Many people have recently been offended by Rick Perry’s recent comments on evolutionary theory. Personally, I find it to be one of the most tedious and boring issues on the face of the earth. I am supremely uninterested in evolutionary theory. However, I would like to remind everyone how long this debate has been bouncing around the planet. Consider this passage from Plato’s Sophist Dialogues where Theaetetus is having a conversation with a Stranger (from c. 360 BCE).
Stranger: Looking, now, at the world and all the animals and plants, at things which grow upon the earth from seeds and roots, as well as at inanimate substances which are formed within the earth, fusile or non-fusile, shall we say that they come into existence – not having existed previously – by the creation of God, or shall we agree with vulgar opinion about them?
Theaetetus: What is it?
Stranger: The opinion that nature brings them into being from some spontaneous and unintelligent cause. Or shall we say that they are created by a divine reason and a knowledge which comes from God?
Theaetetus: I dare say that, owing to my youth, I may often waver in my view, but now when I look at you and see that you incline to refer them to God, I defer to your authority.
Personally, I just wish that people would stop talking about things with authority when they have no business doing it. I really don’t value Rick Perry’s authority on evolutionary theory. I’m not convinced that he has any training in the area. Evolutionary theory does very well answering “how” questions, but it gets a little confusing when it jumps over into “why” questions. So, in the same vein, when biologists start doing philosophy, I tend not to value their opinion very much.
Here are Kurt Vonnegut’s thoughts from an NPR interview with Steve Inskeep from a few years ago.
Mr. VONNEGUT: Where you can see tribal behavior now is in this business about teaching evolution in a science class and intelligent design. It’s the scientists themselves are behaving tribally.
INSKEEP: How are the scientists behaving tribally?
Mr. VONNEGUT: They say, you know, about evolution, it surely happened because their fossil record shows that. But look, my body and your body are miracles of design. Scientists are pretending they have the answer as how we got this way when natural selection couldn’t possibly have produced such machines.
INSKEEP: Does that mean you would favor teaching intelligent design in the classroom?
Mr. VONNEGUT: Look, if it’s what we’re thinking about all the time; if I were a physics teacher or a science teacher, it’d be on my mind all the time as to how the hell we really got this way. It’s a perfectly natural human thought and, okay, if you go into the science class you can’t think this? Well, alright, as soon as you leave you can start thinking about it again without giving aid and comfort to the lunatic fringe of the Christian religion. Also, I think that, you know, it’s tribal behavior. I don’t think that Pat Robertson, for instance, doubts that we evolved. He is simply representing a tribe.
I think you and me might actually agree on something for once. I have spent a lot of time reading reports on both sides only to discover this:
Evolution is backed up by science.
Parts of the Bible are backed up by science.
Intelligent design and evolution are both theories, which means the have evidence but can't be proved.
And why must the two be mutually exclusive? could God have used Evolution? If he is really all powerful, than I must concede that he could have.
I am not sure evolution answers the "how" very well, but is certainly doesn't answer the why. An I think the why is an important question.
Well, Brent, I'm glad we found something, although I would tend to disagree with you about the Bible being backed up by science. To me, that's sort of like saying my marriage is backed up by science, and I'm not sure what that means. In any case, I think Vonnegut is right. We should at least be allowed to discuss it. It's what everyone is thinking.
I am often amazed and amused by people's assertions about this and many other theoretical concepts. That evolution is a fact is beyond any doubt for any rational person. We have seen and made bacteria evolve and plants evolve. We are able to witness the effects of evolution in all creatures. However, even the most gifted and knowledgeable scientist cannot prove the theory that all life on earth evolved from non-life to life, or from single celled life forms into complex mammals.
The same holds true of gravity. We can measure gravity, see its effects, predict it with 100 percent accuracy, and utilize it to assist us in work; but we cannot exactly prove gravity. Our knowledge of it is imperfect, therefore it is still a theory despite being observable fact. This is true of evolution, plate tectonics, electro-magnetism, and very many other scientific concepts that we do not hesitate to teach in schools.
The problem with intelligent design is that the theories involved (irreducible complexity, specified complexity, theistic realism, etc.) do not seem to be supported by any traditional scientific methodology. They, more so than other theories, are arguments from ignorance whose only purpose seems to be the refutation of evolution.
My real issue with both evolution and intelligent design is that advocates of each act as if these are the only two possible explanations for life and its complexities. I do not believe science can be perfect nor complete and scientific theories should not be presented as such. However, scientific methodology is fairly sound and scientific facts should certainly be taught to school children, as well as logical structures so they may learn to frame the facts and draw conclusions from them. I would recommend caution in teaching magic to children, however, even with the caveat that magic may just be science we do not understand yet.
Robert, I've never looked into intelligent design theories before – seeing as I believe that Christian apologetics are the spawn of Satan – so, thanks for the primer. I just looked up some of the terms you used. It was as boring as I suspected.
I still don't grasp why religious people make a stand on this issue. Let's say there is a Southern Baptist and an atheist. They enter a fierce debate, and the Southern Baptist wins over the atheist to the argument of intelligent design. Then what? Theoretically, the Southern Baptist still believes that person is going to hell, he's just going to hell believing in intelligent design now, right?
Or is it just that the whole belief structure is some sort of Medieval Aristotelian system whereby if you just move the Sun over a few notches, the whole house of cards collapses?
We are full of miracles without which we could not hope to exist. I would posit, however, given a multi-verse theory, that complex life is an inevitability because it is a possibility. We have no idea of the infinite universes in which life does not exist.
Also, Mr. Kurt, your marriage is backed up by science… in so far as… science can prove… um… well I can empirically prove that you're legally married. Does that count?
Also I think you're my favorite religious person. Like, ever.
A Katie comment! This whole blog is worth it now. Well, I'm not sure what I think of the infinite monkey theory yet. I do think of it sometimes, and I just can't get past all the poo that must be in the room with those typewriters. I think I do have a fundamental conviction that people are unique and the art they make is unique, and if my mind wanders into the multi-verse, I have to imagine an infinite number of Shakespeares, and it's all too big for me when I have to make dinner and cuddle in bed with my wife with whom I may have faked my marriage license to trick you into thinking we were legal. You and Mark are some of my favorite people period, religious or not.
Having two religious fundamentalist siblings, I am often forced to argue my opinion, oftentimes with a bloody tongue. My question is always, does God NEED me to believe that he is the intelligent designer? If I don't believe, will the intelligently designed fade away? (Clap your hands and repeat after me, I do believe in theistic realism.) I cannot park my curiosity because I am patted on the head and told that God has taken care of all that.
BTW, you had me at "Rick Perry is crazy".
Kurt, I think religious people take a stand on evolution because it is associated with atheistic materialism and is offered as an alternative to the explanation of the origin of life.
I am not entirely in disagreement with your concern about the hypothetical Southern Baptists/Atheist debate. Proving that an "intelligent designer" is hardly the same as evangelism, and does not even prove the Christian God. But it doesn't not follow that the debate is completely useless.
First of all, if historic orthodox Christianity is correct, then the atheist's position is false. I am comfortable in maintaining that God is glorified in the defense of truth, even if the opponent is not "saved" as a result. (In the same way that your music blesses the non-Christian and glorifies God in doing so even if they don't believe in him as a result.)
If the atheist can be shown that evolution is wrong, then he can be shown the folly of his position. In the admission of folly there is yet hope. The point is that his worldview does not cohere, that his arguments do not justify his vigorous defense of his position. How can it be demonstrated with certainty that human beings evolved? He defends it so vigorously because he is fallen and wants to deny God; that is the historic Christian position.
Dana, your questions about whether God "needs" us to do stuff is one of the big questions. It would take a whole book to answer that one. In the meanwhile, keep arguing with your family. They are the best people with which to argue.
Jim,
Those are some honestly interesting thoughts. I especially like the idea about explaining Vonnegut's "tribal style defense of evolution from the scientific community" as coming from a fallen place. Chesterton comments often on the "methinks she doth protest too much" nature of the argument style as essentially betraying a position of insecurity.
I have bigger questions about the defense of "truth" part. If I understand truth to be a person (as in "he is the way, the truth, and the life", then I have a much harder time wrapping my mind around the idea of "truth" as an intellectual proposition that I need acknowledge. You certainly have St. Thomas Aquinas on your side on this one. The problem is, whenever I do it that way, I always think, "Is this really how people fall in love? Do we really believe that we aren't in love and some rational argument starts to chip away at our thought process until we finally discover that there is good scientific reason to get married?" It all seems so much more mystical and magical than that. Every time I put my marriage in that category, it seems very offensive to me. It's like reducing sex to passing on your seed. If that's all it is, you're not doing it the right way, and talking about it in those terms seems so clinical. When God wooed me, he brought flowers and sang songs. It had really good lyrics like, "I am my beloved's, and my beloved is mine." It was all very dreamy, and I fell in love. We've had our fights now and again, but I'm far, far past the point where a rational argument could persuade me one way or another about the wedding.
Thanks for the comment. Oddly, in my view, apologetics is not about winning an argument. It serves two purposes: (1) the glory of God and (2) the propagation of the Gospel.
The Glory of God. I appreciate your comments about loving the Truth, meaning the person of Christ. But I am far more hesitant to separate love and truth in the propositional sense. In this regard, there is an analogy to the relationship of you and your wife. I think every husband has at some (or many) points been in the emotional position of wanting to defend his wife. That defense is not merely physical but also propositional. Is there anything as galling to a loving husband than harmful lies about his wife, her virtue, her work, her worth her person and her world? The same is true, I believe in the Christian life. Apologetics is an expression of the Christian's desire to defend the Truth precisely because Christ does matter, and his glory matters to us, as do attacks on his character, his work, his person and his world. In that very limited respect, that part of the goal of apologetics has nothing to do with the salvation of a sinner anymore than vindicating your wife against opponents involves you wanting them to be married to her too. You just want them to leave her alone, and more than that, you want to show her to be beautiful, true and compelling. You want them to know that your wife is great and beautiful, or have set forth the proof of it, even if they foolishly reject it. The Christian similarly wants atheists and other opponents of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to know that God is great, that his truth is true, and his wisdom casts their objections in a sea past their comprehension. I think God likes it too because it involves his little people (who are not little to Him) vindicating His greatness, as Elijah and Jeremiah did.
The Propagation of the Gospel. I don't think that engaging in the pursuit of propositional truth is inconsistent with wooing someone to the Gospel in apologetic discourse. Think of how David fell in love with Abigail because of her wisdom in dealing with her wicked husband. He came to know the truth about her, and it a swept him up. The same thing happens to the unbeliever, not by the power of the argument, but by the power of the Holy Spirit through the argument. I think apologetics' task is to show fallen man to be a fool by exposing the foolishness of fallen man's thinking about God, and at that very point smashing them with the gospel's proposition that fallen man's position is hopeless, that he is dead in his sins and trespasses, including his INTELLECTUAL trespasses (the most insidious of all, for it is the heart of what the Scripture calls "unbelief"), but God makes sinners alive in his righteousness. In short, I don't think that we need to put apologetics in the "scientific" category as you describe it. The purpose of the intellectual pursuit is not an intellectual win, but the exposure of a fallen heart, and the Scripture's exposition of the same as well as the divine remedy, which will in every case make for a very exciting result in the conversation. It doesn't always accomplish that, but that is OK because of Reason Number 1!
Well, I will say that I have some room for apologetics in the field of tearing down false arguments, but I find it to be more of a fun game of intellectual discourse. I've become more and more Kierkegaardian as I've gotten older. He says that proofs of God's existence always come from our unbelief. I think I understand what your saying, but I don't know how to do it without setting up some idea of truth that is separate from the person of Jesus. In that case, he always has to line up with that standard, and it should be the other way around. In some ways, this does go back to some of the old conflicts in the Church. Is what we are professing a fundamentally irrational or arational. I tend toward the irrational position. Kierkegaard also saw the primary danger of apologetics being that it suggests that intellectual assent to a proposition was the same thing as imitating Jesus.
It's kind of funny because this is very similar to long running dialogues I've had with other Presby friends. Some of these issues stem from the starting point of theological traditions. I absolutely love that your first point is "the Glory of God". Classic Calvinist stuff there. As I've said to them, there are other places to start theology. We can start with Jesus on the cross and work from there (which is the way Lutherans tend to do it) or from the manger (the way Anglicans tend to do it). If we start with the cross, we see an image of the power of God precisely when there is no defense being offered – intellectual or physical. Of course, this is a somewhat incomprehensible starting point for my friends in the Calvinist tradition.
I'm counting on the boat being big enough to carry everybody because – to quote Kierkegaard once again – "When it comes to God, we are all in the wrong."
Thanks, Kurt, but it escapes me how starting with Christ on the cross or Christ in the manger in any way removes us from beginning with the glory of God. Those are two profound expressions of that glory.
But I'm guessing that you would say that I see it that way because I am a Calvinist. 🙂