What do you think?
Rate this book
Baptizing the Devil
“But it’s science!”
In the broadest reading possible, the Genesis creation account is a supernatural phenomenon that leaves nothing to chance. Darwinian evolution, in the broadest reading possible, is a natural phenomenon that leaves most everything to chance.
Thus, it’s hard to imagine two views of creation more at odds with each other.
Why, then, this irresistible urge to “baptize the devil” by seeking to harmonize evolution with Genesis? Though we can’t know individual motives, the overarching answer is tied to the contemporary belief that evolution must be true because, after all, “It’s science!”
But if science is so good at finding truth, why does the truth change so often? Why are scientific certitudes of one generation often mocked as myths by the next one? Why do the findings of science, the result of the “scientific method,” often contradict each other? When scientific explanations about present reality, about what can be handled, heard, seen, tested and retested, are filled with debate and controversy—why do so many people unquestionably accept every scientific proclamation about supposed events millions or billions of years ago?
Baptizing the Devil seeks to show that this capitulation is not only unnecessary but misguided, another unfortunate example of well-meaning Christians compromising their faith to the prevailing culture. Baptizing the Devil hopes to free believers from the knee-jerk reaction that the only logical and rational response to the phrase “But it’s science!” is to surrender one’s beliefs, even religious ones, to it. Goldstein shows that Christians shouldn’t compromise so crucial a doctrine as origins to the prevailing culture, even when that culture’s wrapped in the authoritative garb of science.
In the broadest reading possible, the Genesis creation account is a supernatural phenomenon that leaves nothing to chance. Darwinian evolution, in the broadest reading possible, is a natural phenomenon that leaves most everything to chance.
Thus, it’s hard to imagine two views of creation more at odds with each other.
Why, then, this irresistible urge to “baptize the devil” by seeking to harmonize evolution with Genesis? Though we can’t know individual motives, the overarching answer is tied to the contemporary belief that evolution must be true because, after all, “It’s science!”
But if science is so good at finding truth, why does the truth change so often? Why are scientific certitudes of one generation often mocked as myths by the next one? Why do the findings of science, the result of the “scientific method,” often contradict each other? When scientific explanations about present reality, about what can be handled, heard, seen, tested and retested, are filled with debate and controversy—why do so many people unquestionably accept every scientific proclamation about supposed events millions or billions of years ago?
Baptizing the Devil seeks to show that this capitulation is not only unnecessary but misguided, another unfortunate example of well-meaning Christians compromising their faith to the prevailing culture. Baptizing the Devil hopes to free believers from the knee-jerk reaction that the only logical and rational response to the phrase “But it’s science!” is to surrender one’s beliefs, even religious ones, to it. Goldstein shows that Christians shouldn’t compromise so crucial a doctrine as origins to the prevailing culture, even when that culture’s wrapped in the authoritative garb of science.
256 pages, Hardcover
Published September 26, 2017
19 people are currently reading
33 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
December 1, 2019
The target audience for this book is Christians that have been influenced by popular culture to also believe in evolution. Most of the book and his arguments against science don't make sense if you don't believe that the Bible was inspired by and is the direct word of God, and should be taken literally.
The author's tone is sarcastic and dismissive in many places, which makes it hard to take him seriously.
While he has some legitimate critiques of science or scientism, I think many scientists admit the same weaknesses and acknowledge our lack of understanding about many things in the natural world.
One of his big complaints about science in the first few chapters is that it changes over time and if it's so accurate, why would it ever change? But that's the whole point... as technology and understanding advance, new information is discovered and so opinions and theories change. This is not a weakness of science, but how it should work. It would be foolish to hold onto old ideas that had been proven false.
Most of the time while reading the book I was thinking that he could take all of his complaints and critiques about science and level them against religion and the Bible as well.
Science is influenced by popular culture, politics, who is paying for the study, human error, assumptions based on a long history of misinterpretation and abuse by former scholars, etc. The same can be said for religion and Bible interpretation.
He never really tries to explain how literal Bible interpretation makes any more sense than evolution or any other explanation, other than it's the Bible and God said it, so it's true. Again, this book is written for Christians that are being naughty by believing modern scientists instead of the Bible, not for atheists or someone looking for a real argument for a literal Bible interpretation.
The author's tone is sarcastic and dismissive in many places, which makes it hard to take him seriously.
While he has some legitimate critiques of science or scientism, I think many scientists admit the same weaknesses and acknowledge our lack of understanding about many things in the natural world.
One of his big complaints about science in the first few chapters is that it changes over time and if it's so accurate, why would it ever change? But that's the whole point... as technology and understanding advance, new information is discovered and so opinions and theories change. This is not a weakness of science, but how it should work. It would be foolish to hold onto old ideas that had been proven false.
Most of the time while reading the book I was thinking that he could take all of his complaints and critiques about science and level them against religion and the Bible as well.
Science is influenced by popular culture, politics, who is paying for the study, human error, assumptions based on a long history of misinterpretation and abuse by former scholars, etc. The same can be said for religion and Bible interpretation.
He never really tries to explain how literal Bible interpretation makes any more sense than evolution or any other explanation, other than it's the Bible and God said it, so it's true. Again, this book is written for Christians that are being naughty by believing modern scientists instead of the Bible, not for atheists or someone looking for a real argument for a literal Bible interpretation.
October 26, 2019
The tense of a Hebrew verb outweighs all science?
The author has good biblical arguments against theistic evolution. Can’t have Jesus /Paul saying because Adam sinned then Jesus fixes it if there was no Adam etc.
Some reasonable tirades against scientism but overreaches by setting it up as a strawman. Scientists don’t all say that’s all there is Etc
Author cleverly dispensing the attempts to accommodate bible views with science and clearly highlighting that they cannot both be true- he then firmly stands as a science deniers ( almost in Toto insofar as truth claims) by outright assertion that the Adam & Eve myth , six day creation myth is actually literally true!
Plays the faith card to get out of evidence against his dogmatic views ( ironically while he ostensibly rails hard against dogma and casting doubt on science, questions epistemology
Perhaps this is a seventh day Adventist attempt at apologetics in the mode of William Lane Craig.
Clever words with a stupid conclusion
The author has good biblical arguments against theistic evolution. Can’t have Jesus /Paul saying because Adam sinned then Jesus fixes it if there was no Adam etc.
Some reasonable tirades against scientism but overreaches by setting it up as a strawman. Scientists don’t all say that’s all there is Etc
Author cleverly dispensing the attempts to accommodate bible views with science and clearly highlighting that they cannot both be true- he then firmly stands as a science deniers ( almost in Toto insofar as truth claims) by outright assertion that the Adam & Eve myth , six day creation myth is actually literally true!
Plays the faith card to get out of evidence against his dogmatic views ( ironically while he ostensibly rails hard against dogma and casting doubt on science, questions epistemology
Perhaps this is a seventh day Adventist attempt at apologetics in the mode of William Lane Craig.
Clever words with a stupid conclusion
Read
December 22, 2021Evaluating Clifford Goldstein s appraisal of theistic evolution
Clifford Goldstein does an excellent job of showing the incongruity of Christians attempting to harmonize theistic evolution with the creation narrative of the Bible
Clifford Goldstein does an excellent job of showing the incongruity of Christians attempting to harmonize theistic evolution with the creation narrative of the Bible
October 24, 2018
A book every SDA should read.
January 16, 2019
This is one of the best popular Seventh-day Adventist books I have read in a long time. Every Christian, not just Adventists, should be exposed to the arguments that are developed in this book.
March 28, 2023
Goldstein presents good arguments, in a slightly sarcastic tone, for why Christians can't logically or theologically conflate their Biblical beliefs with the current cultural philosophy of origins, or evolution. He makes it clear just how assumption-laden the scientific world is and why surrendering Biblical beliefs in favor of "It's science!" isn't a rational choice. While I found his discussion valuable, it felt laborious. Maybe I needed a more condensed argument. Readers wanting a thorough discussion of every aspect of the argument will find this satisfying.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews