Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil

[Pensees]

Darwin's God by Cornelius G. Hunter is the most compelling book on the philosophy surrounding Darwinian theory that I've read in quite some time.

Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil
author: By Cornelius G. Hunter
publisher: Baker-Brazos Press

review by: Robert M. Bowman Jr

Evolution and Evil
By Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

According to the conventional wisdom, creation is religion while evolution is science. In Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil, Cornelius G. Hunter delivers a fresh critique of this common assumption. Hunter shows that religious concerns lay at the root of Darwin’s case for evolution and that they drive the scientific arguments for evolution even to this day.

Hunter challenges many conventional thoughts about evolution on both sides of the debate. Creationists often argue that evolution presupposes the nonexistence of God, while evolutionists commonly claim to be convinced of evolution independent of any religious presuppositions. According to Hunter, neither claim is true: “Evolution is neither atheism in disguise nor merely science at work.” Rather, the theory of evolution formulated by Charles Darwin in his 1859 book Origin of Species presupposed a specific concept of God that was common in Victorian society.

As the book’s subtitle indicates, Darwin’s theory of evolution was actually devised as a solution to the problem of evil...
http://www.intrust.org/magazine/read...etail.cfm?id=4

It seems that both Darwin and Biblical fundamentalists share the same underlying assumption, that humans can dictate how a theistic God would and would not create. While fundamentalists limit God's creative work to 144 hours, less than 10,000 years ago, Darwin limited divine causation to the natural law, with its inner working left to chance.

"With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [wasps] with the express intention of their [larva] feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all [original italics] satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animals, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I probably have shown by this letter. Most deeply do I feel your generous kindness and interest. Yours sincerely and cordially, Charles Darwin" (Darwin to Asa Gray, [a minister] May 22, 1860)

While fundamentalists argue that God would not have allowed pain and suffering before the fall, Darwin felt convinced that natural evil precluded that God directly created at all.
Instead of providing hard evidence for their conclusions, however, Darwinists have often relied upon arguments against creationism as verification of evolution.
While one may argue that God would be more imaginative than to create species with homologous features, this alone does not substantiate that a homologous relationship equals an evolutionary relationship.
While observed small-scale change refutes the "fixity" of species, this only addresses a particular idea rather than demonstrating that this accumulates to transitions between genera and beyond.
While common descent can be reasonably inferred from the fossil record, the apparent leaps call Darwinian gradualism into question. The conclusion that common descent must be inferred from the fossil record is reliant upon the theological assumption that God would not create the species from simple to complex over a period of millions of years. In the absence of clear transitions, either could be the case.
Furthermore, there are certain features of living organisms that mere happenstance would not predict. For example, one must consider convergence:

Closely related to the phenomenon of repeatable evolution is convergence. Convergence refers to the widespread tendency in nature of unrelated organisms to possess nearly identical anatomical and physiological characteristics.1 The wings of birds and bats is one textbook example of convergence. Birds and bats are unrelated organisms, with birds belonging to the class Aves and bats to the class Mammalia. Though superficially similar, the wing structures of birds and bats are fundamentally different. Another common example of convergence¾one in which the fundamental structural differences are not so obvious¾is the remarkable anatomical similarity shared by the modern placental wolf and the extinct Tasmanian wolf...
http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff...single_creator

While one may observe such features and refer to it as 'convergent evolution', that itself does not explain how and why it would happen.

While the explanations for how all species share a common ancestor through descent with modification without any divine causation may be plausible, the material evidence does not show such a conclusion to be undeniable (or even reasonable independent of the insistence upon naturalism.)

Ultimately, the best defense of Darwinism is that no alternative theory has been proposed. On the other hand, this does not show that our current theory should have been accepted in the first place.

The no-alternative defense gives evolution a special status not normally accorded to scientific theories. In fact, the claim that evolution is the best explanation available is itself a nonscientific statement. Evolutionists have repeatedly argued that their theory works far better than the notion of divine creation, but in so doing they have made substantial assumptions about the nature of God...
Cornelius G. Hunter, Darwin's God

According to Hunter, the extraordinary claim that the diversity and complexity of life arose from happenstance alone requires extraordinary proof.

[Barry Desborough]

I find this error repeated all over these TWeb threads. In your quoted passage, Darwin is speculating about the theological implications of his work. The work clearly preceded the speculatons. If you disagree with his opinions (which is what they are), then fine. But you have to evaluate the science and the person's view separately. Why? Because the value of science is that it appeals to the value of evidence and proven methodology which are independent of personal pejudices and beliefs. Muddying the two is a common tactic which gets us nowhere towards a better understanding of either.

[Minnesota]

More to the specifics.


First of all, one must be very careful when using the term "Darwinism." If one only means those ideas expressed by Darwin, fine, but if you also want to use it to cover contemporary evolutionary thought, No Dice. Evolutionary science has come a long way from Darwin.

Darwin felt convinced that natural evil precluded that God directly created at all.

Really! I have never heard of this. I assume you have a reference.

Instead of providing hard evidence for their conclusions, however, Darwinists have often relied upon arguments against creationism as verification of evolution.

Name one. And let's keep your example to scientists directly involved with evolution--lay people can sometimes be pretty ill-informed.

While one may argue that God would be more imaginative than to create species with homologous features, this alone does not substantiate that a homologous relationship equals an evolutionary relationship.

So what? Are straw men part of your stock and trade?

While observed small-scale change refutes the "fixity" of species, this only addresses a particular idea rather than demonstrating that this accumulates to transitions between genera and beyond.

No, but other observations do. Another straw man.

While common descent can be reasonably inferred from the fossil record, the apparent leaps call Darwinian gradualism into question.

Are you talking about punctuated equilibrium? If so, so what?

The conclusion that common descent must be inferred from the fossil record is reliant upon the theological assumption that God would not create the species from simple to complex over a period of millions of years.

There is no "must be inferred" in evolutionary science. Conclusions are arrived at as best fitting the evidence at hand. Common descent isn't a "must" conclusion, but as "the most reasonable" conclusion fitting the evidence. In as much as the rest of your statement relies on this false notion, it is meaningless.

In the absence of clear transitions, either could be the case.

I have no idea of which two "eithers" you have in mind, but you should be aware that transitional fossils do exist, so I am puzzled as to what you're referring to.

Furthermore, there are certain features of living organisms that mere happenstance would not predict. For example, one must consider convergence:

And no one within the evolutionary disciplines is in such a predicting business. That one is unable to predict a feature does not bear on the theories of evolution. Another straw man.

While one may observe such features and refer to it as 'convergent evolution', that itself does not explain how and why it would happen.

Of course not. No designating term is enough to explain the how and why of its subject.

While the explanations for how all species share a common ancestor through descent with modification without any divine causation may be plausible, the material evidence does not show such a conclusion to be undeniable (or even reasonable independent of the insistence upon naturalism.)

So far the evidence has shown no need to posit a god. And until such time, evolution will remain strictly a science and not a quasi science-theological endeavor. Want to shove god into the equation? Then you better have darn GOOD reason to do so, because as it stands, Odin is not needed.

Ultimately, the best defense of Darwinism is that no alternative theory has been proposed. On the other hand, this does not show that our current theory should have been accepted in the first place.

As I pointed out in the beginning, Darwinism--as an expression of the man--is not the reining evolutionary model. If you mean current evolution, then what scientific theories would you opt for? Or do you expect science to simply remain mute on the subject? And remember, evolutionary theories are scientific theories, not theological beliefs. Want to chuck evolutionary theories in favor of a religious belief as an explanation for evolution, go right ahead, but don't expect science to give a hoot. So, despite your rather odd conclusion, the fact that evolutionary theories ARE the best working models we have, there is plenty of reason they should be accepted.

According to Hunter, the extraordinary claim that the diversity and complexity of life arose from happenstance alone requires extraordinary proof.

Not sure if your talking about abiogenesis or just the nature of change in organisms over time, but the latter is well explained, and the former, not a subject of evolutionary investigation.

From what you seem to have gathered from the book, Hunter appears to be ill-informed, perhaps a bit dense, or maybe just too biased to admit to the evidence of evolution. I suggest you steer clear of him.

[HRG_new]

<snip>

Instead of providing hard evidence for their conclusions, however, Darwinists have often relied upon arguments against creationism as verification of evolution.
While one may argue that God would be more imaginative than to create species with homologous features, this alone does not substantiate that a homologous relationship equals an evolutionary relationship.

It is not just homology, but the pattern of similarities and dissimilarities which is relevant: IOW, the multiple nested hierarchy. Since only common descent predicts the observed nesting, it is a convincing confirmation for common descent.

While observed small-scale change refutes the "fixity" of species, this only addresses a particular idea rather than demonstrating that this accumulates to transitions between genera and beyond.

That's like arguing that there is a distinction between micro-gravity (what makes apples fall) and macro-gravity (what acts on planets etc.).

While common descent can be reasonably inferred from the fossil record, the apparent leaps call Darwinian gradualism into question.

Only a strawman version of gradualism. What is a "leap" on the geological time scale may well be quite gradual on the biological time scale.

The conclusion that common descent must be inferred from the fossil record is reliant upon the theological assumption that God would not create the species from simple to complex over a period of millions of years. In the absence of clear transitions, either could be the case.

Hunter disregards that the fossil record is only part of the total evidence for common descent.

Furthermore, there are certain features of living organisms that mere happenstance would not predict. For example, one must consider convergence:
While one may observe such features and refer to it as 'convergent evolution', that itself does not explain how and why it would happen.

This borders on the ridiculous and confuses the main mechanism of evolution (mutation plus selection) with pure happenstance. It is not pure happenstance that ichtyosaurs, dolphins and tuna have a similar bodyshape: it's simply the one which is hydrodynamically efficient. This answers the "how and why".

While the explanations for how all species share a common ancestor through descent with modification without any divine causation may be plausible, the material evidence does not show such a conclusion to be undeniable (or even reasonable independent of the insistence upon naturalism.)

Nothing is undeniable in reality, especially if you admit supernatural explanations. After all, my cat may have created the world last Thursday.

A suitably creative supernatural explanation is always an alternative - and that's exactly why they are useless in science. They are not testable.

Ultimately, the best defense of Darwinism is that no alternative theory has been proposed. On the other hand, this does not show that our current theory should have been accepted in the first place.

[/quote]
False, since Lamarckism is an alternative theory. And why should a theory which is confirmed by all observations not be accepted in the first place ?

According to Hunter, the extraordinary claim that the diversity and complexity of life arose from happenstance alone requires extraordinary proof.

Pure handwaving. An actual argument would start with actually observed mutation rates, generation intervals etc. If so, it turns out that the mutation rate is sufficient by far, and that selection acts as a brake on mutations.

Hunter's article is another confirmation that one should first understand a theory before trying to criticize it.

[Pensees]

The work clearly preceded the speculatons.

How are you so sure? It is apparent in his own words that Darwin ruled out direct design because of the theological implications, not the evidence itself.

[Pensees]

Darwinism is a blanket term for the notion that the complexity and diversity of life are explained by purely natural means.

Really! I have never heard of this. I assume you have a reference.

The reference is given in the OP. For more quotes from Darwin on the concept of design:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part10.html

Are you talking about punctuated equilibrium? If so, so what?

The problem with punk eek is that it seems to be an ad hoc to ignore the apparent gaps in the fossil record. While one may interpret this as 'rapid' evolution (in terms of geological time), one may also reasonably infer either special creation or saltation.

[Pensees]

Since only common descent predicts the observed nesting, it is a convincing confirmation for common descent.

That is actually not true. Plato explained the 'nested hierarchy' as being from the Archetype within the mind of God. Without positive evidence for either, both explanations would be equally reasonable.

That's like arguing that there is a distinction between micro-gravity (what makes apples fall) and macro-gravity (what acts on planets etc.).

No, not at all. When we cannot observe largescale evolutionary change in the present, we are told that it occurs to slowly to be directly observed.
When we cannot observe such gradual change in the fossil record, we are told that it occurs too quickly. That is rather strange. It sounds like a theory that could accomodate to any evidence or lack thereof.
The assumption that small-scale evolutionary change accumulates to such transitions as reptile to mammal, etc. is an extrapolation. When we observe actual biological change, it is either within limits (like in dog breeding) or it reverses (like the oscillations of finch beak size).

Hunter's article is another confirmation that one should first understand a theory before trying to criticize it.

Hunter wrote a book, not an article. He has a Ph.D in biophysics so perhaps he does at least have a general idea of what he is talking about.

While natural selectiom may be a "designing" mechanism, we are to assume that the variation it acts upon arises solely by happenstance.

[Barry Desborough]

How are you so sure? It is apparent in his own words that Darwin ruled out direct design because of the theological implications, not the evidence itself.

He saw "no evidence for the necessity".

What he thought is of historical interest, but as Minn pointed out, Darwin's theory is not the same as the theory of evolution we have today, nor was his cultural milieu the same as ours. Darwin's own pesonal views are irrelevant to the scientific status of the ToE.

[Pensees]

He saw "no evidence for the necessity".

What he thought is of historical interest, but as Minn pointed out, Darwin's theory is not the same as the theory of evolution we have today, nor was his cultural milieu the same as ours. Darwin's own pesonal views are irrelevant to the scientific status of the ToE.

As Hunter points out, modern evolutionists utilize the same kind of theological arguments that Darwin used to substantiate his original theory.

[Barry Desborough]

As Hunter points out, modern evolutionists utilize the same kind of theological arguments that Darwin used to substantiate his original theory.

I didn't read such into the material in the OP and the link.

I would agree that arguments against creationism do not constitute evidence for evolution, just as arguments against evolution do not constitute evidence for creationism.

[bandecoot]

That is actually not true. Plato explained the 'nested hierarchy' as being from the Archetype within the mind of God. Without positive evidence for either, both explanations would be equally reasonable.

An explanation is not a prediction. The universe may be an expression of an Archetype within the mind of my cat, Which would explain why she is often dissatified. Thus HRG's cat has to recreate the universe each thursday. Acting on her instructions. Thats an explanation too. I assure you I am far better informed than Plato was.

ToE predicted a nested Heirarchy based on RM+NS+GD This hypothesis was tested via observation and found to be correct. Can we test this archetype in the mind of God? By what method are we to go about this?

No, not at all. When we cannot observe largescale evolutionary change in the present, we are told that it occurs to slowly to be directly observed.
When we cannot observe such gradual change in the fossil record, we are told that it occurs too quickly. That is rather strange. It sounds like a theory that could accomodate to any evidence or lack thereof.
The assumption that small-scale evolutionary change accumulates to such transitions as reptile to mammal, etc. is an extrapolation. When we observe actual biological change, it is either within limits (like in dog breeding) or it reverses (like the oscillations of finch beak size).

Actually it happens to slowly to observe directly whether or not The geological timescales are short or long. Mophological changes WRT Environmental pressures are observable whether or not You claim they reverse. Did you take into acount Selection criteria when you formed your hypothesis? In fact have you read the papers on the data gathered by the observers?

Hunter wrote a book, not an article. He has a Ph.D in biophysics so perhaps he does at least have a general idea of what he is talking about.

I know a PHD Biochemist who earnestly believes that the essences or spirits in rocks and trees effect his lifeway. He believes these Kami are the guiding force of Evolution.

Hunter may Believe that ToE was a solution to the PoE, that does not make his assertion a fact.

While natural selectiom may be a "designing" mechanism, we are to assume that the variation it acts upon arises solely by happenstance.

Thats what the observations and the data gathered from those observations tell us. If you have a hypothesis of something else, feel free to establish a testing method that show your hypothesis to be correct and publish it. If the rest of the Bio community find your methods valid and correct, You can be assured of a invitation to Stockholm for a prize.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Pensees, I really can't add much to the excellent replies so far, but I do want to emphasize the need to keep philosophy in the realm of philosophy and science in the realm of science.

As far as Theodicy and evolution, I think I have an answer to Darwin how one can have natural evil and God. But I would not argue this in a science forum, it does not belong here.

~Charleen

[kuboes1831]

Pensees, I really can't add much to the excellent replies so far, but I do want to emphasize the need to keep philosophy in the realm of philosophy and science in the realm of science.

As far as Theodicy and evolution, I think I have an answer to Darwin how one can have natural evil and God. But I would not argue this in a science forum, it does not belong here.

~Charleen

Just one question. Is Hunter speaking about Charles Darwin (1809-1882) of whom I have 12 vols or correspondence, 29vols of collected works and pages of photocopies of his note books, several published papers on him in secular journals, several on the way etc. It just does not seem to be athe same person.

So has Hunter completely misread Darwin or was there someone else of the same name?

[Minnesota]

Darwinism is a blanket term for the notion that the complexity and diversity of life are explained by purely natural means.

This may be YOUR definition, but it is certainly not the only one, which is why I said one has to be careful when using it so as to not mislead the reader. I suggest dropping the term and using those employed by evolutionists so everybody will be on the same page.

FYI

The term "Darwinism" is most commonly used by creationists as a somewhat derogatory term for "evolutionary biology". Casting evolution as an "ism" -- a doctrine or belief -- is used to strengthen calls for "equal time" for other beliefs such as creationism.

Darwinism may also be used to emphasise particular points of evolutionary theory, particularly the importance of natural selection compared to other non-Darwinian mechanisms of evolution; genetic drift and gene flow. Similarly, the author might want to emphasise or credit the role of Charles Darwin within the history of evolutionary thought. Darwinism might contrasted with other discredited theories of evolution such as Lamarckism or mutationism which are of historical interest only.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

Darwinism is a term for the underlying theory in the ideas of Charles Darwin, particularly concerning evolution and natural selection. Discussions of Darwinism usually focus on evolution by natural selection. The term is mostly used by its enemies. As biologist E.O. Wilson has noted, "Scientists don't call it 'Darwinism'."
[Newsweek Nov 28, 2005]

The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects:

1. It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.

2. It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.

3.It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.

source

Darwin felt convinced that natural evil precluded that God directly created at all.

Really! I have never heard of this. I assume you have a reference.

The reference is given in the OP.

If you mean this:

"Darwin resolved the problem of natural evil—the “bad” things that occur in nature—by distancing God from natural events: God made nature autonomous and cannot be blamed for its imperfections. In this way, Darwin defended God’s goodness at the cost of denying God’s sovereignty."

it is not the same as your statement. Darwin left room for god as the initial creator of everything, where as you deny he acknowledges this role of god. If you are going to paraphrase I suggest you do so more carefully.

The problem with punk eek is that it seems to be an ad hoc to ignore the apparent gaps in the fossil record. While one may interpret this as 'rapid' evolution (in terms of geological time), one may also reasonably infer either special creation or saltation.

"Reasonable" by what standards? Certainly not those of science. If you're going to challenge the theories of science you must FIRST show where they may be weak or wrong, THEN show why your alternative theory is at least as good if not better. Until then, you have no claim to assert special creation or saltation are "reasonable" inferences.

[shunyadragon]

It seems that both Darwin and Biblical fundamentalists share the same underlying assumption, that humans can dictate how a theistic God would and would not create. While fundamentalists limit God's creative work to 144 hours, less than 10,000 years ago, Darwin limited divine causation to the natural law, with its inner working left to chance.

Many have already poked enough holes in this to sink the dingy. I hust want to reiterate the most commonly held urban myth of many lay theists, and that is your false statement that '. . . its inner working left to chance.' Science consider the inner workings that are cause of evolution are the nature of existence and the laws of nature, and not some layman's concept of chance. Randomness is a none player as a determining factor in the course of events. The nature of existence and the laws determine the degree of randomness involved, and randomness may only influences the time factor as to when and how often events take place. The recent development of the 'chaos model' for the nature of randomness makes this statement even further meaningless.

Ultimately, the best defense of Darwinism is that no alternative theory has been proposed. On the other hand, this does not show that our current theory should have been accepted in the first place.

Yes, according to common sense, and reasonable methodological science the lack of alternative theories would be a reasonable basis to accept evolution. The ancient myths and fringe science have come up with nothing so far to offer.

According to Hunter, the extraordinary claim that the diversity and complexity of life arose from happenstance alone requires extraordinary proof.

Again, what are you referring to here as 'happenstance'? In science nothing arises or even exists because of 'happenstance'.

Sounds like something from the Mad Hatter's tea party. Someone needs to shake the mad queen until she turns into a cat.