What are the challenges of Darwinism in relation to ethics and moral ‘laws’? What are the dangers of dismissing God from the public discussion on the issues of the day?
Thanks for such a broad ranging paper which addresses the pledge in the forum introduction - to assist the understanding of both science and theology by considering them together.
I am especially interested in the concept ' flat plane thinking' , a form of reasoning that assumes reality- including how God might act in creation- must somehow conform to our expectations. As a committed atheist, Richard Dawkins is cited as embodying this approach- probably rightly so. However I think that Christians can fall into the trap too. It may happen, for example in relation to interpretation of Biblical texts. We may believe we know with certainty what the text means and, consequently, any form of scientific claim which is not at one with that interpretation must be challenged. Rather we need to remain humble in our claims about both science and theology and maintain a healthy sense of how much we really do not know. There is a message for scientists in this regard too.
This post really is a general comment and not specifically tied to the above question. However it does relate to the second part of the question. There is a habit of dismissing God as fiction in the context of public discourse which itself may be a prisoner of flat plane thinking. The danger clearly is a failure to be open to an eternal reality which is missed because it does not conform to a preconception. The residual question is how can we escape the comfort of our own flat plane thinking? I.M.
The challenges of Darwinism are two-fold as these challenges are directed at both faith and science. My issue with Darwinism begins with philosophical problems. Modern Neo Darwinists seem to see speciation by natural selection (SBNS) as an act of faith on the part of biologists which should not be challenged, like a medieval Church dogmatically insisting on a particular line. May I remind everyone that Darwinism is subject to the scientific scrutiny as any other theory or hypothesis. So when SBNS can be demonstrated from the evidence then fine that is indeed the mechanism. However, we have a problem according to Popper because Darwinism suffers from historicism it cannot be falsified and therefore is not even science. Oh! dear have I gone too far?
Evolutionary biology became a one-man-band a long time ago. But more recently the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) and Symbiogenesis (SBG) are causing real issues in the scientific debate and research in speciation. My particular favourite is niche construction because if an organism can mitigate selection pressure by altering its own immediate environment then no fuel in the Darwinian engine. My humble opinion is that faith is more complicated than fundamentalism and evolutionary science is more complicated than Darwinism (although the latter was a significant contribution its role in demonstrating atheism rather than anything scientific seem to have taken precedence).
Dear John, You raise important technical points in evolutionary biology, which it would be quite inappropriate to confront in a Quick Reply. But I do take straightforward issue with your final line. Darwinism did not "demonstrate atheism": it demonstrated only that basing theism on the literal acceptance of Genesis 1, or Genesis 2-3, was unacceptable. To many of us, Darwinism is strikingly compatible with a more broadly-based faith. In particular, it offers a rational basis for animal suffering, which no other theodicy addresses comparably well. I try to show this in the article "Taking Darwin seriously", which Chris Packard has been kind enough to upload on this site. If you can make time to study that piece, I'll give equivalent time to EES, SBG, and other recent modifcations of mainstream Neo-Darwinism. As a target date for the resumption of correspondence, would Feb 1 seem reasonable?
Hi John I see that Neil beat me to it! So I'll be brief
I agree that evolutionary science is in a state of flux (as all good science should be!) however a couple of your comments made me a little uncomfortable. I refer in particular to "a one man band" and "not even a science."
Are you a Creationist or and ID theorist? I don't ask this in any reactionary way or to foreclose any discussion but only to get some context on the points you have raised. I hope you don't see the question as inappropriate.
Clearly there is important scientific discussion getting underway at this table already and that is to be welcomed. The Christian church not only needs some sort of shared understanding of subjects like evolution but also an open sharing of doubts and concerns. Too often people with significantly different views remain within their own subgroups designed to confirm the ' rightness ' of what the 'members' believe. Open discussion of the kind offered by this forum might not bring revolutionary mind changes ( though progress by qualification and modification would be a significant outcome) but it is very important to have it, as well as to demonstrate respectful dialogue in the process We are all explorers!
Russel , even though I think I fully understand why you have sensitively raised a specific question for John, I wonder if it is better not be asking him to identify himself with a label?
John, I know and respect Russel greatly. My hunch is he will understand if you don't want to answer that question. Russel will tell me if I am mistaken!
Thanks to all! Let's have a great and helpful discussion. As a non- scientist, I, like others, hope to benefit significantly from ' listening' in. So please keep talking!
Many thanks for the thoughtful posts, and to echo iain's words, we should be content to explore areas of helpful discussion and debate moving on as far as possible from 'labeled' seemingly fixed viewpoints.
To develop further the rather compacted theme in the question (my apologies for any obtuseness), do we need the concept of a divine being who has revealed 'truth' (in scripture) to decide what is right and wrong, or can these concepts arise through Darwinian socialism where the best ideas of moral rightness succeed in being adopted as truth? ('crowd-sourcing' moral behaviours in modern parlance).
If we do not accept that there is a God-given moral law at work in our behaviour and relationships one to another, then are we free to state 'what is true for you is true' and all morals and ethics are relative. If this is the case, on what basis then do we build societal norms and acceptable patterns of behaviour. That said, can the church become so convinced of its rightness through a certain interpretation of scripture that it becomes dissociated from the bulk of the thinking of modern society (I am sure you can think of several modern day examples of this).
Dr Francis Collins (a celebrated christian scientist in the USA and author of the Language of God) found the existence of a 'moral law' evidence for God at work with humankind.
Can we defend the need to discover 'truth' as revelation in a 'post-truth' society? Is current willingness to dismiss evidence-based or even scientific truths part of an ongoing group evolutionary psychology.
Please feel free to pick up on any of these themes as we continue the round table, or indeed anything else that comes to mind in this broad area.
'
I do want to say however that a good going scientific discussion about the fundamental tenets of Darwinism that are clearly rooted in evidence is very important and those of us who are not especially scientifically literate would benefit greatly. It is a subject that sometimes generates more heat than light but I believe this forum, using the principles of respectful dialogue could provide the means of conducting a really enlightening discussion that not only explains the evidential basis on which the current scientific paradigm is built but also allows others who have big questions to air them in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding.
I have accepted Prof Spurway's challenge to study his paper. I am currently writing my response, but as this table has become busy - I thought I would add a little. I have no difficulty in answering the question put to me in a spirit of transparency and I will respond. The answer is I do not accept Creationism, Intelligent Design, Natural Theology or other "isms". I also find it difficult to call myself a fundamentalist or evangelical because of the associated baggage. I do not object to being described as a christian or disciple of Jesus. Many of my christian friends describe me as a mystic - perhaps because of the cross-over between science and faith and the time I spent studying esoteric theology. When I want to be difficult with people asking too many questions about my personal relationship with God I sometimes say I am a gentile convert to messianic judaism (I think this is plagiarized from someone, but sorry I cannot remember who). However, that is half in jest but it's a good route to talking about salvation.
I am willing to admit that some of the language in my first submission was a little informal and pointed and should have been more reserved and scholarly. Please forgive me.
As an aside I am excited about this forum and the forthcoming conference. Evolutionary science and other branches of biological science are in flux and there is "wriggle room" for theological discussions in the spaces!
Thanks for your wonderfully open reply.....not what I was expecting at all!!!!!!!
I can identify with much of what you say in fact if there was a liberal version of messianic judaism I might convert myself... that is when i retire in a few years from the Church of Scotland ministry!!
I look forward to your reply to Neil...this thread is becoming very interesting indeed
The Jewish approach to scripture is one which can enrich Christian thought and we need all the help we can get as we attempt to reconcile texts with modern science a complex issue indeed!
Reply to Neil Spurway’s paper “TAKING DARWIN SERIOUSLY”
My apologies for its lateness an interview, a presentation and an internet breakdown intervened.
General Comment
Science is agnostic – it demands evidence and only when the evidence is provided on its terms will it admit validity. Evolutionary biology addressed by scientific endeavor. The existence of God addressed by faith. Internal consistency – faith must be internally consistent and science must be internally consistent. That is not to say that faith must be consistent using science’s rules or that science must be consistent using faith’s rules.
Specific Point
Suffering is an area where I see some commonality. The metaphor of sacrifice (or suffering with motive) can be seen in both science and faith – one (Jesus) died for all (propitiation) and all died for one (evolution). This is where I think we can get closer.
At the end of War of the Worlds H G Wells writes
“By the toll of a billion deaths man has bought his birthright of the earth, and it is his against all comers; it would still be his were the Martians ten times as mighty as they are. For neither do men live nor die in vain.”
Suffering no, death yes, or better still sacrifice.
The Fortier quotation is telling and I think related to something I have been toying with for some time.
I wrote this to a friend (Rev Harry Sprange) recently.
“Is there a metaphorical sympathy or parallel between natural selection and the great themes in Christian theology? This might verge on the mystical, but I make no apology as I would own “mystic” before fundamentalist or evangelical! Anyway, the metaphorical parallel is simply this - natural selection makes a connection between the mass death of past species and current life. Our present purchased by their sacrifice in the past. I can take this further the death of stars is required before the raw materials (required chemical elements) for life are available. In ecology, the life of a herbivore is “sacrificed” so the meat eater can live and reproduce. Temple Judaism incorporated sacrificial ritual into their theology and the typology transferred into Christianity. Christianity also acknowledges the centrality of sacrificial death in promoting and sustaining our present lives. So, is there a common universal theme here? Does the universe and universal processes, natural and supernatural, require sacrificial death which somehow via different mechanisms confers or propels life into the future? Can this be combined with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s idea that evolution was as much a spiritual process as a physical one? I speculate.” JMHM 04/11/2016
I did not take this any further at the time.
In Ecology, the death and decomposition of an animal provides resources particularly nutrients for other organisms. Interestingly the corrupt corpse is purified and made available safely to other forms of life. So, life is sacrificed to provide for other life. Is this a fingerprint left behind in nature after the fall, an indication of propitiation, sacrificial provision both physical and spiritual? This genuinely a question – I do not have the answer, but I am willing to explore it.
Life is surrendered so that life can continue.
Evolutionary biology, Ecology and the Christian faith have this in common. Can we agree on that?
Quick post from the chair to explain that Neil Spurway prepared a follow up paper on this topic and sent it in to GTN secretariat around Feb 1st (as promised). It is a substantial contribution and there is an in-house discussion at present as to how best to incorporate it into the forum format. Please forgive the delay - we are doing many things for the first time. It will be posted soon.
Thanks are due to Neil for this continued insightful discourse and to all who have contributed to this fascinating discussion.
My thanks to Chris Packard for explaining why the "Full Reply" I promised for Feb 1 hasn't yet appeared.
This is a quick response to John Moffat's suggestion that Christian and biological thinking each lead to the conclusion that suffering is a regrettable necessity. He has interpreted me correctly: we agree!
Russell Moffat has pointed out that, in my 3-line quicky this morning, I referred to John Murray as "John Moffat". Oh dear! Apologies to both gentlemen and all confused readers. The Full Reply of mine which proved too long for the system was to John MURRAY, not Russell anything at all!
The first chapters of Genesis have often been seen as an easy target for atheistic attacks on the Bible, who often share with zealous Christians an erroneous idea of what these portions of Scripture purport to teach. They see these chapters as teaching science. Augustine rightly warned, many centuries ago, of the dangers of looking for science in the Biblical material. The Westminster Shorter Catechism, so well known to previous generations of Scottish Presbyterians, wisely stated that “The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man”. This draws from the teaching of Paul in his second letter to Timothy. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16 ESV Clearly there is a purpose to the Scriptures. God has spoken, through his creation, through the prophets and through his Son for a reason. That reason was not to give us quick access to information that might win us points in a pub quiz nor to get us high marks in a university exam without doing the necessary reading or research. Reading between the lines may have its place but it often leads to unhelpful speculation hardening into dogma. It is safer to focus on the main message.
However, although we should not be looking for cosmology or paleobiology in Genesis, it is clear that teachings about God, man and the relationship between the two are part of a revelation of truth from a transcendent Creator to physical-spiritual beings inhabiting a physical world. We cannot therefore chose to dismiss all reference to anything material in the accounts of origins. Those who assume these portions of Scripture are ancient myths for pastoral and religious use only are in grave danger of divorcing the spiritual from the physical. Likewise a belief in a transcendent God (not the remote Deistic God but the One who is both transcendent and imminent) leaves open the possibility of his speaking into our created world by word and action. Miracles are possible with God and his word speaks about actual miracles, such as the virgin birth and the resurrection, as well as helping us to understand why he has chosen to do things this way, no capricious meddling in our temporal and physical order, but purposeful action as a composer might change the key in a small part of his symphony in order to enhance the work..
The first chapter of Genesis is also a truly amazing document. It was relevant to nomads in the Middle East thousands of years ago and remains relevant for us in the 21st century, whatever our cultural background or level of education. A research scientist at the cutting edge of his profession, an artist or a person whose manual skills are more evident than his/her academic prowess, all find this passage speaks freshly and powerfully to them. No other text, ancient or modern, has the same abiding relevance and latitude of appeal when dealing with origins. The references to the physical world that are inextricably bound up with the theological truths that are at the heart of these texts (who God is, who we are, how we relate to God to one another and to the rest of the physical creation) are in remarkable harmony with unfolding scientific discoveries – e.g. the Big Bang and the evolution of life forms. They do not anticipate these discoveries nor are they an alternative scientific cosmology yet the general flow of the creation “week” sits so well with ongoing discoveries we can but marvel. It avoided detail that would quickly have become outdated or have become relevant to a later age at the expense of bamboozling thousands of earlier generations. Surely that speaks powerfully for its status as divine revelation.
Problems arise when we look at these texts as we look at articles in “Time” or “National Geographic”, a 21st century style of writing dealing with the detail of physical processes. The literary framework is ignored and the verses taken to teach creation in six 24 hour days with species/families/genera (modern concepts) being individually created leading to some ridiculing this account (blind to its profound teachings), or others struggling to defend the indefensible in the name of faithfulness to God (bringing the profound truths unnecessarily into question).
Alan Fraser
