Home
» Intelligent Design » Theistic Evolutionists, Your Position Is Incoherent — But We Can Help You!
Theistic Evolutionists, Your Position Is Incoherent — But We Can Help You!
| June 21, 2008 | Posted by Thomas Cudworth under Intelligent Design |
In this, my first column for Uncommon Descent, I’d like to address what seems to be a fundamental contradiction running through the writings of many “theistic evolutionists,” and propose an adjustment to their theoretical framework.
Critics of theistic evolution (TE) have often suggested that theistic evolutionists (TEs) have to put themselves through mental contortions in order to remain Christian while embracing Darwin. Yet a person very well versed in TE literature has informed me that many TEs do not appear to feel any such intellectual discomfort. They reconcile Christianity and Darwin, he suggests, by holding to an “old earth creationist” position, by interpreting Genesis non-literally, and by treating evolution as God’s “creation tool.”
The first two points are non-controversial. There is plenty of room within orthodox Christianity for the belief that the earth is very old, and for less-than-completely-literal interpretations of Genesis. However, the proposition that evolution could be ”God’s creation tool” is open to more than one interpretation, and bears closer examination. Given that most TEs appear to be strict Darwinists with respect to the mechanism of evolution (i.e., chance mutations plus natural selection), critical observers are justified in inquiring about the suitability of the Darwinian mechanism as a “creation tool” for a specifically Christian God.
I would not have a problem understanding evolution as God’s “creation tool,” if TEs conceived of evolution as a “tool” in the strict sense. A tool in the strict sense is fully in the control of the tool-user, and the results it achieves (when properly used by a competent user) are not due to chance but to intelligence and skill. But Darwin’s mechanism leaves room for neither intelligence nor skill; it is the unconscious operation of impersonal natural selection upon mutations which are the products of chance. It follows that Darwinian evolution is not a tool, but an autonomous process, and therefore out of God’s control.
This has a theological consequence. If evolution is out of God’s control, it is incompatible with the notion of providence – the notion that God provides for the future needs of the earth and its inhabitants. God can hardly, for example, provide for the need of Hagar in the desert, if he can’t even guarantee that the human race, of which Hagar is a member, will ever emerge from the primordial seas. (The radical contingency of the Darwinian mechanism is captured well by Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould, when he wrote that if the tape of evolution were rewound and played again, the results would be entirely different. Once God sets a truly Darwinian process in motion, he has no control over whether it will produce Adam and Eve, a race of pointy-eared Vulcans, or just an ocean full of bacteria.)
A non-providential God is clearly not an orthodox Christian God, and it therefore appears that theistic evolutionism generates heretical Christianity. As I see it, the only way for theistic evolutionists to escape this consequence is to argue that mutations seem like chance events from the human perspective, but from God’s perspective are foreordained. But in that case, “evolution” is really just the actualization of a foreseen design over a very long time frame; the “purely natural causes” spoken of by the TEs are really just the unrecognized fingertips of the very long arm of God. This view, which we might call “apparent Darwinism,” fails to get God out of the process of natural causation, which was (as Cornelius Hunter has argued) Darwinism’s historical raison d’être.
In response to this, TEs could say: “Well, we are Christians, so of course we believe that these apparently chance events were divinely foreordained and therefore are not ultimately chance events. Our goal is not to deny the ultimate agency of God, but only to establish that the design of living things, though certainly in the mind of God at the beginning of the world’s creation, is not humanly DETECTABLE, as the ID proponents say it is. Evolution proceeds as if directed by chance; neither our sense nor our instruments are capable of registering the difference between mutations produced by the hidden hand of God and mutations produced by chance. Operationally, science must proceed as if chance alone is at work. There is therefore no legitimately scientific design inference. Design is a theological interpretation of the natural data, not a scientific one. And that is why we remain theistic evolutionists, appealing to strictly Darwinian causation in our science and keeping our theological interpretation of nature out of the labs, schools and universities.”
This has surface plausibility. But note that, if this argument is accepted, there is no longer any metaphysical difference between TE and ID. Given this argument, both ID and TE acknowledge that living creatures are in fact designed by God and brought into being exactly in accord with God’s will. The difference that remains between TE and ID is not over metaphysics but over epistemology, i.e., over the question: How do we KNOW that the flagellum or the wing of a bird or the circulatory system is a consequence of design rather than chance? And here is where TE takes its final stand: it is only by faith, not by the scientific study of nature, that we can know this.
But how does TE verify this doctrine? Surely the question whether design detection can be an empirical science is itself subject to empirical investigation, and cannot be prematurely settled by any dogmatic pronouncement. TE is thus obliged to look at the work of those who claim that design detection can be an empirical science, and to consider that claim on its merits, not dismiss it out of hand. It thus must engage the arguments of Dembski, Behe, etc. TE is of course free to argue that Dembski and Behe and the others fail to provide an adequate basis for a science of design detection, by pointing to real or alleged flaws in their arguments. But this still means that TE must abandon a priori epistemological declarations and enter whole-heartedly into the honest consideration of whether design in nature is detectable by scientific means.
Thus, we see that the foundational contradiction at the very core of TE (that orthodox Christianity is 100% true, and that the Darwinian mechanism is also 100% true), puts TEs on the horns of a dilemma. Accept the complete truth of the Darwinian mechanism, and one must deny at least one key Christian doctrine, i.e., providence. Alternately, accept the complete truth of all the core Christian doctrines, including providence, and “chance” is a fiction, Darwinism is a guided process, there is design, and design may in principle be detectable. TEs thus have a choice. If their priority, their most important motivation, is to ban the notion of design from science, they can do so, by affirming that chance rather than providence is ultimately real; the cost is the adoption of a non-Christian theology. If, on the other hand, their priority is to account for the origin of species and of man within the framework of providence, they must affirm that chance is not ultimately real; the cost is the abandonment of the Darwinian mechanism.
Let me summarize. It is possible to be a theistic evolutionist without contradiction. It is possible to be a specifically Christian theistic evolutionist without contradiction. It is not, however, possible to be a Christian DARWINIST without contradiction. A Christian Darwinist is bound to maintain logically incompatible positions: that evolution is both a tool and an autonomous process, that providence and chance are both ultimately real, that design is potentially detectable and that it is a priori indetectable. This intellectual schizophrenia cannot be maintained. TEs must decide whether or not their grudge against ID and its proponents is more important to them than the maintenance of a consistently orthodox Christian theology.
Thus, we see that the foundational contradiction at the very core of TE (that orthodox Christianity is 100% true, and that the Darwinian mechanism is also 100% true), puts TEs on the horns of a dilemma. Accept the complete truth of the Darwinian mechanism, and one must deny at least one key Christian doctrine, i.e., providence. Alternately, accept the complete truth of all the core Christian doctrines, including providence, and “chance” is a fiction, Darwinism is a guided process, there is design, and design may in principle be detectable. TEs thus have a choice. If their priority, their most important motivation, is to ban the notion of design from science, they can do so, by affirming that chance rather than providence is ultimately real; the cost is the adoption of a non-Christian theology. If, on the other hand, their priority is to account for the origin of species and of man within the framework of providence, they must affirm that chance is not ultimately real; the cost is the abandonment of the Darwinian mechanism.
Let me summarize. It is possible to be a theistic evolutionist without contradiction. It is possible to be a specifically Christian theistic evolutionist without contradiction. It is not, however, possible to be a Christian DARWINIST without contradiction. A Christian Darwinist is bound to maintain logically incompatible positions: that evolution is both a tool and an autonomous process, that providence and chance are both ultimately real, that design is potentially detectable and that it is a priori indetectable. This intellectual schizophrenia cannot be maintained. TEs must decide whether or not their grudge against ID and its proponents is more important to them than the maintenance of a consistently orthodox Christian theology.
TEs, you can join us at no real cost. You can keep your Christian faith (which incidentally is more highly respected by even non-Christian ID advocates than it is by many of your current colleagues). You can keep evolution (understood as common descent) and all its evidences, including the fossil record, Darwin’s arguments about biogeographical distribution, and a 4.5-billion-year-old earth. We don’t even ask you to pledge allegiance to intelligent design; we just ask you to abandon your a priori prejudice that design in nature can’t possibly be detectable, and to join us in investigating the question.
And there’s an added bonus. You’ll finally be able to abandon the unsavory company of angry, paranoid, condescending atheists like Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, P.Z. Myers, Jeffrey Shallit, and Barbara Forrest. Talk about the icing on the cake!
Think about it.
186 Responses to Theistic Evolutionists, Your Position Is Incoherent — But We Can Help You!
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Steve Matheson (#178):
Sorry I didn’t get whatever point you were trying to make about embryology and the Psalm. I thought that my answer was direct and clear, but obviously I was not answering the right question. I took it that you were arguing that the literal meaning of the Psalm contradicts the known facts of embryology, but that you didn’t think you were less of a Christian for sticking to scientific embryology nonetheless. And I was trying to agree with you. And I understood you to be making a general point, i.e., that modern Christian scientists shouldn’t be bound by other apparent scientific inaccuracies which appear to be endorsed by certain statements in the Bible. And I was trying to agree with you about that, too. But, since I’d told you already that I wasn’t a Biblical literalist of any kind, I wasn’t sure what larger goal you were driving toward by making these (for me) non-contentious points. Neither my original posting nor any of my subsequent arguments depended on reading Biblical statements as scientific authorities.
I am glad that, despite your past negative experiences with UD (which you certainly did not let us forget!), you felt welcome here, and that you now realize that UD people do not reflexively kick newcomers out of a discussion merely for disagreeing, not even when the newcomer accuses the lead writer, quite unjustly, of “whining.” I hope you will jump in on new threads from time to time, whenever you see points of theoretical interest to you. As you can see, we have many well-read and thoughtful writers posting here, who love to wrestle with theoretical propositions and reason out their implications.
I am sorry you don’t like the pseudonymity of the place. At the risk of being accused of “whining” again, let me remind you that for many ID proponents, pseudonymity on the internet may well be the difference between acceptance into or rejection from a graduate program in the life sciences, between being hired as a biologist or having to drive a cab for a living, between being granted tenure as an astrophysicist or having to look around for one-year contracts for the rest of your life. That’s something that people in your position, i.e., tenured professors, don’t have to worry about. It’s also something that, generally speaking, TEs don’t have to worry about. When the Iowa States of the world start treating ID proponents as well as your college treats TE proponents, then we’ll drop pseudonymity – not before.
I do thank you for all your answers and clarifications. You’ve helped us make a start toward addressing the root causes of the unfortunate conflict that has arisen between ID and TE. Hopefully, with good will and open minds on both sides, we can continue to find common ground.
Jerry @177–
Jerry: After Plato, all other philosophers seem like an anticlimax. So I’m onside with you (as you might expect from my nom de plume). And Plato has been a great inspiration for many of us who champion intelligent design. But don’t overlook Aristotle’s natural philosophy, either. Compared to my master, Plato, he was a bit of a blockhead on some things — couldn’t do math to save his life, and, despite his best efforts, astronomy just wasn’t his forte — but he is the greatest of the ancient thinkers on the subject of teleology in biological systems, which is a subject near and dear to the hearts of all intelligent design theorists.
T.
Gentlefolk:
A very good onward discussion overnight.
On a note or two, or three:
1] Phil and the empirical:
My take here — cf Hasker et al — is that phil is in the end about analysis of worldviews. To do so, it has to look at empirical adequacy, coherence and explanatory power and elegance. So, it may start from experience and questions, and it may in part come back to further experience, but there is much more to it than that, and it turns out that as SB stresses, there are many things that turn out to be priors, in the sense of the underlying logic of right reason.
2] ID and design detection vs mechanism:
Given the significance of identifying THAT there has been design as detected through credibly reliable empirical signs, it5r is sufficient for many purposes to address this issue as a core challenge. To challenge an identification that there is recognisable design, that it has not identified or specifically addressed the mechanism, seems to me pretty far off the mark. The latter is an onward question — “now that we credibly know that there was design, let’s reverse engineer it.”
3] Pandas, follytricks, Judge Jones, ID and creationism
Let’s get back to basics. First, here is the statement that was denounced:
Regardless of motive-mongering [with underlying hysterical or cynical slanders on theocracy; recall here some of the (now too often unknown, ignored, dismissed or suppressed) roots of modern liberty and democracy!], the above is utterly unexceptional, and — apart from an irrational, secularist agenda-driven law and policy environment — would not even be controversial.
Further to this, Judge Jones’ ruling in the parts on ID in general, plainly was demonstrably a copycat from the ACLU et al; crude errors of fact and all. That was incompetent or worse than incompetent, and plainly tyrannical in implications.
Next, Pandas took a major bum rap, as StephenB pointed out above.
–> In a rational environment, if one in the editorial process cuts out words that could be read one way and replaces with language that more explicitly says something else, it is the later that DEMONSTRABLY is what you were trying to say.
–> in the case of Pandas, the language was edited to stress the differentiation between ID as a nascent movement and the then far more better known Creationism.
–> This was also done to conform to law in contemporary rulings.
–> It is paranoia or intentional slander that would read that as trying to sneak Creationism in the back door. And given Ms Forrest’s wider patterns of claims and behaviour, sadly, I must think it the latter.
–> She has utterly discredited herself so far as I can see, given gross dereliction of intellectual duty on even so basic a point as the definition of ID.
–> here is what Pandas actually explicitly states in the published edition, which is what students would have seen:
–> Could anything be plainer than that?
_____________
Bottomline: our civilisation is in deep, deep trouble. Putting on my theological hat, Romans 1 trouble.
On the incoherence of theistic evolutionism as currently practiced, I think TC and SB have made their point, at least in general terms.
G’day, all . . . off to a hot seat in a local lion’s den!
GEM of TKI
StephenB,
One quibble, two points. Read the paragraph again about the Valley.
I said
“I actually don’t believe this was how it was done for the major changes to evolution but there is no reason to think God could not have done it this way.”
In other words I believe that God could create intelligent life this way if He wanted to but that He didn’t. To say He couldn’t is to arbitrarily put some limitations on God and I am not sure where that would lead. The evidence says He didn’t do it this way. To do it that way the initial conditions and boundary constraints would have to be very different than what He chose to do. He could still arrange to have Stephen and Jerry in His mind from all eternity.
I then go on to say that such a system does exists and it essentially guides micro evolution. It does not have just one exit but the number of exits are numerous but limited. This system guides most of the changes to life we see in this world. It is powerful and so obvious and why it is so easy to accept Darwin in all his glory because the system works right before your eyes for this limited form of evolution. All the Darwinists say is add one more ingredient and you got everything and that ingredient is “deep time.”
Well deep time is an essential part of micro evolution but it is still limited for many of the reasons you, Behe and many others have listed. But none the less micro evolution is still great design. By keeping the big tent, ID is forced to give up this magnificent design process which I believe could go a long way to its greater acceptance.
Jerry, just one quick point of clarification. When I use the language describing what I believe to be possible or impossible, I refer not so much to God as reason itself. I place no limits on God’s power, but I do contend that God cannot violate his own nature by lying or contradicting himself. So, when someone proposes something that, in my judgment, violates the law of non-contradiction, I characterize it on those terms, even if it is their scenario for the creative event itself. So, I will always take exception when someone suggests that I am trying to limit God’s power when I am simply saying that a thing cannot be true and false at the same time and under the same formal circumstances. In any given situation, I could be wrong in making that charge, of course, but the fact remains that some scenarios really are impossible because of their self contradictory nature.
Ted Davis wrote, “As for creating confusion with creationism, the ‘Reply to Francis Collins’ Darwinian Arguments for Common Ancestry of Apes and Humans,’ by Casey Luskin and Logan Gage, appended to the new book, Intelligent Design 101, does seem to me only to further confuse things.”
Why does our Response to Francis Collins confuse things? Our Response to Francis Collins makes it very clear how the situation works:
Many assume that if common ancestry is true, then the only viable scientific position is Darwinian evolution—in which all organisms are descended from a common ancestor via random mutations and blind selection. Such an assumption is incorrect: Intelligent design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry.4 Even if all organisms on earth share a common ancestor, it does not follow that the primary mechanisms causing the differences between the species must be blind, unguided processes such as natural selection. Nonetheless, Darwin’s tree of life (see fig. A.1) is an “icon of evolution” and therefore deserves careful examination.5 (ID 101, pg. 217)
Since we find Collins’ arguments for human/ape common ancestry to be weak, nothing we write serves to “confuse” how ID interacts with common ancestry. We recognize that ID can be considered compatible with common ancestry but also write, “Nonetheless, Darwin’s tree of life (see fig. A.1) is an ‘icon of evolution’ and therefore deserves careful examination” and after a long analysis, conclude that Collins “arguments in favor of human-ape common ancestry are simply unconvincing.”
I don’t see any reason for confusion and I think that Ted Davis’s charges here are fair at all.