A sociologist’s perceptive look at “theistic evolution”
| August 4, 2008 | Posted by O'Leary under theistic evolution |
Recently, I have been reading Warwick U sociologist Steve Fuller’s Dissent over Descent: Intelligent Design’s Challenge to Darwinism, and was intrigued by his comments about “theistic evolution”, as understood by members of the American Scientific Affiliation and promoted by Francis Collins in The Language of God:
Theistic evolutionists … simply take what Collins calls ‘the existence of the moral law and the universal longing for God” as a feature of human nature that is entrenched enough to be self-validating. But is their dismissal anything more than an arbitrary theological intervention? If humans are indeed, as the Darwinists say, just one among many species, susceptible to the same general tendencies that can be studied in the same general terms, then findings derived from methods deemed appropriate to animals should apply to us as well. Collins’ own comprehensive but exclusive training in the hard sciences may explain why he believes in a God who communicates straightforwardly through the natural sciences but appears less willing to cooperate with the social sciences, including such biologically inflected fields as sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. Instead Collins finds intuition, anecdote, theology and sheer faith to be more reliable sources of evidence. Why God should have chosen not to rely on the usual standards of scientific rigour in these anthropocentric matters remains a mystery. (p. 104-5)
Collins is unlikely to understand the problem Fuller raises – why should anyone take Collins’s faith as anything more than an evolutionary glitch?
I am glad that a sociologist is researching the debate, because ASA-style theistic evolution makes sense only as sociology. It doesn’t make sense intellectually. As I have said elsewhere, it is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist (= how you can continue to believe in God even though the universe shows no evidence of design). But everyone realizes that the universe shows evidence of design. Design theorists must explain it, and materialists must explain it away.
The other, less benign role of theistic evolution is to confuse traditional religious people by implying that, for example, “you can believe in Darwin – and Jesus too!” Well, Darwin didn’t.
The way you believe in Jesus and Darwin too is by keeping yourself in a permanent state of confusion about the basic issues, or, Collins-style, not really understanding them. Some clergy are happy to help.
A friend alerted me to this article which nicely illustrates the muddle in progress. The article features the efforts of the Vatican to address the current Darwin cult. My friend asked me for a comment, and I replied,
Well, I hope the reason they are trying to play all sides of the table (except Dawkins’s) is that they know that “evolution” is in a state of meltdown.
If not, they will soon find out. I think the Church’s antiquity is partly the result of avoiding taking a position until necessary – and there is always the Galileo affair to remind us of what happens when we fail to adopt that course.
From the news article: “In his article, “Darwinism From Different Points of View,” he explained that Darwinian theories of natural selection are only completely unacceptable to the church when they are used to become the basis for justifying certain social policies and ethical choices.”
The main problem here would be instantly identified by ID godfather Phil Johnson: If Darwinian theories are a correct account of our origin and nature, then it is reasonable to use them to justify social policies and ethical choices.
To refuse to focus on whether the Darwinian account is true raises the possibility that we regard our own bases of action as a pleasant fiction and theirs as an unpleasant one. But that is a matter of taste, surely, and the subject should be put to a vote.
If, on the other hand, we can say Darwin was wrong about human nature (for that is the point at issue), we can reject the proposed social policies that depend on them without further consideration. More important, we can defend our own proposed policies as proceeding from a correct estimation of human worth, not merely our preference.
About that question, the most obscure backwoods six-day-creation crank is far more clued in than many a Jesuit prof, I fear.
Basically, I think Fuller is right. Theistic evolution is for people who find “intuition, anecdote, theology and sheer faith to be more reliable sources of evidence” when it comes to religion, and flee the implications of design in nature. No wonder the atheistic evolutionists use them but don’t respect them.
Also, just up at Post-Darwinist
Why the education system needs to inculcate materialism and Darwinism
Now that it’s all in ruins, they’re fighting over the rubble?
Another first for Canada? Intelligent comments about intelligent design?
So what has atheism done for science lately? Hint: a bunch of atheist books that use the word “science” a lot
Clergyman: Blame Darwin, not yourself, if you are unfaithful to your spouse!
Liberal fascism: A survival manual for non-fascists in Canada (and probably in Europe)
69 Responses to A sociologist’s perceptive look at “theistic evolution”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
…while I appreciate your wanting to fit “no death before the fall”, and “only vegetarians required”, I think once again, you are taking your presuppositions into the interpretation.
…who says? There is no evidence either way.
I’m not sure what has or hasn’t happened but it seems to me that there is a general pattern described by scribes in the “scripts” of Scripture. Anyone more familiar with it can correct me but the pattern seems to be that Adam and Eve were vegetarians and the only reason that blood was shed and animals were killed was to cover the resulting knowledge/scientia of their sin. The fact that the shedding of the blood of animals was the fault of mankind was to be represented in animal sacrifice but the first vegetarian and animal rights activist rejected the notion that a sacrifice can make the profane sacred and decided to kill his brother instead. Things went down hill from there. After the Flood then animals were given to people to eat. Later the metaphoric Lamb of God would claim to be the ultimate sacrifice and consequently people were supposed to eat Him and so on. Generally those who believe this become gluttons for grace and want to eat all there is. At any rate, at some point the lion will lay down with the lamb so I don’t know that you can say that “There is no evidence.” with respect to animals eating each other and so on.
It’s always seemed to me that the Bible leads on back to the absence of knowledge/scientia. Philosophy properly understood is similar, so it’s little wonder that many reject both.
—–Venus Mousetrap: “StephenB: that’s correct. All scientists are atheists, even the Christian, Muslim, and Hindu ones. You see, I studied physics at university, and one of the profs in the atheist tent approached me one day… he took me into a quiet room and asked me a lot of odd questions like ‘what did I know about radioactive decay’, ‘how good was I at keeping secrets’… I was suspicious, because he wouldn’t tell me what it was all about. I didn’t see him again after that… somehow I was dropped from courses he was teaching, while my classmates were getting into positions of power…”
… “do tell me if this is any more ridiculous than what you’ve tried to imply. You’ve just called scientists a bunch of liars and frauds, and… what a surprise, no evidence and a whole lot of Bible talk. Funny how those go together.”
Venus Mousetrap:
That 95.8% of evolutionary biologists are agnostic/atheist is a documented fact. If you think that their ideology does not influence their objectivity, you have not been paying attention. If you dispute the fact that disinterested science is becoming a less common and partisan science is becoming more common you simply need to get out of the house more. What do you think the global warming farce is all about—its about ideology—it sure isn’t about good science.
News flash—The academy does not like God. When scientists discovered the “big bang,” a majority of astronomers experienced an existential meltdown because God talk was now on the table. When scientists discovered design in living organisms, a majority of biologists closed ranks and began persecuting and “expelling” ID scientists. When a scientist confirmed the “privileged planet” hypothesis, his colleagues branded him as a religious fanatic, disowned him, and put him on a hit list.
News flash—the academy’s distaste for God is not limited to scientists. When Mortimer Adler showed that Kant’s skepticism was unwarranted, meaning that we can have real knowledge of the world outside of our own mind, the majority of philosophers first ignored him, then lampooned him, and finally decided to follow Kant anyway because they prefer skepticism. So now you are scandalized because I suggest that evolutionary atheists might actually not be the best people to comment on the historicity of Adam and Eve. Please!
mynym: The problem is that Biblical teaching is not always explicit, sometimes it needs to be interpreted. So, part (not all) of the challenge is in establishing the criteria for a trustworthy interpreter and then finding a church or exegete that meets that criteria.
In any case, while there was no human death before the fall, it would appear that animal death was part of nature’s give and take process. It would seem that God protected man from this natural phenomenon as long as he was in the state of grace. After the original sin, then, like the animals, man was subject to this law of the physical world. This seems consistent with both Scripture and our knowledge of science and it requires no extrapolation or guess work. We can, after all, observe the phenomenon in action any time we choose.
Some animals seem to have been created as predators. Others are equipped with features that appear designed as a defense against predators. Apparently, animals were not designed to be always and everywhere at total peace with one another.
In any case, the topic of predatory animals is not realted to the topic of polygenism, so I don’t understand why it was introduced in the first place. Meat eating lions do not compromise Christian theology in the least, but polygenism wounds it fatally. From the standpoint of science, the former is an observable fact, the latter is an unwarranted speculation.
StephenB:
That 95.8% of evolutionary biologists are agnostic/atheist is a documented fact. If you think that their ideology does not influence their objectivity, you have not been paying attention. If you dispute the fact that disinterested science is becoming a less common and partisan science is becoming more common you simply need to get out of the house more.
um… evidence? Once again, you’re accusing the vast majority of evolutionary biologists of faking their results AND covering for each other’s fakes. I’m sure these people would love to know where you get off on telling them they’re not doing their jobs (hint: science is about, well, NOT FAKING STUFF.)
News flash—The academy does not like God. When scientists discovered the “big bang,” a majority of astronomers experienced an existential meltdown because God talk was now on the table.
The big bang is surely a perfect example of how science is NOT atheistic. Why would these atheists NOT cover up evidence which destroyed the idea of an eternal, godless universe? Could it be that science is about the evidence, not the ideology?
I’ll also bet that almost every pro-science atheist alive today accepts big bang theory. Could it be that, like scientists, atheists are also interested in evidence?
When scientists discovered design in living organisms, a majority of biologists closed ranks and began persecuting and “expelling” ID scientists. When a scientist confirmed the “privileged planet” hypothesis, his colleagues branded him as a religious fanatic, disowned him, and put him on a hit list.
Well, I’d love to talk with you about ID and why people may think it has something to do with religion, but my last comment here on that subject was deleted. Irony!
So now you are scandalized because I suggest that evolutionary atheists might actually not be the best people to comment on the historicity of Adam and Eve. Please!
No, I’m scandalised for the reason I said – because you’re throwing dirt at people without any clue as to whether it’s true or not.
Scientists don’t care about the historicity of Adam and Eve when they’re doing science. They’re studying the universe, not a book. The chances are God put more of his efforts into the larger of the two.
In any case, while there was no human death before the fall, it would appear that animal death was part of nature’s give and take process.
There are many different views and I don’t know which one is correct but some are probably more biblical than others. After all, it is a “simple” matter of language whether or not a notion fits the scripts of Scripture as described by scribbling scribes throughout the millenia. Yet the issue for you doesn’t seem to be a matter of interpretation of actual Scripture or patterns specified by it but rather a focus on the appearance of creation. “…it would appear [a] part of nature’s give and take process.” Yet I don’t know that the Bible says that the appearance of Nature and its processes will naturally cause men to come to correct conclusions about the past. Not to mention that YECs would be quick to interpret appearances differently, perhaps noting that fossilization is generally an artifact of catastrophe. Yet on the other hand it doesn’t exactly say that people will come to correct conclusions as a result of studying the Bible either. An orthodox creationist argument seems to be that Scripture (i.e. the written word) should be studied first and then everything else (nature, history, life) interpreted by it, yet the Pharisees were the greatest scholars of the written word in their day and they were wrong.
Given all that I would still tend to argue that your view empties some of the symbolism of animal sacrifice and so ultimately the singular significance of the Lamb of God.
Others are equipped with features that appear designed as a defense against predators. Apparently, animals were not designed to be always and everywhere at total peace with one another.
It seems to me that interpretations of Nature are significant with respect to Christian symbolism. Given the nature of symbolism I could easily be wrong, yet if you believe that the ground was always meant to grow plants with thorns then the Christ wearing a crown of thorns may lose some of its significance. Perhaps the gardening God claims that things like thorns are a perversion of creation even if they do protect from predators? If war comes about by God’s design rather than by its perversion then what’s the difference between the “Prince of peace” and the “Prince of this world”? Why should we pray that God’s will would be done by design on issues like disease, viruses and death if it already is? On the other hand, a typical creationist argument seems to be that God pronounced the creation “very good,” therefore animals didn’t die. Yet if the Lamb of God was slain before the creation of the world and predestined to happen within it then animals being sacrificed for the sake of a natural progression to man could be good, although a sacrifice is only good once it is finished. I simply don’t know.
Perhaps the sole strength of modern creation myths rooted in naturalism and Darwinism is that competing worldviews have no established orthodoxy with a general narrative of origins that’s generally agreed on.
—–mynym: “An orthodox creationist argument seems to be that Scripture (i.e. the written word) should be studied first and then everything else (nature, history, life) interpreted by it, yet the Pharisees were the greatest scholars of the written word in their day and they were wrong.”
—–“Given all that I would still tend to argue that your view empties some of the symbolism of animal sacrifice and so ultimately the singular significance of the Lamb of God.”
My take on it is that truth is indivisible, so, naturally I will look for ways to do justice to both science and theology. I have always been convinced that neither needs to be sacrificed for the other. Indeed, my main criticisms tend toward those who would subordinate Christian theology to evolutionary biology. That is another way of saying that good science will fine tune good theology and vice versa. I do have that much faith in the unity of truth. If I am wrong, then the only other option is that theology has one truth and science has another truth. If that were the case, then we would no longer live in a rational universe.
So, I try to confront the challenge that each discipline imposes on the other. I assume that carnivores were always carnivores, but that is all it is—an assumption. If, on the other hand, all animals were at peace until the fall, I could happily accept that proposition. In fact, I would prefer to believe it. I would seem to mean, though, that after the fall, God changed some basic body plans and transformed some peaceful creatures into violent creatures. It seems like a stretch, but if that is the way it went down, it’s fine with me.
I do get the significance of your point about symbolism. If there was no animal death before the fall, then the act of putting an animal to death in the form of a sacrifice is truly a dramatic event. As you suggest, it would seem that the animal or the person making the sacrifice is paying an exceedingly high price. The natural reaction would be, “what a tragedy, this was not “meant” to happen. If, on the other hand, the principle of death is already “built into nature,” then, at least in a symbolic sense, that same sacrifice seems less dramatic and more ordinary. It didn’t seem to cost as much as in the first instance.
Indeed, I don’t think we can fully appreciate the sacrifice made by the “Lamb of God” unless we also think how much it costs when “God becomes man.” It would be like a man giving up his human nature and becoming a dog. He would eat with dogs, sleep with dogs, and communicate with dogs only in the end to have them turn on him and tear him apart. I submit that the key to understanding the sacrifice is to focus less on the symbol of the loss and more on the magnitude of the loss, and a God has a whole lot more to lose than an animal. I don’t think the term “lamb of God” is meant to characterize the price paid so much as it is meant to symbolize a man who willingly and passively lays down his life.
bFast at 61;
You’re right, this is a paper about the GULO pseudogene, not the HAR1F gene. I recalled it following on from your earlier correspondence with Joseph on the subject of ERVs. As it happens, Borger published two papers in J. Creation vol. 21, one on HAR1F and one on GULO, but I don’t have the HAR1F one.
Venus Mousetrap: You wrote:
—–”The big bang is surely a perfect example of how science is NOT atheistic. Why would these atheists NOT cover up evidence which destroyed the idea of an eternal, godless universe? Could it be that science is about the evidence, not the ideology?”
The issue is that the majority of atheists scientists DID NOT LIKE THE DISCOVERY. If they were not motivated by ideology, they would not have cared.
—–”I’ll also bet that almost every pro-science atheist alive today accepts big bang theory. Could it be that, like scientists, atheists are also interested in evidence?”
Of course they accept it. What choice do they have. The point is that DID NOT WANT IT TO BE TRUE. Do you deny this?
When scientists discovered design in living organisms, a majority of biologists closed ranks and began persecuting and “expelling” ID scientists. When a scientist confirmed the “privileged planet” hypothesis, his colleagues branded him as a religious fanatic, disowned him, and put him on a hit list.
—–”Well, I’d love to talk with you about ID and why people may think it has something to do with religion, but my last comment here on that subject was deleted. Irony!”
If your comments were deleted, it is because you said something irrelevant or got too personal. Give it another shot. What is your objection against the concept of functionally specified complex information? If you provide a reasonable answer, you will not be deleted. If, on the other hand, you say something like, “because Judge Jones didn’t agree,” that might not qualify as a thoughtful response.
That 95.8% of evolutionary biologists are agnostic/atheist is a documented fact. If you dispute the fact that disinterested science is becoming a less common and partisan science is becoming more common you simply need to get out of the house more.
—–”um… evidence? Once again, you’re accusing the vast majority of evolutionary biologists of faking their results AND covering for each other’s fakes.”
That number comes from several sources—a Dartmouth study—Dave Scot on this website (Scot never fudges on facts)—Denyse O’Leary on her website citing the same study. I have also read similar studies that show 60% of mainstream scientists are agnostic atheist as opposed to 95.8% of evolutionary biologists. If you are hesitating to accept this fact because I cannot remember the link, then go ahead and console yourself that way.
Scientists fake things all the time. Nick Matzke tried to devise a pathway to complexity a few years back and called it science. There was nothing to it. If there had been, ID would be out of business. Fortunately there are REAL scientists around who can evaluate this kind of stuff.
—–”Scientists don’t care about the historicity of Adam and Eve when they’re doing science. They’re studying the universe, not a book. The chances are God put more of his efforts into the larger of the two.”
Scientists care about everything. Some of them allow their cares to contaminate their studies; some don’t. The integrity of the scientist matters just as much as the reliability of his methodology. Where do you think the term “junk science” comes from.