Book good from the bad, then created a

Book Critique

            There are
weaknesses in this text that give no strength to Christianity even when
naturalism is exposed. It appears that Bush’s reasoning behind this book is to
question societies capability in vindicating scientific axioms that persuade
against the Christian worldview, a worldview that is more realistic. Considering
Bush’s arguments, even though he is successful in breaking down the
naturalistic worldview with sound and effective evidence to reinforce his stance,
he did not refute their perception with sound biblical evidence or theology to
show why Christianity is a stronger and more realistic worldview, causing him
to fail regarding the defense of Christianity when given the proper platform.
This took place throughout most of the book. Concerning naturalistic
worldviews, a growing trend, society has concluded that anything new
constitutes as being the best option needed to solve the issues of the world
(ix), as if someone took the time to research every religion known to man,
dissected each one individually, separated the good from the bad, then created
a new religion with only the good from each old religion.

            Moreover,
Bush authored a book that comprised an assortment of worldviews. When
attempting to debunk their beliefs, it appears his weakness share a commonality
with postmodernism. When dealing with vague and disarrayed worldviews, the
potential for contradiction is always there. He came into this subject with the
right intentions, however, his main focus was on the naturalist worldview as a
whole, which is hard to define because the naturalist worldview exists as a
virus that reacts differently with each person it inhabits. The most effective
way to respond to something of this nature is to dissect it section by section
because of its inorganization. It appears different in everyone based on the
way they say naturalism. Unlike Christianity, following a set of beliefs that
remain the same and were never intended to change, naturalism is all over the
place, making it harder to tackle, which is something Bush intended on doing.
This was a battle he took on alone. There was no real relation done to compare
or contrast the theories leaving the reader confused regarding whether he was
trying to help them find the better option, or just show the world how
preposterous it is to believe in naturalism.

            In
addition, it can be assumed by the audience, if they do not read carefully,
that this is not authentic based on the lack of clarity as well as citations
throughout this work. Although he discussed the fact that they put all his
citations at the end of the book, instead of throughout, so they would have
more room on the pages (12), it still causes the book to be weak because people
must search for the matching footnote to the work they are trying to research
which is not only time consuming, but tedious as well.

            Even
though Bush shows various weaknesses within the method chosen to evaluate and
dissect naturalism, his strength resides in his portrayal of the evolutionary
theory and their many weaknesses. The beforementioned worldview was not the
only worldview in his critical grasp, but also Christianity and how some
Christians are conforming to the ways of other worldviews, mixing the two, when
God already forbade that and spoke against conformity. He stated how they have
the desire to retain their commitments to Christianity, but hold the biological
data presented by secular humanists as truth, simultaneously (32). His
strongest argument deals with God, humanity, and how truth cannot be evaluated
objectively when God is absent, which can be found in chapter three.

            Furthermore,
even though the impression is given that the sole purpose of this book is
discrediting secular worldviews as well as scientific worldviews superficially,
he also assists Christians by preventing them from conformity, which would be
compromising to their own beliefs. Being a Christian and conforming to another
worldview simultaneously is unacceptable to God. There can be no acceptance of
two conflicting beliefs when it comes to Christian Apologetics. Last, when
compromising the Christian faith, it shows other worldviews that the biblical
principles found within the Bible aren’t one hundred percent true, causing
biblical inerrancy to be abandoned.

            Another
strength of Bush’s is that he gave an effective account for history and
evolution concerning the modern worldview. He chose certain notable people in
history to discuss the development of the advancement theory. Additionally, inherited
knowledge as well as the collective experience were introduced, which basically
made the claim that outside of the knowledge people acquire, some knowledge is
learned and comes through the mind unconsciously (30). On top of discussing the
creators of the advancement theory’s history, the way he repudiates the
arguments they hold true is astounding.

 

Conclusion

 

            To
conclude, The Advancement has the potential of being beneficial to many
Christian Apologetics as well as the Christian worldview, but it depends on the
way in which they interpret what it is they read, because no matter the
strength of any argument, everything can be refuted. The account Bush gives
concerning the development and history of various worldviews were very good.
The language Bush chose to use is easy to understand with effective factual
evidence the Christian worldview can apply to their life as well as defense for
Christianity. This was an overall good read, with the exception of the
placement of the footnotes.

BACK TO TOP