Irreconcilable Differences, Article Critique Example

Introduction

Linda Bothwell’s article, “Genesis Meets the Big Bang Theory and Evolution, Absent Design,” addresses issues widely debated in today’s world.  The focus is essentially on the dilemma confronting many modern cultures, in that scientific evidence of evolution and the beginnings of the universe contradict Christian faith.  It does not appear that Bothwell has a point to make, as she instead chooses to present the rationales behind conflicting views.  In concluding, however, the author does make a statement, which is that science need not eliminate faith, as faith offers specific opportunities for humans to advance in ways only human can.  Her points are well made throughout and Bothwell offers extensive data to support alternating positions, with a necessary emphasis on those of science.  Ultimately, however, she misses the point to which her work is directed.  Essentially, only man’s traditional concepts of God contrast with science, and belief is valid merely by perceiving God’s works as taking “scientific” form.

Critique

The thrust of what is wrong or incomplete in Bothwell’ article most definitely does not lie with her careful presentations of the basic histories of evolution and Big Bang theory. She cites multiple sources to validate the stream of information, even as much of it is commonly known.  For example, Bothwell not only describes the circumstances of Charles Darwin’s voyages, she recounts the course of its publishing.  The author then proceeds to provide elementary examples of how biological evolution occurs, as in the giraffe’s development of the elongated neck. In fairness to Bothwell, she goes beyond such typical instruction to delve into the mechanics dictating evolution, and how the process exponentially alters its own foundation: “As traits emerge and are selected, the shape of the environment inevitably changes over time” (2007). Nonetheless, she goes a very long way to make a point largely accepted in the modern world, even as she feels the need to reinforce it further:  “Over time, scientific evidence has accrued in favor of Darwinian natural selection so that it is less and less disputable” (Bothwell, 2007). There is, simply, no direction here aside from redundant validating.

Similarly, there is a basic lesson in the tracing of Big Bang theory, but this receives far less attention than does Darwin. What Bothwell focuses on in the bulk of the article is the fundamental dispute between creationists and science, and she presents the opposing viewpoints as a mediator, and not as favoring either view.  She certainly admits to the inescapable reality that advances in science tend to generate greater unrest in religious thinkers:  “Intelligent Design, and the concept of the “God of the gaps” is problematic in that as discoveries are made, God is pushed farther away from humanity and could, perhaps, ultimately be denied” (Bothwell, 2007).

Bothwell also, and interestingly, addresses how creationists have sought to reconcile science and the Bible, particularly in terms of non-literal interpretations of it.   She draws back, however, and this is where she has the opportunity to offer a relevant viewpoint completely addressing the issue.  It is, moreover, one suggested by the course of the article itself: namely, there is no reason to disbelieve that God would create the universe and man in a way that science could document.  The only prevention to this view, in fact, seems to be that it denies the mystery of God, yet even that is an attempt to comprehend the mind of God, and no person of real faith would presume to do so.  The nearest to such a view that Bothwell presents is acknowledging in her conclusion that some people seek to combine religious faith with scientific knowledge.  She chooses instead, however, to argue that faith and science should coexist in harmony: “That God is not scientifically provable means that we can choose to have faith”  (Bothwell, 2007).  If this is an interesting perception, it is also one not likely to end the conflict between science and creationism.  Far more reasonable is it to propose that, once humanity removes its insistence on a God who works in mystical, and usually seemingly magical, ways, creationism and science may find that they are one and the same.

Conclusion

Linda Bothwell’s article by no means offends the reader, be the reader devoutly religious or inclined to science.  It presents information and common perceptions in a reasonable and non-judging manner, and this aspect informs the author’s conclusion.  More exactly, there is a sense that Bothwell “just wants everyone to get along,” so she asserts that religion is valid alongside of science  because, like evolution, it advances humanity.  The idea is compelling, but unsatisfactory, given the enormity of the subjects.  Bothwell would have done better to pay attention to her own material, to then perceive and present that only antiquated notions of what God is and does prevent people from seeing that all science may be nothing more than God’s work.

References

Bothwell, Laura E.  (2007).  “Genesis Meets the Big Bang Theory and Evolution, Absent Design.”  Cross Currents 57 (1).