It's revealing to see the tactical and strategic priorities of BioLogos. The contributors to BioLogos think evolution is a fact. They think evolution is consistent with a suitably reformulated Christian theology. They think Christians who deny evolution and claim that Christian theology is incompatible with evolution drive people away from the faith. Prevent unbelievers from giving Christianity serious consideration. They think Christian opposition to evolution creates a gratuitous impediment to faith.
Let's concede all that for the sake of argument. Consider this:
Notice anything amiss? They target churches and Christian colleges. They try to recruit theistic evolutionists by attacking young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, and intelligent design theory.
Now, what's striking about this is what they don't do. Notice where the don't go poaching for converts to theistic evolution. They don't put nearly the same effort into frequenting secular college campuses and recruiting converts from science majors in general or biology majors in particular. They don't sponsor or host debates between BioLogos spokesmen and secular paleontologists or evolutionary biologists.
Their efforts are directed at folks who already profess to be Christian. They don't make the case for theistic evolution with professors at scientific bastions like MIT, Cornell, Caltech, Harvard, Chicago U, the Institute for Advanced Study (Princeton), &c. Yet if they think theistic evolution is scientifically defensible and intellectually respectable, why don't they routinely go head-to-head with secular scientists whose speciality intersects with evolution?
Evidently, they think theistic evolution is only plausible to Christians, not to secular scientists. After all, if theistic evolution is scientifically credible, shouldn't the recruitment pool draw from Christians and atheists alike? Why focus on turning Christians? Why not concentrate similar resources in turning unbelievers who major in science? Why is their emphasis so lopsided?
Seems to betray a lack of confidence in the scientific credibility of theistic evolution when they are so reticent to test their claims against an audience that comes to the issue from a purely scientific standpoint, with no theological presuppositions. They avoid a tough audience.
Maybe this is because Darwinian evolution, given its epistemological and scientific presuppositions, is sufficient to explain origins without reference to God. Why add God to the mix when everything else about your system is rooted in unadulterated naturalism? Invoking God has no explanatory power in standard accounts of Darwinian evolution. To engage the academy on this account is superfluous and subsequently embarrassing.
ReplyDeleteAww, Steve, the answer to that question is way too easy:
ReplyDeleteThe Biologos people don't _debate_ the atheistic evolutionists because they don't have any *scientific* evidence to offer them. Why not? Because *by definition* their version of theistic evolution is *empirically equivalent* to atheistic evolution. In fact, they have set it up that way *deliberately*. They explicitly disagree with anyone who would make God's involvement in evolution *detectable*. If it were detectable, they would be ID theorists, not Biologos people.
So what is there to debate? Their commitment to the "theistic" part of "theistic evolution" is entirely theological, with no empirical backing whatsoever. And they wouldn't expect the atheistic evolutionists to debate theology with them, right? So there is nothing left to debate.
I agree with your assessment but evaluate it differently. I don't think it's a bad thing. Theistic evolution is a metaphysical thesis, that operates at a different level of explanation than proximate evolutionary mechanisms. But that doesn't mean the theistic part has 'no' empirical backing. For example, St. Thomas's five ways or some of their modern reconstructions definitely start from empirical premises. It just means that God's involvement is detectable, not at the level of individual interventions in the natural order, but at the level of the whole shebang.
DeleteSo if theistic evolutionists were to interact with secular scientists, it would not be in order to offer competitors to proposed evolutionary mechanisms, but perhaps to attempt to convince them of God's reality using cosmological and teleological arguments that don't compete with evolution but are complementary with it.
JD,
DeleteThere are problems with just tacking theism onto evolution. In principle, God could use evolution to produce man. Planned evolution, in which a front-loaded, bottom-up, simple-to-complex, molecules-to-man program is God's process for eventuating the human race.
But according to the conventional reading of evolutionary history, the process doesn't appear to have any particular outcome in mind. It's like a war zone where, after the dust settles, you have piles of bodies and a few lucky survivors. But the bullets didn't intend to miss the survivors. And the bullets didn't intend to kill the victims. It's just a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Moreover, given evolutionary history, man is just a freeze-frame between the past and the future. It's like a freeze-frame of the dinosaurs. But, of course, they became extinct. The fact that man happens to exist at this stage of the reel says nothing about his future prospects. And precedent is not encouraging.
So theistic evolution must posit human exceptionalism in spite of the evidence.
On the face of it, the evolutionary narrative is like a freeway project that ran out of funding. Ramps and arches of a freeway interchange that suddenly break off in midair.
Hi Steve,
DeleteLanguage of 'theism tacked on to evolution' still seems to presuppose that theism and evolution are competitor mechanisms for explaining the same phenomena. If that were the case, and given a (seemingly) robust, adequate evolutionary theory, it would indeed seem ad hoc to add theism to the mix, which would be explanatorily superfluous. But the way I see it, theism and evolution are explanations at different levels. Evolution is a proximate mechanism that explains how, given an already existing, orderly natural world, biological complexity might emerge. But theism is an ultimate explanation of why that orderly natural world exists at all, and why substances in nature have the causal powers that they do. Their relationship is akin to that between a computer and its program. Anything the program does, the computer makes possible, and inputs from the computer can change the program itself. But the computer and (part of) the program would not be in competition to explain what (another part of) the program does.
I grant that from one perspective evolutionary history might seem just like 'one damn thing after another'. But from another angle one might appreciate evolution as an elegant mechanism for getting lots of interesting complexity through the operation of a few simple rules, similar to John Conway's game of life. A few lines from Alexander Pope also come to mind:
In human works, though labour'd on with pain,
A thousand movements scarce one purpose gain;
In God's, one single can its end produce;
Yet serves to second too some other use.
I would also point out that the Neo-Darwinian paradigm is increasingly moving away from pure random mutation combined with natural selection, in the direction of more robust self-organizing trends. Some evolutionary theorists, like Simon Conway Morris, even see a pattern of 'evolutionary convergence' such that something like us was an inevitable outcome of the evolutionary process.
As for human exceptionalism, I'm not sure why it's so important to adhere to that? Even the psalmist proclaims that man seems pretty puny from a cosmic perspective. That's not to say I don't think humans have a very important part to play in God's plan, or that we are ontologically superior to other creatures, and with Genesis I affirm that humans were intended to be God's vice-regents, subduing and tending to the garden Earth, but that doesn't mean the world was crafted only or even primarily for our benefit. Pope comes to mind again here:
So man, who here seems principal alone,
Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown,
Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal;
'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole.
And as for the seeming transience of the human place in evolution, isn't our hope contingent on God's radical in-breaking of new creation, rather than some inevitable natural outcome? There are all those Scriptures that speak of the heavens being rolled up like a scroll, etc.
"Evolution is a proximate mechanism that explains how, given an already existing, orderly natural world, biological complexity might emerge."
Delete1. Hm, unfortunately, this is a vague definition. It could apply to various theories. For example, one could say some form(s) of ID "is a proximate mechanism that explains how, given an already existing, orderly natural world, biological complexity might emerge."
2. By contrast, neo-Darwininism (in its mainstream form) is more specific. For instance, it's more specific about mechanisms such as the small-scale random mutations leading to macroevolutionary changes in body plans ("from micro to macro"); natural selection as the main cause of adaptive change; and heredity, ultimately tracing its way back to a universal common ancestor.
"Their relationship is akin to that between a computer and its program. Anything the program does, the computer makes possible, and inputs from the computer can change the program itself. But the computer and (part of) the program would not be in competition to explain what (another part of) the program does...one might appreciate evolution as an elegant mechanism for getting lots of interesting complexity through the operation of a few simple rules, similar to John Conway's game of life."
1. I'm afraid this too is a bit vague. Is theistic evolution meant to be like God having written a program like Conway's "Game of Life" that has a life of its own? Is theistic evolution meant to be like God having a written a program like Conway's "Game of Life" that has a life of its own but God is free to interject new code or re-write old code into the game? Or something else?
2. Can't an ID theorist like Michael Behe agree with this? If so, it'd be consistent with at least one form of ID. Yet do most theistic evolutionists agree with Behe?
3. ID theorists routinely make use of similar metaphors as well. That may be fine as far as it goes. But at the end of the day, these metaphors presumably need some sort of anchor in reality. They can't exist entirely in the loftier airs of the imagination. Given this, we might ask, how does the metaphor square with the empirical evidence on the ground?
"I would also point out that the Neo-Darwinian paradigm is increasingly moving away from pure random mutation combined with natural selection, in the direction of more robust self-organizing trends."
1. Actually, this debate has been going on for at least a generation or two if not much longer. Some would even argue it's been going on since Darwin's day.
However, even today the debate is quite heated. I don't see someone like Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, or PZ Myers soon agreeing with the "self-organizing trends" in Denis Noble, James Shapiro, or Stuart Kauffman.
2. Also, at least some of the arguments used by systems biology and systems engineering (for example) could potentially be re-purposed against theistic evolution and/or in favor of intelligent design. For example, take James Shapiro's natural genetic engineering.
JD Walters "Language of 'theism tacked on to evolution' still seems to presuppose that theism and evolution are competitor mechanisms for explaining the same phenomena."
DeleteActually, it presupposes that the theistic component is separable from the evolutionary component. And that is, indeed, how BioLogos spokesmen present it.
But since you bring it up, these are in competition inasmuch as typical expositions of evolutionary biology present the history of evolution as a dysteleological process. Not at all like a computer program.
"If that were the case, and given a (seemingly) robust, adequate evolutionary theory, it would indeed seem ad hoc to add theism to the mix, which would be explanatorily superfluous."
That's like saying medical science renders intercessory prayer superfluous.
"But the way I see it, theism and evolution are explanations at different levels. Evolution is a proximate mechanism that explains how, given an already existing, orderly natural world, biological complexity might emerge. But theism is an ultimate explanation of why that orderly natural world exists at all, and why substances in nature have the causal powers that they do. Their relationship is akin to that between a computer and its program."
That would be a good model in the abstract. But I already anticipated that countermove. Hypothetically, God could use evolution as a mechanism to produce man (among other things).
Problem is, according to any standard exposition of evolutionary history, there is no straightforward evolutionary pathway to man. Rather, we have millions of bridges that drop off in midspan.
"But from another angle one might appreciate evolution as an elegant mechanism for getting lots of interesting complexity through the operation of a few simple rules, similar to John Conway's game of life."
Even if it's (allegedly) elegant in deriving complexity through the operation of a few simple rules, it's very inelegant if judged from a goal-oriented standpoint. The end-results are adventitious. By brute process of elimination, some specious are temporarily left standing.
"Some evolutionary theorists, like Simon Conway Morris, even see a pattern of 'evolutionary convergence' such that something like us was an inevitable outcome of the evolutionary process."
It's inevitable that some asteroids will strike earth. Most asteroids miss earth. But if there are enough astroids, some will come close enough to be captured by earth's gravity (or be redirected by warping effect of earth at that point in space), and pulled in.
In a sense, that's not purely random, for gravity takes over. But it's a strange way to hit the target if that's the objective. Why not just aim for the target and shoot?
Likewise, if you roll enough balls down a bowling alley, it's inevitable that sooner or later you will knock the pins over, but is God just toying with human lives?
"As for human exceptionalism, I'm not sure why it's so important to adhere to that?"
According to Scripture, man is the apex of creation on earth. And it was important enough to justify the Incarnation.
"Even the psalmist proclaims that man seems pretty puny from a cosmic perspective."
He starts out by saying we appear to be a minuscule part of creation compared to the night sky. Likewise, man is below God, below the angels.
But he goes on to talk about God "crowning" man. Putting all things under his feet.
"And as for the seeming transience of the human place in evolution, isn't our hope contingent on God's radical in-breaking of new creation, rather than some inevitable natural outcome?"
But that's *despite* the evolutionary narrative. And that involves selective prooftexting, where Biblical protology (Gen 1-3; Rom 5) is discounted, but Biblical eschatology still counts–for some arbitrary reason.
"And as for the seeming transience of the human place in evolution, isn't our hope contingent on God's radical in-breaking of new creation, rather than some inevitable natural outcome?"
DeleteNeanderthal and Homo erectus couldn't be reached for comment.
Frankly, I don't think it's possible to make a working teleological argument that doesn't compete with evolutionary theory. And I bet St. Thomas would have agreed with me if he could be asked the question. But there we will doubtless disagree.
ReplyDeleteThe cosmological argument may be construed in such a way that it doesn't compete, though Stephen Hawking is working overtime to try to make out that something comes from nothing, so I guess you'd have to ask the evolutionary theorist in question whether he regards a theistic origin of the universe as a whole as "in competition with modern science."
The moral argument or argument from perfection is, presumably, something the evolutionary theorist has no special ability to debate--it's pretty much pure philosophy or theology.
Thomas's Fifth Way takes as its starting premise the fact that "We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result." The phenomenon in question here seems to be the plain fact that throughout cause A reliably tends to produce effect B, all things considered, in order to produce certain 'optimal' outcomes. And as I mentioned above in response to Steve, evolution depends for its operation on the prior existence of a world with such orderly causal patterns. So it would seem that the Fifth Way does not compete with evolution. On the contrary, God's continually directing cause A toward effect B, "like an arrow shot to its mark by an archer" in Thomas's fine phrasing, is required for evolution to happen!
DeleteI also think it's important to be clear about what 'evolutionary theory' we are talking about. When I and probably most other evolutionary theorists speak of 'evolution', I am simply referring to a set of mechanisms that begin with a minimum amount of biological material (I am still undecided about whether those or other related mechanisms could produce that first minimum amount of material without direct intervention) and through their continuous, iterative operation, lead to the biological complexity we see today. But if you want to draft Stephen Hawking as an 'evolutionary theorist' then we're talking about evolution as basically synonymous with atheistic naturalism, and theism is indeed a competitor to that.
"When I and probably most other evolutionary theorists speak of 'evolution', I am simply referring to a set of mechanisms that begin with a minimum amount of biological material (I am still undecided about whether those or other related mechanisms could produce that first minimum amount of material without direct intervention) and through their continuous, iterative operation, lead to the biological complexity we see today."
DeleteIn addition to what I said above:
In my experience, "most other evolutionary theorists" would not define "evolution" in this way. It'd be too simplistic. I certainly haven't seen it in the scientific literature.
It's quite debatable whether there exists or could have existed a viable mechanism(s) by which "that first minimum amount of material" may have been frontloaded to kick off the entire evolutionary process. For example, chemical evolution in a primordial soup via RNA, amino acids, proteins, other polymers or inorganic molecules, whether on their own or in combination, don't appear to have the wherewithal to have been life's building blocks.
A theistic evolutionist could posit God did it. So could an ID theorist. But for example would a theistic evolutionist who is at the same time a methodological naturalist accept this proposition?
What is "the faith" to BioLogos' apologists? Is it functional Deism? Socinianism in labcoats?
ReplyDeleteI imagine many of them would say they believe in the resurrection. But miracles are verboten outside of...something. Some artificially constrained historical space thought of as salvation history. That the people who witnessed a particular miracle didn't always know ahead of time that they inhabited this magical space and that this creates epistemic problems for this artificial distinction between "when God is allowed to do miracles" and when "God would never do a miracle" is something one pretty much _cannot_ get through to a committed TE.
DeleteIndeed, a really committed TE may be even _more_ closed-minded to the sheer scientific, empirical evidence for design in nature than a committed naturalist. Though it's a close call.
Sounds like they barely have a leg up on the Sadducees...if that. It must be a difficult space to occupy, being derided from both of the sides they supposedly seek to bridge.
DeleteLet's not erect straw men here. A theistic evolutionist such as myself is happy to accept not only the resurrection, but also Jesus' miracles, miracles by prophets and apostles, and even paranormal phenomena in other world religions. And I don't have any a priori constraint on whether God would act in the natural world, without a connection to any human or salvific interest. I'm just going by what a careful, close study of the natural world suggests. No proposed instance of 'irreducible complexity' put forward by ID theorists seems to actually be irreducibly complex, and proposed YEC explanations for the appearance of age, etc. seem ad hoc and theologically promiscuous. It's not "God would never do a miracle here," it's "God doesn't seem to have actually done a miracle here."
DeleteAnd then there are the TEs who think they are being Thomistic somehow. That's totally bizarre, considering that St. Thomas believed that God literally made Adam from the dust of the ground!!
ReplyDelete