Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life [Audio Cassette]

Gould finally shows some emotion when he comes right out and says creationists have never contributed anything to science and are not scientists. He has mentioned similar epithets elsewhere, but not to this degree. I wondered though, while reading those quotes how Gould accepted that one of his best students, Kurt Wise, is not only a creationist but a YEC. Gould comments about Darwin and his views up until his death and how Darwin's view remained, as far as anyone knows, intact. Further I wonder, though, if Gould ever had any second thoughts about his views before his death.

This book is certainly worth reading, but Gould writes from the (very rational and intellectual) standpoint of a scientist who admires and yet does not hold Faith. A self-avowed "wise agnostic" has no more credibility in dictating the relationship between science and religion than would a bishop lacking any scientific background. He continually treats religion as nothing more than a system of moral teachings meant to comfort people. The only God that Gould can conceive of is the Deist notion of a cold and aloof "watchmaker" -- but there are very good reasons why Deism died out two centuries ago. Furthermore, Gould rejects even the possibility of miracles, and thus casually dismisses many of the founding premises of the world's major Faith traditions.

In short, this is certainly worth reading for people of science, religion, Faith, or all of the above. Yet understand that Gould writes purely as a skeptic and as a SCIENTIST, and a true conception of Faith eludes him. This book is best read if you mentally replace every instance of the word "religion" with "philosophy." Still, at least Gould tried.

For a far, far superior discussion of science and religion, pick up Polkinghorne's GOD OF HOPE AND THE END OF THE WORLD. Polkinghorne is not only an Anglican priest, but he held the Cambridge Physics Chair. Polkinghorne, unlike Gould, truly understands both aspects of his subject matter.

Overall, even though the book has a strong thesis and idea, I felt that the book was pretty dry and almost redundant at times. There were a few enjoyable moments where Gould's voice really stood out, but other than that the book was extremely boring about a topic that shouldn't be. Gould's intentions are pretty clear over the course of the novel, but I think that he should have undertaken them in a different way. There are also times in the book where he seems to drift on and just throw in irrelevant information that leaves you wondering, "Where did that come from?" At times it seems he beats around the bush and doesn't get to his main point of what NOMA is. Although I am more or less bashing the book, some of the accounts in Rocks of Ages were pretty interesting, including the Christopher Columbus and William Jennings Bryan portions of the book. For example, I learned that back in the 1400's, it was not perceived that the world was flat. Instead, this was just an overblown exaggeration that went along with the story of Columbus discovering the Americas. The problem about my liking towards these sections of the book is that they are not really the basis and meat of Gould's argument. Also, another problem that I have with this book is the construction of sentences. There are times in the book where it is almost torture to read the amazingly long, run-on sentences. On top of this, the author adds in thoughts or other tidbits of information mid-sentence, making the already dizzying text even harder to get through. Gould is definitely a skilled writer but I believe that he misuses his talents at times in this book. In general, the book is an interesting read on a thought provoking subject that has been around for several centuries. Gould makes his solution pretty simple, and overall gets his point across about the matter of religion and science. However, the manner that he does this in is very dry, and at times, just flat out boring to tell the truth. To conclude, I would probably Rocks of Ages a C+ or B- just for the valid points and suggestions that Gould brings up, but it could have been done a lot better in my opinion.