I’ve been meaning to post this for quite sometime.

When asked on The Innoculated Mind (Jan 25, 2007) in a conversation about how Science (and more specifically Evolutionary Biology) and Religion might fit together, P.Z. Myers had this to say:

“Well, gee. I believe that you can be a good scientist and you can practice Evolutionary Biology, and be religious, but I think you are doing it by compartmentalizing and setting aside critical thinking in certain aspects of your private life. And that’s perfectly okay. People do that all the time. Umm, but.. . but I think… I think the thing is that Science tends to erode religious belief because once you start seeing the value of the Scientific Method of thinking naturally about things that, uh, what happens is you start applying that to larger and larger chunks of your life, and if you do that you can’t go to church and sit there and listen to the minister without thinking… how do you know that? How did you determine that? And that… that ought to, uhh, completely gut any faith you might have.”

Interesting. Keep in mind these are not the words of some fundamentalist on a witch hunt, rather of a man who is deeply proud of his Atheism.

Let’s grant that Evolution is a fact and that morality has evolved in a completely naturalistic way. Morality is what it is with no outside influence (God), but is merely a body of principles that form and remain because they are somehow connected to the success and continued existence of humanity.

Let’s also grant that what is best for the “group” trumps what is best for the individual (thought I think I’ve adequately refuted that Evolutionists cannot make this claim in my previous point).

Let’s get practical: how is all this playing out? Well, it’s not playing out in a way that is consistent with Evolutionary dictates.

As just one example, disabled persons benefit far more from “the system” than many of us able-boddied folks do. Resource upon resource is poured into people whe are Evolutionarily useless.

If we have Evolved, if we have morals that are based on this Evolution, and if the welfare of the group is a “check and balance” for what right conduct is, then caring for the feeble is wrong. Labouring over disabled persons, enabling them to live “normal lives,” and pouring resources into keeping them alive when left to themselves they’d simply die, deprives the group. Weakens the group. Dilutes the strength of the group. Food that could be going to healthy, fit specimens is going to broken, feeble specimens. Care that could be directed toward people who would advance the species is instead going to those that hold it back.

In fact, I think if one was going to be honest, then an Evolutionary-based ethic would have to assert that euthanasia is morally acceptable and preferable: kill the feeble and the elderly, use them for food, fuel, building supplies, stem cell harvesting, etc. This is actually seen in nature as in many species, mothers eat their young if they are feeble. There’s a very pragmatic reason: it reduces the amount of weak genes available to taint and weaken the population. This is beneficial to Evolution! Removing destructive genes from the population allows evolution to continue positively, thus promoting the advantage and existence of the group.

But look at our species; look at how we care for the weak. Look at how we pour care into what are, by all appearances and for all practical reasons, useless people. People that weaken our race. Yes we can do better, but the fact that we care at all says a great deal about us as a species. Clearly our morality has come to be what it is separate from the course that Evolution is supposed to be charting.

A few weeks ago I wrote a series of posts critiquing Kenneth R Miller’s view that Christians can and should accept the teachings of Evolution. One statement he made unsettled me more than all the rest:

“evolution may explain the existence of our most basic biological drives and desires, but that does not tell us that it is always proper to act on them”

To this point I responded:

1) If our Universe is independent, by definition, every moral principle inside the Universe must be developed internally.

2) If we are creatures that have evolved, the doctrine of Survival of the Fittest is the ultimate, primary, and most reliable basis for the establishment of moral truth. Thus, any action that promotes my survival is justified.

According to evolution, Survival of the Fittest is conclusively, inextricably connected to life. Life depends on this principle — if Miller is right. Based on his premise, advantageous acts must be morally justifiable. Theft and murder and rape can all enable me to survive and pass on my genetic material to future generations, making the acts morally justifiable. We find examples of this throughout the animal kingdom.

Dan wrote the following in response to my post:

Theft, murder, and rape may temporarily advantage the individual, but they undermine the group. Humanity has lived, in all times and places, in groups – it is to our advantage to constrain acts that disrupt the group.

Dan makes a valid point: certain behaviours are of detriment to the species, and so one can make the case that such behaviours should be labeled as “wrong,” thus, immoral. The point, however, overlooks some rather important issues. Let’s consider, based on Evolutionary concepts, what is actually permitted in an Evolutionary-based morality.

(more…)

The third premise that Kenneth Miller presents is as follows:

“evolution may explain the existence of our most basic biological drives and desires, but that does not tell us that it is always proper to act on them.”

I do not see, based on the goals of the evolutionary process what is required for evolution to succeed, how this claim can be true?

1) If our Universe is independent, by definition, every moral principle inside the Universe must be developed internally.

2) If we are creatures that have evolved, the doctrine of Survival of the Fittest is the ultimate, primary, and most reliable basis for the establishment of moral truth. Thus, any action that promotes my survival is justified.

According to evolution, Survival of the Fittest is conclusively, inextricably connected to life. Life depends on this principle — if Miller is right. Based on his premise, advantageous acts must be morally justifiable. Theft and murder and rape can all enable me to survive and pass on my genetic material to future generations, making the acts morally justifiable. We find examples of this throughout the animal kingdom.

The animal kingdom, of which we apparently are a part, is within the Universe, and the Universe is apparently independent. Now, Miller keeps assuring the reader, “Well, we have to look elsewhere for our morality,” but what is the justification in doing so? Looking elsewhere for anything taking place within the Universe renders the Universe not independent! Independence demands that nothing external be sought out or included. Why does Miller set aside morality and meaning, giving them special privileges? Either the Universe is independent or it is not, and we can’t allow these kinds of logical contradictions in our thinking.

I can’t test Christ’s ideas in the same way that I can test evolutionary principles. Assuming Miller’s premise, why would anyone be more justified in looking to Christ for morality than to evolutionary principles? In fact, since this is an independent self-sufficient Universe in which human life is the result of evolution, I am actually more justified in looking to evolutionary principles as a basis for morality than I am to Christ. This leaves theft, murder, and rape open to me (being advantageous acts) and renders Christ useless (as His presence compromises the independence of the Universe).

Miller, and anyone else that holds to evolution, believes essentially that humanity is no more important than any other species of living thing. Sure, we might have a leg up in some areas, but all things being equal, we’re all just an amalgam of cells that have “made it.” On this grid there is no need or use for Christ and so it would be interesting to hear why Miller believes humans are in need of a Saviour at all.

In closing, here are some questions I would like to as Mr Miller:

At what point in human evolution did we become savable as a species?

Are all creatures savable? Is it conceivable that there could be a Gopher Jesus, and Zebra Jesus, and an Amoeba Jesus?

Since Christ took on human flesh, and ascended in bodily form to heaven, does Miller believe that the incarnation made Christ part animal?

When did the simple evolutionary instincts that allowed humanity to evolve transform into the existential quandary of sin — why are evolutionarily advantageous acts sinful at all?

Miller seems to believe that if God had simply created mankind, that in so doing, man would be devoid of free will. Miller again writes:

“All things would move toward the Creator’s clear, distinct, established goals. Such control and predictability, however, comes at the price of independence. Always in control, such a Creator would deny his creatures any real opportunity to know and worship him – authentic love requires freedom, not manipulation. Such freedom is best supplied by the open contingency of evolution.”

For some reason, and who knows why, Miller has it set in his mind that God is incapable of creating a creature that is capable of true free will, and that the only way free will becomes possible is to have God at arms length. What on earth is the possible justification for this? Miller is creating a false choice here. There is no good reason why believing that God can create a fully developed creature precludes its free will. Why should it? Miller admits in the excerpt that he believes God is in fact capable of creating a person out of nothing — why does Miller then think that a God who could do this could not go one tiny step further and create that person with truly free will! The very act of creating a person out of nothing defies all known physical laws. Clearly a God that is capable of doing this (as Miller believes He is) is capable of anything.

This blends into another, very important issue: is the free will Miller talks about a matter for our biology or for the soul? Does Miller believe that souls exist and if so, how is it that they come about? The burden of proof is on the Christian evolutionist to provide a naturalistic explanation for how the soul might come about, and of course to do this, they need to first prove scientifically that the soul even exists at all.

There are essentially three possibilities that Miller must accept:

a) If sin and free will are matters for the body, then Miller’s being a Christian is a waste of time, as the soul is nothing but myth, and there’s nothing Christ needed to save us from.

b) If sin and free will are matters for the soul, but Miller believes the soul develops naturalistically, then the burden of proof is on him to prove that the soul even exists, and how it comes to be. He will then have the difficult task of explaining how it is this naturalistic soul can even be saved unto a supernatural paradise, or why this naturalistic soul even needs saving at all (as death would simply be the end, with no eternity to worry about).

c) If Miller believes in the soul, and that God in fact does create souls, then it’s altogether irrelevant if we evolved or not as far as free will is concerned as the agent of free will (the soul) was still created by God!

The only possibility that makes any sense in a Christian system sees sin and free will as matters for the soul, and sees the soul as a supernatural entity. This completely destroys the foundation for Miller’s entire argument of a theological justification for evolution– God’s creating a biological shell poses no hindrance to free will as true free will is necessarily the property of a supernatural agent — the soul — thus exempt from the process of evolution.

Any way you slice it, Miller’s argument when coupled with His Christianity collapses into meaninglessness.

I’m often baffled by the duality scientists so regularly inject into the Creation/Evolution discussion. They are swift to accuse proponents of Creation or Intelligent Design as offering a kind of “pseudo-science.” However, when defending their own ideas scientists offer in return a kind of “pseudo-philosophy.” The latter I find to be more problematic. The foundation of an idea is more critical than the idea itself. In the excerpt from his book Finding Darwin’s God, Kenneth Miller presents several arguments on the topic, and each one is predicated on a very weak philosophical and theological foundation.

(more…)

Recently at City of God, in an article about how political sides are chosen, the author cited this article by John Haidt, explaining where our moral imperatives (things like justice, respect, loyalty) could possibly come from, via the evolutionary mechanism. Though I think this (evolution) can be a quite shaky platform to build any sort of epistemic or moral system on (and though it can often be an intellectual cop-out), the article was rather interesting. One statement just jumped out at me:

“..to explain why we don’t like to see suffering and often care for people who are not our children”

It is interesting that, globally and throughout history, people have extended care to others, unwarranted and undeserved.

An interesting explanation can be found in I and Thou, by Martin Buber. In this masterwork he outlines what the relation between humans should be, but what it (sadly) often is. He uses three short words to accomplish this objective: I, You, It.

How we should relate to each other, is seen in the I-You relation (this is also how we are to relate to God). It is, in the simplest terms, the purity of the relation of Being. No adjectives, no categories, no goals or agendas or conquests. However, what we are most used to is the I-It modality, in which we experience everything in objectified, codified terms.

What does this have to do with care? Well, I think the obligation so many of us feel at times, happens when the “I” in me sees the “I” in you. That is, when spirit speaks to spirit and we realize that something foundational is shared; that we extend into each other, somehow. We are often too self-involved to really tune in to this groaning within us, but it is this, our shared Being (the fact that we Are, that we are Human, and that we are grounded existentially in God), that compels even the most wicked to, at times, become capable of great acts of care.