Thursday, September 14, 2017

The Compatibility Of Evolution And Theism

Is evolution logically compatible with theism?  To answer this question, two types of evolution must be distinguished: 1) microevolution, a process consisting of smaller and more local variations that develop among some members of a species (to facilitate adaption to a particular environment), and 2) macroevolution, a set of larger variations that lead to the development of a new species.  I have been frustrated in the past by the tendency of some to refer to macroevolution as a thing which logically excludes theism, the belief in the existence of a deity.

Allow me to be clear that I am not a theistic evolutionist.  I am not endorsing theistic evolution here, and I am certainly not saying that the Bible teaches such a thing.  My concern here is that people can be ignorant of how evolution does not not threaten theism itself in any way.  Charles Darwin articulated his thoughts on species, nature, and “the struggle for existence” (32) in his influential work The Origin of Species and there he largely focuses on the theory of evolution itself and not atheism, though he does mention a Creator.

Upon discussing the nature of the eye, Darwin posed the following questions, directly referencing some Creator: “But may not this inference be presumptuous?  Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?” (73-74).  And when addressing the creation of species he says that “To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator . . .” (104), yet again referencing a seemingly godlike being.

What exactly Darwin meant by the term “Creator” is not fully developed in these passages, but at the very least these sentences imply acknowledgment of some deistic entity.  But whether or not Darwin identified as a theist, atheist, or agnostic of some sort has nothing to do with whether or not macroevolution is logically compatible with theism.  I must clarify the distinction.  But at the very least Darwin uses occasional language that not only suggests that he may not have meant by his theory what some may represent him as meaning, but also directly states that he did mentally assent to belief in some cosmic creator.

Microevolution is less controversial and accepted by a large amount of theists.  It is entirely logically compatible with theism and I have never heard of one person who disputed this.  Macroevolution, though, receives far more negative attention.  Now, even if macroevolution were true and some species had evolved from “lesser” ones, the material world would still require an uncaused cause, as logic reveals [1], meaning that if one calls the uncaused cause “God” then macroevolution is a serious red herring to the issue of God’s existence and does not in any way compete with or discredit theism.  If macroevolution occurred on this planet, then God exists; if macroevolution did not occur on this planet, then God exists; either way, an uncaused cause exists by logical necessity.  I have seen, on too many occasions, evolution get presented as a belief that represents the total antithesis of theism, as if the veracity of macroevolution would entirely shatter the intellectual basis for generic theism.  This position rests on non sequiturs and straw men, not on sound and valid reasoning.

Really, the so-called "evolution vs. creation debate" is a massive waste of time as far as general theism is concerned, as if the real contesters were atheism and theism.  There is a God regardless of whether or not macroevolution was or is an actual phenomenon.  Where Christians in particular, and not theists in general, may get more defensive is when people interpret Genesis 1-2 in a way that reads theistic evolution into the text, when, at least on a cursory examination, that deviates from what the text actually says.  But this does not change that God's existence is wholly unrelated to the issue of macroevolution and thus evolution of either a micro or macro type cannot be legitimately held up against theism as a completely alternative possibility for the origins of certain species.

In short, macroevolution might be legitimately viewed as something foreign to the Biblical text of Genesis, but it is erroneous to say that it opposes all possible forms of theism, for nothing about either concept would negate the other.  It is logically valuable to note this because the identification, refutation, and prevention of straw men are things necessary to rational inquiry into the nature of reality.  When people do not create and battle straw men, they have more time and energy to focus into investigating actual falsities.


Selections from Darwin’s The Origin of Species.  Darwin, Charles.  Ed. Maistrellis, Nicholas.  Santa Fe: Green Lion Press, 2009.  Print.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html

No comments:

Post a Comment