Chapter 18: The Lost World of Genesis One

This is the last chapter of the book and it is titled 'Public Science Education Should Be Neutral Regarding Purpose". In this chapter there are two important terminologies that require proper understanding. The first is the metaphysical naturalism; and the second, methodological naturalism. 

Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophy that excludes 'God' in its perception, understanding and explanation of the world.  Methodological naturalism is a methodology that is used is Science or Social Science in order to explain an event without invoking metaphysical hand in the event. This does not deny God's existence nor God's work, but this also does not affirm God's existence nor God's work; it just tries to explain an event using naturalistic explanation. 

In writing about evolution, certain people have this tendency to insert a philosophical category that says that evolutionary process is purposeless. If one is a metaphysical naturalist, she may never see God's hand guiding the process because her philosophy has already removed this element. However, if one is a theist, the process is not really purposeless. She will God's design/hand in the process. However, whether the process is purposeless or otherwise is informed by the philosophy one has already carried along as part of his/her baggage. Evolutionary theory does not inform her whether it is purposeless or purposeful. Given this neutral nature of the theory, scientific inquiry should rather be left metaphysically neutral. Those who want to see the event through atheistic lens, let them; those who want to see the event through theistic lens, let them. But the scientific theory should be left neutral. 

Chapter 16: The Lost World of Genesis One

Chapter 16 is titled 'Scientific Explanation of Origins Can Be Viewed in Light of Purpose, and If So, Are Objectionable'. In this chapter, one particular lesson one can draw is that the theological idea of the Fall is not undermined by endorsing the theory of evolution. In the process, one may raise a question why there has to be such a huge debris of death before human eventually emerged at the top of the evolutionary ladder. Well, if one could go back to the Scripture there are various events where one does not really know the reasons why things happened this way instead of that way. Yet those who were situated in that particular stage of history did not fully understand God's way of working. However, they trusted God's plan. Similarly, even about death in the evolutionary process, one may not really know the theological reason why it was so; however, the fact that death was there does not really undermine any other theological idea -- whether it's about the Fall or about the fact that God is in control or that God is the creator. In the end the fact is that whether it's this way or that way, God is the creator.

Chapter 15: The Lost World of Genesis One

This chapter is titled ' Current Debate About Intelligent Design Ultimately Concerns Purpose'. The previous chapter is here. In this chapter the author examines Intelligent Design (ID) -- or rather what the proponents say about it. The author argues that the proponents of ID critiques Theory of Evolution (TE), yet fails to give an alternative theory for the effect that we observe today. Saying that a theory is bad is one thing, but giving an alternative model is another thing. And unless an alternative model could be provided, one gets stuck. 

The other argument the author made is that ID boils down to using 'god of the gap' argument. 'God of the gap' argument is the sort of argument where natural explanation of an event is not possible possibly due to our present ignorance, divine hand is invoked to explain the cause; but when the later generation through a more developed scientific knowledge explains the cause in a natural way, the divine hand is removed from the scene. Thus, over a period of time, the space that the divine one operates in is reduced considerably. Though the proponents of ID argue that their is not a 'god of the gap' argument, it boils down to such argument, argues the author. The author thus finds ID unsatisfactory. 

When the book first came out, ID was an adversary to TE. But today as it stands five years later, I think it's fair to say that ID is no longer an attractive option for the Christians. Those working at Biologos or Faraday Institute for Science and Religion have made ID redundant -- or close to that!

Summary of The Lost World of Genesis One: Chapter 1

I am going to summarise each chapter of the book The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, written by John H. Walton. Dr. Walton is an Old Testament Professor at Wheaton College and has written numerous articles on Ancient Near East literature/thought. The book has eighteen chapters and consists of 191 pages, and each chapter is provided as a kind of a proposal in interpreting and understanding the opening chapter of the Bible. Here goes the first chapter. 

Genesis chapter one is ancient cosmology. Since it talks about ancient cosmic geography, one should not impose modern scientific reading into the text. Their cosmological understanding is different from ours. Scientific understanding changes over time. So concordism -- biblical texts have scientific information embedded in them -- is not the right approach to read and understand the Scripture. Ancient people thought that the sky is strong enough to support the residence of heavenly beings or that human being think and feel with their intestine (not with their brain). God did communicate what he wanted to communicate, but did not really communicate that human understanding about cosmology or anatomy was wrong. Moreover, the ancient did not have the distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural'. For them the works of deities pervaded every aspect of their life. So it's not the law of motion/gravity that guides that solar system; it's the work of a deity. 

NB: I try to give a description of the text correctly. But for further engagement, best is to read the book. Dr. Walton may or may not get things right, but I trust his sincerity and faithfulness to do justice to the Word.

Evolution: Was there Death Before the Fall? Part 2

If evolutionary ladder is true, it would lead a Christian to ask such a question. After all it takes millions of years for a species to evolve. Whereas human species came just recently  -- and therefore the Fall , the path leading to this human species must be filled with debris of other species fallen in the way, either through natural death or being killed and eaten by other species. But can there be animal death before the Fall?

There is a religion called Jainism in India, started long before Jesus Christ was born. Monks belonging to this religious belief cover their mouth and nose with a piece of cloth -- like doctors and nurses do in the hospital. They are against taking of life of any animal. Since they believe that when we inhale, we take in so many micro-organisms leading to their death, they are very particular about covering their mouth and nose. I think when Adam and Eve, before the Fall, inhaled they caused the death of so many micro-organisms. Or when they stepped on the fertile soil of Eden, they would be stepping on micro-organisms leading to their death. So it's little implausible to think that there would have been no animal death at all before the Fall. 

On the other hand when I see wild dogs or hyenas biting into the flesh of wildebeest even before the latter dies, it is disturbing. Was there such kind of thing before the Fall? If it was there, it seems to be ugly; to be awful. And the text in Genesis seems to say that animals were vegetarian before the Fall. But again Psalms 104.21, which is often seen as an exposition of Genesis 1, seems to have no problem with God providing hungry lions with their prey. I don't think the Psalmist was a fool to have missed the text that seemingly says animals before the Fall were vegetarians. The question then that we need to ask ourselves is whether we are asking/reading the text different from what the Psalmist was doing. I think the answer to the problem of death before the Fall lies in answer this question!

Evolution: Does Endorsing Evolution Entail Endorsing 'survival of the fittest' in Human Lives Too? Part 1

Lions and hyenas battle for food in the wilderness of Africa. The stronger party grabs the food and leaves none for the other party. Moreover, the lions do not care for the wildebeest; they just want to feed their own stomach. If the lions don't eat the wildebeest or other animals, they die of hunger. The wildebeest too cannot just get eaten easily. They have to adapt to avoid being eaten by lions. They would try to avoid getting too close to lions; they would try to run fast etc. They have to learn these things to survive. This is a case of survival of the fittest.

 

Since this is the kind of observation we have about the animal world, must humans too imitate the animal world? No. There has been cases in human world too where people have been eaten by humans. However, these cases are not the norm. Instead of killing one another for food, in human world we are to share resources; share food. We are to take care of the weak and the poor.  And when a person has been eaten by another person, we sue the cannibal -- or ought to sue. Whereas in the animal world, when a lion eats the wildebeest in the jungle of Africa, we don't say the lion has committed a moral blunder and it is to be taken to court. 

 

'Survival of the fittest' is primarily to explain the happening in the animal world. It is not that we humans are to behave like that. Far from behaving that way, if a human eats another we would condemn the act. Evolutionary biologists are not at all advocating the idea of cannibalism or propagating anti-mercy, anti-care, anti-sharing kind of practice when they talk about 'survival of the fittest'. They are rather saying that this is a happening, and this sort of happening leads animal to change behaviour, or rather, to adapt  or to evolve.

Whether one agrees with the theory of evolution or not is a different. But to argue that 'survival of fittest' is the reason for which one disagrees with the theory of evolution is, I think, not a good reason. 

Nancey Murphy on Genesis Text and Darwin's Theory

Nancey Murphy, who has a doctorate in Philosophy of Science (University of California, Berkeley) and another doctorate in Theology (Graduate Theological Union), speaks on evolutionary biology and Genesis text.

John Stott on Evolution

Indeed, speaking for myself, I cannot see that at least some forms of the theory of evolution contradict or are contradicted by the Genesis account of creation. It is most unfortunate that some who debate this issue begin by assuming that the words 'creation' and 'evolution' are mutually exclusive. If everything has come into existence through evolution, they say, then biblical creation has been disproved, whereas if God has created all things, then evolution must be false. It is, rather, this naive alternative which is false. It presupposes a very narrow definition of the two terms, both of which in fact have a wide range of meanings, and both of which are being freshly discussed today. For example, although the great majority of scientists continue to believe that there had been a long evolutionary process, the Darwinian theory of 'natural selection' ( or 'the survival of the fittest') as its operational principle is being increasingly questioned, and instead of a single and gradual progression a theory is being developed which posits multiple changes, in fits and starts, and sometimes by inexplicable major leaps. Of course any theory of evolution which is presented as a blind and random process must be rejected by Christians as incompatible with the biblical revelation that God created everything by his will and word, that he made it 'good', and that his creative programme culminated in Godlike human beings. But there does not seem to me any biblical reason for denying that some of purposive evolutionary development may have been the mode which God employed in creating. 

To suggest this tentatively need not in any way detract from man's uniqueness. I myself believe in the historicy and Adam and Eve, as the original couple from whom the human race is descended. I shall give my reason in chapter 7, when I come to the question of how we are to interpret Scripture. But my acceptance of Adam and Eve as historical is not incompatible with my belief that several forms of pre-Adamic 'hominid' seem to have existed for thousands of years previously. These homonids began to advance culturally. They made their cave drawings and buried their dead. It is conceivable that God created Adam out of one of them. You may call them homo erectus. I think you may even call some of them homo sapiens, for these are arbitrary scientific names. But Adam was the first homo divinus, if I may coin the phrase, the first man to whom may be given the  specific designation 'made in the image of God'. Precisely what the divine likeness was, which was stamped upon him, we do not know, for Scripture nowhere tells us. Bu it seems to have included those rational, moral, social and spiritual faculties which make man unlike all other creatures and like God the creator, and on account of which he was given 'dominion' over the lower creation.

NB:  Quoted from John Stott, Understanding the Bible: GLS, Mumbai, 2008 ) pp 48-49

On Evolution and Theology

Q. What exactly do you mean by a "hierarchy of explanations," and how can it help reconcile theology with evolutionary accounts of life?
 

Answer: Let me begin with an analogy. Suppose someone is driving your car down the street. You ask: "Why is my car moving?" At one level of explanation a good answer is "because the wheels are turning." At another level as equally acceptable explanation is that internal combustion has set the pistons, drive-shaft, and so forth, in motion. At still another level the answer may be "because Jim is driving it." And at another level the explanation might be "because Jim has to go to the store." 

This is a simple example of a hiererchy of explanations. All of these explanations make sense at their own level. And all can coexist without contradicting or competing with one another. Taken together they constitute a richer explanation than any provides for itself. 

Life in this universe also lends itself to such a hierarchy of explanations. Take cellular DNA, for example, one of the richest instances of complex design we can find in nature. How can we explain DNA? 

DNA can be understood quite well at the level of chemistry. At another level, DNA can be understood by the geneticist in terms of its hereditary properties, features that don't interest chemistry as such. And, at a still higher level, DNA can also be interpreted by the Darwinian biologist as the fundamental unit of natural selection. Each of these levels can enrich our understanding of life. The evolutionist, moreover, does not have to be an expert in the "lower" levels ( for example, biochemistry) in order to understand the role DNA survival plays in the origin of species. There is a legitimate autonomy in each of the sciences. 

The famous Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr accepts the idea of a hierarchy of explanation. However, he claims that Darwin gives us the "ultimate" explanation of life. Mayr is not a theist, so he has no use for theology. He feels no need to look any higher in the hierarchy of explanations than the Darwinian notion of natural selection in order to find the deepest explanation of life. Similarly Richard Dawkins of Oxford University accepts in principle the notion of hierarchy of explanations. But he abruptly declares that gene-survival is all that is going on when evolution brings about complex instances of design. Any allegedly "higher" or deeper level of explanation is superfluous. 

However, theology has every right to suspect that both Mayr and Dawkins are still living in Flatland. For theology can also legitimately claim a place, at another level of the hierarchy, in the explanation of life. To do so it does not intrude-- in a competitive fashion-- into the various levels of scientific explanation, as though it has a "better" explanation than they do. Rather, theology claims that the ultimate explanation of evolution is divine creativity. And it does so without in any way disturbing the integrity of the various sciences. 

In the case of the moving car, the fact that Jim wants to go to the store is a "higher" level of explanation, but it does not contradict or compete with the other levels of explanation. Theologically speaking, the fact that God wants the universe to unfold in an extravagantly creative way does not abolish the chemical, genetic and evolutionary accounts of life.

( Excerpt from John F. Haught's Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution. The author is Senior Fellow, Science and Religion, Woodstock Theological Center, Georgetown University.)

NB: I highly recommend the book to those who wish to get introduced to the topic on Theology and Evolution. It's not written in a technical fashion; so those even from humanities and social science background can understand and be enriched. You can pay after delivery or with Debit card you can order from 
http://www.flipkart.com/

Should Christians in India endorse Intelligent Design Theory?

This topic has generated heated discussion among many Christians as much as topic like gender has generated much heat. Everyone will agree that discussion must take place with due respect for the opponents even when we passionately disagree, yet reality is oftentimes otherwise. Labels or terms that we use in the debate can also contribute to more confusion and more heat. And so it's important that terms that the other party dislikes are avoided.

Intelligent Design theory "holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not an undirected process such as natural selection". The problem with this theory is that when it says "not an undirected process such as natural selection" it is arguing against a strawman. After all evolutionary biology does not say that natural selection is undirected or directed. Now an ID proponent may argue that "undirected" has been added in some scientific literature and therefore such literature have supported atheism. After all "undirected" implies no purpose and no design which atheists argue for. There is some merit in this argument. However, such ID theory does not present itself as an alternative theory to theory of evolution; it justs tries to find fault with clause like 'undirected' inserted by some atheists.

Leading ID proponent like Michael Behe has no problem with idea of common descent with modification; it's the mechanism for which he has problem. But to me Behe's proposed idea of 'irreducible complexity' smacks of 'god-of-the-gap' argument. Just because we cannot explain the step by step process of the formation of, say, bacterial flaggellum now we cannot bring in an 'intelligent cause' to explain the gap in our knowledge. As a Christian, therefore, I don't find ID theory persuasive from theological standpoint.

If one reads Reason In The Balance by Phillip Johnson, who is the chief architect of the ID camp, it is clear that he was concerned with atheistic elements in American public life. I understand his thought pattern to imply that since atheists have used evolutionary biology to support their atheistic agenda, the most plausible way to fight such atheistic agenda in public life is to critique evolutionary biology. I sympathise with such cause but I am not convinced of the plausibility of the approach. That is not the way to redeem Science.

But should Christians in India endorse ID theory? I don't think there is a need to do that. Though ID proponents try to present ID theory as a scientific theory it is not a scientific theory; it is neither falsifiable nor has it generated scientific research project. I find ID theory as a response to materialistic worldview, not against evolutionary biology. In India there is hardly any influence of materialistic worldview in our scientific textbooks. In our Biology textbooks theory of evolution is taught, but it is not taught as a theory that undermines God; it is only a scientific theory. It is not a Philosophy. Therefore, I see no need to endorse ID theory and setting it up to critique evolutionary biology. What use is it if we argue against a scientific theory in our Bible studies or Sunday sermons?

Just as I have no problem in Big Bang theory I have no problem with theory of evolution. Whether it's Big Bang or some other Bang I believe it's God who did it. Whether it's evolutionary process or some other process I believe it's God who did it. Science is a study of God's world as Theology is a study of God's word. And since God is the author of both the world and the word I believe Science and the Word will not contradict each other. After all God does not lie.