Download Taking Darwin Seriously

“TAKINGDARWINSERIOUSLY”i
NeilSpurway
PaperdeliveredtotheScottishChurchTheologicalSociety,14.01.16
“Nothinginbiologymakessense,exceptinthelightofevolution”
TheodosiusDobzhansky(1973)ii
Genesis
Letmegraspthisnettleattheoutset,andtrustno-oneisoffended.ItakeneitherGenesis1-2:3
nor Genesis 2:4-end 3 as talking cosmology and paleobiologyiii. (Anyway they cannot both be
successfullydoingso,sincetheyareradicallyinconsistent.)Infact,Iamamongthosewhosuspectthat
the very idea of scientific accounts, in either cosmology or paleobiology, only formed itself in the
EuropeanmindduringtheRenaissance.Instead:
“Intheancientworld,cosmogonywasatherapeuticratherthanafactualgenre.People
recitedcreationmythsatasickbed,thestartofanewproject,orthebeginningofanew
year.”iv
On my reading of biblical scholarship, Gen. 1 was composed ca. 580 BCE, beside the waters of
Babylon,astheirpriests’reassurancetotheHebrewexilesthattheirGod’sinfluencehadnotbeenleft
behindinJudea.TheusualMesopotamiancreationmythsinvolvedaGod’stitanicstruggleagainstevil
forces.InGen1’suniquelypeacefulaccount,thepriestlyauthorwasenjoininghishearerstotrustand
worshiptheirGodeventhoughtheywereawayfromhome,toadmireHiswholecreation,andlove
allhumankindv.Hewasnotdictatingascientifichistory.Thatisamatterforscienceitself.
EvolutionbeforeDarwin
Clandestineideasaboutwhatwenowcall‘evolution’(‘descentwithmodification’wastheearlier
term)werebeingformulatedinFranceinthemid18thC.Theysurfacedparticularlyinthewritingsof
Jean Baptiste de Lamarck (late 1790s) – though his proposed mechanism for the evolution he
describedwasshaky.IntheUKErasmusDarwin(Charles’grandfather)evenproposedinversethat
descentwithmodificationwasoftheessenceofbiologicalhistory!Butheofferednosuggestionasto
themechanism
Geology
TwoScots,JamesHutton,aBerwickshirefarmer,inhisTheoryoftheEarth(1785),andSirCharles
Lyell (Angus), with the three-volume Principles of Geology (1830-33), pioneered this science. The
workinghypothesis,implicitinHuttonandexplicitinLyell,wasthattheprocessesaffectingtheearth
todayhavealwaysbeentheactiveinfluences.Such‘Uniformitarianism’impliedthattheearthmust
behundredsofmillionyearsold–‘Deeptime’.This,notevolution,wasthemostdirectchallengeto
Scripturalliteralists.
A specific group, subsequently referred to as ‘Scriptural Geologists’ (all very amateur!) insisted
thatthescripturesweredictatedbyGod.Theinferencesoftheiropponentswere“drawnintheteeth
of this authenticated fact, that ‘in 6 days the Lord made heaven and earth’!” To achieve the
stratigraphicrecordinabout6,000years,lawsofphysicsmusthavebeen‘100timesormore’faster
thantheyarenow.(Itwouldactuallyneedatleastamilliontimes.)
By contrast, Thomas Chalmers, mathematician and theologian – who has been called
“Scotland’sgreatest19thCchurchman”,andwhosefirstgreatchargewastheTronChurch,inGlasgow
–wroteasearlyas1804:
“Ithasbeenallegedthatgeology,byreferringtheoriginoftheglobetoahigher
antiquitythanisassignedtoitbythewritingsofMoses,underminesourfaithin
theinspirationoftheBible….Thisisafalsealarm.ThewritingsofMosesdonot
fixtheantiquityoftheglobe.”
Later,astheholderofanEdinburghchair,helamentedthat:
“while the most respectful caution, and humility, and steadiness, are seen to
presideovereverydepartmentofmoralandphysicalinvestigation,theologyisthe
onlysubjectthatissufferedtoremainthevictimofprejudice”.
AfascinatinghalfwayfigurewasHughMiller,aself-educatedstonemasonfromCromarty.
HisTestimonyoftheRocks(1857)adoptedthe‘day-age’theory(firstproposedinFrance50
yearsearlier):“Ihavebeencompelledtoholdthatthedaysofcreationwerenotnatural,but
propheticdays,andstretchedfarbackintothebygoneeternity”.Buthestrovetocorrelate
geologicalandscripturalsequences.Thus,forhim:
TheCarboniferous(theeraofthegreatplants)=Day3ofGen.1
“Andtheearthbroughtforthgrassandherbandthetreeyieldingfruit”
TheOoliticandCretaceous(reptilesandbirds)=Day5
“Godcreatedeverylivingcreaturethatmovethwhichthewatersbroughtforth,and
everywingedfowl”
TheTertiary(mammalsandhumans)=Day6
“GodsaidlettheEarthbringforthbeastandcattleandcreepingthing…andmanin
hisownimage:maleandfemalecreatedhethem:.
Andtheworkofthecurrentepoch(Day7)ismoralimprovementandredemption.
But,forMiller,allactsofspecies-creationarestillseparatedivineinterventions.The
groundwasprepared,butthegreatestinsightstillawaited.Some50yearsearlier,Cuvier,the
eminentFrenchpalaeontologist,hadexclaimed:“WhymaynotNaturalHistoryonedayhave
her Newton?”. Just two years after Miller, The Origin of Species would be published, and
humanity’sviewofitsworldbechangedforever.
Darwin’sowntheology
Darwin’svisionwasaGrandDesign.Not30millionseparatespecies(andanuntellablenumberof
intermediateforms)butanoverallschemeoffecundityandendlessvariation:onemajesticedificeof
really‘IntelligentDesign’!ThefinalparagraphofTheOriginpicturesatangledbank,crowdedwith
interactingandoftenmutuallydependentspecies(plantandanimal).
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally
breathedbytheCreatorintoafewformsorintoone;andthat,whilethisplanethasgone
cyclingonaccordingtothefixedlawofgravity,fromsosimpleabeginningendlessforms
mostbeautifulhavebeen,andarebeing,evolved.”
EquallysignificantwasanopeningquotefromthephilosopherofscienceWilliamWhewell,anolder
contemporary: “We can perceive that events are brought about, not by insulated interpositions of
Divinepower,exertedineachparticularcase,butbytheestablishmentofgenerallaws.”
ItistruethatDarwinhadlosthisfaithinanalways-benevolentGod,butthiswaslessadeduction
from his biology than the result of a long, anguished vigil at the death-bed of his beloved eldest
daughter,aged11.HissciencepreventedhisacceptingtheliteraltruthofGen1-3andhebecame
agnosticaboutalldogma,buthedidalotofworkforhislocalchurchandremainedaTheistallhislife.
Justfouryearsbeforehisdeathhewrotetoanenquirer:“Itseemstomeabsurdtodoubtthataman
maybebothanardentTheistandanEvolutionist.….Inmymostextremefluctuations,Ihavenever
deniedtheexistenceofGod.”
Naturalselection
Darwin’skeycontribution,indicatedinthefulltitleofTheOrigin,wastoproposeamechanismfor
evolution–‘NaturalSelection’.Wheretherearedifferencesbetweenindividuals,thosebettersuited
totheenvironmentataparticularplaceandtimetendtoproducemoreoffspring;ifthedifferences
are inherited, gradually their characteristics become dominant. It’s not just a matter of individual
‘fitness’,butofreproductivefitness.
Thisprocessisinevitable:naturalselectioncannotnotoccur!Thequestionswere(andare):
1)whethernaturalselectioncanexplainallitwasproposedtoexplain
2)whetherthevariationsuponwhichitactswereundirected(‘chance’)
3)whetherevengeologicaltimehadbeensufficientforcomplexcreaturestoevolve.
Ishallreturntothese.
TheOriginisanextraordinarilycautiouspresentationofpainstakinglycollectedandmeticulously
recordedfacts,gentlyandmodestlypointingtoaconclusionwhichthosefactsmakeinescapableto
any even-slightly scientific mind. The crudely assertive belligerence of Darwin’s more bigoted
opponents is poignantly out of keeping with the temper of the work for which they display such
usually-ignoranthatred.
“FewbookshavebeenmorewidelymisunderstoodandmisinterpretedthanTheOriginof
Species,especiallybythosewhohavenotreadit.”vi
Supportivereactions
Reactionswereemphaticonbothsides.Whetheramongscientistsorchurchmen,almostno-one
whocommittedhimselftomanuscriptorprinttookamoderateview.ButhereIpickouttwoVictorian
responsesasmodelsforourownassessment.CharlesKingsley–parson-naturalist,novelist,historian
–wroteinacknowledgementofapre-publicationcopy:
“Ihavelongsince,fromwatchingthecrossingofdomesticatedanimalsandplants,learnt
todisbelievethedogmaofthepermanenceofspecies….”
Andlaterinthesameletter:
“NowthattheyhavegotridofaninterferingGod–amaster-magicianasIcallit–they
have to choose between the absolute empire of accident and a living immanent, everworkingGod.”
“TheAbsoluteempireofaccident”isstill,ofcourse,theatheistview,butsavourKingley’salternative:
“Alivingimmanent,ever-workingGod”!
Acommonwaytoaccommodatescientificandreligiousoutlooks,sincethe18thCEnlightenment,
hadgoneunderthenameof‘Deism’.Newton,thoughhimselfwhollyimbuedwithasenseofGod
sustainingeverything,hadofferedequationswhich,tothoseofdifferentdisposition,seemedableto
account for all events: Deists therefore held that God had wound the clock, then let it run. A
generationafterKingsley,theOxfordAnglo-CatholictheologianAubreyMooresawDarwinismasa
countertothis:
“The one absolutely impossible conception of God, in the present day, is that which
representshimasanoccasionalvisitor.SciencehaspushedtheDeist’sGodfartherand
fartheraway,andatthemomentwhenitseemedasifHewouldbethrustoutaltogether,
Darwinism appeared, and under the disguise of a foe, did the work of a friend. It has
conferred upon philosophy and religion an inestimable benefit, by showing us that we
mustchoosebetweentwoalternatives.EitherGodiseverywherepresentinnature,orHe
isnowhere.”vii
MoorealsowelcomedDarwin’salternativetotheseparatecreationofeachspecies:
“Thescientificevidenceinfavourofevolution,asatheory,isinfinitelymoreChristianthan
thetheoryof‘specialcreation’.ForitimpliestheimmanenceofGodinnature,andthe
omnipresence of His creative power. Those who oppose the doctrine of evolution in
defenceof[occasionalinterventions]..byGod,seemtohavefailedtonoticethatatheory
of occasional intervention implies as its correlative a theory of ordinary absence.”viii
ComparethiswiththewonderfulremarkofEinstein:
“Thereareonlytwowaystoliveyourlife.Oneisasthoughnothingisamiracle.Theother
isasthougheverythingis.”
AnechooftheearliestChristianity
IseeMooreasreturningtotheveryearliestChristianity–beforethedoctrinalcouncilspresumed
todebatethedualnatureofChrist,theinternallifeoftheTrinity,etc;beforethegreatcreedswhich
followed;andbeforetheAugustinianviewofGodascreatingtheworldfromoutside(‘abextra’).As
CrawfordKnoxputit,forthoseearlyChristians….
“GodismuchmorethanFirstCause,forheisalsosustaineroftheuniverseandwillbring
ittofruition:tospeakoftheCreatoristhustospeaknotjustofbeginningsbutofthe
entireworldprocessfrombeginningtoend.”ix
Levelsofoperation
A 21st C perspective on the concept of immanence must address the ‘how’ question of God’s
interactionwiththeworld.Consideringthis,IstartwithaphrasefrequentlyusedbySarahCoakley,
thewonderfulladywhohasbeenluredbackfromHarvardtotheseniorChairofDivinityatCambridge.
She speaks of ‘flat plane’ thinking – the assumption, pervasive in Neo-Atheism, that God’s
involvement in Creation is of the same sort as a scientific account of events. On the contrary, she
writes:“Goddoesnotcompeteforspacewithindividualeventsstudiedbythescientist.”x
Computeranalogy
Iftheplaneisnotflat,wemustthinkinsteadofdifferentlevelsofexplanation.Ihavelongtriedto
illuminatemyownversionofthisconceptbyinvitingpeopletothinkofthePCs,desktoporlaptop,
whichnowadaysbothaidandcomplicatetheirdailylives.
ConsiderJane,typingnextSunday’ssermon,orJohn,usingaspread-sheettoanalysewhetherhe
canaffordanewcar.Theoperationsoftheircomputerscanbedescribedatmanylevels.Oneextreme
wouldbethatofthesolid-statephysicist,describingthebehaviourofelectronsandpositiveholesin
thecomputers’micro-circuits;theotherwouldbethoseofJaneandJohn,operatingthekeyboardsof
their respective machines. The physicist could describe minute currents, flicking to and fro in the
silicon circuitry. But he would simply note, not explain, critical changes in the operation of certain
components.Bycontrast,JaneandJohnknownothingoftheelectronsandpositiveholes,butthey
doknowthattheytappedspecifickeys.
Youwillseethat,inmyanalogy,thephysicistsareplace-holdersforwhateverscientisthasthetask
ofdescribingaparticularprocess–inthecaseofanevolutionarychange,itwouldbeageneticistor
molecularbiologist,recountingarecombinationormutationamongthegenes.And,tocompletethe
analogy,JaneorJohnstandinforGod.
NB:thisisonlyananalogy.Themachine’sdesignercanperfectlywellgiveafullaccountofhowa
key-strokeleadstothechangeofstateofatransistor.Inthescience/religionfieldofthelast30yrs,
alotofefforthasgoneintosuggestingwaysinwhichGodmightinfluenceparticularsortsofphysical
events – molecular events among the genes, synaptic changes in the brain, redirections of the jet
stream or movements of tectonic plates. Many people look to the unpredictable micro-events of
quantumtheory;othersto‘chaostheory’oflarge-scalehappenings.Thesearecandidatesforwhat
AustinFarrer(oneofthegreatestAnglicantheologianofthe20thC)calledthe‘CausalJoint’bywhich
God acts on the world. To locate this would place us in the position of the PC’s designer. But,
personally,Idonotthinkhumanbeingswilleverlocatethecausaljoint(ormanyjoints?).Iampretty
sureSarahCoakleydoesnotbelievesoeither.ButIdosuggestthatthecomputeruserandsolid-state
physicisthelpfullymodelwhatshemeanswhenshespeaksofthe‘contrastingplanes’:
1) thatonwhichtheCreatoroperates
2) thatonwhichRichardDawkinscanrightlyclaimtounderstandthings.
UnlikeDawkins,Coakleydoesnotthinkthesearethesameplane–andnordoI.Compareinsteadthe
comment of the French novelist, Anatole France: “Chance is just the pseudonym of God, when He
doesn’t want to sign” ….. ‘Chance’ is how God’s actions appear, on the ‘flat plane’ inhabited by
Dawkins.
Directednessofevolution
I left hanging three questions (p. 3). There is very strong, though not unanimous, professional
consensusthatNaturalSelectionisthecriticalprocess(Question1)andthatGeologicaltimehasbeen
sufficient (3). But one has only to go a little way outside the mainstream to find serious workers
questioningtheorthodoxythatthevariationsonwhichNaturalSelectionworksaretotallyundirected
(2).
a)Inthelate19thC–manypeople(e.g.HenryDrummondinScotland)maintainedtherewasa
steadydriveto“progress”(bodilyand/orintellectualand/ormoral).ForDarwinhimself,however,the
factofprogress(whichhedidnotquestion–hissecondgreatbookwascalledTheAscentofMan)was
not due to directed variations offered to Natural Selection, but cumulative consequences of that
selection.Theorganismswhicharebetteradaptedforsurvival,willgoforward;thesummedeffect
generally(thoughnotalways)=“progress”.
b) Late 20th C / 21st C – several thinkers believe there is a drive, at least to organisation, and
arguablytoprogress.Ishallnametwohere.
Stuart Kauffman (1939 - ) is an American theoretical biologist and humanist, mainly working with
computermodelsofnon-biologicalsystems.Hecontendsxithat“Lawsofcomplexity”intheuniverse
leadtotheemergenceof“orderforfree”insystems“poisedontheedgeofchaos”–anapposite
descriptionofLife!
SimonConway-Morris(1951-),anEnglishCatholicpalaeobiologist,isseizedbytheextraordinary
repetitionofpatternsinthebiologicalworld,indicatingwhatistermed‘evolutionaryconvergence’.A
standard example is that among the marsupial animals of Australia there are carnivores and
herbivores, bears, burrowers and aquatic animals, all with striking similarities to their equivalents
amongtheplacentalmammalsofothercontinents.
“Evolutionisakintoanimmensefieldofpossibilities,butatwidelyscatteredpointsthere
aredeepwellstowhichbiologicalformsareattracted.Totracethepathsthatevolution
actually chooses … is of great interest, but more fascinating still is to see how the
recurrenceofdesignpointstodeeporganizationalprinciples.”xii
Thisisimperfectlyconvincingtocritics,forwhomsimilarevolutionarynicheswillgetfilledinsimilar
ways, wherever they occur. Yet Morris is undeterred: his most recent bookxiii argues that a trend
towardconsciousawarenessisalsoevident.Comparinganaquaticinvertebratewithamammal,he
pointsoutthattheoctopusbrainhasmanyprimate-likecapacities,anditseyeissoremarkablylike
oursthatwhenweexchangeitsgazewehaveasstrongasenseofanotherconsciousbeingaswehave
withafamiliarhorseordog.Butdoesthisindicateadrive?Or,onceagain,isitjustthatacameraeye
iseasilydeveloped,andthatconsciousnessenhancesprospectsforsurvivalandreproduction?The
argumentfromconvergenceisalluring,butregrettablyinconclusive.
Atheologicalexponentofcomplexitythinking
Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) was a French Jesuit palaeontologist, banished to China for his
unorthodoxaccountofOriginalSin.(TherehewaspartoftheteamwhichdiscoveredPekingMan.)
For Teilhard, Christians “frightened for a moment by evolution”, could now see that it offered “a
magnificentmeansoffeelingmoreatonewithGod.”Hesawevolutionasanexpressionofpsychophysical energy, with complexity ever-increasing, driving towards the ‘Omega Point’ of confluence
withGod.
BecauseofhisOrder’sprohibitions,Teilhard’sbookswereallpublishedposthumously,themost
important,ThePhenomenonofMan,appearinginEnglishin1959.InithepicturesLifeasdrawnup
through several ‘Thresholds of Complexification’, both biological and spiritual. The first was the
creationofthecosmosfromnothing–Cosmogenesis(helovedconstructinglongGreekwords)–and
the last, still to come about, would be Christogenesis, when life would develop from being worldcentred to being Christ-centred. Each stage was a massive leap, preceded by a state of biological
super-tension.Forexample,atthestageofBiogenesis,“Lifenosoonerstartedthanitswarmed”.
ItisimpossiblenottocomparewithbothConwayMorrisandKauffman:Teilhard,likeMorris,refers
repeatedlytoevolutionaryconvergence,whilea“thresholdofcomplexification”mightbeexactlythe
languageofKauffman,anda“stateofbiologicalsuper-tension”surelyimpliesasystem“ontheedge
ofchaos”?YetforTeilhard,Goddraws,lures,illuminatesbythepoweroflove–Hedoesnotcoerce.
Soevolutionisbecominganincreasinglyindeterminateprocess.Thereisnohintofthisideainhis
scientificsuccessors.
“EversinceAristotletherehavebeenalmostcontinualattemptstoconstructmodelsof
GodonthelinesofanoutsidePrimeMover,actingaretro.Sincetheemergenceinour
consciousness of the sense of evolution it has become physically impossible for us to
conceiveorworshipanythingbutanorganicPrime-MoverGod,actingabante.”
This Prime Mover surely operates on Coakley’s different plane from that of laboratory science?
Teilhard’sthinkingasawholeisnotscience,butitisnotincompatiblewithscience.
ModernendorsementsofTeilhard
In recent Catholic thinking, Teilhard has been strongly rehabilitated: Joseph Ratzinger, before
becomingPope,andPopeFrancisintheencyclicalLaudatosi,bothrefermostfavourably.ButIshall
quotefromtheAmericanFranciscansisterandacademicIliaDelio:
“Teilhard reminds us that evolution is the openness of life to the future. We are an
unfinishedspecies,corporatelyandpersonally,groundedinaninfinitedepthofLove.”
“Christianityisareligionofpersonhoodrootedinlove;atleastthiswasthecoremessage
ofJesus.ItlostitspersonalityearlyonwhenitadoptedtheGreeknotionofsoulandthe
supernaturalityofthedivine…..Wesetoureyesonanotherworldinhopewecouldmerit
entranceintoit.Butwehumansarenottransients,rentingahomeinthecosmosuntil
wecanmovetoamorepermanentone.Humanlifeisnotextrinsictocosmiclife,astrange
species in an otherwise natural world. We are the latest arrivals in an evolutionary
universe;weemergefromthewholeandareintegraltoit.”xiv
Delio’s critique tallies well with the situation of modernity perceived by the English (and I suspect
Anglican)CrawfordKnox.Inhisassessment:
[FortheearlyChristians]“Goddidnot,…havingcreatedtheworld,seekjusttomaintain
itinastaticrelationship.GodwasseenasessentiallycreativeandthecreativityofGod
demandedalsoanopennessandresponsivenessonthepartofcreation…..Theneedfor
opennesstonewinsights...isfundamentaltotheentireevolutionaryprocessatalllevels.
…..Yetthissenseoftheneedforopennesstothecreativityandself-disclosureofGodwas
largely lost by the Western churches and replaced by closed systems of belief. … [The
emphasiswasnow]on…moralcleansingtoallowentryofadistantGodwhosecreative
workwas….completeandwhonowhadthe…differenttaskofredeemingman,..fallen
fromapriorperfectstate.”xv
Thebiggestchallenge–theanguishinherentinNaturalSelection
Thoselasttwoquotesopentousrespectsinwhichanevolution-basedtheologymustrethinkthe
assumptionsofsomeeighteencenturies.Yetthereisanevenstrongerreason,ofwhichrecognition
grewquiteearlyinthe19thC–wellbeforeDarwin.InaversepublishednineyearsbeforeTheOrigin,
and conceived substantially earlier still, Alfred Lord Tennyson described his dead friend Arthur
Hallam’shaving:
“TrustedGodwasloveindeed
Andlovecreation’sfinallaw–
ThoughNature,redintoothandclaw
Withravine,shriekedagainsthiscreed.”xvi However,Darwinhimselfwasdeeplyaffectedbythisproblem:
“Whatabookadevil’schaplainmightwriteontheclumsy,wasteful,blundering,lowand
horriblycruelworksofnature!”xvii
Surelythis,notevolutionassuch,isthekeychallengeofbiologytotheologyandtheodicy?(Note,
incidentally,that“CosmicFall”claimswon’tdo–predationandextinctionscanbefoundthroughout
the fossil record … and dinosaurs had both arthritis and TB!) Yet evolution by Natural Selection
presentsaspecialchallengebecause,forit,predation,andtheinescapableconsequentsuffering,are
necessarymechanisms:sufferingisinstrumentalinNaturalSelection:
“Fromthewarofnature,fromfamineanddeath,themostexaltedobjectwhichweare
capableofconceiving,namely,theproductionofthehigheranimals,directlyfollows.”xviii
Or,inamoremodernstatement:
“Withoutpredationtoculltheherd,deeroverruntheirhabitatsandstarve–allsuffer,
andnotonlythedeerbuttheplantstheybrowseandeveryotherspeciesthatdependson
those plants. In a sense the ‘good life’ for deer, and even their creaturely character …
dependsontheexistenceofthewolf.Fromthepointofviewoftheindividualpreyanimal
predationisahorror,butfromthepointofviewofthegroup–andofthegenepool–it
isindispensable.”xix
Theothersideofthecoin
Yetitisalsopossibletodiscernvalue,beauty,gloryinpredationitself:
“No-onewhohasseenatclosequartersthesurgeofafull-grownorcathroughthewater,
the prowl of a leopard through long grass, or that quicksilver stalling turn by which a
peregrinereturnstothestoop–allproductsoftherefinementofpredationovermillions
ofyears–candoubtthevaluethatarisesfromtheprocess”.xx
YouwillallknowGerardManleyHopkins’poemTheWindhover(thekestrel):
Icaughtthismorningmorning’sminion,king-
domofdaylight’sdauphin,dapple-dawn-drawnFalcon,inhisriding
Oftherollinglevelunderneathhimsteadyair,andstriding
Highthere,…thehurlandgliding
Rebuffedthebigwind.Myheartinhiding
Stirredforabird—theachieveof;themasteryofthething!
Reflectingonsuchsights,wemaywellconcludethat:“Thesourcesofevillieinattributessovaluable
thatwewouldnotevenconsidereliminatingtheminordertoeradicateevil.”xxi
Sopredationhasitsaestheticaspect.Butnotsoparasitism–arguablytheworstnaturalevilofall.
Again,wecanstartwithDarwin:
“IcannotpersuademyselfthatabeneficentandomnipotentGodwouldhavedesignedly
createdtheIchneumonidaewiththeexpressintentionoftheirfeedingwithintheliving
bodiesofcaterpillars.”xxii
Grayrepliedthatevolutionposesfewerproblemsinthisrespectthanspecialcreation,becauseitgives
areasonforthesuffering.HewasremindingDarwinofhisownargument,thatsufferingwaspartof
theprocesswhichhadledtoadvanceandgivenrisetohumanbeings.Right!
Iamforcedtoconcludethatgoodandevilarea‘packagedeal’–thatwearecontemplatingnot
Original Sin but Inevitable Evil. And once more I suspect that the ancient Israelites and earliest
Christianswereclosertothisawarenessthanpost-AugustinianChristianityhasbecome.
“Cruciformcreation”
ThisisthehauntingsummaryphraseofHolmesRolstonIII,aPresbyterianministerandvery
fine philosopher of biology at the University of Colorado, who was Edinburgh’s Gifford Lecturer in
1997-8.Inasubsequentessayhewrites:
“Biological nature is always giving birth, regenerating, always in travail. Something is
alwaysdyingandsomethingisalwayslivingon….Thewholeevolutionaryupslopeisa
callinginwhichrenewedlifecomesbyblastingtheold.Lifeisgatheredupinthemidstof
itsthroes,ablessedtragedylivedingracethroughabesettingstorm.….Thereisagreat
divine‘yes’hiddenbehindevery‘no’ofcrushingnature.God…isthecompassionatelure
in,withandunderallpurchasingoflifeatthecostofsacrifice.….[T]heauraofthecross
iscastbackwardoverthewholeglobalstory,anditforeveroutlinesthefuture.….The
capacitytosufferthroughtojoyisasupremeemergentandanessenceofChristianity.”xxiii
God’ssuffering
ThefinalconcepttowhichIwanttoreferisthatGodsufferswithGod’screatures.Oncemore
there are echoes of pre-Augustinian Christianity. I think specifically of the 3rd-4th C Patripassian
“heresy”, that God suffered with (or as?) Christ on the cross. (Patri-passian literally indicates the
Father,suffering).TheideaoftheCreatorsufferingwithHis(sic)creationispresentinTeilhard,but
nowparticularlyassociatedwithProcessTheology,derivedfromthemetaphysicsofA.N.Whitehead,
which regards God and matter as in perpetual, organic interaction. However, that is another huge
field,andImuststop!
Conclusions
Iendwiththreemorequotes.Thefirst,fromAustinFarrer,isonNaturalEvilasawhole,but
itispresentedinalovely,biologicalimage,beautifullyappropriatetoourtheme:
“Poor,limpingworld,whydoesnotyourkindCreatorpullthethornoutofyourpaw?But
whatsortofathornisthis?And,ifitwerepulledout,howmuchofthepawwouldremain?
Howmuch,indeed,ofthecreation?Whatwouldaphysicaluniversebelike,fromwhich
allmutualinterferenceofsystemswaseliminated?Itwouldbenophysicaluniverseatall.
Itwouldnotbelikeananimalrelievedofpainbytheextractionofathorn.Itwouldbelike
ananimalrenderedincapableofpainbytheremovalofitsnervoussystem;thatistosay,
ofitsanimality.Sothephysicaluniversecouldbedeliveredfromthemutualinterference
ofitsconstituentsystems,onlybybeingdeprivedofitsphysicality.”xxiv
ThesecondisfromJohnHaught,afellow-CatholicandacademiccolleagueofIliaDelio’s:
“WhenwelookatevolutionarydatainlightofthebiblicalimageofGod,thelifeprocess
canmakemuchmoresensethanwheninterpretedagainstthebackdropofmaterialist
metaphysics.Theundirectedmutations,theprocessofnaturalselection,andthevastness
of time required for the still unfolding story of life do not mandate the mechanistic
conception … inherited from Newton and Descartes. Instead, the data of evolutionary
science can be more intelligibly situated within a theological metaphysical framework
centeredaroundthebiblicalpictureof‘thehumilityofGod’.…Theimageofavulnerable,
defenseless, and humble deity may seem shocking to some, but it is crucial to the
primordialChristiansenseofthenatureofultimatereality.”xxv
And,infinalsummary,fromJosephFortier,anotherJesuit,whousedtoteachevolutionarybiologyat
collegelevel,buthasnowgivenhimselftolivingwithandministeringtoNativeAmericansinthenorthwesternUSA:
“TheDarwinianviewofevolutionisagifttoChristianfaithpreciselyinthatitassertsthe
randomness, contingency, competition, suffering, and seeming purposelessness in the
world.ThecredibilityofnotionsofGod’spowerthathavetodowithcontrolisfoiledby
theserealities.Instead,theychallengeChristianthinkerstoseethetrueeffectivenessof
God’s power in Jesus’s suffering and death. … Thus … Darwinian evolution challenges
Christian thought to question its ideas of perfection and power derived from Greek
philosophyandinsteadreturntoitscorefaithinGod’ssufferinglove,asrevealedbyJesus,
asthepowerthatmovestheuniverse.”xxvi
Nothinginbiologymakessense,exceptinthelightofevolution–andnothingintheologyshould
attempttodosoeither.
__________________________________________________________________________________
TRIGGERDISCUSSIONQUESTIONS
Question1
WhatarethechallengesofDarwinisminrelationtoethicsandmoral‘laws’?Whatarethedangers
ofdismissingGodfromthepublicdiscussionontheissuesoftheday?
Question2
Pleaseaddto/commentontheconceptinNeil’spaperthatwhenevolutionarytheoryandthe
Genesisaccountarebroughttogetherinanintegratedviewthensufferingbecomespartofthe
creativeprocessasexemplifiedbypredationbeinganessentialcomponentofnaturalselection.
Question3
HowhelpfuldoyoufindthecomputeranalogytoexplaintheimmanentworkingofGodincreation
andtheworldasweexperienceit?Pleasecommentonthestatementthatevolutionismorealigned
withChristianthinkingregardinganimmanentGodthan‘specialcreation’accompaniedbylong
phasesof‘natural’asopposedtosupernaturaldevelopment?
Endnotes
i
TitleofabookbythesplendidAnglo-Americanphilosopherofbiology,MichaelRuse
Dobzhansky,aneminentRussian-Americangeneticist,wasanOrthodoxChristian
iii
Paleobiologyisthestudyofthehistoryoflife
iv
KarenArmstrong,TheBible(2007)
v
KarenArmstrong,TheCaseforGod(2009)
ii
vi
L.HarrisonMatthews,Introductionto1970editionofTheOrigin
vii
Essay,“TheChristianDoctrineofGod”,inLuxMundi,12thedn,ed.CharlesGore(1891)
viii
ix
ScienceandFaith(1889)
ChangingChristianparadigms(1993)
x
“Natural Theology and the Flat-plane fallacy” in Darwinism and Natural Theology, ed Andrew
Robinson(2012)
xi
AtHomeintheUniverse:TheSearchforLawsofComplexity(1995)
xii
Life’sSolution:InevitableHumansinaLonelyUniverse(2003)
xiii
TheRunesofEvolution:HowtheUniversebecameSelf-aware(2015)
xiv
xv
TheUnbearableWholenessofBeing(2013)
Asnote9
xvi
InMemoriam(1850)
xvii
LettertoJosephHooker(1856)
xviii
xix
Darwin,TheOrigin(1859)
MichaelPollan,TheOmnivore’sDilemma(2006)
xx
ChristopherSouthgate,TheGroaningofCreation(2008)
PatriciaWilliams,DoingwithoutAdamandEve(2001)
xxi
xxii
LettertoAsaGray(1860)
xxiii
“KenosisandNature”inJohnPolkinghorne(ed.),TheWorkofLove(2001)
xxiv
LoveAlmightyandIllsUnlimited(1962)
xxv
GodafterDarwin(2000)
xxvi
ConfluenceofEvolutionaryScienceandChristianFaith(2012)