Well, no, of course not. But why not?
When I was on Atheists Talk with Mike last year discussing theistic evolution, it struck me that many if not all of the questio
ns I faced were about belief and not about theistic evolution per se. Nothing wrong with that, of course, in fact it was fun and stimulating (for me, at least). But we really didn’t deal with theistic evolution as a particular kind of thought. We discussed (briefly) the problem of evil, and PZ Myers brought out a paragraph-long question that focused (among other things) on the concept of an “interventionist” God. Those are interesting and important questions, but they don’t seem to me to hit anything unique to theistic evolution.
So I’ve been thinking about this off and on, and when I was asked to give a talk at a symposium at the North American Paleontological Convention in Cincinnati this summer, I decided to speak on a device that I think helps to get people thinking about what (if anything) is unique about theistic evolution. The device is “theistic embryology” and I’d love to get some feedback on the basic premise. So here’s the title and abstract, and let’s see what people think.
Why is there no controversy surrounding theistic embryology? Dissecting critical responses to theistic evolution.
Those who simultaneously express Christian belief and affirm evolutionary theory are said to espouse a position called “theistic evolution.” The view holds the peculiar distinction of being reviled by both hard-line creationists (who call it “appeasement”) and prominent atheist commentators (who deride it as fallacious). I argue that these critics typically fail to articulate objections that are specific to the view. Most creationist critics of theistic evolution object to one or both of these characteristics of the view: 1) its reliance on naturalistic explanation, a feature common to all scientific theorizing; or 2) its embrace of “random” causal events, a feature common to myriad scientific explanations. Most atheist critics of theistic evolution object to its openness to supernatural explanation, a feature of religious belief in general. Such criticisms, valid or not, fail to address anything specific to theistic evolution. In other words, attacks on theistic evolution are usually attacks on theism or attacks on evolution, but rarely represent specific criticisms of the theistic evolution position. To better understand the controversy surrounding theistic evolution, I propose that critiques of the position be considered in light of a lesser-known position we may (with tongue in cheek) call “theistic embryology.” Theistic embryology describes the thinking of those who simultaneously express Christian belief and affirm basic theories in human developmental biology. Although the logic is indistinguishable from that of theistic evolution, the view is uncontroversial and the term “theistic embryology” is practically non-existent. I suggest that critiques of theistic evolution be subjected to the “theistic embryology test.” Most critiques that claim to identify weaknesses in theistic evolution make arguments that are equally damaging to “theistic embryology” and so fail the test. Critiques that fail this whimsical test are likely to be arguments against belief, or against naturalistic explanation, and should be considered as such.
Clever!
That’s brilliant, I love it.
Why do you think arguments against theistic evolution need to be so specific?
I assume theistic evolution refers to the belief that even though evolution appears to proceed by natural mechanisms, God sometimes intervenes in undetectable ways to achieve an outcome that He desires.* My objection to that belief is that it’s not supported by evidence. Undetectable supernatural intervention doesn’t truly explain anything more successfully than standard materialistic evolution, nor does it predict anything different. That doesn’t prove it’s wrong, of course, but it does make it scientifically superfluous.
By analogy, I assume theistic embryology would be the belief that embryos appear to develop according to natural mechanisms, but that God actually intervenes in development in undetectable ways. If so, I’d object to that belief for exactly the same reasons.
Why would that objection “fail the test?” It’s a legitimate objection to theistic evolution (IMO); the fact that it’s also a legitimate objection to theistic embryology doesn’t change that.
*Mere belief in both God and evolution isn’t necessarily theistic evolution, is it?
qetzal:
Mere belief in both God and evolution isn’t necessarily theistic evolution, is it?
Stephen seems to be arguing that’s exactly what it is, and for what it’s worth, I tend to agree.
If it helps, think of “theistic evolution” as an umbrella term which might include everything from “God just set it in motion and sat back” to “Intelligent Design with common descent”.
Pseudonym,
In that case, theistic evolution is too vaguely defined for any specific argument.
Stephen’s abstract asks for criticisms “specific to theistic evolution” as opposed to simply “attacks on theism or attacks on evolution.” Theistic evolution has to mean something more definite than simple simultaneous belief in both God and evolution. Otherwise, Stephen’s question would be pointless.
qetzal, your argument fails the test spectacularly, and is illustrative of my essential point: an argument that attacks theistic evolution but also hits theistic embryology is not a specific argument against theistic evolution. Your argument is a common one: theism isn’t doing any explanatory work, so it’s superfluous. That argument hits every area of naturalistic explanation, and is clearly not a specific criticism of theistic evolution.
I don’t aim to discredit that argument or any other argument with the TE test. What I mean to do is get people to see that most attacks on theistic evolution are nothing more than objections to the embracing of naturalistic explanation by people of faith. Go ahead and make that objection, but don’t pretend that it’s specific to theistic evolution.
The question is not at all pointless, though. Let’s take the most basic form of TE, which is a little more than “simple simultaneous belief in both God and evolution.” I take TE to be simple simultaneous Christian belief and acceptance of evolutionary explanations. Now, are there specific criticisms of that position? I think there are. One place to look for particular problems with TE is in the historical narrative that is common to nearly every form of Christian belief, a narrative that includes creation and fall. Evolutionary explanation necessarily includes a historical narrative of descent with modification and seems to have no place for the kind of punctuational change that historic Christian accounts of the fall seem to postulate.
It seems that you and others believe that TE entails “intervention” by God. For various reasons, I don’t think that Christian belief entails “intervention” outside of explicitly defined miracles, but let’s grant it to be a part of TE for the sake of argument, then see if objections to an “interventionist” God are specific objections to TE. I would argue that they clearly are not. They’re just objections to the notion of supernatural “intervention,” for which one might claim there is no evidence past or present. That may or may not be true, but it’s just not specific to TE.
Finally, I would argue that the objection to supernatural “intervention” during ~ 4 billion years of biological evolution, based on “lack of evidence,” is about the weakest attack on supernaturalism that I can imagine. I happen to believe that life can be accounted for naturally, and that the natural/supernatural distinction should be unimportant to believers. But I don’t see how you can seriously argue against belief in intervention or guidance in a story of such stupendous complexity and temporal immensity. If you think it’s lame to hide God’s hand behind that complexity and immensity, then I’m with you. But it seems a bit premature to me to claim that the evolutionary story lacks “evidence” of intervention, at least until you make it clear what you’re looking for.
Stephen,
I agree that my objections to TE aren’t specific to TE. What I don’t see is why you think a lack of specificity matters.
I assume TE involves intervention by God simply because that’s how I’ve generally seen others use the term, including self-described believers in TE. Many of them seem to see TE as a way to ‘believe in’ the science of evolution while retaining their belief that God took an active role in human creation.
You seem to be describing something more specific; perhaps we could call it Christianic evolution (CE). Under that definition, I agree one can identify specific criticisms such as the disparity between the fossil record and the biblical creation narratives that you note.
But I’m perplexed that you offer that as a specific criticism of TE (or CE), yet you suggest that Christian belief doesn’t entail God’s intervention in evolution. The same creation narratives explicity describe multiple distinct acts by God to create multiple different groups of organisms (including humans). Obviously, one can get around such issues by interpreting Genesis more metaphorically, but one can do the same regarding the apparent temporal conflicts.
Finally, I agree that lack of evidence is a weak argument against supernaturalism. It’s not my intention to argue “There is no God” based on lack of evidence. Nor am I arguing that lack of evidence proves there was no supernatural intervention during evolution. I’m only arguing that the current lack of evidence means there’s no current reason to assume intervention occurred. Certainly not from a scientific perspective, anyway.
Hi qetzal,
We agree on a lot, so don’t infer from my mostly critical responses that I’m annoyed or hostile.
First, to why I think these distinctions are important. I think I should make a post out of that. Briefly, 1) I’m concerned that evolution is being misused in a religious debate (and that this is damaging in various ways), 2) I’m keen to have skeptics be clear about their criticism of belief rather than obscuring it (intentionally or not) behind debates about evolution; and most importantly 3) I’m hell-bent on exposing and eliminating the erroneous tendency among modern Christians to separate that which is natural from that which is God’s. But let’s take those things up separately.
I use scare quotes around “intervention” because I think it’s a loaded and misleading term. It forces a distinction between an intrusive redirection-type interaction (“intervention”) and what Christians have always called providence. Whether and when God “intervenes” is simply not relevant to whether and when he supervises/oversees/empowers. So I and many other Christians see the emphasis on “intervention” as an impoverished view of God’s action and of his role as the Creator. Christian belief, in fact, doesn’t entail any specific amount of “intervention” in any aspect of the natural world. What it does entail is sovereignty (on God’s part) and complete dependence (on the creation’s part). It’s interesting that you refer (correctly) to the notion of God’s playing an “active role” in creation, apparently assuming that this entails “intervention.” I understand the confusion, but I hope you can see why I reject this assumption completely. To do otherwise is to grant that natural phenomena are outside God’s sovereignty, a ludicrous doctrine if there ever was one.
Again, the comparison with theistic embryology (notably, an utterly uncontroversial position) illustrates the shallowness of the “intervention” concern. If Christians are comfortable with a model of human embryology that is completely (or almost completely) composed of natural explanations, then why do the rules suddenly change when evolution is the subject? Ditto for skeptical scoffers: why is theistic evolution a target of criticism when it need only mean belief + explanation? Those who think that belief + explanation = nonsense should just come out with it, and stop abusing evolution in the process.
That’s my point.
Stephen,
Thanks for the further explanation. FWIW, I didn’t think you were acting annoyed or hostile, I was only trying to understand what point you were making.
If I understand you correctly, you consider that everything is “directed” or “caused” by God, including those things that are fully consistent with so-called natural causes. In that case, sure, I can see why there’s no need for God’s specific intervention in evolution. Rather, God “intervenes” in everything, because it’s all part of Him/His creation. I hope that’s a reasonable summary of your view?
I think your point #3 is the crux of where our understanding of TE has differed. I have mostly seen believers use TE as a sort of God-of-the-gaps device. They seem to think that God must have made some special intervention to ensure the appearance of humanity – i.e. that humans could not have evolved by purely naturalistic means, without divine intervention. TE seems to be their rationalization for how evolution can appear to be naturalistic, yet still require specific divine intervention.
At least, that’s been my understanding (misunderstanding?).
qetzal, I think you are probably right about the prevalence of god-of-the-gaps reasoning among Christians. And I’m sure there are TEs who feel the need to reserve (or require) room for intervention. I don’t see that as an essential (or even desirable) component of the TE view. If you have a look at the ASA General Statement on Creation you’ll find that TEs adopt various approaches to the understanding of God’s action in the world.
And to reply to a previous comment, I do prefer the term evolutionary creation, or EC, to TE. But as Cliff Martin points out in a comment at Quintessence of Dust, one ought not need to name a position that simply affirms belief and natural explanation. That’s another point of the theistic embryology ploy, and I hope Christians get it: there’s no such term as theistic embryology and we Christians should think about why that is.
Outstanding post, Steve. I think, too, that this undercuts Jerry Coyne’s arguments against accommodationism. In his mind, Ken Miller is as suspect as the entire Templeton Foundation, which is ludicrous.
[O]ne ought not need to name a position that simply affirms belief and natural explanation.
I agree. However, as I said earlier, I don’t think this is the sort of definition most people have in mind when they discuss/dispute TE.
For someone like me, who assumes that TE refers to ‘natural’ evolution plus some sort of additional (perhaps undetectable) interference by God, I’m not sure your theistic embryology analogy will be understood the way I think you intend.
After all, if one believes that God subtly directed evolution to ensure the appearance of humans, one could as easily believe that God also intervenes subtly to ensure the embryological development of humans. In fact, most Christians do believe that, do they not? What is ensoulment but an intervention by God during human development? So, even if Christians don’t use the term ‘theistic embryology,’ many do believe in a version of embryology that entails more than purely ‘natural’ development.
If your goal is to get Christians to question why they think God must have intervened in evolution, maybe a comparison to ‘theistic gravity’ would better suit your purpose?