. There, he established the Georgetown Center for the Study of Science and Religion and was the chair of Georgetown's theology department between 1990 and 1995.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
December 29, 2020
Really, really impressive. Synthesizing and building on the "process theology" that developed in the wake of Alfred North Whitehead's work, Hans Jonas' emergent mind philosophy, cosmology, and Neo-Darwinian evolution, Haught offers a sympathetic reading of the Christian Bible that is consistent with both traditional interpretations and theology as well as twentieth-century consensus science. "If these are all true," Haught asks, in essence - "If our present understanding is mostly accurate, what are the theological implications?"
The question has been asked before; not often by persons with much patience for the subject. Typical answers are shallow, callous, dismissive, or vitriolic, expressive of a false dichotomy between "believers" and "the scientific establishment." Bad arguments and logical fallacies are rampant. Frankly, the whole squabble is boring.
Haught's response, on the other hand, is a thing of beauty. He rightly points out that the overriding themes of Scripture are prophetic and futuristic - not emphasizing a lost paradise which we must but cannot recover and which God acts to restore, but pointing rather to God's past and ongoing work as "merely" a sign of the new and better work to come. God is "located" in the future, Haught says, calling all creation out of nothing towards himself, but not compelling its immediate perfection: giving all things the time and grace to grow, stumble, lapse, and recover along the way.
Wisely, Haught does not claim that his views are "correct" but rather, like their subject, that they express a possible yet incomplete framework for understanding God in light of both biblical revelation and the study of the natural world. Along with the prior work it represents and builds on, God After Darwin is brilliant, potentially an eventual cornerstone of reconciliation between the liberal / fundamentalist movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.
The question has been asked before; not often by persons with much patience for the subject. Typical answers are shallow, callous, dismissive, or vitriolic, expressive of a false dichotomy between "believers" and "the scientific establishment." Bad arguments and logical fallacies are rampant. Frankly, the whole squabble is boring.
Haught's response, on the other hand, is a thing of beauty. He rightly points out that the overriding themes of Scripture are prophetic and futuristic - not emphasizing a lost paradise which we must but cannot recover and which God acts to restore, but pointing rather to God's past and ongoing work as "merely" a sign of the new and better work to come. God is "located" in the future, Haught says, calling all creation out of nothing towards himself, but not compelling its immediate perfection: giving all things the time and grace to grow, stumble, lapse, and recover along the way.
Wisely, Haught does not claim that his views are "correct" but rather, like their subject, that they express a possible yet incomplete framework for understanding God in light of both biblical revelation and the study of the natural world. Along with the prior work it represents and builds on, God After Darwin is brilliant, potentially an eventual cornerstone of reconciliation between the liberal / fundamentalist movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.
January 7, 2016
Georgetown theologian John Haught believes that when it comes to the theory of evolution there needs to be no “friction” with the Christian faith. He makes the point right from the start that in the sphere of evolutionary biology (started by Charles Darwin over 150 years ago) there is little or no thought of God. Why, most evolutionary biologists say, believe in a God when we can “see” that given enough time and starting with one tiny cell, nature can develop life with random mutations and natural selection. Thus there is no reason to turn to the “myth” of an all-powerful, personal God and stories of gardens of paradise and talking serpents and the like. Humanity has now “evolved” where it no longer needs religious stories of God and humanity can trust fully in the “mature decision” of science.
Haught observes the agnostic or atheistic understanding or philosophy that is prevalent in the scientific community and deduces that it is precisely a philosophy which leads many in the scientific community to take the leap to atheism and not the evidence or the practice of the science itself. Haught states it is the philosophic view of materialism, which gives only a mechanical sort of view or lens to “living” things, including the rational animal of humanity. In this view there is no God, soul, or spiritual real, what can see and touch is all that is real. It is the philosophy of materialism that is, for various reasons, wedded with evolutionary biology that leads one to atheism. This marriage, he argues, was made in haste of the humanistic thought of the enlightened and post enlightenment day in reaction to the classical, theological, philosophical view of the world, which seemed to clash with the truths of evolution. This correctly leads Haught to argue that instead of using a worldview of materialism with evolution, one should use a philosophy that both accepts the truths of evolution, random mutations and natural selection, with an all-powerful, creating God, who transcends all of creation and holds it in existence. This view, he argues, can only help purify Christian theology and help us to better understand who God/ Jesus Christ is and who humanity is in relation to God, and finally the divine plan for humanity and the Eschaton.
Though there is a great deal of truth in Haught’s previous suppositions, it is the direction that he ultimately takes that becomes a problem. Haught understands that to express a theology of evolution it is done through the application of the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, and his approach of “process theology.” This view is problematic because it reverses the emphasis that because God is immutable, unchanging, and unchangeable, he cannot suffer or be affected by what happens in, e.g., his creation. It then insists that becoming is a necessary condition of being. It could be argued that Haught retains the traditional emphasis on the unchanging/unchangeable nature of God, but then insists that change, suffering, petition, intercession, etc., are consequential to God and evoke response, but to and from one whose nature it is to make such response without his own nature changing. This philosophical system eliminates classical metaphysics in relation to evolution, and as we will see make some Haught’s claims difficult to reconcile with such doctrines as the soul created in the image and likeness of God, original sin and the fall, the need for a savior and the purpose of the Incarnation.
Though Haught believes that evolution and theology go together, he is quick to let the reader know that he is not headed down the road of intelligent design. A theory, he summarizes, that observes certain features in the universe and of living things that are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Haught will go so far as to say that it is form of creationism, that even with its contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, is actually on the same end of the spectrum that materialism is. Haught will further say that intelligent design avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. He seems right to criticize intelligent design; first of all, it is just bad science. It seems to ignore any of the messiness of science, any of the randomness, such as the mutations, or the chaotic stages of life development and focus on the order life and creation. It would follow then, from an accurate Christian perspective, that intelligent design is not only problematic because of the poor science, but also because intelligent design reduces and belittles God’s power and might by only focusing on “noticeable” order in nature.
In fact Haught says that one should not equate God with order at all. This point goes back to the previous mentioned process theology and its main points. Again as a result one might be critical here; first of all that one can argue that faith says that one must see God as order. This can be shown in the specific arguments and conclusions Haught makes, which seem to have an “order” to them. As Haught ardently holds there is no order in the development of life or, as he says on page five, “[an idea of order] is even less ready to embrace some of the more profound and disturbing aspects of religious experience itself, thus rendering it all the less capable of meaningful contact with the messiness of evolution….theology must reclaim features of religious faith that that are all too easily smoothed away by the deadening disguise of order and design” – contradicting himself a bit here.
How God works in the theology of evolution
Haught’s overall assessment of intelligent design is correct: religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly or the theory of intelligent design which diminishes God to an engineer who designs systems rather than a lover. He points out then that his theology of evolution fits well here because, unlike the previous two ideologies, Haught’s belief is of a God who in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world which reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process, with greater and greater complexity. God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves – this is what he seems to think is evolution’s gift to theology. However, if God is the Supreme Being that which all existence comes from and that which holds all existence together, by his very nature God must “intervene” at some very basic level, showing how Haught poorly distinguishes how God can participate in creation but yet states that God does not “intervene” or that God has no “order.” This also brings up the point that Haught does not address the subject of miracles; how does the theory of an ever-creating God, who does not intervene, explain the reality of miracles? Haught, then, brings up good points, but then seems to contradict himself and leaves out necessary realities within his arguments and points (miracles as one e.g.).
Chapter five, “Religion, Evolution, & Information, dealing with cosmic “hierarchical information” was particularly insightful - with specific reference to the genetic code of DNA, cosmic self-awareness and the laws of nature. Not only do these phenomena show that the materialist world view is paradoxical and severely limited, but it also reveals the rationale and logic behind the religious conviction that the true foundation of all being is the Divine Mind, here Haught begins think like theologian/scientist Teilhard de Chardin. Haught’s reasoning develops Chardin’s thought that evolutionary biology does not provide ultimate explanations because there are still considerable holes within the scientific truths of the theory. As a result Haught cites prominent scientific atheist materialists Dennett, Dawkins and the like. Early on he states their thoughts and slowly describes why it is their philosophy (materialism) does not match their science and then nicely explains how through a theology of evolution the all people can believe in a God through all of the truths and intricacies of evolution.
Haught makes the point that his theology of evolution does not destroy the hierarchy of beings (God, angels, humanity, animals, and plants), but seems to think that one can no longer believe in them in the same static and vertical representations. Haught states in his conclusion that one must think of the hierarchy of beings more dynamically, historically and ecologically. Perhaps this is the case, but he does a poor job of stating why Seyyed Hossein Nasr is correct in stating that because values now appear groundless, that because of the higher probability of human atrocities and that creation is more vulnerable to humans, that logically the classic view of metaphysics and the hierarchy of beings does not apply to a theology of evolution. If anything, it proves the traditional Christian doctrine of original sin and the fall, of which he does poor job “processing” and he even denies “the fall” altogether as an ideology that an evolving universe can no longer accept. The classic view of Christian metaphysics does not, as he argues, make evolution pointless but in fact shows that the height of universal evolution has already been reached in the first human being fully evolved. When we see the universe perpetually moving and “evolving” it shows that the universe is moving towards its Creator until he comes again.
His idea of how original sin entered the world is problematic. Though, Haught theorizes that the two creation stories in Genesis are myths, however, when he extinguishes the idea of a perfect world, central to the Truth of the myth, as something that never existed, except in the realm of the Perfect Ideal, he shows the slippery-slope he is working from. An undeveloped understanding of original sin leads to his ambiguous conclusions. Also he calls himself a Roman Catholic, thus needs to express the basic truths the Catholic Church in these areas. Leading again to how Haught fails to account for the reality of miracles within a theology of evolution. Do they exist? Does God intervene in his creation (which again would contradict his argument); or is the miraculous purely a part of evolution? He fails to address this.
Haught brings up Chardin’s “Omega point” where the future, a theology of hope, is the ultimate purpose of evolution, which, I believe, can be reconciled with authentic Christian doctrine, such as the Incarnation, salvation, redemption, and the Eschaton. However, Haught never actually takes Chardin’s position. Instead Haught stays with a future view that acts as the key to finding purpose in evolution (different then Chardin, it seems, in several ways). Haught defines humanity as groups of people, of widely differing cultures and belief systems, working together to manifest God's plan: the increase of beauty. This has some truth in it, e.g., that the God of evolution allows the world to have a part in shaping its own future and influences this future by being the creative source of all the possible paths the world could take. True, but as previously mentioned, this is a slippery-slope. However what his point lacks is the need of savior, the need to be redeemed, believing that humanity is still only evolving into the being it is meant to be. This is problematic.
To briefly sum up, this is a good book in general, but not in specifics. Much of what he says sounds very good until you get down to the details of how his ideas would work. Further, the theological answers he gives that try and sand out any problems with traditional Christian theology posed by evolution frequently require an abandoning of what would be considered the Church’s teaching in favor of process theism. Also, he does not dwell enough on the holes in the theory of evolution, such as, the lack of intermediaries, the weak theories that exist in how water mammals evolved and the like. It would have been good then to play with some other theories of poly-simple life forms evolving, each into its own “type” as it were. However, as Christians, at the end of the day we see that the God of evolution does allow the world to have a part in shaping its own future and Providence influences this future as the creative source of all the possible paths the world could take. We must also believe that a theology of evolution is not only about this, but that we have obtained through Christ what the first original “evolved humanity” lost and even more. For through God’s grace we are “evolving” in virtue, evolving more and more in the image and likeness of God, watching the universe move and evolve toward that glorious day of the Eschaton, when the culmination of creation will be achieved and God will be all in all.
Haught observes the agnostic or atheistic understanding or philosophy that is prevalent in the scientific community and deduces that it is precisely a philosophy which leads many in the scientific community to take the leap to atheism and not the evidence or the practice of the science itself. Haught states it is the philosophic view of materialism, which gives only a mechanical sort of view or lens to “living” things, including the rational animal of humanity. In this view there is no God, soul, or spiritual real, what can see and touch is all that is real. It is the philosophy of materialism that is, for various reasons, wedded with evolutionary biology that leads one to atheism. This marriage, he argues, was made in haste of the humanistic thought of the enlightened and post enlightenment day in reaction to the classical, theological, philosophical view of the world, which seemed to clash with the truths of evolution. This correctly leads Haught to argue that instead of using a worldview of materialism with evolution, one should use a philosophy that both accepts the truths of evolution, random mutations and natural selection, with an all-powerful, creating God, who transcends all of creation and holds it in existence. This view, he argues, can only help purify Christian theology and help us to better understand who God/ Jesus Christ is and who humanity is in relation to God, and finally the divine plan for humanity and the Eschaton.
Though there is a great deal of truth in Haught’s previous suppositions, it is the direction that he ultimately takes that becomes a problem. Haught understands that to express a theology of evolution it is done through the application of the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, and his approach of “process theology.” This view is problematic because it reverses the emphasis that because God is immutable, unchanging, and unchangeable, he cannot suffer or be affected by what happens in, e.g., his creation. It then insists that becoming is a necessary condition of being. It could be argued that Haught retains the traditional emphasis on the unchanging/unchangeable nature of God, but then insists that change, suffering, petition, intercession, etc., are consequential to God and evoke response, but to and from one whose nature it is to make such response without his own nature changing. This philosophical system eliminates classical metaphysics in relation to evolution, and as we will see make some Haught’s claims difficult to reconcile with such doctrines as the soul created in the image and likeness of God, original sin and the fall, the need for a savior and the purpose of the Incarnation.
Though Haught believes that evolution and theology go together, he is quick to let the reader know that he is not headed down the road of intelligent design. A theory, he summarizes, that observes certain features in the universe and of living things that are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Haught will go so far as to say that it is form of creationism, that even with its contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, is actually on the same end of the spectrum that materialism is. Haught will further say that intelligent design avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. He seems right to criticize intelligent design; first of all, it is just bad science. It seems to ignore any of the messiness of science, any of the randomness, such as the mutations, or the chaotic stages of life development and focus on the order life and creation. It would follow then, from an accurate Christian perspective, that intelligent design is not only problematic because of the poor science, but also because intelligent design reduces and belittles God’s power and might by only focusing on “noticeable” order in nature.
In fact Haught says that one should not equate God with order at all. This point goes back to the previous mentioned process theology and its main points. Again as a result one might be critical here; first of all that one can argue that faith says that one must see God as order. This can be shown in the specific arguments and conclusions Haught makes, which seem to have an “order” to them. As Haught ardently holds there is no order in the development of life or, as he says on page five, “[an idea of order] is even less ready to embrace some of the more profound and disturbing aspects of religious experience itself, thus rendering it all the less capable of meaningful contact with the messiness of evolution….theology must reclaim features of religious faith that that are all too easily smoothed away by the deadening disguise of order and design” – contradicting himself a bit here.
How God works in the theology of evolution
Haught’s overall assessment of intelligent design is correct: religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly or the theory of intelligent design which diminishes God to an engineer who designs systems rather than a lover. He points out then that his theology of evolution fits well here because, unlike the previous two ideologies, Haught’s belief is of a God who in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world which reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process, with greater and greater complexity. God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves – this is what he seems to think is evolution’s gift to theology. However, if God is the Supreme Being that which all existence comes from and that which holds all existence together, by his very nature God must “intervene” at some very basic level, showing how Haught poorly distinguishes how God can participate in creation but yet states that God does not “intervene” or that God has no “order.” This also brings up the point that Haught does not address the subject of miracles; how does the theory of an ever-creating God, who does not intervene, explain the reality of miracles? Haught, then, brings up good points, but then seems to contradict himself and leaves out necessary realities within his arguments and points (miracles as one e.g.).
Chapter five, “Religion, Evolution, & Information, dealing with cosmic “hierarchical information” was particularly insightful - with specific reference to the genetic code of DNA, cosmic self-awareness and the laws of nature. Not only do these phenomena show that the materialist world view is paradoxical and severely limited, but it also reveals the rationale and logic behind the religious conviction that the true foundation of all being is the Divine Mind, here Haught begins think like theologian/scientist Teilhard de Chardin. Haught’s reasoning develops Chardin’s thought that evolutionary biology does not provide ultimate explanations because there are still considerable holes within the scientific truths of the theory. As a result Haught cites prominent scientific atheist materialists Dennett, Dawkins and the like. Early on he states their thoughts and slowly describes why it is their philosophy (materialism) does not match their science and then nicely explains how through a theology of evolution the all people can believe in a God through all of the truths and intricacies of evolution.
Haught makes the point that his theology of evolution does not destroy the hierarchy of beings (God, angels, humanity, animals, and plants), but seems to think that one can no longer believe in them in the same static and vertical representations. Haught states in his conclusion that one must think of the hierarchy of beings more dynamically, historically and ecologically. Perhaps this is the case, but he does a poor job of stating why Seyyed Hossein Nasr is correct in stating that because values now appear groundless, that because of the higher probability of human atrocities and that creation is more vulnerable to humans, that logically the classic view of metaphysics and the hierarchy of beings does not apply to a theology of evolution. If anything, it proves the traditional Christian doctrine of original sin and the fall, of which he does poor job “processing” and he even denies “the fall” altogether as an ideology that an evolving universe can no longer accept. The classic view of Christian metaphysics does not, as he argues, make evolution pointless but in fact shows that the height of universal evolution has already been reached in the first human being fully evolved. When we see the universe perpetually moving and “evolving” it shows that the universe is moving towards its Creator until he comes again.
His idea of how original sin entered the world is problematic. Though, Haught theorizes that the two creation stories in Genesis are myths, however, when he extinguishes the idea of a perfect world, central to the Truth of the myth, as something that never existed, except in the realm of the Perfect Ideal, he shows the slippery-slope he is working from. An undeveloped understanding of original sin leads to his ambiguous conclusions. Also he calls himself a Roman Catholic, thus needs to express the basic truths the Catholic Church in these areas. Leading again to how Haught fails to account for the reality of miracles within a theology of evolution. Do they exist? Does God intervene in his creation (which again would contradict his argument); or is the miraculous purely a part of evolution? He fails to address this.
Haught brings up Chardin’s “Omega point” where the future, a theology of hope, is the ultimate purpose of evolution, which, I believe, can be reconciled with authentic Christian doctrine, such as the Incarnation, salvation, redemption, and the Eschaton. However, Haught never actually takes Chardin’s position. Instead Haught stays with a future view that acts as the key to finding purpose in evolution (different then Chardin, it seems, in several ways). Haught defines humanity as groups of people, of widely differing cultures and belief systems, working together to manifest God's plan: the increase of beauty. This has some truth in it, e.g., that the God of evolution allows the world to have a part in shaping its own future and influences this future by being the creative source of all the possible paths the world could take. True, but as previously mentioned, this is a slippery-slope. However what his point lacks is the need of savior, the need to be redeemed, believing that humanity is still only evolving into the being it is meant to be. This is problematic.
To briefly sum up, this is a good book in general, but not in specifics. Much of what he says sounds very good until you get down to the details of how his ideas would work. Further, the theological answers he gives that try and sand out any problems with traditional Christian theology posed by evolution frequently require an abandoning of what would be considered the Church’s teaching in favor of process theism. Also, he does not dwell enough on the holes in the theory of evolution, such as, the lack of intermediaries, the weak theories that exist in how water mammals evolved and the like. It would have been good then to play with some other theories of poly-simple life forms evolving, each into its own “type” as it were. However, as Christians, at the end of the day we see that the God of evolution does allow the world to have a part in shaping its own future and Providence influences this future as the creative source of all the possible paths the world could take. We must also believe that a theology of evolution is not only about this, but that we have obtained through Christ what the first original “evolved humanity” lost and even more. For through God’s grace we are “evolving” in virtue, evolving more and more in the image and likeness of God, watching the universe move and evolve toward that glorious day of the Eschaton, when the culmination of creation will be achieved and God will be all in all.
June 28, 2020
The subtitle of this book is "A Theology of Evolution", demonstrating John Haught's project that is certainly admirable: bringing God and evolutionary science in a serious conversation, one in which theology revises its own position and understanding of God.
As Haught sees it, the problem with theology is that it has not yet come to a fruitful conversation with evolutionary science but has insisted on remaining stuck in its literalism, dogmatism and cosmology of substance and eternal present metaphysics. What is needed is a natural theology that accepts science but itself places the interpretive framework of that science. Haught believes a cosmology without God is an incomplete one and alters Daniel Dennett’s negation of God into a quest for the God of evolution: the God of creativity, novelty, change and organic growth. He finds it “more helpful to think of God as the infinitely generous ground of new possibilities for world-becoming than as a “designer” or “planner.” Most importantly, Haught bases his theological argument on God as the God the future: the eschatological understanding that God, and hence novelty and meaning, beckons from the future.’ The ultimate is not randomness, it is God who pulls all of creation throughout time.
Haught's book relies heavily on the metaphysics and process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. Although he mainly focuses on Christianity, he also brings in views from other religious traditions.
I do find pitholes in his argument, especially a tendency to smooth over differences between evolutionary science and theology, and an attempt to push God only in the realm of the future, certainly a safe, uncontested place in which to project the deity. A book that takes both more seriously, quite thoroughly and comes into conversation with Haught is Celia Deane-Drummond's "Christ and Evolution".
Yet I certainly admire his project and wish there were more theologies of evolution that take science seriously and come consciously and humbly into conversation with it. It will always be a difficult challenge. Each is a formidable match for the other, deeply challenging its very groundwork, ideology, scope, and ability to open up or close human potential and longing for the ultimate. This marriage will either flounder or prosper, and if it prospers, will be a deeply satisfying union. A match made in heaven, maybe?
As Haught sees it, the problem with theology is that it has not yet come to a fruitful conversation with evolutionary science but has insisted on remaining stuck in its literalism, dogmatism and cosmology of substance and eternal present metaphysics. What is needed is a natural theology that accepts science but itself places the interpretive framework of that science. Haught believes a cosmology without God is an incomplete one and alters Daniel Dennett’s negation of God into a quest for the God of evolution: the God of creativity, novelty, change and organic growth. He finds it “more helpful to think of God as the infinitely generous ground of new possibilities for world-becoming than as a “designer” or “planner.” Most importantly, Haught bases his theological argument on God as the God the future: the eschatological understanding that God, and hence novelty and meaning, beckons from the future.’ The ultimate is not randomness, it is God who pulls all of creation throughout time.
Haught's book relies heavily on the metaphysics and process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. Although he mainly focuses on Christianity, he also brings in views from other religious traditions.
I do find pitholes in his argument, especially a tendency to smooth over differences between evolutionary science and theology, and an attempt to push God only in the realm of the future, certainly a safe, uncontested place in which to project the deity. A book that takes both more seriously, quite thoroughly and comes into conversation with Haught is Celia Deane-Drummond's "Christ and Evolution".
Yet I certainly admire his project and wish there were more theologies of evolution that take science seriously and come consciously and humbly into conversation with it. It will always be a difficult challenge. Each is a formidable match for the other, deeply challenging its very groundwork, ideology, scope, and ability to open up or close human potential and longing for the ultimate. This marriage will either flounder or prosper, and if it prospers, will be a deeply satisfying union. A match made in heaven, maybe?
October 14, 2023
Life-changing.
June 8, 2024
Intellectually challenging and full of hope. Far from a threat to faith, evolution gives hope and challenges the very materialist notions of some proponents.
December 8, 2020
Haught proposes a future-directed way of thinking theologically. God exists in the future of evolution, not interfering with the Darwinian process He created. The strength of Haught's work is his delineation of four perspectives on the science-faith intersection: (1) evolutionary biology, (2) evolutionary materialism (or naturalism), (3) Intelligent Design, and (4) evolutionary theology. Numbers 2 &3 both ask science to do something the scientific method is not equipped to do: confirm or deny the existence of God and participation by God in the creation of the universe. Haught effectively shows the failures of both these positions. He also rightly establishes that evolutionary biology simply uses the scientific method to explain the universe and life in it. Evolutionary biologists neither affirm God's existence, nor do they deny it. That isn't science's purview. Haught's work falters, in my opinion, with his explanation of evolutionary theology, a version of process theology. I feel he never addresses the sovereignty of God. For God to be God, I believe God must be all-knowing and all-powerful. This assertion is threatened by the presence of evil in the world as well as by the bloody, heartless survival-of-the-fittest drive in evolution. If evil persists and evolution is so cruelly unfeeling, God must answer for this. Haught's answer is to situate God in the future as the telos of a changing universe. He replaces 'design'-thinking with creativity-thinking. I appreciate what he's trying to do, but I can't bring myself to discard the element of design, even though it doesn't square with evolution. I can't show how God has done it, but I believe God has disrupted natural law at points in order to influence the course of evolution. I would suppose God has done this more frequently than I could possible identify, but the two points that stand out to me are the endowing of humans with the image of God and the resurrection of Jesus. Haught refers to resurrection and new creation, but does not deal with the implications of the resurrection for God's interactions with natural law. For me, that's where his theology is at its weakest.
July 2, 2009
Saya membeli buku ini karena judulnya yang sangat provokatif. Waktu itu kebetulan saya lagi getol-getolnya ingin mengetahui lebih mendalam mengenai teori evolusi. Apalagi saat saya membaca resensi singkatnya di bagian belakang buku, sangat menantang! Dikatakan bahwa setelah teori evolusi yang dicetuskan Darwin menjadi populer, teriakan "Tuhan telah mati" milik Nietszche semakin menggema ke mana-mana.
Buku ini sebenarnya malah tidak menyerang teori evolusi, meskipun mencatut nama "Teologi" dalam judulnya. John F. Haught berusaha menggabungkan antara pemikiran teori evolusi dengan konsep Teologi dalam konsep filsafat postmodernisme. Simpelnya, ia memandang bahwa Tuhan mempunyai alasan khusus untuk mengizinkan evolusi terjadi pada mahluk ciptaan-Nya.
Satu-satunya masalah adalah bahasa yang digunakan tergolong sangat rumit, sukar dicerna, dan sukses membuat saya pusing. Mungkin karena memang tema yang dibahas sudah sangat serius atau translasi bahasa Indonesianya yang terlalu kaku. Yah, yang jelas ini bukan tipe buku yang akan dibaca untuk kedua kalinya atau buku dalam daftar pilihan teratas yang akan dibawa saat sedang bersantai.
Sekilas seperti: mendadak merasa lebih tua dan bodoh karena semakin banyak membaca, semakin tidak tahu...
Buku ini sebenarnya malah tidak menyerang teori evolusi, meskipun mencatut nama "Teologi" dalam judulnya. John F. Haught berusaha menggabungkan antara pemikiran teori evolusi dengan konsep Teologi dalam konsep filsafat postmodernisme. Simpelnya, ia memandang bahwa Tuhan mempunyai alasan khusus untuk mengizinkan evolusi terjadi pada mahluk ciptaan-Nya.
Satu-satunya masalah adalah bahasa yang digunakan tergolong sangat rumit, sukar dicerna, dan sukses membuat saya pusing. Mungkin karena memang tema yang dibahas sudah sangat serius atau translasi bahasa Indonesianya yang terlalu kaku. Yah, yang jelas ini bukan tipe buku yang akan dibaca untuk kedua kalinya atau buku dalam daftar pilihan teratas yang akan dibawa saat sedang bersantai.
Sekilas seperti: mendadak merasa lebih tua dan bodoh karena semakin banyak membaca, semakin tidak tahu...
March 1, 2008
Haught makes an effort to take seriously the role of chance in evolution and to integrate that with Christian theology. I respect him for this, and appreciate his efforts, but the theology he ends up with is not entirely satisfying to me.
October 29, 2008
Perdebatan mengenai teori evolusi darwin yang bertolak belakang dengan keterangan kitab suci. Bagaikan dua sisi mata uang yg bertolak belakang, dua teori tersebut saling melengkapi argumen masing-masing. Lumayan sebagai penghilang rasa kantuk..:p
November 5, 2011
skimmed a lot of this one . . swung a little too far to the process-theology side of things for me . . i guess i'd like to see something closer to an orthodox theology--and especially orthodox language--that also takes evolutionary science seriously . .
Read
August 23, 2007religion,science,nonfiction,philosophy
Read
October 20, 2008If you like process theology... you'll like this one. Good book, reasonably argued, but has theological holes.
March 28, 2009
Not completely convincing.
September 12, 2013
It's good, it's refreshing, it certainly gives you some good ideas - but ultimately I'm not convinced process theology really helps us to move forward in the science-religion dialogue...
October 13, 2013
Strong start to an actual integration of Darwinian Evolution and Christian Theology. Heavily based in the works of Moltmann and Whitehead.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews