Evolutionary Theory, God, and Religious Belief Nov 18, 2010 John K Graham, M.D., D.Min. The Institute for Spirituality and Health at the Texas Medical Center, Houston, TX 77054
Outline for talk Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species Theory of Evolution The Challenge Scientific Creationism Intelligent Design God, in question?
The dogma of Special Creations Since St. Augustine, naturalists had held to a belief in the dogma of special creations each species was created by God separately and uniquely designed for its environment. By the 19 th C, as scientists returned from world voyages with more and more species too many for Noah s Ark -- many natural historians became skeptical of supernatural intervention as a viable explanation for the findings of nature. Some felt it was the duty of science to seek another explanation for the origin of species, an alternative to the belief in a half-million distinct miracles.
Charles Darwin, age 45, 1854
The descent of man?
The ascent of man?
The descent of man?
Darwin s Premise On the Origin of Species Darwin's Theory of Evolution is based on the notion that all life has descended from a common ancestor. The theory stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent". Complex creatures evolve from simpler ancestors over time. His theory explained the diversity of life. He emphasized a process known as Natural selection. As genetic mutations occur in an organism, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid in survival. These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different species).
Premise wasn t new; the mechanism was The Ionian philosopher Anaximander (611-546 BCE) proposed the evolutionary descent of man from animals. Darwin added the mechanism -- "natural selection." Natural selection is the process whereby an organism preserves genetic mutations that are advantageous. Inferior members of the same species gradually die out, leaving the superior ones. Natural selection provides a better chance of survival, survival of the fittest. Animal breeders practice a form of natural selection. By selecting which animals to breed, the owner is able to improve his herd and eliminate undesirable traits. In a same way, natural selection eliminates inferior traits in a species.
Slowly but surely Darwin wrote, " Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 162.
Philosophical Change is Always Slow Thomas Kuhn -- Radical paradigm shifts are challenging for everyone, scientists and people of faith alike. Copernicus -- declaring the sun was center of the Universe, not earth, rejected geocentrism and also anthropocentrism (mankind was the center and the very purpose of creation) Galileo heavens are not perfect; the sun has spots Darwin s Origin of Species brought into question the divine creation of humankind
Darwin publishes On the Origin of Species With the publication of Origin of Species, in 1859, Darwin recorded a vast number of observations from embryology, paleontology, and biology to support his theory of natural selection. Today, most believe the church rejected Darwin while the scientific community joyfully embraced his findings. Actually, that is not the case. While a few naturalists (i.e., scientists) did endorse his work, most did not.
The Initial Scientific Reaction The most eminent natural historian of the day, Louis Agassiz, strongly opposed the work, saying that the Darwin s hypothesis was:... a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency. Initially, most naturalists agreed with Agassiz. But, ten years later virtually all natural historians endorsed Darwin s theory of evolution. Jon H. Roberts, Religious Reactions to Darwin chapter in, The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion. P. Harrison, Ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010, p 83-86.
Thomas Henry Huxley wrote Darwin: "My dear Darwin I finished your book yesterday... Since I read Von Bär's essays, nine years ago, no work on Natural History Science I have met with has made so great an impression upon me, and I do most heartily thank you for the great store of new views you have given me As for your doctrines I am prepared to go to the Stake if required......i trust you will not allow yourself to be in any way disgusted or annoyed by the considerable abuse and misrepresentation which, unless I greatly mistake is in store for you. Depend upon it, you have earned the lasting gratitude of all thoughtful men. And as to the curs which will bark and yelp, you must recollect that some of your friends, at any rate, are endowed with an amount of combativeness which (though you have often and justly rebuked it) may stand you in good stead. I am sharpening up my claws and beak in readiness..." http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/
Religious Reactions to Darwinism In 1896, Andrew Dickson White said that Darwin s Origin of Species had entered the theological arena like a plough into an anthill. Historians say White exaggerated when he said Darwin s theory rudely awakened believers In fact, most merely laughed saying Darwin may have descended from a monkey, but not me. But, it is true Darwin s hypothesis did challenge the idea that the history of humanity was the unfolding of a divine plan from creation to the present and, for many, the theory undermined the truth of Biblical revelation.
The Evolution Controversy No issues has dominated the discussion of science and religion more than evolution. In 1980, in a Gallop Poll 66 % agreed with statement: God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so. (surprisingly, 65% of college students agreed, as well) Since Early Christianity, many theologians have attached creationism to the doctrine of ensoulment which says that, as in the Biblical story of Adam and Eve, God creates each human soul at conception. So, the issue is felt to be of fundamental importance.
The Real Issue The real issue was that the origin of living things touches upon beliefs at the very foundation of religion. Some saw Darwinism as an assault on the fundamental principles both of natural and revealed religion. Darwin had been careful not to mention the origin of life and even said God had impressed on matter the laws governing the universe. But, in saying the species had arisen through the capricious, wasteful, and often cruel process of natural selection, this did not agree with the Genesis concept of an orderly creation and implied a process without God or even a divine plan ending in the creation of humankind, Adam & Eve.
Why is this so difficult for many Christians? A tenant of Christian Fundamentalism is that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible & perfect Word of God
Three Fundamentalist Responses to Darwin Early on, the attempt was to hold to the Biblical Genesis story of creation with three different perspectives: The Young Earth position Biblical literalist s say it is as the Bible says, creation took place in six days around 4,000 B.C. Earth is young -- merely 6,000 years old. The Flood Geology position the geological and fossil findings which disagree with Genesis account are because of the Noah-Flood which caused many species to disappear and changed the geological plates. The gap and day-age Theories here there is an attempt to blend the findings of science with book of Genesis. The first says there is a gap between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1 of millions of years. Another version of this view postulates that the "days" of the Creation week were long periods of time, not literal 24-hour days.
Scientific Data to prove Divine Designer Many religious people felt they could use objective scientific data to defend their belief in the existence of a divine creator on the argument from design. Two versions of the divine designer defense appeared: 1. One focused on the intelligent design of plants and animals which allowed a particular species to adapt to its unique environment. A fish has gills and can breath under water A mammal has lungs and can breath on the earth 2. Another called attention to the intricacy of patterns within the organic world and fossil records as evidence of intelligent designer. Both approaches felt it was inconceivable that these findings occurred by chance. It made more sense to ascribe the findings to the activity of an intelligent designer, i.e., God.
Creationism & Intelligent Design In 1954, Bernard Ramm, a Baptist theologianphilosopher, taught at Baylor, wrote a book, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, in which he attacked hyper-orthodox Christians for their narrow bibliolatry and ignoble attitude towards the findings of science. He urged Christians to stop getting their science from Genesis and to adopt a progressive creationism. Many Neo-Evangelicals, including Billy Graham, hailed Ramm s book, but fundamentalists responded angrily to what they regarded as an unorthodox attempt to propose progressive views as being Christian.
The Two-Model Approach The 1974 a book, Scientific Creationism, by Frank Lewis Marsh was printed in two versions. One for church schools with biblical references and another for public schools that did not mention any biblical terms such as (the Garden of Eden) or people (Adam, Eve or Noah). Their hope was to offer Creation Science as a valid alternative to Darwin s Theory and proclaimed the creation model to be as scientific as the evolution model. Rather than being against science, they said they loved science, did not want schools to teach the Genesis account, and merely wanted to show that the facts of science can be explained by a scientific model of creation.
The Two-Model Approach Proponents tried to sell their Two Model concept to school boards and state legislatures. At the time, half of the adults in the US believed God created Adam and Eve to start the human race. And, there was a ground swell of public support to give a balanced treatment to the two models. They succeeded in two states Arkansas and Louisiana But the Courts didn t buy it. The Arkansas law was declared un-constitutional in 1982 and three years later a Louisiana court reached the same decision. The Two- Model approach appeared to be dead.
Enter Intelligent Design The Court s rejection of the Two Model approach did not stop opposition to the teaching of evolution. The book, Biology and Creation, by creationist authors Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, was reprinted with a new title, Of Pandas and People, replacing the words creation and creationists with intelligent design and Design proponents. The concept, Intelligent Design was the new way to oppose evolution. It attempts to locate the origin of new organisms in an immaterial cause: in a blue-print, a plan, a pattern, devised by an intelligent agent.
The Framework Hypothesis This Hypothesis was first proposed by Dr. Noordzij of the U. of Utrecht in the Netherlands in the early 1950 s. The later popularity of the view was due to Dr. N. H. Ridderbos, of the Netherlands who wrote a book entitled Is There A Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science? The Framework Hypothesis is in two parts: 1. First, is the assumption that the narrative of creation in Genesis is not to be taken literally; it is a literary device, not science. 2. The second aspect is called a two-register cosmology. There is a heavenly and an earthly register in scripture. Genesis 1 is speaking to is a reality in heaven where God dwells, of this we can know little.
The Framework Hypothesis The hypothesis was not well received by Biblical literalists: Prof. Herman Hanko, co-author of The Five Points of Calvinism writes: I consider this Framework Hypothesis, recently made popular, to be an assault on the Scriptures in three distinct ways: 1. It is an assault on the divine inspiration of Scripture. 2. It is an assault on the doctrine of Scripture s authority. 3. It is an assault on the Biblical truth which forms the foundation of the Christian faith.
Theistic Evolution / Evolutionary Creationism These similar concepts assert classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. Theistic evolutionists believe: (1) There is a God (2) God is either: a. the creator of the material universe, who employed evolution to develop life b. the creator of human life based on a physical body with a soul, that was: 1. formed through evolution, or 2. formed through evolution under divine guidance.
Theistic Evolution / Evolutionary Creationism In either view, evolution is simply a natural process within God's overall creation, the method that God devised to develop human life. Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation. Theistic evolution supporters reject the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict. This is sometimes described as Christian Darwinism. [2]
If the Bible is infallible and without error then any scientific findings which disagree must be rejected as in error. The Bible cannot be wrong since God wrote it.
Darwin s Achilles Heel? Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system, composed of multiple parts, each necessary for the system to function. Remove/change any part and the entire system fails to function (a mousetrap, for example). Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 158.
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Says, Darwin's Theory is a theory in crisis due to advances in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level... Complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, each is a miniscule factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up of 100 billion atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." Michael Denton, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," 1986, p. 250.
A Theory in Crisis We don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity. Even Darwin would say: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Explore More Now! Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155.
Scientific Community rejects Denton s Thesis Biologist and philosopher Michael Ghiselin described A Theory in Crisis as "a book by an author who is obviously incompetent, dishonest, or both and it may be very hard to decide which is the case. Biologist Walter P. Coombs said, Denton details legitimate questions, some as old as Darwin's theory, some as new as molecular biology, but he also distorts or misrepresents other 'problems'" and that "much of the book reads like creationist prattle, but there are also some interesting points." [
God brought in Question Clearly, evolution brought into question not only Biblical Authority, but also the existence of God. The process of selection of the fittest left out the need for God to create the species, including human beings. Like all other animals, we evolved from one-celled organisms. Then it was said, God must have been present at the beginning, with the first organisms. Scientists disagreed.
The Miller Urey Origin of Life Experiment This experiment was devised to test the hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized compounds from inorganic precursors. The experiment on the origin of life was published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the U of Chicago. \[4][5][6] The experiment used water (H 2 O), methane (CH 4 ), ammonia (NH 3 ), and hydrogen (H 2 ). The chemicals were sealed inside an array of glass tubes connected to a flask half-full of water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the water vapor, and then the apparatus was cooled so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.
Methane, Ammonia, Hydrogen, Carbon monoxide The Miller Urey Origin of Life Experiment
The Result? At the end of one week, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10 15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are needed to make proteins in cells. Sugars, liquids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed. Stanley Miller said: "Just turning on the spark in a basic prebiotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids." Meaning: If you have an ocean (water), the right chemicals (Methane/Ammonia/hydrogen/CO), and electrical discharge (lightning), you don t need God to create the organic compounds needed for life.
But, it is a long way from organic compounds to a living cell capable of reproducing itself The only life we know for certain is cellular. Harold J. Morowitz The cell, discovered by Robert Hooke in 1665, is the functional basic unit of life. It is the smallest unit of life that is classified as a living thing, and is often called the building block of life. [ 1] Some organisms, such as most bacteria, are unicellular (consist of a single cell). Other organisms, such as humans, are multicellular. Humans have about 100 trillion or 10 14 cells.
A Single cell organism, bacterium
Far more complicated an Animal cell A typical animal cell, showing subcellular components (1) Nucleolus (2) Nucleuss (3) Ribosome (4) Vesicle (5) Endoplastic reticulum (ruff) (6) Golgi apparatus (7) Cytoskeleton (8) endoplasmic retic. (smooth) (9) Mitochondria (10) Vacuole (11) cytoplasm (12) Lysosome (13) centrioles within centrosome
DNA Complex? Yes, but is it irreducible? Adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine. The sequence of these four amino acids determines individual hereditary characteristics.
Yes, the Cell is complex Denton says the cell is enormously complex, and a great number of its mechanisms are irreducibly complex. He feels no one has explained how an irreducibly complex mechanism could evolve by Darwinian natural selection. It has been argued that given enough time a simple reproducing population of living proto-cells could have provided a format for the evolution of complex mechanisms. However, even in simple bacteria, the most basic cell functions display what Denton says are irreducibly complex mechanisms, such as cell division.
The Protocell Theorgy The Protocell theory is a popular theory often used to explain how biochemical complexity arose in living cells by evolutionary processes. The theory postulates that the complex cells evolved gradually from simpler protocells by way of natural selection. For example, biochemist Harold Morowitz has suggested that although the original protocells were unstable and prone to self-destruction, over millions of years, eventually a stable, more advanced, protocell may have formed (Morowitz, 1992). In contrast to that theory, intelligent design theory postulates that some biochemical mechanisms within cells are irreducibly complex, which implies that they are not products of a gradual, naturalistic process of formation.
The minimum of ingredients Harold Morowitz has tried to make an intelligent guess at how simple a cell could be, and still be able to reproduce itself. He says it might be conceivable for a cell to be able to reproduce itself with as few as one hundred protein molecules, all doing their respective functions such as: providing a cell membrane; synthesizing fats; providing energy; synthesizing the building blocks of DNA--the nucleotides; and synthesizing proteins. The cell would also need messenger RNA molecules, ribosomes, enzymes, and a DNA molecule. A cell cannot reproduce itself with less complexity. We know of no cell with this degree of simplicity, but this hypothetical cell represents the bare minimum of "ingredients" that could conceivably be self-reproducing.
There is no continuum of functional forms through which the gradual evolution of the cell might have occurred--just a yawning gulf which can only be crossed in a vastly improbable leap. The minimum of ingredients Even this bare minimum cell, the simplest conceivable unit capable of self-replication, would be incredibly complex. It would be an exquisitely complicated living "machine." Each of the 100 or so protein molecules is an intricate combination of thousands of atoms. The DNA molecule is an intricate arrangement of literally billions of atoms. Even in its simplicity, this cell would be made up of billions of atoms which would have to be arranged in an extremely complex organization. Michael Denton makes this observation:
William Dembski, Probability and Chance Highly improbable events don t happen by chance. Just about everything that happens is highly improbable. Both claims are correct as far as they go. Michael Polanyi, in his book Personal Knowledge (1962) talks about stones scattered in a garden and stones placed to spell Welcome to Wales by the British Railroad. In the the first case stones are randomly strewn; the second has precisely arranged stones to spell a coherent English sentence. The latter is highly improbable and not properly assigned to chance (required intelligent design). William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: eliminating chance through small probabilities. NY City, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1998. p xi.
Dembski, Probability and Chance The problem is, everything conforms to a pattern, even randomly arranged stones (chaos theory) This means improbability, by itself, is not decisive. What s needed, to be decisive, is conformity to a pattern that decisively eliminates chance. The appearance of the English words eliminates chance. Dembski says his book: presents a full account of those patterns capable of successfully eliminating chance. William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: eliminating chance through small probabilities. NY City, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1998. p xi.
Combine Dembski with Michael Denton and applying to the Origin of Life What we get is Denton s Irreducible Complexity within a cell and Dembski s pattern that is beyond happening by chance.
Another concept you read in Science- Religion literature is Emergent Theology The idea here is that Science has revealed nature to be evolving (emerging), so the theology begins with the fact of God s creation as Emergent. This removes a major hurtle. This form of theology agrees with the findings of biological science, seeing God as having set in place a creation designed to emerge to unfold, to evolve. Bradford McCall, Kenosis and emergence: A Theological Synthesis. in Zygon: Journal of Science and Religion, Vol 45, No. 1, March, 2010, p. 149-162.
Mind and Emergence (2004), by Philip Clayton In this book, Clayton reviewed the 20 th c concept and his view based on the immanence of God. He says the biggest question facing scientist today is how nature obtains order when it was not present initially. (p73) He feels that emergence represents a fruitful metascientific framework for comparing the relations between the diverse realms of the natural world. (P 93)
The Significance of the Immanence of God Bradford McCall says, The science-and-religion dialogue has long wrestled with the topic of God s action in the world, and models of conceiving divine action heretofore have been unsatisfactory. Classical interventionism should be dismissed as illogical because God s action in the world would be inconsistently intermittent. God acting only as the Creator of the world is deistic and limits divine action in perpetuity.
Immanence of God ordering creation With Emergent Theology God is immanent in Creation, providing the ordering that Science has discovered.
John F. Haught s Theological Contributions John F. Haught is a Roman Catholic theologian and Senior Research Fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. His area of expertise is systematic theology, with a special interest in issues of science, cosmology, ecology, and reconciling evolution and religion.
John Haught s Contributions: In the current debate between religion and science, John Haught has taken the role of activist and mediator. His hopes to shift the discussion beyond polarizing positions that see religion and science as fundamentally at odds or perpetually parallel to one another. He also strives against presenting (1) religion as scientific truth or (2) science as its own religion.
First, he is disturbed by scientific creationism or creation science, which rejects evolutionary theory as scientifically unsound and offers the Bible as an alternative source for scientific theory of the creation of life. Faith, hope, trust, uncertainty, gratuitousness, extravagance, surprise, and the future all of these elements of promise come to the front in Haught s evolutionary vision. Haught s sense of the divine is one in which love sets creation free to develop and evolve. He says: If God is essentially self-giving love, then, both the world s origin and its evolutionary transformation is consonant with the Christian experience of God.
So, instead of thinking of God as a designer, Haught encourages us to consider God as self-giving love, the image of God that Christians see in the person of Jesus. For Haught, Evolution does not negate religion; it merely requires a deeper and more thoughtful, more evolved, vision of what has already been proclaimed. He says, Once we realize we live in an unfinished universe, the cosmic future becomes full of possibilities for surprising outcomes that we had never dreamt of before the future can be fresh and very surprising. (2001, p 128)
So, what Haught is doing is offering a Theology of Evolution a systematic set of reflections that tries to show how evolution illuminates the revolutionary image of God given to Christian faith. (2001, 49) He offers four pillars or four theses to support his concept of orienting evolution to the God of grace, affirms a purpose for nature, employs the theology of the cross to discern divine compassion in the natural world, and relies on God s promise of a new creation.
Thesis 1: The Construction of a Christian version of theistic evolution requires placing life s evolution on planet Earth within the larger framework of cosmic history, a history culminating in the future new creation promised by our gracious God.
Thesis 2: Even though we cannot rightly ask evolutionary biologists to discern divine purpose within nature, the Christian theologian posits that God has a purpose for nature.
Thesis 3: By drawing upon the theology of the cross to interpret God s relation to the natural world, we look for divine compassion expressed toward the unfit as well as the triumph of the fit in the struggle for existence.
Thesis 4: By drawing upon the biblical promise of new creation, we understand evolutionary history as ongoing, and we look forward to the consummation yet to come.
Haught s is clearly a Christian approach to the problem. However I believe with the thoughtful inclusion of other faith systems as well, Haugh s concept could be used to develop an approach that would bring together science and religion giving meaning and purpose to creation, while validating the valid findings of science.
Nothing I have just said concerning Emergent Theory is in disagreement with findings of objective science and could be embraced by scientists and religionists alike
In December, Dr. Bing You Dec 2: Ultimate Goal of Eastern Religions helping others, achieving longevity and health Dec 9: Practice of Eastern religions and medicine: Meditation, natural herbs, acupuncture, Taichi, Qigong Dec 16: What Science tells us about Eastern practice