Pages

Friday, September 13, 2019

The wasteful work of nature

This post is primarily about theodical challenges posed by theistic evolution, but I'll use Darwin's statement as a convenient frame of reference:

What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low, and horribly cruel work of nature! 

A. Some apologists respond this type of objection by saying the atheist is illicitly assuming a God's-eye viewpoint. "If I was God, I'd do it this way instead!" 

They counter that you're not God, you're not omniscient, so you're not entitled to assume a God's-eye perspective. For all you know, God may have lots of reasons that don't occur to you. 

This response is usually deployed in response to the argument from evil. And it has a grain of truth, but it's too lax and facile to be a general principle. The danger lies in defending truth by a principle that shields falsehood from scrutiny. A Christian apologist should avoid recourse to arguments to protect Christianity that have the side-effect of protecting cults and false religions. 

For instance, suppose a Christian apologist says Joseph Smith has all the earmarks of a charlatan. Suppose a Mormon counters that for all we know, God might choose someone like Joseph Smith. 

Catholics say the church of Rome is the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ. Evangelicals looks at Rome and exclaim, "Is that the best God could do?" If that's a church which enjoys special protection from error, what does a church look like that doesn't enjoy special protection from error? 

But the Catholic counters, you're illicitly assuming a God's eye perspective! 

Suppose a Christian apologist says it would be deceptive for God to save people through divergent religions that make contradictory claims. Suppose a universalist or religious pluralist counters: How presumptuous for you to divine God's mind and speak on his behalf!  

I'll have more to say about the principle further down.


B. However, a qualified version of the principle is legitimate. Take the appeal to skeptical theism when addressing the problem of evil. But that's more discriminating than just "You can't assume a God's-eye viewpoint!"

It's a question of where the skepticism is located. It's not located in claiming that we don't have the faintest idea why God allows a particular evil or certain kind of evil. To the contrary, the situation is nearly the opposite: based on human analogies, it's easy to imagine multiple reasons an agent might have to allow the evil in question. The difficulty is that we have no way to narrow down the field of options to one correct explanation. That's where the skepticism is located. So we're not at a complete loss by any means. Rather, there are too many possible reasons to choose from.

C. Moving on to the specifics, what about the "cruelty" of nature. Certainly the animal kingdom often looks cruel to a human observer, but that involves the danger of projecting a human viewpoint onto creatures that do not and cannot share our viewpoint. Likewise, it's necessary to distinguish between the pain threshold and pain tolerance.

In addition, many organisms lack the reflective self-awareness to register pain in the sense: "Ouch! That hurts! I'm in pain!"

Take Darwin's classic, clueless illustration: 

I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars.

Except that caterpillars lack the first-person viewpoint to think: "I feel pain!" And the absence of that indexical awareness presumably holds true for lower animals generally. To be conscious of pain in the human sense, where we can objectify the experience, may only be something a few higher animals are privy to. 

D. What about "wasteful" nature? Is he using "wasteful" as a synonym for "inefficient"? Poetry is a less efficient means of communication than prose, but that's not an artistic defect. Efficiency isn't a musical value. 

The way God fulfills Joseph's dream is inefficient, but intentionally inefficient. If God streamlined the process, there'd be less opportunity for divine intervention, to manifest the God's overruling providence. 

E. Then there's "clumsy" and "blundering". Here he may have the evolutionary process in mind. 

1. If so, that's a challenge for a theistic evolutionist. It's not a challenge for a young-earth creationist or old-earth creationist inasmuch as they reject the presupposition. They don't think God uses evolution (in the sense of macroevolution and universal common descent). Of course, they exchange one challenge for another. And the naturalistic evolutionist has his own challenges.

2. The issue isn't mass extinction, per se. I've discussed this before:


Nearly every position (young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, deistic evolution, theistic evolution, naturalistic evolution) must accommodate mass extinction. A partial exception is Omphalism, but even that must accommodate modern mass extinction. To avoid that we must resort to Last Thursdayism.

The issue is whether God uses evolution to create human beings. If that's the goal, it seems to be a monumentally clumsy, blundering method. 

3. A theistic evolutionist might counter that prior stages in natural history are necessary to develop an ecosystem in which humans can exist. And that might be an adequate justification at a very broad level. But are all, or even most, of the evolutionary dead-ends really necessary to achieve that goal?

4. Another issue is that it's important that we be able to differentiate outcomes by design from outcomes due to dumb luck. That's a way we determine the presence or absence of intelligent agency. If you shuffle a deck of cards enough times, you will get a royal flush. If you spin the dial on a locker long enough, you will accidentally hit on the right combination. If you throw a dart enough times, you will hit the bullseye. 

It's theologically important to be able to distinguish random outcomes from intentional outcomes. That's a way we detect special providence. 

Or take the case of prayer. Out of the totality of prayers, (i) a subset go unanswered. In (ii) another subset, the outcome is consistent with the prayer, but not unmistakably an answer to prayer. Some apparent answers to prayer might be things that would naturally happen anyway, given the odds. There there's (iii) a subset where the outcome is clearly miraculous or supernatural. Finally, there's (iv) a subset where the outcome is so auspicious and antecedently improbable that while it might be sheer luck, that's not the most plausible explanation.

But if we were unable to differentiate outcomes by design from outcomes due to dumb like, then that would make one skeptical about the efficacy of prayer. Given the number of "misses", did we just get lucky? 

5. Apropos (4), a challenge for the theistic evolutionist is whether evolutionary outcomes can be distinguished from chance. What makes it theistic is that it's a guided process–perhaps front-loaded to unfold to a programmed conclusion. If, however,  the end-products appear to be the luck of the draw, then where's the evidence that theistic evolution is true while atheistic evolution is false? Perhaps a theistic evolutionist would say there is no direct evidence from evolution itself. Rather, that comes from other theistic arguments. 

6. There is, though, a further twist. There's such a thing as programmed dumb luck. Take how dandelions disseminate. Each puff has a flotilla of hang-gliding seeds carried by the breeze in all directions. Multiply that by countless puffs releasing their seeds to the winds, and a fraction are bound to create new dandelions through dumb luck.

However, a human observer can discern a strategy behind that process. So there needs to be evidence to distinguish between sheer dumb luck and programed dumb luck. Can the theistic evolutionist furnish that differential evidence? 

22 comments:

  1. I suppose broadly speaking I would be classified as a theistic evolutionist, although I am completely anti-Darwinian. My own view incorporates a lot of the concepts of morphic resonance, as developed by Rupert Sheldrake, but one could also view them in light of Platonic archetypes too. In that regard, I will take a stab at your question:

    ---
    If, however, the end-products appear to be the luck of the draw, then where's the evidence that theistic evolution is true while atheistic evolution is false?
    ---

    I think evolution very clearly shows evidence *against* being "the luck of the draw" (which is why I disagree with Darwinism), and the most obvious evidence of that is so-called "convergent evolution." Specifically, looking at the distinction between marsupials and placental mammals. Australia (theoretically) broke off from Asia about 80 million years ago, whereas dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago; which means the only mammal alive at the time would have been the small, shrew-like creature. Yet this small mammal evolved both in Australia and in Asia and Europe to form wolves, squirrels, and other animals that look identical--more than two dozen of them. The only main difference is those on Australia are marsupial while those off Australia are placental.

    Darwinists claim that it is environmental pressures that forced animals to evolve this way, but that doesn't make sense if genetic mutations are genuinely random. These aren't just a couple of mutations we're talking about. We're talking about an environment different enough to have kangaroos exist only in Australia simultaneously being the same enough to make wolves that are indistinguishable from wolves in Europe. This simply cannot happen randomly.

    But if there is a plan that is guiding the general structure of evolution, it makes sense. And this is something that even Darwin noticed. He found that islands that didn't have trees had ferns that grew in the shape of trees. These ferns grew perfectly fine as ferns on the continent, so there was no need for them to become tree-like on islands. Yet they did. To me, that signals that the islands "knew" they need tree-like structures, so they co-opted the closest life form to it and directed it to grow that way. I speak anthropomorphically there, but in the end would say that biology is inherently plastic and conforms to be what it needs to be in order to get the outcome that was put in place. In short, all the evidence better fits the idea that evolution is guided toward a specific goal and not random.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is that evidence against *evolution* being the luck of the draw? The conventional designation ("convergent evolution") classifies the phenomenon as a type of evolution, but that's prejudicial. The phenomenon exists, but is evolution (in the sense of macroevolution/universal common descent) the cause or something else?

      Delete
    2. Peter, your comments seem to be consistent with or similar to a view of evolution called process structuralism (cf. Michael Jones' video Can you be a Christian and Believe in Evolution?).

      Delete
    3. True, it may be other things than evolution going on there. The main reason I lean toward evolution is because of the marsupial aspect only being prevalent in Australia and not on the other continents. It seems to make more sense to view it as something common to the ancestors of all those marsupial animals than to something that came about for other reasons.

      That said, I do not hold to universal common descent myself, even though I think there is *some* common descent going on.

      Delete
    4. I don't think "luck" and "chance" are substances; they aren't things that exist in their own right. We label outcomes we can't fully explain as the result of "luck" or "chance" but we have to keep in mind these are not true causes. They are admissions of ignorance.

      Take the proverbial coin toss. The coin did not land heads-up because a substance known as "luck" or "chance" caused it to land heads-up. It landed heads-up up because of a variety of factors (launch angle, spin rate, gravity) that are too complex for us to identify precisely each time a coin is tossed in the air.

      Evolution did not progress because "luck" or "chance" intervened. It progressed because of specific selection pressures, specific mutations, specific acts of procreation, etc. Because we are not in the position to know all of these causes throughout history we may chalk it up to "luck" or "chance" but we have to keep in mind that we say this because we are ignorant of the precise causes, not because "luck" and "chance" are true causes.

      All of this is to say that "luck" and "chance" should not be on the table as real causes for anything. The main question, I believe, is whether the causes we see operating point to a first cause or not.

      Delete
    5. Annoyed Pinoy,
      I finally got to watch the video you linked. Yes, my position would be consistent with process structuralism, as defined in the video (I haven't studied it much on my own since I've been more inspired by Sheldrake's morphic resonance concept). I think morphic fields work as a great way of describing what the "natural law" would be that governs evolution. And, I would add, as a theist I would argue that of course God established those morphic fields.

      Delete
    6. Hi Peter,
      I am interested in how historical Adam and Eve as real individuals harmonizes with any kind of "Theistic Evolution".

      A lot of the terminology is unfamiliar to me, and it it taking me a long time to even understand the whole article and discussion; but, I am sincerely trying to understand how historical Adam and Eve fits with and kind of "Theistic Evolution". John Walton and the Logos Bios group and other Theistic Evolutionists admit that Adam and Eve are symbols or archetypes, not real historical individuals. That seems to gut Genesis 1-11 of much meaning and significance.

      Delete
    7. Sorry for typo. "and" should have been "any":

      I am sincerely trying to understand how historical Adam and Eve fits with any kind of "Theistic Evolution".

      Delete
    8. Peter,

      To my knowledge, YEC and OEC both make allowance for adaptation, speciation, and natural selection. Suppose God creates mammalian natural kinds as well as marsupial natural kinds. However, these natural kinds are subject to further development. Put in a particular environment, they become more specialized to take advantage of a particular ecological niche. By the same token, if mammals and marsupials are put in similar habitats, environmental pressures cause them to adapt in parallel ways. So I don't seen that "convergence" between mammals and marsupials requires or even presumes an evolutionary explanation (in the full-blown sense of evolution). It isn't geographical isolation but similar habitat that has that effect.

      To take a comparison, through selective breeding, some dogs are better suited to hunt rats while other dogs are better suited to hunt wolves. Natural selection is artificial breeding in slow motion.

      Delete
    9. "Australia (theoretically) broke off from Asia about 80 million years ago, whereas dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago; which means the only mammal alive at the time would have been the small, shrew-like creature. Yet this small mammal evolved both in Australia and in Asia and Europe to form wolves, squirrels, and other animals that look identical--more than two dozen of them. The only main difference is those on Australia are marsupial while those off Australia are placental."

      1.Let's take an example: the Tasmanian wolf or Thylacine. One question is the extent to which it's a marsupial parallel to a wolf. A difficulty is that it became extinct in the early 20C, so it's harder to make direct comparisons. That said:

      • How does its intelligence compare with wolves?

      • What about bite strength?

      • What about running speed and stamina?

      • Did it have the social code of wolves?

      • Was it primarily a pursuit predator or ambush predator?

      • Compared to wolves, was it a nocturnal/crepuscular predator?

      2. Another question: how detailed is the fossil record linking the modern Thylacine to a proto-Thylacine ancestor? Does the record show macroevolution from a lineal ancestor with little resemblance to the Thylacine?

      Delete
    10. Another complication:

      One important issue here is to find a principled way of distinguishing cases of convergent evolution (where unrelated lineages subject to similar selection pressures evolve similar traits) from parallel evolution (where lineages with similar traits to start with follow similar evolutionary trajectories) (Pearce 2012). Another issue is that one can multiply convergences by giving coarser-grained descriptions of the traits in question—for example, by counting agriculture in humans and some ant species as the same trait (Sterelny 2005).

      https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/macroevolution/#HistCont

      Delete
    11. Simon Conway-Morris is a leading proponent of convergent evolution. Dembski used to have an online review of his book, but unfortunately that's currently unavailable:

      https://philpapers.org/rec/DEMCMS

      Delete
    12. Steve said:
      ---
      Suppose God creates mammalian natural kinds as well as marsupial natural kinds. However, these natural kinds are subject to further development.
      ---

      If I'm understanding you correctly, you seem to be saying it's possible that God could have made both marsupial and placental versions of the same animals from the beginning. If that is what you're saying then I agree that yes, God *could* have done that if He wanted to. The reason I don't think it likely is because if both marsupial and placental animals were created side-by-side, then we'd have to explain how *all* that marsupials in the world would die out except for those in Australia (and a couple in South America, if I recall), while their placental versions would have died out completely in Australia but not in the rest of the world.

      This is the conundrum that we are faced with when it comes to those creatures. Either there's something special about Australia that inherently gives marsupials the ability to survive better than placental animals, or these animals all developed from a previous marsupial precursor and the isolation of Australia is what permitted the marsupials to "win out" there (since they had no competing placental animals in place). Given the differences between marsupials and placental animals, it doesn't seem that in general marsupials would have a higher rate of survival, and there doesn't seem to be anything unique about Australia that would make that particular environment worse off for placental mammals. That's why the geographical isolation before any evolution into the various types of other animals seems to be more likely than that marsupials just happened to be better adapted to Australia than their placental versions.

      You said:
      ---
      One question is the extent to which it's a marsupial parallel to a wolf.
      ---

      I'm speaking specifically of only the morphology of the animals. If you're trained, you would be able to spot quite a few morphological differences between animals on Australia and their counterparts in Eurasia, but most lay people would not be able to tell which is which. I would say those differences do point to the typical understanding of adaptation that everyone agrees with; it's the similarities that are important though. After all, you don't need to be an expert to visually tell the difference between, say, a whale and a bear.

      But yes, there could also be large differences in the intellect and so on. While it's a bit harder to say with the Tasmanian wolves, there are several other species with corollaries that still exist, such as flying squirrels. As far as I've seen and read, there doesn't seem to be any large scale differences in intelligence and/or behavior between the placental and the marsupial versions of those types of animals.

      Delete
    13. Ken asked:
      ---
      I am interested in how historical Adam and Eve as real individuals harmonizes with any kind of "Theistic Evolution".
      ---

      Well, most who call themselves "Theistic Evolutionists" don't seem to hold to a view of the historical validity of Adam and Eve. However, there are some who claim that Adam and Eve were historical and that they were made into the "image of God" by God bestowing it upon them, while there were other humans in existence at the same time.

      Speaking for myself, as I stated earlier, I do not believe in universal common descent. I believe human beings were created distinctly "de novo" and not as a result of previous hominid evolution. I also think that various different kinds of animals, as well as the plants, were created distinct from one another too. For example, most of what we label as "mammals" were derived from a prototype of mammal; fish would have been a proto-fish; reptiles, proto-reptiles; etc. I don't see evidence even looking at the fossil record as generously as possible toward Darwinism that these kinds ever overlapped or morphed from one to the other--they always seem quite defined throughout.

      Of course, I know many Darwinists will point toward the fact that there are mammals who look more like humans than other animals (such as orangutans and the like) as evidence of common ancestry. My own view is that animals were intended originally as food for us (not just plants, as some think). Mammals are more similar to us precisely so they would have the kinds of nutrients that we would need to consume, and thus physically it would be expected that we would share attributes with other mammals. This is why if you eat only fish, you'll die of malnutrition, but if you eat only red-meat, you do not. In fact, the red-meat carnivore diet actually seems to work pretty well, although there aren't any decades-long research experiments on it yet so we can't say for sure what the long-term effects would be. Even the studies PETA likes to cite about an increased risk for cancer if you eat red-meat actually only say eating *processed* meat increases the risk of cancer.

      So, again, I think that mammals were created in part for us to have food, so they contain the same types of amino acids, proteins, and the like that we need for ourselves, and as a result will have similarities to us. Thus, it is not surprising that there are some mammals that have quite a few morphic similarities to us if mammals being food was the goal all along.

      Delete
    14. "If I'm understanding you correctly, you seem to be saying it's possible that God could have made both marsupial and placental versions of the same animals from the beginning. If that is what you're saying then I agree that yes, God *could* have done that if He wanted to. The reason I don't think it likely is because if both marsupial and placental animals were created side-by-side, then we'd have to explain how *all* that marsupials in the world would die out except for those in Australia (and a couple in South America, if I recall), while their placental versions would have died out completely in Australia but not in the rest of the world."

      i) I don't necessarily mean in their present form, where they've acquired adaptive specializations, but God created both natural kinds.

      ii) In OEC, as I understand it, God, by fiat creation, introduces new natural kinds into the environment. They are phased in at different periods in natural history. So it doesn't follow that mammals and marsupials were originally synchronous.

      iii) Just as there might be chronological differences in when they were created, there may well be differences in their original distribution. Indeed, since different regions have different ecosystems, I'd expect biogeography to be varied even at the outset. Some habitats are more suited to some species than others.

      iv) Possums survive in North America.

      "This is the conundrum that we are faced with when it comes to those creatures. Either there's something special about Australia that inherently gives marsupials the ability to survive better than placental animals, or these animals all developed from a previous marsupial precursor and the isolation of Australia is what permitted the marsupials to "win out" there (since they had no competing placental animals in place). Given the differences between marsupials and placental animals, it doesn't seem that in general marsupials would have a higher rate of survival, and there doesn't seem to be anything unique about Australia that would make that particular environment worse off for placental mammals. That's why the geographical isolation before any evolution into the various types of other animals seems to be more likely than that marsupials just happened to be better adapted to Australia than their placental versions."

      There are various reasons why a species might become extinct or develop a contracted distribution, while others survive.

      Delete
    15. i) Climate change. Take animals adapted to Ice Age conditions that didn't survive the warming trends.

      ii) Human hunting. If a wild animal is a threat to the livelihood of ranchers and farmers, it may be hunted to extinction, where that's feasible. That seems to be a factor in the extinction of the Tasmanian wolf. As you know, that's also how the wolf became an endangered species.

      Likewise, wild animals that attack humans will be hunted down in or around populated areas. For instance, the crocodile population around Darwin Australia was originally decimated when settlers moved in, due to relentless hunting.

      Conversely, kangaroos and tasmanian devils may survive because they don't pose a threat to the livelihood of ranchers and farmers. And they don't attack humans.

      iii) In also depends on the size of the region in relation to population centers. N. America is so vast that some predators can survive by living in remote areas. But islands may lack that margin.

      iv) The introduction of exotic predators can lead to the extinction of indigenous species. Consider the impact of dogs and cats on native fauna.

      In that regard, the dingo may be another factor in the extinction of the Tasmanian wolf. If dingos are feral dogs, it may be that Tasmanian wolves were unable to compete with this invasive species.

      v) Possums presumably survive in N. America because they are able to complete with species that operate on the same level as possums. Likewise, they don't attack humans and they don't pose a threat to ranchers and farmers.

      vi) To my knowledge, there is something special about Australia: the paucity of major predatory land animals. The salt water crocodile is the apex predator, which isn't much of a danger to land animals, except at watering holes. The most dangerous land animals are the superabundance of venomous snakes. But that wouldn't endanger Tasmanian wolves.

      By contrast, it's hard to see how Tasmanian wolves could survive in Africa, with the variety of major predators, or even India (tigers) or N. America (cougars, grizzly bears, wolf packs).

      There are two kinds of competition: competition for the same prey species, and competition where a predator species becomes prey in relation to a superior predator species.

      For instance, lions instinctively attack leopards and hyenas. Partly because they compete for similar prey, and partly because they are dangerous to lion cubs, even though they aren't dangerous to adult lions.

      So that's my amateur assessment.

      Delete
    16. Thanks Peter.
      However, there are some who claim that Adam and Eve were historical and that they were made into the "image of God" by God bestowing it upon them, while there were other humans in existence at the same time.

      How does the belief - that there were other humans besides Adam and Eve (either as Hominids (soul-less creatures - all are extinct ?) or whatever the view that you mentioned is - I don't understand how they explain that in light of the doctrines that 1. all humans are created in the image of God (some are not ?) - unity of Genesis 1-2 with Acts 17:26, Colossians 3:9-11; Revelation 5:9, etc.) and 2. Original sin spread to all humanity (Romans 5:12; Psalm 51; Genesis 3, 6:5; 8:21; Psalm 58:3)

      Delete
  2. It seems to me a theistic evolutionist who has a high view of providence and believes in some version of the principle of plenitude wouldn't have to agree that there's massive "waste" in the evolutionary process. All of it could be part of God's expression of His creativity, and that He delights in it all. Even in the death and extinctions of non-sentient/non-moral/non-spiritual creatures and species.

    A billionaire has the funds to immediately purchase a pie and eat it, but he might nevertheless enjoy the prolonged process of baking the pie himself. Even if means throwing away and not using egg shells in the recipe, or cutting off excess pie crust that overflows over the edge of the pan.

    I'm not a confirmed theistic evolutionist, but I'm open to it as well as the possibility of universal common descent. Even if universal common descent is true, it seems almost certain [based on the work of folks like Stephen Meyer] that some genetic information had to have been externally injected from the outside by an agent. From my Christian perspective, that agent is most plausibly the God of the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A Christian apologist should avoid recourse to arguments to protect Christianity that have the side-effect of protecting cults and false religions.

    This is easier said than done. The argument from evil is used as an argument against theism in general. A response to the argument from evil is likely to protect cults and false religions that are theistic.

    To be conscious of pain in the human sense, where we can objectify the experience, may only be something a few higher animals are privy to.

    It seems we are stuck making arguments from analogy in trying to answer what species feel pain. The closer a species is to us the more likely we are to think it feels pain like we do. But we can never get inside the mind of another creature so we don't really know.

    Then there's "clumsy" and "blundering". Here he may have the evolutionary process in mind. 1. If so, that's a challenge for a theistic evolutionist. It's not a challenge for a young-earth creationist or old-earth creationist inasmuch as they reject the presupposition.

    YECs and OECs still face the problem of organisms that are disabled or deformed. I don't see how adding or removing macro-evolution from the picture strengthens or weakens the argument from evil.

    The issue is whether God uses evolution to create human beings. If that's the goal, it seems to be a monumentally clumsy, blundering method.

    YECs and OECs are also stuck with the seemingly clumsy, blundering methods of reproduction used by earth's lifeforms. If evolution is true then these same methods of reproduction are used but they just result in new species/kinds coming into existence over the ages.

    But are all, or even most, of the evolutionary dead-ends really necessary to achieve that goal?

    Are we in a position to answer that question? Perhaps a very broad answer is all we're in the position to offer.

    If, however, the end-products appear to be the luck of the draw, then where's the evidence that theistic evolution is true while atheistic evolution is false? Perhaps a theistic evolutionist would say there is no direct evidence from evolution itself. Rather, that comes from other theistic arguments.

    Whenever an atheist claims that evolution is directionless, purposeless, etc. he is no longer making a scientific claim, he is making a philosophical/atheological claim. The theistic evolutionist will also have to make philosophical/theological claims and arguments for his position. My position is that our ability to do science (of any kind, not just evolutionary science) is best accounted for if God exists.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Can the theistic evolutionist furnish that differential evidence?
    No. The evolutionary process is exactly the same in theistic and atheistic evolution. The difference is that the blind natural forces that govern evolution in theistic evolution are seen as second causes. The first indirect cause is undetectable. As if evolution were an event guided by God's ordinary providence.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Peter, you say:

    "Speaking for myself, as I stated earlier, I do not believe in universal common descent. I believe human beings were created distinctly "de novo" and not as a result of previous hominid evolution. I also think that various different kinds of animals, as well as the plants, were created distinct from one another too. For example, most of what we label as "mammals" were derived from a prototype of mammal; fish would have been a proto-fish; reptiles, proto-reptiles; etc. I don't see evidence even looking at the fossil record as generously as possible toward Darwinism that these kinds ever overlapped or morphed from one to the other--they always seem quite defined throughout."


    I am wondering what considerations feature into your views.

    1. When you say that you do not believe in “universal common descent”, is this driven solely by a skepticism that the thesis of “universal common descent” is not made out on scientific grounds (including because of the fossil gaps, to the intent that classes just seem to be consistently discrete)?

    2. It looks that you consider that evolution (albeit not of the Darwinian (undirected) type) can achieve a lot. So when you say that you believe humans were created “de novo”, is this based on scientific grounds or theological or philosophical grounds? For example, in terms of anatomical differences, it seems that the differences between humans and hominids are smaller to what you might allow in other cases? Is your idea that, properly construed, God reveals that humans were created de novo and this grounds your belief? Or is it that, philosophically, there is a massive qualitative difference between humans and other animals and that qualitative difference is such that in principle the sorts of change you allow could not explain such difference and requires de novo creation? Or that, scientifically, the difference between humans and hominids is about the same as the distance between mammals and fish, or reptiles and mammals?

    3. I am interested to know what you count as a human. Would all or only some of the homo genus be included? If taking a more restrictive approach, would H heidelbergensis, Neanderthals or Denisovans be included?

    4. I am also interested to know whether, if you consider other members of the homo genus to be humans, whether you consider them to be God’s image bearers or have immaterial souls.

    5. Do you think that it is possible that a creature (say a Denisovan) could be a human but, at the same time, not have been morally culpable to God? For example, it is probably doubtful that a Denisovan could learn to speak in a modern human language and, using that language, understand his or her standing before God, or accountability to God.

    6. This is getting off topic, but if you believe humans have immaterial souls, do you think that God creates each soul de novo and attaches it to a baby at, say, conception? Or just that part of the powers and nature of humans is that reproduction entails the ability of humans, themselves, to create new souls for their children?

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  6. "his is why if you eat only fish, you'll die of malnutrition, but if you eat only red-meat, you do not. In fact, the red-meat carnivore diet actually seems to work pretty well, although there aren't any decades-long research experiments on it yet so we can't say for sure what the long-term effects would be. Even the studies PETA likes to cite about an increased risk for cancer if you eat red-meat actually only say eating *processed* meat increases the risk of cancer."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html

    ReplyDelete