Genesis, Evolution, and the Search for a Reasoned Faith  . By Mary KatherineBirge, SSJ, Brian G.Henning, Rodica M.Stoicoiu, and RyanTaylor . Winona , MN : Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications , 2011 . xiii + 133 pages. Softcover $26.95 .

This book illustrates the difficulties of attempts at dialogue between science and religion, or, perhaps more specifically, the problems with the way we try to conduct the dialogue. The book contains an Introduction by Dr. Birge, one chapter by each of the authors, and a closing fable by Henning. As in so much of the “dialogue,” the authors each write a chapter but do not engage with each other. Discussion Questions, Glossary, and Resources for Further Study conclude each chapter.

Sister Birge's contribution seeks to help moderns read the first three chapters of Genesis in a faithful and rational way by presenting the now widely accepted reasons for the two different stories and who may have written them. This chapter should incite at least two “dialogues”—one with fundamentalist interpretations and a second with the scientific story. Birge acknowledges fundamentalism, but this does not a dialogue make. Admittedly, any full engagement would be impossible in a chapter this short, but some acknowledgement of the multiple dialogues would seem justified. The chapter is further troubled by the mistaken assignment of P and J authorship in at least two places and Birge's insistence that the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge are in fact one. This requires more detailed explication; while some symbolic meaning may benefit, posing the assertion here simply deflects from the central message Birge seeks to convey from her discussion of the J story. Here and elsewhere, one gets the feeling that the book was put together a bit too hurriedly and would have benefitted from a critical editorial eye.

The second chapter, “Scientific Knowledge and Evolutionary Biology,” is by Dr. Taylor. He gives a creditable description of the scientific method and its application in genetics and paleontology. However, though Taylor is a specialist in animal communications, his chapter does not recognize the different levels and types of proof required in the various sciences. This kind of information would open new avenues for dialogue. In an effort to make science sound open, Taylor asserts that “Science never proves or guarantees anything with certainty and this is precisely what makes science dynamic and exciting” (43). However, this is not true. Water is H₂O and that is not going to change. More to the point for Taylor's chapter, a fossil is what it is though subject to reinterpretation, especially if the record expands—this is a different kind of proof structure than the one available in organic chemistry. Contrast this to field studies in behavior and ecology where even one repetition of an observation is often relegated to anecdote in the absence of video footage. And I am unaware that deniers or fundamentalists claim that science is too exciting; rather they claim it is just wrong and or damnably wrongheaded. Ryan also says that the Origin when published “caused tremendous social upheaval” (44). I am not aware of book burnings or riots in the streets in Darwin's time because of his publications. The storm was mostly huffing and puffing among the educated classes who went to church. I think it is at least equally fair to surmise that the educated classes were upset because Darwin violated Cartesian reductionism. By the way, Stephen Jay Gould has provided an approach to disproof of Darwin's theory of natural selection in his big book The Structure of Evolutionary Theory; this provides a whole new facet to the discussion of evolutionary theory which seems to have gone widely unrecognized.

Chapter 4 by Dr. Stoicoiu, “Theology in the Context of Evolution” dwells on the accusation of suffering related to natural selection: How could a loving God work on the basis of enormous amounts of suffering supposedly inherent in natural selection? Here is a deep misunderstanding. Natural selection within a species is primarily the outcome of leaving fewer descendent organisms than other organisms in that species. Death of an organism may in some way be sad or even terrible, but only humans purposely prolong and intensify the agony for substantial lengths of time [exceptions exist such as some insectivorous insects caching anesthetized prey insects to feed the predator's larval offspring]. But most death is not prolonged or even painful. Here, the counterpoint proposed by Stoicoiu is God's self‐emptying, suffering love. She draws extensively from the works of John S. Haught, and includes a very brief discussion of the evolutionary ideas present in the writings of Karl Rahner and Teilhard de Chardin. Once again there are many dialogues or pathways of dialogue possible but these are not outlined.

Chapter 3 by Brian Henning, “From Exception to Exemplification: Understanding the Debate over Darwin,” is a delightfully written recap of the course of philosophical thinking related to nature and its history. Henning shows that philosophies have been barriers and encumbrances to evolutionary thinking at least as much as religious opposition. His contribution provides a series of portals for serious dialogue between science and religion as many scientists are sadly unaware of the philosophical structures within which they work. He shows, for example, how Cartesian dogma has promoted human exclusivism at least as profoundly as the demands of creationists for a privileged human position in the world. Cartesian dualism promoted the idea that all life forms were machines, except for human life—we might very well say “only some human life.” To Henning's everlasting credit, he shows how field studies and language studies in chimpanzees have destroyed the viability of Cartesian dualism for anyone who pays attention.

Overall I cannot recommend this pricey small book. The many unreferenced assertions and the rather glib approach will not promote much advance in the science–religion dialogue. But, do get your hands on Henning's Chapter 3, a great read.

As a final note, for those interested in the many dialogues to be explored at the interfaces of religion–science–philosophy and their meanings for our lives, see the recent review “A Philosopher Defends Religion” by Thomas Nagel in The New York Review of Books (September 27, 2012, Volume 59, Number 14); the book reviewed is Alvin Plantinga's new book, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, Oxford University Press; I believe that both will be useful resources.