RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $6000Goal: $6000
Information icon.svg The 2018 moderator election has started! We are electing 6 moderators and 2 alternatives to serve in 2019. Nominate users here and read their campaign slogans here!

Darwin's Pious Idea: Why the Ultra-Darwinists and Creationists Both Get It Wrong

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Christ died so we may
write articles about

Icon christianity.svg
A multi-chef broth
Devil's in the details
The pearly gates

Darwin's Pious Idea: Why the Ultra-Darwinists and Creationists Both Get It Wrong is a theistic evolution book written by Conor Cunningham, a philosopher and theologian from the University of Nottingham, and was published by the Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company in 2010.


The book claims that the debate between religion and evolution has been hijacked by extremists, on one side religious fundamentalists who reject evolution outright and on the opposing side "fundamentalist atheists" who claim that Darwin’s theory rules out the possibility of God, which the author calls "Ultra Darwinism". Cunningham, a Christian who accepts evolution, rejects both of these sides and advocates a middle position, a version of theistic evolution.[1] Most of the book is an attack on "Ultra-Darwinists" such as Richard Dawkins and criticism of the selfish gene.[2]


It is a religious book written for a Christian audience and in many places is critical of science.[3] It has received mixed[citation needed] but generally negative reviews from the scientific community.