Darwin s Science in Chalcedonian Imagination Barth, Double Agency and Theistic Evolution

Transcription

1 Darwin s Science in Chalcedonian Imagination Barth, Double Agency and Theistic Evolution Christoph Keller, III Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Theology The General Theological Seminary New York April 17, 2009

2 Abstract The Anglican tradition has long maintained that Christian faith is compatible with the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin. Using Nancey Murphy s method for philosophical theology, this study examines and develops the basis for this avowal. The writer accepts the two central tenets of Darwinian evolution common descent and natural selection as given, while naming the Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection of Christ as the core concerns of Anglican profession. The question is how Anglicans can best account for compatibility between these disparate intellectual (as well as spiritual) commitments. The answer here begins with current work in the program of Theistic Evolution, paying particular attention to the Anglicans Arthur Peacocke and Keith Ward. It continues with a theory, Double Agency, and a theologian, Karl Barth, that have not been central to recent discussion. The thesis is, first, that Double Agency, the classical conception of divine action, is integral to a satisfactory theological account of the compatibility of Christian faith with Darwinian evolution; and second, that Barth s christocentric development of that notion is a rich resource for understanding, justifying, and applying it to our problem. The Anglican tradition can draw from Double Agency and Barth to strengthen its thesis of compatibility, and deepen its conception of theistic evolution. Key Words: Theology and Science, Anglican Studies, Barth, Darwin, Double Agency, Theistic Evolution, Darwinism, Intelligent Design. ii

3 Acknowledgements I would like to take this opportunity to express thanks to a few of the people who have assisted me along the way in life, until I reached a point where I was ready and able to undertake this project; or who then helped bring it to completion. To Mark Richardson, my dissertation advisor, for his valuable insight and patient guidance. To VK McCarty, my dissertation editor, for her wise counsel, sharp eye and good cheer. To professors and friends who modeled many years ago the life of scholar and teacher, inspiring by example, especially Hugh Hawkins, Gordon Levin and Barry O Connell of Amherst College, and Christian Appy, now of the University of Massachusetts. To colleagues in ministry, with whom working has always been a privilege, and often a joy, with special thanks to my late good friend, Richard Franklin Milwee. To my five sisters, Caroline, Cornelia, Cynthia, Kathryn and Elisabeth, and their families, who have always been a wellspring of support, happiness and stimulation. To my mother, Polly Keller Winter, whom I love and admire, and who has done so much to make me who I am. To my now grown children, Christoph and Mary Olive, who are still my pride and joy. And to Julie, my companion for life, who is my heart s delight. iii

4 Dedication To the memory of my father, Christoph Keller, Jr. iv

5 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Darwin s Science 4 Theistic Evolution 16 Double Agency 25 Barth 35 Thesis Statement 40 Chapter One: Method and Procedure 42 Evangelical Philosophical Theology 43 A Methodological Divide 46 Theistic Evolution: Theology as Explanation 49 Barth: A Chalcedonian Pattern in Theology 56 Nancey Murphy: Bridging the Theological Divide 63 Definitions and Connections 78 Sources and Limitations 88 Scripture and Tradition 92 Chapter Two: Theories in Theistic Evolution 95 Introduction 96 Purposeful Constraint 103 Emergent Values 120 Regina Scientiarium 134 Open Universe 141 Thesis Review 146 Chapter Three This Difficult Union of Opposites 152 Introduction 153 A Christian Rationale for Double Agency 153 Objections to Double Agency 159 Dialectic and Double Agency in Barth 168 Reply to Objections 184 v

6 Chapter Four: Barth and Theistic Evolution 245 Introduction 246 Anglican Profession 248 Incarnation, Passion and Evolution 257 Compatibility 277 The Challenge of Darwinism 293 Traction 324 Conclusion 342 Appendix A: Methodological Naturalism and the Doctrine of the Resurrection 370 Appendix B: Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design 385 Bibliography 412 vi

7 Introduction 1

8 The Church of England received Charles Darwin for burial in Westminster Abbey, making a point about the theological implications of the dead man s science. It would have been unfortunate, as a bishop explained from the pulpit of the Abbey the Sunday following the funeral, if anything had occurred to give weight and currency to the foolish notion which some have diligently propagated, but for which Mr. Darwin was not responsible, that there is a necessary conflict between a knowledge of Nature and a belief in God. 1 This thesis of religion-science compatibility has been one of the more consistent threads running through the Anglican theological tradition since 1859, when Darwin published The Origin of Species. It was just recently reiterated when, by official action of the General Convention, the Episcopal Church affirmed that acceptance of evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith. 2 Foolish or not, however, the counter-thesis is still with us. To cite one of its more prominent proponents, Edward O. Wilson divides the world between those who believe that God brought us into being and... guides us still as father, judge, and friend, and those who have learned by science that we are a biological species that evolved over 1 Westminster Abbey Place of Worship House of Kings: People Buried or Commemorated Charles Darwin ; available from (accessed December 8, 2005). 2 Episcopal Church in the United States of America, 75 th General Convention, Resolution A129: Affirm Creation and Evolution ; available from (accessed August, 16, 2006). This resolution was enacted in We will return to it and parse its meaning in Chapter Four. 2

9 millions of years in a biological world. 3 In framing this choice between incompatible alternatives, Wilson invites us to join him in choosing science. We can recast the religious point of view identified by Wilson into the language of the Book of Common Prayer, which guides Anglicans in the avowal that all things are being brought to their perfection by him through whom all things were made. 4 The question then follows: How can we as Anglicans best account for our acceptance of ideas that Wilson and so many others consider incompatible? That is the question we will try to answer in this dissertation. The title, Darwin s Science in Chalcedonian Imagination: Barth, Double Agency and Theistic Evolution, is suggestive of its thesis, which will be introduced by way of a preliminary explanation of the title s several terms, save one. That is, our assumptions and aims will be introduced regarding Darwin s Science, Theistic Evolution, Double Agency and Barth, while the meaning of Chalcedonian Imagination, and its import for the thesis, needs a little longer to unfold. 3 Edward O. Wilson, Intelligent Evolution: The Consequences of Charles Darwin s One Long Argument, Harvard Magazine, November-December (2005), 32. Wilson also offers blank-slate Marxist anthropology as a third option. We will return to Wilson and his argument in Chapter Four. 4 The Ordination of a Deacon, in The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church According to the Use of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (New York: Church Hymnal Corporation, 1979), 540. The prayer containing this phrase recurs at the ordination of priests and bishops, and is also found in the Great Vigil of Easter. 3

10 Darwin s Science Let us begin by reviewing a story often told. 5 Charles Darwin was a Victorian gentleman of means. From birth, he was financially well endowed through his maternal lineage, the Wedgwood family of china-making fame. On his father s side, he was descended from physicians with free-thinking inclinations especially his grandfather, the famous Erasmus Darwin. Charles grew up expecting that he would become a physician in turn; that was, until he learned, at the University of Edinburgh, what surgery was like. At that point, he reconsidered his options and changed course. Leaving Edinburgh and medicine for Cambridge, he prepared instead for ordination, and the life of an English country parson. Darwin had been an indifferent student; now that changed, for at Cambridge he discovered the joys in naturalistic pursuits and, with these, his avocation. With a careful inspection of the natural world, Darwin s intellectual curiosity caught fire. He found reading William Paley especially enriching. Later, Darwin would write that close study of Paley s books was the only part of the Academic Course which, as I then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me in the education of my mind. 6 5 The following historical summary draws from Anthony D. Baker, Theology and the Crisis in Darwinism, Modern Theology 18, no. 2 (April 2002), ; Peter J. Bowler, Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons: Evolution and Christianity from Darwin to Intelligent Design (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007); John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991); E. Janet Browne, Charles Darwin: The Power of Place (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); William E. Phipps, Darwin s Religious Odyssey (Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 2002); and Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design (New York: Owl Books / Henry Holt, 2006). 6 Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, , edited with appendix and notes by his grand-daughter, Nora Barlow (New York: Harcourt, 1958), 59, 4

11 From our vantage point, one fascinating fact in this is that study of the natural world was carried out beyond the classroom and the prescribed classical curriculum. At Cambridge, as William Phipps tells us, science was an extracurricular activity that some students engaged in apart from their regular studies. 7 Another surprise is that Darwin s newfound passion for nature would have served only to confirm his vocational direction for almost all his scientific mentors were priests as well. The Rev. John Henslow was the faculty expert in botany, entomology, chemistry and assorted other sciences; the Rev. Adam Sedgwick was its renowned geologist. From such teachers, as well as from the author (and archdeacon) Paley, Darwin drank deeply of an assured sense of practical harmony between scientific and priestly pursuits, and intellectual harmony between knowledge of Nature and belief in God. 8 This harmony was the guiding theme of a then-powerful intellectual tradition, Natural Theology, and Darwin fully planned to serve within that tradition and advance its cause. Little would he have imagined that he would kill it instead. As Darwin was wrapping up his Cambridge studies, he found himself presented with a rare opportunity that only a wealthy individual could possibly accept, and only an adventurous and passionately committed naturalist would likely find enticing. A friend of Henslow, the Rev. George Peacocke, wanted a suggestion of someone who could sail on a voyage to chart the South American coastlines with Captain Robert FitzRoy. He was looking for a man with expert knowledge in geology, and a companionable social peer. quoted in William E. Phipps, Darwin s Religious Odyssey (Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 2002), 6. 7 Phipps, Religious Odyssey, 9. 8 Ibid., 9 12; see note 1 above. 5

12 Henslow recommended Darwin who, though it would mean deferring ordination, was eager to accept. He was excited, as Phipps writes, by the thought of years rather than weeks on a voyage to learn about the glories of creation. 9 On December 27, 1831, the Beagle sailed from Plymouth with Darwin aboard; his journey lasted nearly five years, not returning home to England until October, Throughout the voyage, he made notes and collected crates of samples, including some of strange and fascinating varieties of species that were both alike and unalike those with which he was familiar at home in England, or had encountered at other stops along the way aboard the Beagle. Many of the most unusual of these were found when the ship reached the Galapagos Archipelago, an island chain several hundred miles out into the Pacific to the west from Central America. As Darwin writes: The natural history of his archipelago is very remarkable: it seems to be a little world within itself: the greater number of its inhabitants, both vegetable and animal, being found nowhere else. As I shall refer to this subject again, I will only here remark, as forming a striking character on first landing, that the birds are strangers to man. So tame and unsuspecting were they, that they did not even understand what was meant by stones being thrown at them; and quite regardless of us, they approached so close that any number might have been killed with a stick. 11 Questions arose about what could explain the existence of a variety of birds that harbored no natural fear of humans, and why the plants and animals throughout these scattered islands were so consistently strange and why, even from island to island, the same species (finches, for example) assumed such different shapes. 9 Ibid., Charles Darwin, Voyage of the Beagle, ed. Janet Browne and Michael Never (New York: Penguin Books, 1989), x. 11 Ibid.,

13 As we now know mostly thanks to Darwin, the explanation is found in a process called geographical, or allopatric speciation; the word is coined from the Greek αλλος (other) and πατρις (homeland). Ernst Mayr, one of the more important recent leaders in the Darwinian scientific tradition, has been particularly influential in developing this idea. Mayr defines evolution as change in properties of organisms over time. 12 Changes usually happen slowly, as helpful variations catch on and spread throughout an interbreeding population a species. Sometimes, though, because of migration or other factors, a sub-group becomes isolated from the rest. This happened with the Galapagos; populations of organisms now separated from the Americas by 500 miles of ocean, and from one another on their different islands, adapted to their new surroundings along divergent lines. With the geographical barriers to breeding, the genetic pools are kept apart; under these conditions, small populations can undergo relatively rapid changes. Thus new, distinct varieties emerge, unique to each locale. Under these circumstances, the divergences can develop to points of anatomical or behavioral difference such that, even if the separated groups are now reunited, interbreeding is no longer possible. Where there had been one species, now there are two, three, or more. Such is the origin of species Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is (New York: Perseus Books Group / Basic Books, 2001), Ibid., 175. Mayr writes: New species may evolve when a population acquires isolating mechanisms while isolated from its parent population. Mayr sees this as the main way that the number of species multiplies, but not the only one. 7

14 After Darwin had returned to England, and ruminated for some years on what he had seen and other evidence he had gathered, he was prepared to make the following suggestion: In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. 14 Given this variety of evidence, such would be conceivable; but how would it happen? As Darwin goes on to say, though this conclusion is consistent with observation, it would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and coadaption which justly excites our admiration. 15 To that end, he now delivered his explanation, the theory of descent with modification through variation and natural selection. 16 The theory builds from the observation that no two creatures are alike in all respects. 17 Even within families, among siblings, there are variations; the neck of one giraffe is longer than another. A second observation was inspired by Malthus: birth rates being what they are, the earth does not have enough resources to go around. Logically, there ensues a struggle for survival, where some variations exhibit advantages over 14 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection, Or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, 1993 Modern Library Edition (New York: Random House / Modern Library, 1993), Ibid., Ibid., The following summary draws loosely from Ernst Mayr s precise capsule account of the logic of natural selection, which consists, as Mayr explains, of five observations (facts) and three inferences. Mayr, Evolution,

15 others. The greener the grass snake, the harder it is for a hungry hawk to see it and the better its chances for survival. If the green snake survives, it can reproduce, while its browner cousin is eaten at an early age. A third observation: parents sometimes pass their variations to their children; Archie Manning s sons can also throw the ball. (Unbeknownst to Darwin, the reason for this, genetic inheritance, was at that time being worked out by Gregor Mendel.) Here the logic of selection again takes over; given variations, heritability, and a struggle for survival, the more beneficial variations will tend to increase from one generation to the next. This is something like the selection dairy farmers make, in breeding their cows to bulls whose offspring have tended to make more milk; the result is that cows today are more productive than cows of yesteryear. In the wild, however, the selection happens naturally, as a matter of course; so, Darwin named the process natural selection, through which there may be likely more and more longer necked giraffes, and greener grass snakes, and men who can throw a football sixty yards. Thus, in the space of a single shift of one generation to another, a population acquires a slightly different look. Given time and the best geologists of Darwin s era were now convinced that the earth was exceedingly old the process would proceed apace and along diverging lines to better fit diverse environments; so, a first result is that species do not remain the same. The average look, temperament, and behavior of a population evolves as time goes by; meanwhile, the number of species multiplies. Such a process would explain, in a way consistent with the mutual affinities of organic beings, their embryological relations, geographical distribution, and the fossil record, how it 9

16 had happened that species of the earth had all descended, like varieties, from other species. 18 In introducing this theory to the world, Darwin concludes: I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendents of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are descendents of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive, means of modification. 19 Elliot Sober, the philosopher of biology, has said that, in essence, Darwin offered a combination of two big ideas. The first was of a tree of life, an idea that comes in stronger and weaker forms. Darwin advanced the strong form, according to which there is a single tree of terrestrial life; [that is], for any two species, there is a species that is their common ancestor not only are we related to chimps, we are also related to cattle, to crows, and to crocuses. 20 The second big idea, to explain the first, was natural selection. Darwin, as the story goes, was in no rush to make his theory public. On the contrary, he kept it under his hat for years, decades, while building and strengthening his case. Then, one day he received a most unexpected packet in the mail; the sender was Alfred Russel Wallace, a naturalist and sample-collector of his acquaintance. To Darwin s astonished chagrin, Wallace had come up with the same theory. Overseas and far from England, he was sending his argument to Darwin, in the hope that Darwin might use his greater influence and connections to help Wallace gain a hearing for the theory in 18 Darwin, Origin of Species, Ibid., Elliot Sober, Philosophy of Biology, 2 nd ed. (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press / Perseus Books, 2000), 8. 10

17 the scientific world. According to his biographers, Darwin was distressed, if not nearly despondent, to find that someone else had worked through to the same theory he had thought would be all his own. A less virtuous man holding in his hands the theory of a rival, unknown and out-of-sight, would have had several options. Darwin responded in an honorable way, however, immediately showing Wallace s paper to Charles Lyell, the eminent geologist. Lyell and other friendly colleagues crafted the plan that would allow both Wallace and Darwin to receive recognition for their work in independently arriving at the same theory. Arrangements were made for a joint presentation of papers through the Linnean Society of London. (Wallace was still in the field, and Darwin had only that week suffered the crushing loss of his infant son to scarlet fever, so the material was presented through proxies.) It was after that low-key announcement, on July 1, 1858, that he sat down to write The Origin of Species. 21 Darwin went on to great, world-wide renown; he published other major works, most notably The Descent of Man. In this book, he develops his theory about a variant of natural selection that he termed sexual selection, which outlines Darwin s answer to the question: How did the peacock get its tail? It is a complex theory that considers the advantage which certain individuals have over others of the same sex and species solely in respect of reproduction ; 22 the peacock got his tail because it would help him attract a mate. In the same book, Darwin also considers how natural selection could give rise to the intellectual, social, and moral faculties of humankind. Thus, he sows the seeds of the 21 For the full account of Darwin s response to Wallace s revelation, see E. Janet Browne, Charles Darwin: The Power of Place (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), ), Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 11

18 programs of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, where the rise of human affections, sympathies and ethical commitments is examined through the same logic that accounts for strong-armed quarterbacks, green grass snakes, and long-necked giraffes. Darwin died on April 19, 1882, one of the most recognized and honored men in England the greatest Englishman since Newton, as one editorial obituary exclaimed. 23 Though he was by then no more a churchman, in every other respect Darwin was a distinguished person of the kind eligible for burial with honors in England s greatest church, Westminster Abbey; so it was arranged. Time has in many respects been good to Darwin and his contribution; the theory of mutability of species evolution quickly took hold. Ernst Mayr parses Darwin s science into five distinct theories. They are: (1) evolution, that is the nonconstancy of species, (2) the descent of all organisms from common ancestors, (3) the gradualness of evolution, (4) the multiplication of species, and (5) natural selection. On Mayr s account, these theories did not all take hold at once, but rather prevailed through a sequence of two separate Darwinian revolutions. Darwin quickly achieved scientific consensus on (1) evolution and (2) common descent. It was not until well in the twentieth century, though, and after the full integration of Mendelian genetics, that the second revolution brought consensus acceptance of his theories of (3) gradualism, (4) multiplication, and (5) natural selection. 24 The full revolution was solidified, and considerably enriched, by the discovery made in 1953 by James Watson and Francis 23 Browne, Power of Place, Mayr, Evolution,

19 Crick of the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. 25 Not only did we now have access to a better understanding of a source of variation (genetic mutation), a treasure trove of data had been gained to show the lineage and relation of the species. In sum, although time has brought some changes to the theory, Darwinian evolution today remains remarkably close to its source in the ideas and pattern of evidence first laid out in The Origin of Species. That is not to say that all the problems have been settled; evolutionary theorists have labored to understand the parts that necessity and chance have played through evolutionary history, with major disagreements. Mayr equates adaptive changes with necessity, and non-adaptive changes with contingency, or chance ; then, he argues that Darwinian evolution involves both necessity and chance, explaining that natural selection is a two-step process. 26 The first step is genetic variation which, according to Mayr, is due entirely to chance. Chance is also a factor in the second step, selection, because historical accidents and other contingent factors do come into play. More importantly, though, selection has to do with adaptation, with which Mayr identifies necessity. 27 An adaptation, as Daniel Dennett defines it, is a variation that confers some useful advantage and thus increases fitness, which is the capacity to replicate 25 Francisco Ayala, Evolution of Life, in Evolutionary and Molecular Biology: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, ed. Robert John Russell, William R. Stoeger and Francisco J. Ayala (Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory Publications; Berkeley, Calif.: Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 1998), Mayr, Evolution, Ibid. 13

20 more successfully than the competition ; 28 or as Elliot Sober explains, it is something that has been selected for. 29 In the end, grass snakes aren t green by accident. Even so, the biggest unanswered and disputed question in evolutionary theory has to do with precisely this: the explanatory sufficiency of natural selection. Is the process of selecting for alone powerful enough to have generated species in all their diverse complexity? The new science of evolutionary development evo-devo is the latest in a string of scientific advances that present, at the very least, a strong challenge to the logic of selection. By this logic, as Daniel Dennett explains, Each innovative step had to pay for itself somehow, in the existing environment in which it first occurred, independently of whatever its role might become in later environments. 30 However, experts in evolutionary development have found that in some instances the genetic basis for certain adaptations had evolved before the adaptations themselves could be of any use. Consider in point of fact a New York Times Science Times report on the recent fossil discovery of Tiktaalik in Northern Canada. In one way, the discovery was a triumph for Darwinian theory: the culmination of a focused search for a transitional form between sea and landdwelling life forms. Tiktaalik was in most ways exactly the form a missing link researchers had predicted should exist. After several years of looking, there it was, and in just the place it should have been expected of such successful predictions, modern science was made. However, as the Times reported, Tiktaalik also had a few surprises. 28 Daniel C. Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (New York: Penguin Group / Viking Press, 2006), Sober, Philosophy of Biology, Dennett, Breaking the Spell,

21 Tiktaalik is special, Dr. [Neil] Shubin said. It has a flat head with eyes on top. It has gills and lungs. It s an animal that s exploring the interface between water and land. But Tiktaalik was a truly stunning discovery because this water-loving fish bore wrists, an attribute thought to have been an innovation confined strictly to animals that had already made the transition to land. This was telling us that a piece of the toolkit, to make arms, legs, hand and feet, could very well be present in fish limbs, Dr. Shubin said. In other words, the genetic tools or toolkit genes for making limbs to walk on land might well have been present long before fish made that critical leap. 31 Thus, Tiktaalik would appear to defy Dennett s principle that evolution must pay for itself in the existing environment. How does nature select for potential? The environment can only select for manifest (phenotypic) traits, and it can only select for those traits that are beneficial in the moment. For these and other reasons, at least one of Darwin s major theories is said by some to be an insufficient explanation. As Arthur Peacocke writes: [Some] biologists are convinced that natural selection is not the whole story, and some even go so far as to say that it alone cannot account for the formation of distinctly new species. They claim a significant role for other factors, including: the evolution of evolvability : the constraints and selectivity effected by selforganizational principles; genetic assimilation ; that how an organism might evolve is a consequence of its state at any given moment; the innovative behaviour of individual organisms in a particular environment; top-down causation through a flow of information from environment to the organism; group selection (after all!); long-term changes resulting from molecular drive ; effects of the context of adaptive changes or even stasis; and the recognition that much molecular evolutionary change is immune to natural selection. 32 If natural selection is under a new wave of skeptical scrutiny, the other big idea, the tree of life, seems more solidly grounded than ever. Today s Darwinians cite much the same diverse range of observations that Darwin had done to support the theory. Mayr 31 Carol Kaesuk Yoon, From a Few Genes, Life s Myriad Shapes, Science Times, New York Times, June 26, Arthur Peacocke, Paths from Science towards God: The End of All Our Exploring (Oxford: Oneworld, 2001),

22 includes the fossil record (which, fragmentary though it is, is consistent with theory at nearly every turn), and comparative anatomy, embryology, and biogeography. The power and wonder of Darwin s theory is that it provides a single, unified explanation for phenomena across such diverse realms of consideration. 33 As another philosopher of biology, Philip Kitcher, puts it: Evolutionary theory rests on its ability to subsume a vast number of diverse phenomena including the details of biogeography, adaptive characteristics, relationships among organisms, and the sequence of fossils under a single type of historical reasoning. 34 That this is so is something that, for our purposes, can be taken for granted. Theological training doesn t supply the knowledge or the tools to ascertain whether or not, in this respect, Darwin got it right. 35 Rather, assuming here that he did, we will be taking up the problem of what that means to Christians. Theistic Evolution Simply expressed, theistic evolution is the notion that Darwin s discoveries are indeed compatible with belief in God. In this study we are going to think about what that means, fleshing out and hopefully breathing life into such a bare notion. In so doing, we will generally refer to Theistic Evolution as a program. This terminology will make 33 Mayr, Evolution, Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1982), Here we borrow for frequent use a phrase from John Haught, while agreeing with the point that most of our problems come when theorists make the leap from Darwin got it right to Darwin tells the whole story. John Haught, Deeper than Darwin: The Prospect for Religion in the Age of Evolution (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press / Perseus books, 2003),

23 more sense after Chapter One. For now, let it suffice to identify Theistic Evolution as a research program in philosophical theology. The program investigates logical relations between theological assertions and the theories and data of evolutionary science, with the goal of integrating the two disciplines within a comprehensive understanding of nature, humanity, and God. The program grew from two convictions. The first was that belief in God as the world s creator is indeed compatible with the two big ideas of Darwinian evolution: the tree of life and natural selection. The second was that the reason often given to justify that claim is wrong. Theology, we can agree with Arthur Peacocke, is concerned with the articulation and justification of religious assertions about God and about God s relationship to nature and humanity. 36 Commonly, we may hear that scientific assertions ( I am fully convinced that species are not immutable ) and religious assertions ( And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind ) are compatible because religion and science are in some fundamental way utterly distinct. 37 Because of differences in either subject matter or method, the argument usually goes, nothing one discipline, theology or science, could find should have any bearing on the other. The paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould s suggestion that religion and science are nonoverlapping magisteria NOMA is a well-known variation on this theme. Gould offers the NOMA principle, as he calls it, as a solution to the false conflict between science 36 Peacocke, Paths, Darwin, Origin of Species, 23; Genesis 1:24. Except where otherwise indicated, all scriptural translations are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. 17

24 and religion. 38 Gould s solution begins with the recognition first, that these two domains hold equal worth and necessary status for any complete human life; and second, that they remain logically distinct and fully separate in styles of inquiry, however much and however tightly we must integrate the insights of both magisteria to build the rich and full view of life traditionally designated as wisdom. 39 There is a glaring problem with Gould s proposal, however. He relies on readers acceptance of his premise that religion can be reduced to moral issues about the value and meaning of life ; 40 but that premise has had few supporters, because it defies common sense. Some religions Christianity and Judaism, to name two certainly appear to embody beliefs that have to do with facts about the world, with these facts in turn grounding commitments in the moral domain. The Theistic Evolution program takes a position much more in line with common sense: religions, among other things, make factual claims. Moreover, the factual claims asserted through scientific disciplines are sometimes relevant to these, and these are sometimes relevant to science. That is why we need a research program to explore such claims, and their logical relations. While Theistic Evolution rejects NOMA, it also contests the claims of religionscience incompatibility made by two competing programs Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Considering for a moment each of these: to speak of Darwinism we must first distinguish between Darwinians and Darwinists. A Darwinian, as we will use the term, is any thinker who accepts the tree of life and evolution by natural selection. By this 38 Stephen Jay Gould, Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life (New York: Ballantine, 1999), Ibid., Ibid.,

25 definition, theistic evolutionists will be Darwinians, not Darwinists. We will offer a thorough definition of Darwinism in Chapter Four, and defer full consideration of its challenge until then. For now, we can say that a Darwinist is a Darwinian who considers Darwinian evolution incompatible with traditional belief in God as Creator of the world. E.O. Wilson s way of framing a choice between belief in God and a scientific worldview is representative where Theistic Evolution seeks to douse the myth of endemic warfare between Christianity and science, Darwinism fans the flames. Intelligent Design fans the flames as well. Intelligent Design theorists believe that in asserting compatibility between religion and evolutionary science, Theistic Evolution is actually a program of theological capitulation. That is William Dembski s view; despite the fact that he seems willing to accept the tree of life, 41 and to acknowledge that natural selection has some power in effecting change in populations of organisms over time (microevolution), Dembski repudiates Theistic Evolution. Intelligent Design, he says, is incompatible with what is typically meant by theistic evolution, adding that theistic evolution takes the Darwinian picture of the world and baptizes it, identifying this picture with the way God created life. 42 Supporters of Intelligent Design are particularly combative when considering the nature of science, and the place of naturalism in its definition here, too, they take 41 The central issue, writes Dembski, is not the relatedness of all organisms, or what typically is called common descent. Indeed, Intelligent Design is perfectly compatible with common descent. Rather, the central issue is how biological complexity emerged and whether intelligence played an indispensable (which is not to say exclusive) role in its emergence. William A. Dembski, The Logical Underpinnings of Intelligent Design, in Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA, ed. William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology (Downer s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1999),

26 exception with Theistic Evolution, whose proponents typically will distinguish between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism. The former is rejected as a quasi-religious notion that is antithetical to theism; but the latter is characteristically affirmed as a sound premise for scientific investigation. John Haught, for instance, defends it thus: From a purely scientific point of view, of course, all phenomena need to be understood etsi Deus non daretur (as though God were not a factor). Natural science, for the sake of its own integrity, has to leave out all appeals to divine explanation. From the point of view of science, a theological reading of nature is always out of place. 43 Perhaps, however, it is one thing to take a naturalistic presupposition as a premise in a given instance, and another to embed it, as Haught here has done, as a sine qua non of science as such. Phillip Johnson, making that case for Intelligent Design, asserts that to insist dogmatically on methodological naturalism is to invest a sound methodological premise of natural science with a deeper-seated metaphysical proposition. 44 In Johnson s view, Theistic Evolution supports those who forward the cause of metaphysical naturalism by controlling the definition of science. 45 We will take the substance of this complaint seriously in these pages, returning to it more than once. Focused consideration of the differences theological, philosophical, and scientific between Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design will come in Appendix B. 43 Haught, Deeper than Darwin, Phillip E. Johnson, Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism, in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, ed. Robert T. Pennock (Cambridge, Mass.: Bradford Books / MIT Press, 2001), Ibid.,

27 A full explication of the Theistic Evolution program is one of the major, ongoing projects throughout the body of the dissertation. For purposes of introduction, we will say that the marks of the Theistic Evolution program are these: affirmation of divine creation, affirmation of core Darwinian evolutionary theory, rejection of NOMA, rejection of metaphysical naturalism (and thus of Darwinism), and affirmation of methodological naturalism (and thus rejection of Intelligent Design). The aims of the program are to show how religious beliefs and practices are compatible with evolutionary science and, moreover, to fully integrate that science within our theological understanding of creation. The work of the program includes: sorting out the relations between the disciplines of theology and science, separating scientific theory from philosophical presumption, identifying theological implications in scientific proposals, and vice-versa, and responding to provocations from competing programs. Contributors to the program are theologians (including Arthur Peacocke and Keith Ward), philosophers (Nancey Murphy), and scientists (Kenneth Miller, Joan Roughgarden and Francis Collins). A number of these thinkers are expert in more than one of the disciplines; Peacocke was a scientist (biochemistry), and Ward a philosopher, before either took up the mantle of theologian. Murphy has also added theology to her repertoire. Nevertheless, all who enter this science-philosophy-theology discussion will sometimes find themselves on ground beyond the domain of their native expertise in territory, one might say, where angels fear to tread. Historians are also vital contributors to the program, as Theistic Evolution works to analyze historical misconceptions about the religion-science relation, and set the record 21

28 straight. Indeed, perhaps success in this arena to this point has been the program s signal achievement. Studies in historical theology have shown, contrary to popular belief, that Christian theology had long been, in most essentials, well equipped to handle Darwin s breakthrough. Consider, as an important case in point, Ernan McMullin s work on Augustine and the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. This is a good place to start because, obviously, the tree of life in Darwin s thought means something entirely different from the Tree of Life in Scripture (Gen. 2:9); and certainly, Darwin has painted a picture of the origin of species quite at odds with a literal interpretation of the six days of creation in Genesis 1:1 31. For those who might assume that the possibility of such a Scripture-science discrepancy would have been unforeseen, or troubling to the Christian theological tradition, McMullin shows why such was not necessarily the case. Augustine is the seminal figure of the entire western Christian theological tradition, and although given the historical distance it would strain credulity to name him a patron of Theistic Evolution, his prescience on matters pertaining to Scripture, science and evolution is, given that distance, all the more remarkable. As McMullin explains, the fact that modern Christians have accepted evolutionary theory on good scientific evidence, and are now probing its relationship to the doctrine of Creation, would delight Augustine ; this is because Augustine could justifiably claim he had (almost) anticipated it. In De Genesi ad literam ( On the Literal Meaning of Genesis ), Augustine had supplied principles for examining and resolving points of apparent conflict between biblical texts and knowledge acquired from other sources, while also indicating interest in the possibility that creation 22

29 had unfolded slowly through a developmental process. As to the first point, Augustine warned against the use of Scripture to defy knowledge gained through credited (read: scientific ) procedures. This is Augustine s position, as summarized by McMullin: When conflict arises between a literal reading of some Bible text and a truth about the nature of things which has been demonstrated by reliable argument, the Christian must strive to reinterpret the text in a metaphorical way. [Book I, Chapter 21]. Since real conflict is impossible between the two sources of truth, revelation and our tested knowledge of the world, the presumption will be that when we are sure of our natural knowledge, the apparently conflicting text of the Bible must be read in a way that will eliminate the conflict. 46 Thus, as McMullin continues: When an apparent conflict arises between a strongly supported scientific theory and some item of Christian doctrine, the Christian ought to look very carefully to the credentials of the doctrine. It may well be that when he does so, the scientific understanding will enable the doctrine to be reformulated in a more adequate way. 47 Augustine, in other words, would not have Christians standing on interpretations of Scripture that defy good judgment based on science; nor would he suppose that when one has moved to a non-literal interpretation, one has abandoned a faithful reading of the Bible. Rather, one has opened an opportunity to gain a truer, deeper understanding. As to the second point above, Augustine s own interpretation of Genesis had progressed to something that strikingly resembles an evolutionary understanding of organic development. His reading of the Bible did not suggest to him that the species, or kinds, of creatures of the earth had been created in a single stroke. Rather, there was reason to suppose that some of the animals and plants at the beginning were present only 46 Ernan McMullin, Introduction: Evolution and Creation, in Evolution and Creation, ed. Ernan McMullin (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1985), Ibid. 23

30 as potential. The elements were there, seeds, as it were, from which the creatures would develop. Thus, Augustine imagined a causal potency, in McMillan s words, within which the future is at least partially contained. God would use another of his creatures, time, to bring these potentials to fruition. 48 Thus, as McMillan concludes: [There] is something to be said for situating Augustine at the head of the lineage, not of evolutionary theory, but of attempts to show how the notions of evolution and creation may fit together. He clearly saw that a Creator of the sort he envisaged could bring the kinds of things to be in either of two different ways: either by an original miraculous intervention in each case or by the use of the natural order itself to develop the various kinds in a gradual way. He did not try to decide between the two; all he wanted to convey was that scripture is open to either interpretation. 49 The current relevance of Augustine s contribution, and the importance of the Theistic Evolution program s work in providing that it is not forgotten, is born out in the intellectual and spiritual life of Francis Collins. Collins is the estimable geneticist who led the International Human Genome project to successful completion of its goal of mapping Human DNA a sequence of nucleotides three billion characters in number. Collins is also, as he discloses in his recent book, an adult convert to Christian faith. In accounting for the fact that he is both a rigorous scientist and a serious believer in a transcendent God, and in arguing that the principles of faith are, in fact, complementary with the principles of science, Collins draws explicitly from Augustine. 50 I will argue, as he writes, that if we wisely apply Saint Augustine s advice, crafted well over a thousand years before there was any reason to be apologetic about Darwin, we will be 48 Ibid., Ibid., Francis Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006),

31 able to find a consistent and profoundly satisfying harmony between these worldviews. 51 That is precisely the result for which Theistic Evolution aims. Double Agency Darwin s Cambridge mentors had been trained in Natural Theology, as it had been given shape by William Paley; it was his books that had first given Darwin an appreciation of that perfection of structure and coadaption which justly excites our admiration. 52 Paley had supposed, and persuaded generations of students to accept, that the beauty and conspicuous design in nature could only have come about as the special creative work of God, doing what unguided nature could not have done alone; but Darwin showed the close fit between organisms and their environments to be the product of this (unguided) process of natural selection. Furthermore, Darwin had dispensed with the need for God in an explanation for the origin of species. Thus, Darwin s science was Natural Theology s demise. Again, much is often lost in the telling of that story. For one thing, Natural Theology s relationship to orthodox Christianity was dubious at best. Additionally, although Natural Theology reached its denouement in Darwin, liberal theology 53 did not. 51 Ibid., Darwin, Origin of Species, 20. See above, note Liberal is from the Latin liberarer, to set free. In theology, this has meant freedom with respect to the authority of Scripture and ecclesial tradition. As a theological movement, liberalism has come to be characterized by distinctive positions on a variety of other topics. For example, according to Nancey Murphy, liberal theology is epistemically grounded in experience (as opposed to Scripture), it treats religious language as expressive (rather than descriptive), and it holds an immanentist (not an interventionist) conception of divine action. There are gradations of liberal, and not all 25