Evolutionary Biologists as Theologians?
Evolutionary Biologists as Theologians?
By Stephen Dilley
Evolutionary Biologists as Theologians?
Questionable Theology in Arguments for Evolution
By Stephen Dilley
As readers of The Worldview Bulletin know, there is a lively debate in Christian circles about whether evolution undermines or supports orthodox theology. Those who believe that evolution supports orthodoxy often say that the two complement each other at different levels: science focuses on empirical evidence and arguments about what happened in organic history, whereas theology provides a meta-level framework of God’s ultimate purposes in creation. Yet few thinkers appreciate that theology often enters into arguments for evolution at the ‘scientific’ level. Unfortunately, as we will see, this theology is often asserted with little or no accompanying justification.
Consider three brief examples. The first comes from Jerry Coyne, a professor emeritus at the University of Chicago. In his mature work defending evolution, Why Evolution is True, Coyne invokes theology in an array of scientific arguments for evolution.[1] Most poignantly, he identifies the fossil record as offering the best evidence.[2] He argues:
There is no reason why a celestial designer, fashioning organisms from scratch like an architect designs buildings, should make new species by remodeling the features of existing ones. Each species could be constructed from the ground up. But natural selection can act only by changing what already exists. It can’t produce new traits out of thin air. Darwinism predicts, then, that new species will be modified versions of older ones. The fossil record amply confirms this prediction.[3]
Two observations are in order. First, Coyne’s argument is not simply a critique of creationism or intelligent design, but rather a positive argument for “Darwinism.” Indeed, Coyne regards it as the single best scientific argument for evolution by natural selection.[4]
Second, Coyne’s argument hinges on a crucial theological claim about a “celestial designer.” This designer fashions “organisms from scratch” rather than making “new species by remodeling the features of existing ones.” In other words, God would create each new species afresh, constructing each one entirely and independently from the ground up. He would not borrow from previous designs, modifying them for each new species.
Strikingly, Coyne offers no justification for this theological claim. He simply asserts it as obvious. But one might wonder if that assertion is quite so transparent. God would never borrow from earlier designs? Never ever?
The Divine Borrower
Another argument comes from Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most vocal evolutionist of the early 21th century. His mature defense of evolutionary theory, The Greatest Show on Earth, relies heavily upon theology.[5] His best scientific argument is no exception.[6] In it, he claims that analyses of animal genes shows that
every gene delivers approximately the same tree of life. Once again, this is exactly what you would expect if you were dealing with a true family tree [as predicted by common ancestry]. It is not what you would expect if a designer had surveyed the whole animal kingdom and picked and chosen—or ‘borrowed’—the best proteins for the job, wherever in the animal kingdom they might be found.[7]
According to Dawkins, analysis of animal genes reveals a consistent pattern—the famous “branching tree” of common ancestry, in which newer organisms descend from older ones. But a reader might wonder: couldn’t a divine designer create the same pattern? Dawkins’s answer is No. Instead, a “creator” would act like “any sensible human designer” and so would “borrow an idea from one of his inventions, if it would benefit another.”[8] So, God would create a given new species by surveying many older species and borrowing their genes piecemeal in order to best outfit this new species. As such, there would be no single tree of life from gene to gene, or from species to species. Instead, one would find a hodgepodge of borrowed genes from organisms who are separated by time and space. Evidently, the deity would not create new species and genes from scratch; He would simply copy previously-made genes.
A few elements are worth noting. First, this passage is a positive argument for evolution, not simply a criticism of creationism or intelligent design. As mentioned, Dawkins regards it as his best single scientific argument for evolution. Second, God-talk obviously plays a crucial role in Dawkins’s argument. Without theology, the argument makes no sense. And third, Dawkins gives no justification for his theological claim. He only provides a bare assertion that God would act like a “sensible” human designer.
The God of Perfection
A final example comes from Francis Collins, perhaps North America’s most visible theistic evolutionist (or evolutionary creationist). Collins was the lead scientist on the Human Genome Project and is currently director of the National Institutes of Health. In his best-selling book, The Language of God, he argues that the imperfection of the vertebrate eye provides strong evidence for evolution by natural selection.
According to Collins, Darwin “proposed 150 years ago a series of steps in the evolution of this complex organ, which modern molecular biology is rapidly confirming.”[9] By contrast,
. . . the design of the eye does not appear on close inspection to be completely ideal. The rods and cones that sense light are the bottom layer of the retina, and light has to pass through the nerves and blood vessels to reach them. Similar imperfections of the human [body] . . . defy the existence of truly intelligent planning of the human form.[10]
As Collins makes clear here and elsewhere in his book, imperfections are expected given evolution but unexpected given direct divine design.[11] Whereas evolution is a tinkering process that often produces suboptimal organisms, matters are different for a benevolent designer who creates by direct supernatural fiat.[12] Such a being would create a perfect eye, Collins thinks. In fact, Collins’s line of reasoning implies that, if scientists discover that the eye is suboptimal in the present, then they can rightly conclude that God did not miraculously create the eye in the past. That is, God would ensure the optimality of the eye up to the present day. So, if we discover a suboptimal eye in (say) the 21st century, we can rightly conclude that evolution, rather than direct divine design, occurred in the ancient past.
Similar observations about the arguments of Coyne and Dawkins apply here. First, Collins gives a positive argument for evolution, rather than simply a criticism of rival views. Second, Collins’s argument hinges on a theological claim: God would not create—or (ever) allow—the vertebrate eye to be imperfect. Instead, God would ensure only perfection. Surprisingly, Collins offers no justification for this theological claim. He simply asserts it. Still more surprising, Collins also elides the doctrine of the Fall, which holds that the created order no longer functions as God originally intended.
Bad Pattern, Wide Influence
Stepping back, a familiar pattern emerges. Each of these arguments purports to give strong scientific grounds for evolutionary theory. Yet each one rests on questionable theological statements. At times, these statements even contradict each other. Recall that Dawkins held that, when creating new species, ‘God would borrow’ from older species whereas Coyne argued that ‘God would never borrow’ from older species. Both assertions cannot be correct!
To be sure, the concerns raised about these theology-laden arguments do not imply that evolutionary theory is false. Nor do they imply that all arguments for evolution rest upon problematic theology, nor that all arguments for evolution are flawed. Such matters require much more discussion.
Nonetheless, these worries are hardly peripheral. A number of prominent biologists, including some Christian ones, rely on questionable God-talk in some of their arguments for evolution. These thinkers include luminaries such as Stephen Jay Gould, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Niles Eldredge, Douglas Futuyma, Francisco Ayala, Gavin de Beer, George Williams, John Avise, Denis Alexander, Kenneth Miller, and many others.[13]
Moreover, such arguments are commonly taught to college students. A recent study of 32 biology (and evolution) textbooks—including the top 12 in the United States—indicated that around 80% of them use theology in a problematic way in their case for evolution.[14] This material is shaping the minds of future generations, both budding scientists and laymen.
From a Christian point of view, perhaps there’s nothing wrong per se with having theological claims in arguments for scientific theories. Even so, at the least, it’s important to be aware of this theology and to make sure that it’s sound. Good theology is, after all, much better than the alternative.
Notes
[1] Coyne, Jerry A. 2009. Why Evolution Is True. New York: Penguin, p. 12, 13, 18, 26-58, 64, 71-72, 81-85, 96, 101, 108, 121, 148, 161.
[2] Coyne, Why Evolution is True, p. 79.
[3] Coyne, Why Evolution is True, p. 54.
[4] Compare Coyne, Why Evolution is True, p. 54 and p. 79.
[5] Dawkins, Richard. 2009. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. New York: Free Press, p. 270, 296-97, 315, 321-22, 332, 341, 351, 354, 356, 362, 364, 369, 371, 375, 388-89, 390-96.
[6] Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, p. 315.
[7] Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, p. 322.
[8] Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, p. 297.
[9] Collins, Francis. 2006. The Language of God. New York: The Free Press, p. 191. See also p. 130, 134-37, 139, 176-77, 191, and 193-94.
[10] Collins, The Language of God, p. 191.
[11] Collins, The Language of God, 109-42, 190-94.
[12] Collins, The Language of God, 183, 186-88, 193-95.
[13] See Nelson, Paul. 1996. “The Role of Theology in Current Evolutionary Reasoning.” Biology and Philosophy, vol. 11: 493-517. Dilley, Stephen. 2012. “Charles Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species.” British Journal for the History of Science, vol. 44, no. 1: 29-56. Dilley, Stephen. 2013. “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in Light of Theology?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, vol. 44: 774-86. Dilley, Stephen. 2017. “How to Lose a Battleship: Why Methodological Naturalism Sinks Theistic Evolution,” in Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique edited by J.P. Moreland et al. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, p. 593-631. Hunter, Cornelius. 2001. Darwin’s God. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press. Hunter, Cornelius. 2007. Science’s Blind Spot. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press. Hunter, Cornelius. 2014. “Darwin’s Principle: The Use of Contrastive Reasoning in the Confirmation of Evolution.” HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, vol. 4: 106-49.
[14] Dilley, Stephen and Nicholas Tafacory. 2019. “Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don’t: The Problem of God-talk in Biology Textbooks,” Communications of the Blythe Institute, vol. 1, issue 2: 37-70.
— Stephen Dilley, Ph.D., is an associate professor of philosophy at St. Edward’s University in Austin, Texas. His primary area of interest is the history and philosophy of biology. He has published essays in British Journal for the History of Science, The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, and elsewhere. Dilley is co-editor of Human Dignity in Bioethics (Routledge, 2012) and editor of Darwinian Evolution and Classical Liberalism (Lexington, 2013).
Image by Chokniti Khongchum from Pixabay
Recommended Resource
One primary goal we have as Christians is to understand the Bible in order to grasp what God has communicated to us through it. This is challenging, however, because we are separated from Scripture’s authors by language, culture, and time. Thus, much in Scripture can appear to us to be confusing, mysterious, or even contradictory. That’s why a volume like Murray Harris’s Navigating Tough Texts: A Guide to Problem Passages in the New Testament is so useful.
Harris, Professor Emeritus of New Testament Exegesis and Theology at Trinity Evangelical Theological School, draws on a lifetime of expertise to clarify and explain dozens of challenging passages throughout the New Testament. A few examples include:
What Jesus meant when he said, “the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it” (Matt. 11:12).
What he meant by “binding and loosing” on earth and in heaven (Matt. 16:19).
The meaning of Paul’s reference to those “who are baptized for the dead” (1 Cor. 15:29).
How we should understand Paul’s attitude toward slavery as expressed in the book of Philemon, and many more. This segment is excerpted below.
PAUL AND SLAVERY (Phlm 15–16)
Onesimus was a slave of Philemon in Colossae who had not only run away from his master (Phlm 15–16) but had also absconded with some of Philemon’s money or possessions (vv. 18–19). Attracted by the anonymity and excitement of a large metropolis, he traveled furtively to Rome, where somehow he met the imprisoned Paul, who led him to faith in Christ (v. 10). Paul soon discovered him to be an able and willing helper as well as a Christian companion (vv. 11–13, 16). Other considerations apart, Paul would have liked to keep Onesimus at his side (v. 13), but he felt compelled to send him back to Colossae so that Philemon, the legal owner of Onesimus (v. 16), might himself have the opportunity of receiving him back as a Christian brother (v. 16) and of possibly releasing him for further service to Paul (vv. 14, 20–21). Accordingly, Onesimus returned to Philemon with this letter.
Although this letter is not an essay on slavery, from it we may deduce Paul’s attitude to slavery. To begin with, Paul apparently accepted slavery as an inevitable part of the social, economic, and legal status quo, without questioning or trying to justify its existence. But acceptance of the status quo should not be equated with endorsement of the status quo. Toleration is not the same as approval. Paul did not object to slave ownership within Christian ranks, but he encouraged masters to reward slaves suitably for honest work, to desist from threatening them (Eph 6:8–9), and to give them just and equitable treatment (Col 4:1). He elevated the status of slaves by addressing them as persons and as moral agents who were responsible, and ought to be responsive, to their earthly masters as well as to their heavenly Lord (Eph 6:5–8; Col 3:22).
Further, when Paul emphasizes Onesimus’s true identity as a dearly loved Christian brother (v. 16), he sets the master-slave relation on a new footing. “It may be that he (Onesimus) was separated from you (Philemon) for a short time precisely so that you may have him back permanently, no longer regarded as merely a slave (hōs doulon) but as more than a slave—as a dear brother” (vv. 15–16). Paul is undermining the discrimination that is at the heart of slavery and sounding its death knell. In this letter, Paul, a highly educated Roman citizen, is championing the cause of a destitute runaway slave whose life was potentially forfeit because of his flight and his theft (vv. 17–19).
Did Paul advocate freeing slaves? When he expresses his confidence that Philemon would obey him and accept Onesimus back and forgive him (v. 21a), he adds that he knows Philemon “will do even more than I ask” (v. 21b). That undefined additional element could well be the setting free of Onesimus for Christian service either at Colossae or at Rome with Paul. When he is discussing possible changes of status for believers (including slaves) in 1 Corinthians 7:17–24, his general advice is “remain as you were when God called you” (see 1 Cor 7:17, 20, 24). But in 1 Corinthians 7:21b, he parenthetically states an exception to the general principle: “But if you are actually able (kai dynasai) to gain your freedom, seize it all the more.”
It is fair to conclude that by his teaching and his example, Paul was laying one of the explosive charges that would one day—although sadly, belatedly—detonate and destroy the institution of slavery.
Find Navigating Tough Texts: A Guide to Problem Passages in the New Testament at Lexham Press or Amazon.
*This is a sponsored post.
Subscribe for only $2.50 per month!
Subscribe to The Worldview Bulletin and receive a master class in worldview training, delivered monthly directly to your inbox. Learn from Christian philosophers and apologists Paul Copan, Paul Gould, David Baggett, Christopher Reese, and others, and enjoy news and resources available only to subscribers. Receive a year’s worth of equipping for only $2.50 per month, and help support our work of preparing believers to proclaim and defend the Christian worldview. There’s no obligation and you can easily cancel at any time.
