Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Jesus Creed

Home
Evangelical
Back to Darwin? (RJS)

Back to Darwin? (RJS)

Last updated on: November 27, 2010 at 7:15 pm by RJS

Back to Darwin? (RJS) 2010-11-27T19:15:53-06:00 RJS

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Several years ago John B. Cobb Jr. Professor Emeritus of the Claremont School of Theology organized a conference on evolution and religion. This conference eventually gave rise to a book of essays exploring various scientific and philosophical questions: Back to Darwin: A Richer Account of Evolution. The book contains contributions from a rather impressive group, Francisco Ayala, Ian Barbour, Philip Clayton, Lynn Margulis, Jeffrey Schloss, and Howard Van Till, among others. Two, Ayala and Margulis are members of the National Academy of Science. (All but one is male.) The contributors vary dramatically in outlook and position. Cobb supplemented and organized the book with an aim to highlight ideas of emergence and process theology. This book is not for the average pastor or church member – but may prove useful for one working in a graduate school environment. It provides valuable background information.

There are a few contributions worth noting.

The chapter by Howard Van Till “From Calvinism to Claremont: Now That’s Evolution! Or From Calvin’s Supernaturalism to Griffin’s Theistic Naturalism” is sobering. This chapter contains primarily a reflection on his walk trying to reconcile his faith with the observation of the world.

Philip Clayton has contributed a chapter on process and emergence in the context of science and theology. The concept of emergence has been making the rounds lately, particularly in the dialog between Tony Jones and Philip Clayton (see Tony’s Blog). Emergence is characterized by the idea that a reductionist view of science is inherently incorrect as there are properties and functions of complex systems that are not capable of reduction to or prediction from the intrinsic properties of their component elements. Certainly there is a sense in which the whole is greater than the sum of the parts – but much of this reasoning seems to depend on semantics (I don’t buy it – scientifically speaking).

More relevant to discussion here are the contributions by Jeffrey Schloss, Professor and Chair of the Biology Department at Westmont College, and this is where I would like to focus today.

Where, if anywhere, does scientific naturalism and purely random natural selection fail?

Jeffrey Schloss is an evolutionary biologist who has taught biology at Westmont since 1981. He lists his areas of specialization as: Physiological ecology of water relations; Evolution of altruism and moral systems; Theological implications of Darwinism. Schloss became a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, but later broke ties and of late has been outspoken against the concept of Intelligent Design in its narrow definition. He wrote a rather substantive and less than positive review of Ben Stein’s film “Expelled.”

Schloss contributed two chapters to this book. The first “Neo-Darwinianism: Scientific Account and Theological Attributions” lays a framework of definitions and options. The second “Divine Providence and the Question of Evolutionary Directionality” builds on this framework. There are several interesting conversation points here.

The term “neo-Darwinian” is somewhat loose and does not have a common technical usage. Yet it is a useful label in this book. Schloss defines “neo”-Darwinianism as a commitment to natural selection as both sufficient and true. It is non-Lamarckian (acquired characteristics are not transmitted), More to the point “evolutionary change is nonteleological and nonpurposive, and entails no intrinsic progression or indeed directionality of any kind.” (p. 102) Genes are the star actors and organisms exist only to allow DNA to make more DNA. There is no group selection in any form. The be all and end all is self replicating information units. For more detail on any of these points see almost anything by Richard Dawkins.

Neo-Darwinianism in this form is opposed to faith. (Again – see anything by Dawkins.) Schloss points out that while it is generally accepted that evolution is non-Lamarckian, the remaining points are debatable scientifically, sociologically (there is a diversity of opinion within the scientific community), and philosophically or theologically.

In particular Schloss cites the following points of conflict for consideration

- Altruism and Love
- Morality
- Purpose
- Natural Evil

The first three of these have consequences for neo-Darwinianism as defined here. According to the principles of neo-Darwinianism there is no genuine altruism or love – and “if we think that we are capable of unconditional love – extended without compensatory benefit – we are probably deceiving ourselves” (p. 108). Morality is a construct, an illusion evolved only to ascertain the survival of the biotic agent – the gene. Purpose and explanations that resort to purpose are meaningless, nature does not have purpose only effects. The very notion of purpose is a “cosmic delusion.”

Natural evil (useless traits, clumsy design, suboptimal function, predator and parasite) on the other hand is a problem for theism. For the neo-Darwinianist the world just is and the word evil in this context is meaningless. But for the theistic view – how could a good and all powerful God have created the world we see. After all Schloss points out “Hiring a drunk to drive you home after an evening’s excess at the bar is just as morally reckless as driving yourself.” (p. 114) It makes no difference if we invoke special creation or evolution as God’s mechanism, the responsibility remains.

Schloss goes on to describe possibilities for directionality and trends in evolution. The neo-Darwinian positions suggests – even demands – that evolution lacks any kind of thematic directionality. But it is not clear that the evidence supports this hypothesis – and many would say that the science does not demand it. In his second chapter Schloss looks at evolutionary trends, directionality vs adirectionality, directionality vs diffusion, directionality and destiny.

Schloss does not prove God – nor does he try to in his contributions.
Nonetheless I found his essays thought provoking as we continue to
wrestle with the interface between science and theology.

I have long felt that love, beauty, morality, meaning, and purpose are the most significant arguments for the existence of God. A purely natural evolution can rationalize these, explain why we think they exist, but in so doing it proves them in the end meaningless concepts, cosmic delusions. It may be a delusion, but I am convinced that such concepts are real – meaningful. As a practical realist I think we can trust the evidence in this area, just as we can trust the evidence for the general mechanisms of evolutionary development.

Where do we go with the Christian story then? The essence of Christianity is love – love from God, love of God, and love for neighbor. Read the gospels, read Paul, John, or James. The gospel is that God loves us and acted on that love, the consequence is that we turn around and love God, self, others, and the world.

The essence of the kingdom message, the gospel, is “repent and believe in me.” We forsake our way of doing things and follow God’s way even if it leads to persecution and death.

What do you think?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail [at] att.net.

Science and Faith

Previous Post

April 7, 2009

Our Collective Faith 7

Next Post

April 7, 2009 A Brother's Wisdom 30

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who said, "Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?"

Select your answer to see how you score.

Mourners at Lazarus' tomb Mary Magdalene Peter The centurion