The Selfish Gene is something of a curate’s egg: good in parts. Reading it I was frustrated, angry, puzzled but it made me think – and that can’t be a bad thing.
Foster in the beginning sets up a conflict between creationsits and naturalistic evolutionsists. He writes polemically: “If few in the business agree with Dawkins, almost nobody thinks there is anything at all in any of the creationist contentions” (p xiii) And yet only a few pages later he writes: ‘An August 2006 survey of British university students found more than a third believed in either creationism or intelligent design’!

“There are no proper evidences for any of the creationist assertions” (p viv) – this left me wondering where is the evidence for this assertion? He then goes on to knock intelligent design as ‘ the fashionable fig leaf’ that paints a strange picture of God. Unfortunately, he doesn’t deal with the more sophisticated views of ID or old earth creationists. He seems content to deal with a straw man and a caricature of creationism.

“Creationism has done untold harm to Christianity, and untold good to Richard Dawkin’s bank balance’ (p 19). But neither does Dawkins escape scathing criticism: “His essential creed – scientism- has a quaintly dated feel about it.” (p. 19)

His main thesis is that creationism and Dawkinsism (Foster’s term) are very dull and cannot explain such a colourful world. So he goes in search of a middle way.

He goes on to look at the evidence for evolution – chapter 3 consists of a display of exhibits. From chapter 4 onwards the book gets a little more interesting. Until now it has been rather predictable. Here he looks at the evolution of altruism and community. How can a theory that’s based on the survival of the fittest produce altruism and community? He tentatively suggests that may be there is another force operating alongside natural selection. He then looks at the evolution of religion – how can, given an evolutionary framework, religion exist? He is asking good questions and that is a good step towards finding an answer.

He spends many pages examining the creation and fall accounts in Genesis 1-3. The fall has been a stumbling block for a theistic evolutionary perspective. Foster doesn’t seem to know what to do with the fall. He seems to want to minimise or reinterpret it; he doesn’t see it as a solution to pain and suffering. But then I would maintain it wasn’t meant to be that anyway.

He asserts that ‘nothing remotely like the traditional Christian doctrine of the Fall was recognized either by Jewish scholars or by the early Church’ (p. 171) but gives no evidence in support. He asserts that in the fall ‘the image of God was enhanced. That was precisely the problem” (p. 224). ‘If this was a fall it was a fall up”! “The direct and immediate consequence of the ‘Fall’ is civilization as we know it “(p. 227 – emphasis in original). This is an interesting twist on things.

Foster asks some important questions both of evolutionary theory and of the Genesis text. I’m not convinced by his answers though. ( )

Gotta hand it to Charles Foster, he isn’t afraid to ask the hard questions of his creator. Not only that but he does so with wonderful, sparkling prose as he slowly unpacks the questions and answers in a way that doesn’t fully reveal the full flavour of his personal theology until the final third of his book.

Foster’s intention is to explore whether or not it is reasonable to believe in a creator alongside the weight of evidence that exists for evolution. His opening gambit is to put creationists in one corner of the ring and Richard Dawkins in the other corner. These, Foster says, are the extreme fundamentalists. Just as Young Earth creationists are stubbornly fundamentalist in the way they cling to their literal six day creation, Dawkins is equally stubbornly fundamentalist in the way he preaches that natural selection accounts for absolutely everything.

Under Foster’s scrutiny Young Earth creationism and even Intelligent Design are comprehensively dismissed. Dawkins is also relegated (rather unfairly, I thought) to the side as a well meaning bigot.

Having dismissed the extremes we are left with the middle ground – which turns out to be a very uncomfortable place when considered closely. Foster is unflinching in the way he puts God on trial in the face of the possible arguments. God is not given the benefit of the doubt and Foster’s analysis is so thorough that one might be forgiven for thinking, half way through the book, that he doesn’t believe in a creator at all. It is the most in depth look at the theological implications of evolution that I have ever come across.

In fact, he succeeds so well in broaching all of the angles that the book’s main strength also turns out to be its main weakness. The problem arises when it comes time for Foster to unpack how he thinks belief in God can be reconciled with evolution. It is a proposal grounded by necessity in some heavy theological thinking. This firm shift away from concrete evidence into biblical exegesis is unsettling (something he acknowledges in the preface). Ultimately, his case for God does not feel anywhere near as strong as the arguments to the contrary that he has just spent several chapters examining. As he delves into Genesis the clarity that he has exhibited for most of the book becomes murky and more difficult to follow.

That’s not to say his response is weak. It is only weak in that it leaves us in the same place we are always left when considering whether or not we believe in God: it all comes down to a personal matter of faith. Science can’t help at this point.

The value of Foster’s excellent book is that it is such a refreshingly candid appraisal of faith by someone who doesn’t scoff at accepted scientific evidence. Foster’s questions give us clarity to better critique and evaluate what a reasonable faith in a creator might look like. Even if you remain unconvinced by his answers. ( )

The premise of this book was to show how one can believe in God and believe in Darwin, however it fails miserably. The author confesses in his preface that he not a theologian and his sloppy handling of the Scriptures is proof of that. A few paragraphs later in his introduction he states that he is bothered by Genesis. Why write a book attempting to reconcile a belief in Scriptures and a belief in Darwin when you obviously have no commitment whatsoever to the veracity of the Scriptures?

I found the book painful to read, not because the subject matter was difficult to understand, but because the author’s message was so logically inconsistent with it’s premise.

I do not recommend this book to anyone as it is a complete waste of time. ( )

This books premise was simple-sounding but difficult in practice, as is evidenced by the fact that there's still raging debate between evolutionists and creationists about how life came to be as it is. As is my observation (in this issue and others), the real answer doesn't lie at either end of the scale, but somewhere in the middle.

This is the approach the author chose to take, and he did it well. He does not use the same old standby arguments that most people use, but instead started fresh, right from the beginning. He not only looked at what the bible has to say on the subject of life's origins, but also compared and contrasted that to what Christianity at large says, and what hard-core evolutionists say.

I was quite impressed by this book, and the thoroughness of the research. It made me stop reading in order to have a good think more than once, and presented facts and opinions in such a way that it shot down some arguments without seeming insulting or derisive, which must have taken a lot of effort in some case. It gives respectful treatment of both sides of the debate, explores the options carefully, and offers ways that the two theories might live side-by-side and complement each other rather than competing with each other.

I definitely recommend this book for those who are Christian and having difficulty reconciling science with what the bible and the church say. Or even for those who are just interested in seeing both sides of the debate without having people scream in your face about which side is "clearly" right and which is "clearly" wrong. ( )

I received Charles Foster’s “The Selfless Gene” through Booksneeze.com’s free review copy program. I thought the subject matter to be an engaging topic as I am a Christian who studied paleontology in college. I do find, at times, that my religious beliefs and my scientific knowledge are hard to resolve, and my analytical mind is still searching for the “right” and satisfying resolution between my faith in God and my knowledge of science.

In the book, Foster notes that, “The biologists will think that I have oversimplified the biology. The nonbiologists will justifiably moan that I have summarized too brutally some very big and complex ideas,” and I do believe this to be true. Although I found Foster’s writing to be readable and engaging, It seems to me that much of the science was too superficially explained to really be compelling and I felt that the religious arguments were also tentatively dealt with, making me feel that I was missing something. While Foster raises many interesting topics of discussion, it seemed that none were dealt with thoroughly enough to be satisfying.

I also felt that (and perhaps this is because of my own scientific bias) the book was quite biased towards evolution and was a bit derogatory towards some Christian groups. I realize that Foster feels that there are too many extremists on both sides of the issue, but I felt that he held a certain contempt for Young Earth Christian groups. He does indicate in his preface that he wrote the book because he was angry at the existence of the debate, and that he assumed that his book would ruffle feathers on both sides, but I felt the book was not as balanced as it might have been. It did, however, raise many interesting points regarding the interpretation of various parts of the Bible that I had not previously considered, so all in all, I do feel that this book strengthened my convictions and while it did not completely resolve the complex relationship between science and God (let’s face it, that will likely never happen!), I think books in this vein are much needed and to be applauded. ( )