Review of Back to Darwin

Back to Darwin: The Scientific Case for Deistic Evolution

Reviewed by: Henry E. Neufeld

Corey, M. A. Back to Darwin: The Scientific Case for Deistic Evolution New York: University Press of America, 1994.

This book promises a great deal. In the summary on the back cover of the book, its goal is stated as follows:

One of the major goals of Back to Darwin is to end the ongoing battle between evolutionists and creationists once and for all, by integrating the concept of Intelligent Design with out modern understanding of the evolutionary process. The primary question that is examined in this book isn't whether evolution has actually occurred or not, but whether it is coherent to believe that it could have happened in the absence of an Intelligent Designer.

Though I would regard myself essentially as a theistic evolutionist, I found that the book failed in both areas. I cannot comment very well on the biological and cosmological aspects of the work, but from a philosophical point of view it appears that Michael Corey has succeeded mostly in stating and restating the argument from design for the existence of God. Repeatedly he assures us that naturalistic processes can be found for each element in evolution, but argues that since these processes cannot possibly be random they must be designed, and therefore the result of a designer.

In chapter 4, "Species and Speciation" we find the following:

The Deistic Evolutionist does not dispute this notion that the various plants and animals probably grew out of one another through a naturalistic process of descent with modification. He does not, however, regard this as a sufficient explanation for the many commonalities of structure and function that are found throughout the living world. He simply regards it as the physical vehicle through which these commonalities were passed on from generation to generation, and from species to species. In order to identify a sufficient explanation for this phenomenon, he insists that we need to ask ourselves where the original structures and processes themselves came from, and how they came to be capable of evolving into the myriad of life forms that have existed throughout evolutionary history.

For the theist, it is the Mind of God that is ultimately responsible for the many unifying themes that are found throughout the living world. . . .

This fundamental argument is repeated through many chapters in the first section of the book, "The Implausibility of Non-Theistic Evolution." In the second section, "Directed Evolution" Michael Corey attempts to build a case for directed evolution. I found this section much more interesting than the first, in that mechanisms for various processes of evolution were suggested. The third section, "A Theological Justification for the Evolutionary Process" is, as one might gather from the title, very theological. It is Corey's contention that the evolutionary process, occurs throughout nature, and even in human spiritual development, and as such is an essential of the way humans have been formed (Chapter 12, "Reality and Necessity of Evolution as a Cosmic Process"). He says:

To sum up what we have covered thus far, the Deistic Evolutionist believes that there is indeed such a thing as a Human Essence within the Mind of God. He further believes that this Human Essence corresponds to a finite replica of the Divine Spiritual Image, set in the form of an independent psychospiritual agent, i.e., he believes that the Human Essence is comprised of those characteristics that would enable a being who possessed them to be a genuine "child of God." . . .

He argues in favor of an anthropocentric universe. Though I by no means consider myself an expert in that area, I think he fails to make an adequate case. It seems to me that much more study is required in this area before one can make such a judgment.

In general, this work is an interesting work of theology and philosophy, but does not seem to me to be any more successful than previous attempts at the argument from design. If one can postulate a naturalistic process, then the argument for a designer in any particular process of the universe is essentially the same as the argument from design as stated for an entire universe in which natural law occurs.

This book is suitable for the serious reader, with scientific and philosophical concepts carefully explained. It is not a fast read, however.