Do Conservatives *Need* Darwin?

The first link below is from an event written up in the Weekly Standard last week. Both links were sent by the Discovery Institute.

I've heard Arnhart before, and have never found anything particularly compelling in his approach. If there is a biological nature given by Darwin's mechanism of natural selection, I still don't see why one can't argue that humans have evolved to the point that we can transcend whatever it is we want to transcend--or at least try to do so. If we fail, then, so what? Sort of like monkeys reaching for bananas too far out on the limb, we might fall and get eaten by a lion. Sounds like more survival of the fittest, to me. Whatever. Species just do what they do. Including stupid things in the case of humans. I prefer something like "natural law" given by the Creator (by design). I fail to see why we need Darwin to give us a fixed biological nature. It doesn't seem to me, layman that I am, that there is anything particularly "fixed" in Darwin's scheme.

Anyway: from Discovery:

To see or listen to “Darwinism and Conservatism: Friends or Foes?” at the American Enterprise Institute, featuring John West, George Gilder, Larry Arnhart, and John Derbyshire, go here.

And to listen to Dr. John West’s lecture “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea:  The Disturbing Legacy of America’s Eugenics Crusade” at the Family Research Council, go here.

Comments

[Larry Arnhart]

Is it possible that the Creator used evolution as the natural means for creation? If not, why not?

Thomas Aquinas believed that "natural right is that which nature has taught all animals." Was he wrong?

If you reject Darwinian evolution, do you believe in a literal reading of Genesis--everything created in 6 24-hour days? If you don't believe this, what's the alternative?

What do you mean by "Whatever"? Does this suggest that for you the biological nature of human beings has no relevance to moral judgment? Do you therefore reject any conception of human nature as irrelevant to morality? Do you assume that human beings are a "blank slate" to be manipulated by social engineering without limit?

[Judy Warner]

I recommend watching or listening to the Discovery Institute event, especially George Gilder's presentation and John West's answers to questions.

[Yaknyeti]

Mr. Arnhart,

I think you're missing the point of this brief post, as your last set of questions is the only relevant one. Mr. Kushiner is arguing for Natural Law, which means that he does think that the biological nature of human beings is relavant to moral judgment.

If I may speak for him, it seems that a Darwinist view of humanity requires greater flexibility in human nature than one that requires God as Designer. After all, if evolution has molded our nature into what it is, surely we have the right to continue molding it in ways we think expedient. That, too, has been molded into our nature. The only reason not to do such experimentation is if we have some reason to think that our nature, as it currently is, is the way it should be. That requires an authority greater than Natural Selection.

While I think your way of supporting the importance of a fixed human nature through natural selection is interesting (and I confess to reading very little about it), I don't see a reason to take it as a necessary conclusion of Darwinian evolution. If you have any particular blog posts that you think argue this well, I'd be happy to read those.

But please don't bother riling up the Creationism debate. We have a variety of views on this site, but you will have proved your point against Mr. Kushiner if you can argue purely from a Darwinist viewpoint that Darwinism provides strong support for Natural Law.

[Larry Arnhart]

Aquinas's natural law is rooted in the natural inclinations of animals. He draws from Aristotle's biological psychology, particularly as transmitted through the zoology of Albert the Great. For example, marriage is said by Aquinas to be natural because it is "a natural instinct of the human species." And thus Aquinas agreed with Ulpian that the natural law was "what nature had taught all animals."

Darwin's evolutionary theory shows the natural emergence of the human species, which includes a natural moral sense rooted in human biology. In his account of the natural moral sense, Darwin followed the Scottish moral sense tradition (from Shaftesbury to Adam Smith), which was a restatement of the natural law tradition against Hobbes.

Here, then, is a Darwinian version of natural law as founded in the biological nature of the human species.

Surely, we don't want to reject this because of some naive belief that the first few chapters of Genesis are a literally true account of a 6 days of Creation. Of course, I know that some evangelicals regard Genesis as a science textbook. But no thoughtful Christian would accept that.

[Postman]

No, I don't regard Genesis as a science textbook. I only regard science textbooks as another of many biogenic myths.

One must choose which myth he believes in for the ordering of his soul.

Some souls deeply care about being called a "thoughtful Christian." Others don't care at all about thought. Still others care even more about being Christian.

[DGP]

Mr. Arnhart,

I'm not entirely sure what you're up to here. You seem to have gone out of your way to imply that Mr. Kushiner is disposed to a literalist 6-day creation because he's skeptical about Darwinian evolution. You've been around this block often enough to know there are several different alternatives, so why raise the question in this manner?

Also, I think you might be misrepresenting St. Thomas. For him, natural sense clearly included a measure of understanding of the final causes of things. This is arguably very different from "biological nature" as understood in the context of Darwinian evolution, and the terms should not be used equivocally. At best, Darwinism recognizes only a flattened notion of final causality, in the propagation of life (more recently understoood as the propagation of the gene pool).

[Larry Arnhart]

Is there any reason to believe that God was unable or unwilling to employ natural evolution as the means for His creative activity?

[Rob Grano]

"If you reject Darwinian evolution, do you believe in a literal reading of Genesis--everything created in 6 24-hour days? If you don't believe this, what's the alternative?"

Mr. Arnhart, I've never seen the question posed this starkly. Are you saying that one must logically be either a Darwinian or a 6-day creationist, that there are no stopping places between these poles? If so, please elaborate.

[Judy Warner]

I think the question is disingenuous in the extreme, given that Mr. Arnhart is fully aware that those who propose intelligent design are not 6-day creationists. Indeed, I saw him on the AEI panel with two intelligent design proponents. Since the question cannot be genuine, it must be meant to be provocative.

[Rob Grano]

You may be correct, Judy, but I have heard the flip side of this claim put forth by some very intelligent young-Earthers, i.e., that Darwin is an all-or-nothing proposition. I'm wondering if Mr. Arnhart is saying a similar thing except from the opposite side.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"Is it possible that the Creator used evolution as the natural means for creation? If not, why not?" - Arnhart.

Let me answer it this way: There are some theistic evolutionists who would answer yes to your question. I'm not one of them, however.

Why not? Simple. Evolution is false.

To answer this question: "Do Conservatives *Need* Darwin?" ... the answer is no.

Let me ask you Mr. Arnhart, if you wanted to make mankind the chief end of your philosophy, isn't the better question:

Do Secular Humanists *Need* Darwin's Evolution?

[DGP]

Is there any reason to believe that God was unable or unwilling to employ natural evolution as the means for His creative activity?

Of course there may be, depending upon what you mean by natural evolution. But you should know this already. Is someone impersonating you, or are you playing dumb?

[coco]

Natural evolution

The question is whether evolution occurs in nature.

Many tall tales have been told about macroevolution (the origin of life and new species) based on a few controverted examples of "microevolution" (e.g. melanism in Biston betularia, the pepper moth; bacterial antibiotic resistance) and on the supposed ability of guesstimated early-earth conditions to conduce to life. Despite these, macroevolution remains an unproven hypothesis.

Any hypothesis that relies on scientific arguments (e.g. The intelligent design hypothesis based on Michael Behe's theory of irreducible complexity and William Dembski's concept of complex specified information) deserves an equal hearing until such time as definitive evidence might become available.

[Ethan Cordray]

The trouble I see in trying to derive some sort of natural law theory from a Darwinian evolutionary view of humanity is that it's impossible to distinguish a stable human nature in a constantly evolving species.

Natural law supposes that there is an essential nature common to all men. But Darwinianism posits a never-ending process in which individual organisms are constantly differentiating themselves from their species. Groups are breaking off and changing according to the differences in environment, and at some point -- an invisible line nearly impossible to draw until millions of years after the fact -- you have two species where there was once one.

So, within that process, what is the essential human nature that can dictate a universal natural law? Might not the natural law for an Inuit be different from the natural law for a Zulu, given their environmentally-driven differentiation? Their two laws may be fairly similar now, but as time goes by we can expect their laws to diverge more and more as environmentally driven adaptations pile up and they begin to diverge into separate species.

In sum: I think there is certainly evidence that environmental adaptations occur, which is a fundamental tenet of Darwinism. But the idea that a species' essence is simply a byproduct of these collected adaptations, another fundamental of Darwinism, rules out the possibility of a stable and universal natural law.

So Darwinism and natural law cannot coexist, at least under the current formulation of Darwinian theory.

I would welcome modifications to the theory that would remove the Heraclitean supposition that excludes a Christian view of man, while continuing to explain the evidence of environmental differentiation that appears to an observer. I think we need a "weak" theory of evolution to replace the "strong" theory that is currently scientific orthodoxy.

[coco]

Ethan,

You seem to assume there is evidence that one species has given rise to another. Can you provide an example?

[Gene Godbold]

Okay Coco,
I'm a biochemist (working as a microbiologist) who is skeptical that all the species on the earth originated from one (or even a handful) of creatures in the distant past and yet is struck by the vast array of molecular features that all living things share. So I'll ask you (and if you answer right, I may be able to answer the question you asked Ethan), what do you mean by species?

[coco]

Gene,

I'm not a biochemist, so I don't suppose any definition I could give off-hand would be satisfactory. At the very least, members of the same species must be able to breed (fertile?) offspring. The converse may or may not be true. The exchange of genetic material as happens in bacteria does not constitue inter-breeding and I haven't specified a minumum condition for species that reproduce asexually. I'm trying to be a bit careful not to make claims from ignorance!

My question to Ethan is meant to draw out an example that may or may not have been controverted, but has become part of popular culture. I was surprised when it was pointed out to me how little evidence there is, and none of it uncontroversial even among evolutionary biologists.

[Yaknyeti]

I second Ethan.

Mr. Arnhart, your comments, particularly the one that derides everyone who holds to a literal account of the Genesis creation story, are heavy on provocation and light on substance. You have yet to prove even from your own premises that Darwinism provides strong support for Natural Law, vs. the arguments of Ethan, Mr. Kushiner and myself. Why attack the premises of a portion of our community before you can do that?

Coco, that depends heavily on your definition of species. If you selectively breed fruit flies enough times such that one set refuses to mate with another, have you created a new species? I've also heard of an odd case or two with spiders in the Amazon basin, where scientists claim a species has diverged. But I can't back that up with evidence.

[Stuart Koehl]

So, are we talking about "Darwinism" as shorthand for the theory of evolution through natural selection? Or are we talking about "Darwinism" as a philosophical system with epistemological and teleological assumptions?

[coco]

Yaknyeti, I have heard of examples of species (geese) diverging to the point of not being able to interbreed, though I have equally read that such claims have been discounted.

The question of resfuing to mate is separate to that of being essentially incapable. It seems to me that many examples of microevolution amount to a loss of genetic information. Some of the information could be that which is necessary to breed successfully. In this case, it could be posited that reintroducing the original diversity could reverse the situation, so that the species may not have actually diverged.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Coco, that depends heavily on your definition of species.<<<

The technical definition of species is a group of animals who, if cross-bred, produce fertile offspring. Thus, all dogs, wolves and foxes are essentially the same species, whereas horses and asses are not.

[Jim Kushiner]

Dr Arnhart:
Thank you for taking the time to respond.

As to your questions, in reverse order:

Certainly there is a human nature, God-given, and we are not blank slates.

I am skeptical of a literal 6-day 24-hour creation. That said, I don't believe further discussion of an alternative is necessary for my point.

I am not sufficiently read in Aquinas to reject much, if anything. It seems that you are agreeing with him. Which is okay by me.

Finally, the creation of life and its diversification lies beyond the realm of science and remains a mystery, given the number of missing pieces, the largest, perhaps, being the beginning of life itself. I have not been convinced by the arguments for Darwin's macro-evolution. (I believe many European biologists do not share Darwin's views, though they have their own theories.) We do not know how an ineffable God, such as Christians worship, would create and interact with matter. There is also the matter of the agencies through which he created; that is, the created intelligences, the angels. All that lies beyond our ken. I will go as far as any scientific hard evidence takes me, but as open as I think I am to certain lines of thought or theories, I have yet to be compelled to "go there" with the Darwinists.

Now, a question for you: Are sex differences given by evolutionary "nature" in the way that you generally mean nature? And if so, do you oppose sexual egalitarianism in society, that is, the interchangeable roles of men and women that egalitarians desire? There is mounting scientific evidence that children thrive more when raised in the home by their biological mothers. Does having a given biological nature extend to male and female roles? If so, what are those roles and how important are they to survival?

I agree humans have a nature, but I don't see that I need Darwin to argue for it. Unless I am talking to pure materialists. In which case, I don't see why they wouldn't just turn and say, "Well, we're clever humans and we've evolved to the point that we can experiment and maybe even change the way we live. It's just what we do."

[Ethan Cordray]

>>You seem to assume there is evidence that one species has given rise to another. Can you provide an example?<<

Coco,

I don't want to assume that evidence, preferring to remain agnostic on the facts of the matter. I am no scientist myself.

My point was that Darwinism supposes this to be true, and supposes it to be a constant and endless gradual process, and that supposition destabilizes any attempt to derive a natural law-based ethics from a Darwinian view of biology.

The "weak" Darwinism of my imagination would not make this assumption, but content itself to describe observable environmentally-driven variations within species.

I don't really think it's even possible to meaningfully talk about "species" as distinct objects within a strong Darwinian process. Of course, that flaw goes all the way back to metaphysical nominalism in the late Medieval period. Darwinism is far from the only modern dogma that is tough to synthesize with natural law ethics.

P.S. If anyone has better terms than "weak" and "strong," I'd be happy to learn them. I confess I've borrowed those general terms from other theoretical frameworks.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"If anyone has better terms than "weak" and "strong," I'd be happy to learn them."

When you wrote those terms Ethan, I automatically thought of "Weak = Microevolution" and "Strong = Macroevolution".

I have no problem accepting species adapting somewhat over time which is microevolution.

But species do not give rise to another species.

God did not use evolution to create Adam and Eve. PERIOD.

[Ethan Cordray]

Given what Stuart and Coco have said about the definition of species, I think I ought to clarify my last statement.

One can speak of "species" functionally within Darwinism, as distinguishing between populations incapable of combining their genetic material through fertile offspring. But one cannot speak Darwinistically about any essence of a species, in the way necessary to arrive at natural law ethics.

E.g. Are hermaphodites still members of the human species, if they are incapable of producing fertile offspring with the rest of the population? What about infertile people in general? The limits of any natural law based on a theory that cannot answer this question are obvious.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>God did not use evolution to create Adam and Eve. PERIOD.<<<

Who are you to tell God what He can and cannot do?

[Judy Warner]

I believe that Darwin used the observable fact of microevolution, as seen in animal breeding, to generalize to the possibility of macroevolution. That was before genetics. But in the media there is rarely a distinction made, and sometimes even in supposedly scientific literature. I read a report of a study done on the change in length of finches' beaks in response to changes in rainfall. The conclusion: The beaks' lengths changed in response to environmental pressures! Just what Darwin said! Well then, it's obvious that we are descended from amoebas.

[coco]

Ethan, that's fair enough. I tend to react strongly against instances of what I see as 'leakage' of Darwinism as a biological concept into other spheres: at the very least until it's established beyong doubt.

I do take your point about the corrosive influence of Darwinism on traditional categories. For this to be acceptable I believe hard evidence is needed which to date has not been forthcoming.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Stuart writes: "Who are you to tell God what He can and cannot do?"

There are numerous people, besides myself, who staunchly hold that God did not use evolution to create Adam and Eve.

Your statement positing that we are telling God what He can and cannot do is a complete non sequitur.

Your response lacks intelligence by extrapolating and reading far more into the statement than is warranted.

[coco]

Judy, one point: if you put all the various finches Darwin found in Galapogan micro-communites together, you find that the variations would not persist. So even this "microevolutionary" story does not form a solid basis for subsequent theorizing.

[David Gray]

>>>>God did not use evolution to create Adam and Eve. PERIOD.<<<

>>Who are you to tell God what He can and cannot do?

Someone is grumpy. Stuart, stating what God did is not even remotely the same as saying what he can and cannot do. You know that. Why the remarkably unimpressive comment?

[GL]

>>>God did not use evolution to create Adam and Eve. PERIOD.<<<

Who are you to tell God what He can and cannot do?

Stuart,

First, Truth, did not declare what God could or could not do, he stated what God did not do.

Second, was their a literal Adam and Eve, that is, one man and one woman who were the first humans and who are the ancestors of all subsequent humans and who fell into sin? If so, what does it mean to you that Adam and Eve were the first humans?

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

I had an illuminating debate with a young-Earth creationist on this topic. The biggest problem with taking the evolutionary picture on board for the Christian (even granted divine agency and intelligent design throughout) is the use of death in the creation of life. For Christians such as myself, who accept the scientific record of ages of animal predation before the arrival of humanity (wheather the evolutionary process was driven by blind chance or intelligent design) this is quite a challenge to deal with.

[coco]

the scientific record of ages of animal predation before the arrival of humanity

Wonders, that's a controversial statement in itself. As fossils are preserved in sedimentary rock which cannot be reliably dated, I don't think it's possible to assume this as given.

[GL]

Wonders,

I planned on raising that issue at some point if this thread went on for awhile. Isn't death a necessary ingredient in evolution? If so, and if evolution was taking place long before humans arrived on the scene and was, in fact, the causal agent for the arrival of humans, how do Christians square that with the doctrine that Adam's fall is the cause of death, which did not exist until that time?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>First, Truth, did not declare what God could or could not do, he stated what God did not do.<<<

OK, who is Truth to tell God what He can't do?

>>>Second, was their a literal Adam and Eve, that is, one man and one woman who were the first humans and who are the ancestors of all subsequent humans and who fell into sin? If so, what does it mean to you that Adam and Eve were the first humans?<<<

That before them, there were two creatures who were almost but NOT QUITE human, though whether this refers to biologically human or behaviorally human isn't clear. I would vote for "behaviorally human", since there were biologically modern humans before we begin to see signs of modern human behavior (language, clothing, adaptive tool sets, complex social organization, etc.). If you aren't reflexively opposed to the notion that God works through the natural laws He himself devised, then in fact the Genesis story is remarkably accurate in its broad outline.

I personally do not feel my faith imperiled, nor the truth of the Bible threatened, by the simple recognition of the paleontological and anthropological evidence. I merely object to the philsophical overreach inherent in Darwinism as a philosophical system--which is why I asked my question, which has been ignored so far.

[coco]

The effort creationists have made critiquing dating systems and geological records seem to me worthy of attention. An awful lot of the tall tales I referred to earlier have been posited on the basis of a geological column (an idealization found nowhere in nature) which was itself derived to support the evolutionary hypothesis.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The effort creationists have made critiquing dating systems and geological records seem to me worthy of attention. <<<

Occam's Razor usually cuts them down to size.

[coco]

I'm sorry for being so dense, Stuart. How does Occam's razor apply?

[David Gray]

>OK, who is Truth to tell God what He can't do?

He didn't. Why not just disagree with him honestly?

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Wonders for Oyarsa,

I clicked on your link. C.S. Lewis, who I adore, unfortunately was an evolutionist. One time, I was talking to a lutheran pastor friend who was firmly against evolution and who said that he would not allow an evolutionist to guest preach at his church. I told him that C.S. Lewis was an evolutionist. He held to his principles and said that he wouldn't allow C.S. Lewis to preach at his church either. I just chuckled.

I've mentioned elsewhere on this blog that I subscribe to the Chicago 1979 Statement on Inerrancy. I also subscribe to the Chicago Statement on Hermeneutics. Here's an article from that statement that addresses the "Genesis is a myth" position held by many:

Article XXII

WE AFFIRM that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.

WE DENY that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.

Since the historicity and the scientific accuracy of the early chapters of the Bible have come under severe attack it is important to apply the "literal" hermeneutic espoused (Article XV) to this question. The result was a recognition of the factual nature of the account of the creation of the universe, all living things, the special creation of man, the Fall, and the Flood. These accounts are all factual, that is, they are about space-time events which actually happened as reported in the book of Genesis (see Article XIV).

The article left open the question of the age of the earth on which there is no unanimity among evangelicals and which was beyond the purview of this conference. There was, however, complete agreement on denying that Genesis is mythological or unhistorical. Likewise, the use of the term "creation" was meant to exclude the belief in macro-evolution, whether of the atheistic or theistic varieties."

From: http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html

[coco]

Among the creationist critiques I referred to but didn't specify are: (1) The circularity of argumentation between geological and evolutionary theorizing ("We know this fossil is this old because it's found in this rock. We know this rock is this old because it contains this fossil"). (2) Assumptions about the dating of sedimentary rock formations which are open systems not capable of meeting the minimum criteria of dateability.

As far as I can see, (1) and (2) are valid scientific criticisms.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>He didn't. Why not just disagree with him honestly?<<<

I simply want him to pose the question in a non-presumptive manner. Arguing that God can or can't do something is simply making a cataphatic statement that violates the omnipotence of God.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>WE AFFIRM that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.<<<

What, precisely, does "factual" mean in the context of the statement?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>WE DENY that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical <<<

Are you saying that "mythical" is the antithesis of "factual"? If so, the entire Chicago Statement is just so much drivel.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I'm sorry for being so dense, Stuart. How does Occam's razor apply?<<<

One should not needlessly multiply hypotheses, which is precisely what creationists do to rationalize the fossil and geological record. Chronological deposition is certainly much more straightforward than theories based upon effects of the great flood, and so forth.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> There was, however, complete agreement on denying that Genesis is mythological or unhistorical<<<

Mythical and unhistorical are not synonymous.

[DGP]

The biggest problem with taking the evolutionary picture on board for the Christian (even granted divine agency and intelligent design throughout) is the use of death in the creation of life.

Wonders,

I'm surprised to read this, especially from someone who's taken "Oyarsa" as a handle. Lewis had an answer to this question in his Space Trilogy, and there are other answers besides.

Following Mr. Koehl, for example, the predecessors of the first man were not truly human, and their lives were not sacred in the same way that human life is. (BTW, Mr. Koehl, it could be that the immediate predecessors were both biologically and behaviorally distinct from our first parents.) Their lives were precious as animal life is precious, but without eternal destiny. Only with the creation of man do we creatures receive an implicit instruction concerning the value of life, which then subsequently needs to be made explicit.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"What, precisely, does "factual" mean in the context of the statement?" - Stuart

Well, I wasn't there when this statement was drafted so I can't *officially* respond.

But let me proffer this snippet as a small example of a factual statement from Genesis 1-11:

"In the beginning God...."

In the beginning God....

In the beginning God....

In the beginning God....

That is an objective, historical, absolute, transcendent FACT and TRUTH.

[coco]

Chronological deposition is certainly much more straightforward than theories based upon effects of the great flood, and so forth

Catastrophic theories abound even among evolutionists, though uniformitarianism is the norm. That strata of the geological column are found in reverse order and that polystrate fossils are found seem to me (at least potentially) objective refutations of uniformitarianism. One ought to multiply hypotheses if the prevailing one is unsupported by evidence. That's what science is about, as I'm sure Occam would agree.

[coco]

An important point in regard to catastrophism is that the "Cambriam explosion" used by evolutionists, IDers and creationists in their arguments refers to the phenomenon of an awful lot of species having been buried together in "related" strata, where these species are not found in "lower" (i.e. presumably older) strata.

Gould and Eldredge's hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium is itself a local form of catastrophism.

[Gene Godbold]

I'm afraid I took Truth's (and why not a real name, "Truth"--and "Coco" for that matter; I'm not worried about saying something dumb for attribution :-) pronouncement the same way Stuart did.

I had an email buddy who had been a young earth creationist and was a geophysicist (Glenn Morton, anybody know him?) who came up with the idea that Noah's flood was a flood of the Mediterranean basin and Adam had been the stillborn child with chromosomal abnormalities of chimpanzeeish sorts of parents. God took the stillborn babe up, breathed life into him, raissed him, and then made Eve from Him. The Garden of Eden was at the bottom of the Mediterranean basin (before it flooded about 5.2 million years ago). He laid this out in a self-published book which I have at home.

Anyway, the point is, there are a number of scenarios under which some form of biological evolution and speciation could occur (directed by God of course, so design is no illusion) *and* which allows the Genesis account is true.

I speculate that the temporal, uh, imprecision of Genesis is due to the fact that Moses was given a vision of how it happened by God. Who can tell time in a vision? You just see stuff happen and you write it down. Breaks happen and you call these "days".

[coco]

Gene, I don't use a pseudonym for fear of dumb stuff being attributed to me. I proclaim my ignorance regularly: both intentionally and unintentionally.

I've no problem revealing my (hopefully "studied") ignorance (I don't like the word "agnostic") on the question of whether evolution occurred in any way that has been described.

[GL]

Arguing that God can or can't do something is simply making a cataphatic statement that violates the omnipotence of God.

Stuart, Stuart, Stuart,

Let me go over this real slowly for you. "Can" refers to the ability to act.
"Did" refers to how one actually did act. Truth did not say that God couldn't have created man through Darwinian evolution; he said that He did not do so.

David is correct, you are playing games here (and not for the first time, I might add). What is the evidence you offer as to your hypothesis of how Adam and Eve came to be and what is your evidence that Truth's hypothesis is incorrect? Could God not have created Adam from the dust of the earth without Adam having any biological ancestors and Eve from Adam's rib without her having any biological ancestors? If He could have, why do you deny that He did?

Second, did you ever answer my question about Adam's fall? If so, I missed it. Was there a literal, individual, first man whom the Bible calls Adam, who, through his wife, Eve, fathered, in a literal biological sense, all subsequent humans and did this literal, individual, first man fall into literal sin?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Truth did not say that God couldn't have created man through Darwinian evolution; he said that He did not do so.<<<

You'll have to point me to that one. Far as I know, the Bible is mute on evolution.

>>>Second, did you ever answer my question about Adam's fall? If so, I missed it. Was there a literal, individual, first man whom the Bible calls Adam, who, through his wife, Eve, fathered, in a literal biological sense, all subsequent humans and did this literal, individual, first man fall into literal sin?<<<

As a matter of fact, this appears biologically to have been true. But look above for a fuller answer.

[GL]

You'll have to point me to that one. Far as I know, the Bible is mute on evolution.

I agree, so have I been. I do believe that Darwinian evolution theory has a lot of holes in it and does not deserve unquestioned acceptance and that ID proponents offer some plausible theories that answer the questions DE proponents cannot plausibly answer, but that is not our topic.

Why do you reject a literal understanding of the creation of Adam and favor an evolutionary understanding? That is, why do you reject that God literally created Adam from dust and breathed life into his nostrils but believe that what really happened is that some human-like, but not quite human animals had intercourse and conceived a child who was the first human, Adam? What is your evidence for this belief?

Before one goes looking for alternative explanations for the origin of man, it seems to me that he should explain why he rejects a literal reading of the Genesis account.

[coco]

Here's a nice little link on catastrophic change:

http://nwcreation.net/caps/articles/floodstrata.html

No endorsement of anything else on that site implied.

[coco]

GL,

What is the literal meaning of "This is my body"?

It appears that appeals to the "literal" meaning don't always convince...

[GL]

I am not one to whom you should direct that question if you are looking for one who denies the Real Presence. I believe in the Real Presence, but I believe it is a mystery and so reject efforts to explain it.

[coco]

I'm delighted to hear it. Creation is also something of a mystery...

[coco]

Perhaps God's real and undoubted presence at the creation did not cause any change in the substance of nothingness as it became, well, something else. But one could argue otherwise: at least, if one were explaining Genesis...

[GL]

Creation is also something of a mystery...

Indeed, that is why you don't see me taking dogmatic positions one way or the other on exactly how it came about. I am not rejecting either Truth's understanding nor Stuart's. I don't believe either they or anyone else knows what happened. But I most definitely believe that "[in] the beginning God created . . . ." and that

  "God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
  male and female he created them.

As to the science and the mechanics behind it all, I plead ignorance, just as I do as to the Real Presence.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I do believe that Darwinian evolution theory has a lot of holes in it and does not deserve unquestioned acceptance and that ID proponents offer some plausible theories that answer the questions DE proponents cannot plausibly answer, but that is not our topic.<<<

I take evolution as far as the evidence for it goes. It does not go to the issue of ultimate causality and ultimate purpose, which is a matter for epistemology and teleology. Christians should, like the Pope, recognize the utility of natural selection as an intellectual construct for explaining observable phenomena, without ascribing to it any overarching philosophical or theological significance. Science cannot address such questions.

The Catholic Church was perfectly happy to accept Copernican astronomy as an explanation for observable astronomical observations, without accepting the theological implications that Galileo ascribed to it. Both science and theology have to learn to recognize their respective spheres, and stay inside them.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Why do you reject a literal understanding of the creation of Adam and favor an evolutionary understanding?<<<

Goes back to my belief that God reveals just as much of his mysteries as man can understand, and not one bit more. The explanation in Genesis is true in the meta-sense. The men who compiled the various threads of Genesis did not have the tools to explore the physical universe in the way that we do, but they explained it in a way that made sense to them, and also encapsulated the transcendent truth that God is the Lord of Creation, that man is created in his image, that there was a profound moral catastrophy that alienated man from God, and that God has not abandoned the work of his hands, but remains intimately involved in the life of the world.

[coco]

I plead ignorance too, except to the extent that the Church tells me something about it. As applied to our concrete examples, I don't suppose there's a major difference between our opinions on either creation or the Real Presence.

Except that the devil's in the details. How about eucharistic adoration?

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Thanks GL.

Here's a question that I've also wondered about for my brothers and sisters in Christ who hold to theistic evolution:

Given that you believe in (macro)evolution, what impact does this have on the doctrine of original sin and the Fall?

Specifically, you posit evolution occurred. In the creation account in Genesis, God repeatedly says "it was good". So then Adam and Eve sinned. And because of this original sin and subsequent Fall, God caused the evolution of humankind to go "morally bad", and so now we have de-evolution? Does this follow, if one is to hold on to (macro)evolution and the doctrine of Original Sin and the Fall?

How do you reconcile the Doctrine of Original Sin and the Fall with the staunchly held position of (macro)evolution?

[Judy Warner]

>>> I take evolution as far as the evidence for it goes. It does not go to the issue of ultimate causality and ultimate purpose, which is a matter for epistemology and teleology. <<<

I'm not sure the *evidence* for it, as opposed to inferences about it, goes beyond microevolution. If it did, we'd get a better answer than finches' beaks and the color of moths.

[coco]

And even these "microevolutionary" evidences can be merely ascribed to the effect of selection pressure on the relative genetic variety in a species.

[Judy Warner]

Relative genetic variety can go pretty far. Compare a St. Bernard and a chihuahua, for example. There can also be mutations that don't create a new species but wider variation within a species.

[GL]

In case you have missed it, I have said before that I reject Eucharistic Adoration. I see no evidence in the Scripture that the apostles or other disciples worshiped the bread and wine and see no command for our to do so. The last sentence of Article XXVIII of the 39 Articles provides, "The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped." I understand how the practices follows from a Catholic understanding of the Real Presences but, as I said, I don't have an explanation. I worship the One whose presence is real as do my Catholic brothers. If I am wrong not to worship the bread and wine, I pray that He forgives me, and if you are wrong to do so, I pray that He forgives you.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>In case you have missed it, I have said before that I reject Eucharistic Adoration.<<<

That's just a paraliturgical devotion that developed out of the piety of the Western Church. It is not part of the spiritual patrimony of the Eastern Churches, who never had Eucharistic adoration. I wouldn't make more of it than it is worth. There's nothing that mandates Eucharistic adoration for the faithful even in the Latin Church.

As for the issue of "real presence", the Eastern Churches acknowledge the sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist, without getting bogged down in the details. We also don't acknowledge the distinction between "real" and "symbolic", due to our retention of the patristic understanding that the symbol shares and interpentrates the reality of that which it represents. Symbol vs. reality is a false dichotomy, and the term 'real oresence" is redundant--there is no presence that is NOT real.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I'm not sure the *evidence* for it, as opposed to inferences about it, goes beyond microevolution. If it did, we'd get a better answer than finches' beaks and the color of moths. <<<

Genome studies is providing a lot of new evidence, since we can now build very detailed cladistic diagrams of the relationship of different species, including when and where they began to diverge from their common ancestors. This, by the way, applies to human beings and all the higher primates.

[coco]

Thanks, GL and Stuart, always informative.

Judy, I think we're basically in agreement, then?

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Stuart (et al),

Did you answer this request by GL by any chance:

"Before one goes looking for alternative explanations for the origin of man, it seems to me that he should explain why he rejects a literal reading of the Genesis account."?

[coco]

including when and where they began to diverge from their common ancestors

Whoah. That's claiming waaaay to much for genome research. Judy's right that most of this is inference.

[coco]

Not quite off-topic, I find John Davison a fascinating read:

http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html

[Judy Warner]

I agree with Coco. I understand the detailed diagrams of relationships between species based on similarities in structure etc., and the fact that different species, including humans, have very similar DNA. But this is all descriptive of what *is.* It has nothing to say on how new species got differentiated, or arose. That is the big question that can't seem to get answered. I don't have an emotional or theological investment in one side or another, as I agree with those who said that God could have done it any way He wanted to. But not only don't I see that speciation is explained, my alarm bells go off when I see supposedly objective scientists acting like Al Gore when global warming is questioned.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

DGP,

I understand this - had you clicked on the link above, you would have seen this taken into consideration. And I do find the geological and fossil evidence compelling for predation on Earth before human life. However, I consider it a core teaching of Genesis that the fate of creation is bound up in the fate of Man - "cursed is the ground because of you." My instinct, when looking at a spider sucking the life out of a helpless butterfly, is to see this as part of the groaning of creation, waiting to be set free from its bondage to decay into the liberation of the rule of the sons of God. So, the presence of this decay and groaning historically prior to the presence of man on the Earth is theologically troubling.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

All,

The doctrine of origins can be, and often is, contentious and heated.

Creation and (macro)evolution are mutually exclusive accounts of the origins of humankind.

That's why I emphasized the first 4 words of Gen. 1:1, "In the beginning God...."

Because the vast, overwhelming majority of scientists and non-scientists holding onto the THEORY of evolution say that there is NO God.

They go beyond their explanation of the mechanics and the process of (macro)evolution to build their erroneous case that there is NO God.

[coco]

And I do find the geological and fossil evidence compelling for predation on Earth before human life

That needs more evidence than is presently out there, IMHO. Can you elaborate?

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Tu'ad (Truth Unites and Divides ... you don't mind if I call you Tu'ad, do you?)

I could not sign on to the Chicago statement as written. It seems to take too many assumptions into reading scripture, and read two many modern notions of what truth is into it. Take the issue of "myth". The irony of the statement is that Genesis 1-11 is said to be scientifically factual and journalistically sound, because anything else would be "false". The irony of this is that such a statement colludes terribly with the Enlightenment era prejudice against the ancient world.

As I've written elsewhere, inspired myths are divine art. They are stories that, while cloudy regarding hard historical data or scientific information, nevertheless are the best way for us to understand both ourselves and our origins. Myth can be a way of telling about something that really happened in a way that a modern scientific observer never would. The scientist, seeing the origin of the universe, describes the mathematics of the big bang. The writer of Genesis, his imagination inexplicably guided by the Spirit, sees God saying “let there be light.” Both see true things, but the mythmaker sees the deeper truth.

Where do we get the notion that only science and history are appropriate genres for Holy Scripture? Are we making myths in the Bible out to be history and science because we don’t see how anything but these type of facts can be true?

This is why some have said that the liberal/fundamentalist debates of the 20th century had both sides united in being fully modern (a horrible era for the arts, by the way). The liberals rejected anything fantastic in the Bible as mythology and the fundamentalists defended the Bible by insisting that it wasn’t mythology. If forced to choose between the two, I have to side with the fundamentalists, as there's no way I'm throwing out the history of the Gospels or the Resurrection! But the point is that neither side stopped to think that a little mythology might be something worth having in the inspired word of God. Just the facts, ma’am.

What if God, in his divine wisdom, wanted to employ the poetic artistic vehicle of mythology in kicking off the greatest book ever written? What if the Spirit can use mythology to guide us in all truth, where the bare historical facts wouldn’t? By what principle do we rule this out?

[Gene Godbold]

Stuart wrote:
Genome studies is providing a lot of new evidence, since we can now build very detailed cladistic diagrams of the relationship of different species, including when and where they began to diverge from their common ancestors. This, by the way, applies to human beings and all the higher primates

Judy is right about this. It's a matter of inferences and there are a large number of assumptions that underlie this sort of data. (I'm not an expert but I do some bioinformatics stuff for my job.)

Truth writes: Creation and (macro)evolution are mutually exclusive accounts of the origins of humankind

Says you? I'm not really a "theistic evolutionist" because it is *way* too definite a designation for my deeply educated (biologically, at least) ignorance, but as long as you leave scientistic claims of (lack of) teleology out of it, I can see one could synthesize the two. I don't agree with Francis Collins, but he's not an idiot and he sees no problem with believing in a God who designed things in a way that looks like "macroevolution". (Incidentally, there is no direct evidence for macroevolution. There are some suggestive studies, though. It's predominantly an argument by analogy.)

[John Farrell]

Before one goes looking for alternative explanations for the origin of man, it seems to me that he should explain why he rejects a literal reading of the Genesis account.

The same reason Augustine gave 1600 odd years ago, I would imagine. When scripture contradicts what truth we can ascertain by reason, then scripture has to be re-interpreted.

It is striking to me that the affected level of skepticism that most Christians reserve for Darwin's theory would, if turned on their own faith, obliterate it in about 5 minutes.

We do not have 'proof', for example, that the Gospels were written in the period right after Christ's death and resurrection. We don't have any original copies. We can infer it, however, from various parallel sources.

Likewise, it is astonishing to me that anyone can deny evolution, given what we know about Human Chromosome 2. The April 2005 issue of Nature, the November 2002 issue of Genome Research and the March 1982 issue of Science all provide the background. Human Chromosome 2 is the chromosome that evolutionary theory predicts: every genetic marker of the fusion of those chromosomes predicted by common descent and evolution is present on Human Chromosome 2: the “parental” ape chromosomes being primate Chromosomes 12 and 13. In short, Human Chromosome 2 is a product of the evolution of apes into men. In the words of LaDeana Hillier and co-writers of the Nature paper, “Chromosome 2 is unique to the human lineage of evolution having emerged as a result of head-to-head fusion of two acrocentric chromosomes that remain separate in other primates.”

This kind of demonstrated, factual science, makes no sense outside of Darwin's theory.

[coco]

I see no evidence in the Scripture that the apostles or other disciples worshiped the bread and wine and see no command for our to do so

GL, I see in the following scriptures justification for the RC practice:

"Emmanuel, God-with-us"

Acts 20: St. Paul resorted to the Eucharist to perform the miracle of raising a man from the dead.

"When I am lifted up, I shall draw all men to myself".

"Behold I am with you to the consummation of the age."

and a summary of some early history:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HISTOREA.TXT

To me, it seems a logical "development of doctrine" in Newman's sense.

[Gene Godbold]

I agree with Farrell, but note that the catastrophic fusion that created chromosome 2 would have rendered the first child that had it dead. Neither would he have had a similar person with which he could successfully mate were he to live. (This is where Glenn Morton's theory comes in.)

[DGP]

I understand this - had you clicked on the link above, you would have seen this taken into consideration. And I do find the geological and fossil evidence compelling for predation on Earth before human life. However, I consider it a core teaching of Genesis that the fate of creation is bound up in the fate of Man - "cursed is the ground because of you." My instinct, when looking at a spider sucking the life out of a helpless butterfly, is to see this as part of the groaning of creation, waiting to be set free from its bondage to decay into the liberation of the rule of the sons of God. So, the presence of this decay and groaning historically prior to the presence of man on the Earth is theologically troubling.

True, I didn't check out your website. And I suppose I can grant you the "theologically troubling," for I'd say that about a lot of revealed mysteries, not least of which is the Crucifixion itself. Were I God -- and you can thank God I'm not -- I'd have done things very differently.

I suppose I was reacting to the term, "biggest problem," for nature "red in tooth and claw" is not my biggest. I'm more troubled by the dead ends, the notion of evolutionary branches that seem to go nowhere. Does God delight in futility? Does he allow good things to be lost? Perhaps it's just the wistfulness of an aging celibate, but it strikes me as an ungodly thing.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"What if God, in his divine wisdom, wanted to employ the poetic artistic vehicle of mythology in kicking off the greatest book ever written? What if the Spirit can use mythology to guide us in all truth, where the bare historical facts wouldn’t? By what principle do we rule this out?"

Wonders for Oyarsa, I can almost hear the crescendo of your voice (and typing fingers) as I was reading your comment! ;-)

My dear myth-reader, let me ask you some questions in return for the purposes of mutual edification. What are the negative consequences to both the individual Christian and to the Body of Christ, if they read something as myth when, in fact, God intended it to be read as historical, literal, and absolute fact?

You say that it's a mistake to read something as factual when God meant it as divine myth. I fully agree with you. What I'm saying to you is to flip the question around: It's a mistake to read something as myth when God meant is a literal, historical, absolute, objective fact.

For example, there are many liberal theologians, scholars, professors, pastors, and lay people who believe that Jesus's resurrection and incarnation is a myth. I, and many other Christians, staunchly and lovingly maintain the opposite. That the incarnation and the resurrection of Jesus Christ is an objective, literal, factual, historical event. It really happened whether or not you believe it happened.

Oyarsa, you write, "By what principle do we rule this out?"

I don't know about ruling anything out. But let's consider the doctrine of clarity, also known as the doctrine of perspicuity.

I would assert that myths generally muddy human understanding; they generally do not enhance or increase human understanding.

Furthermore, on several occasions Jesus references Genesis accounts when He speaks to the people. Would His hearers at that time believe that the Genesis accounts were mythical? If Jesus knew they were mythical accounts, He would not want to mislead His hearers if they thought the Genesis accounts were factual, would He?

[Gene Godbold]

Dear Fr. DGP,
Didn't the character Ransom feel similarly about the Malacandrians? And what did the redeemed Tor and Tinidril teach him about that in Perelandra? What do you mean by "go nowhere". Did the Dodo go nowhere? (Okay, maybe that was a bad example. :-)

[coco]

John Farrell,

John Davison (whom I linked to above) discusses chromosome 2 extensively, though I lost the reference to the precise document.

His basic thesis is that chromosomal changes of this kind cannot occur as a result of diploid (sexual) reproduction.

The IDers would also argue that similarity does not prove common descent.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"When scripture contradicts what truth we can ascertain by reason, then scripture has to be re-interpreted." - John Farrell.

John, let me you an epistemological question: What is your ultimate authority that you rely upon?

By your statement above it would appear that your ultimate authority is human reason. But I'd much rather have you answer the question as opposed to my guessing at your answer.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Judy is right about this. It's a matter of inferences and there are a large number of assumptions that underlie this sort of data. (I'm not an expert but I do some bioinformatics stuff for my job.)<<<

True, there are inferences. However, these hypotheses can be tested statistically, which puts them on a more firm foundation than previous attempts to validate evolutionary theory.

[Gene Godbold]

Gentlepeople,
I bid you adieu. Next week I'm going to be in Toronto for the (very large) ASM annual meeting.

[JPSmith]

Darwin's theory is that macroevolution is entirely a result of chance operating over time, with no guidance whatsoever from a designer/creator. It leaves no room for God's action in creation and can't be squared with orthodox Christianity regardless of how you interpret Genesis.

Theistic or "God-guided" evolution is not what Darwinians mean by evolution.

[Gene Godbold]

Ah yes,
lies, damned lies, and...statistics.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Whoah. That's claiming waaaay to much for genome research. Judy's right that most of this is inference.<<<

Not really. The science is advancing very rapidly. We know a lot more about such things as genetic drift today than we did even five years ago, and the pace of discovery is accelerating. Frankly, I don't see anything in this development that should cause for concern to those who believe in the truth of Scripture, unless by truth you take a very facile, literalist approach to the issue. Which, incidentally, is a way of looking at the Bible that wasn't really done until the last 150 years or so.

[DGP]

And what did the redeemed Tor and Tinidril teach him about that in Perelandra?

Does that apply to aspiritual creatures?

What do you mean by "go nowhere".

If it's bad to give the butterfly an instinct for life, and then hand it over to the spider, it seems even crueller to me to orient a species toward its own reproduction, and then allow it to pass from history.

Of course, if the new heavens and earth include dodos -- the non-sentient kind :-) -- then it's not a problem. But I see no special reason to think so.

[Gene Godbold]

JPSmith,
Just 'cause some folks who dislike the idea of God's existence observe something and then say, "This is why it's happening" doesn't mean that Christians need to grant them their (stupid) rules.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>E.g. Are hermaphodites still members of the human species, if they are incapable of producing fertile offspring with the rest of the population? What about infertile people in general? The limits of any natural law based on a theory that cannot answer this question are obvious.<<<

You cannot use abberrant individuals of any group to determine species membership. At one level, you can, perhaps, look upon such individuals as failed mutations, but where there is an obvious genetic defect it is probably better to speak of a deformation or abnormality. The issue is whether fully functional members of any given group can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

By the way, some hermaphrodites CAN have offspring.

[Gene Godbold]

Must.
Stop.
Wanting to reply...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Do Secular Humanists *Need* Darwin's Evolution?<<<

They actually have a love-hate relationship with Darwinian theory. On the one hand, they love its appearance of scientific rigor, as well as its dispensing with the necessity of a divine creator. On the other hand, secular humanists also tend to believe that all inequality, all the defects of human beings are the result of defective social constructs. If one assumes human nature is infinitely malleable and indeed perfectable through correct social policies, then one has to hate Darwinism, which presumes that such constructs are biological adaptations intended to enhance the survivability of the human species.