Living With Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith, by Philip Kitcher
Oxford University Press, 2007
Pages: 166
In a slim book, Philip Kitcher explores the history of religious objections to Darwinism, and attempts to explain why evolution is a threat to religion. He succeeds on the first count, but his ramblings on the second part are cringingly poor.
Kitcher starts by explaining that objections to Darwin fall into three categories, which he labels Genesis creationism, novelty creationism, and anti-selectionism.
Genesis creationism, which holds the biblical account to be literally true, was “discarded, consigned to the large vault of dead science” by the 1830s. Kitcher points to the scientific evidence that doomed the literal interpretation of Genesis: geological evidence of an old earth, the implausibility of a global flood, and the ordering of fossils into strata showing different organisms at different stages in earth’s history.
By Darwin’s time, the scientific community generally accepted an old earth and a non-literal interpretation of Genesis. The main theory opposing evolution was novelty creationism, a concept that accepts “the ancient age of the earth but challenge[s] the relatedness of all living things and the power of natural selection, at least in the most important events in the history of life.” Novelty creationism allows for evolution on some scale, but states that the major transitions are miraculous acts of creation by God. Where evolution posits that all living things are related and belong to a single tree of life, novelty creation suggests that there are many independent trees of life, each created by God.
Novelty Creation and the Rise of Darwin
In the mid 1800s, one of the biggest proponents of novelty creation was Charles Lyell. In 1859 Darwin published his seminal work Origin of Species, which offered an explanation for evolution that rejected novelty creationism and showed how random mutation and natural selection could account for the creation of new species. The superiority of Darwinism over novelty creationism quickly became evident, and–as Kitcher points out–even Lyell “appreciated the point.”
As Lyell saw so clearly, once you admit that there have been different types of organisms on the earth at different historical stages, there are just two possibilities. Either the new ones come from the older ones, or the new ones spring from a new creative act. Darwin’s long argument showed the Lyell had picked the wrong option. Recognizing a single tree of life can account for innumerable details of the organic word that Creationism can only regard as the whimsy of Intelligence–and Lyell himself appreciated the point. With the explosion of detail in the century and a half since, coupled with the continued explanatory bankruptcy of the creationist program, intellectual honesty requires that one follow Lyell’s honorable lead.
Reacting to Darwin: Anti-Selectionism
The third kind of objection to Darwinism is anti-selectionism. Unlike novelty creation, anti-selectionism does not challenge the relatedness of species or deny the one tree of life. Instead, anti-selectionism denies that natural selection is capable of producing new species. One form of anti-selectionism is typified in Michael Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box. He points to what he calls irreducibly complex systems, such as the flagella of bacteria. The flagellum is made up of so many interacting parts that it could not possibly have arisen by chance: any part of the system would be useless–and even harmful–on its own, so natural selection would weed out those mutations. The only way a flagellum could evolve would be for it to appear out of whole cloth, complete in every detail. The chances of such a mutation arising by random chance are so small as to be impossible, even if one accepts an earth that is billions of years old. The fact that flagella (and other irreducibly complex systems) exist is evidence that evolution is guided by an Intelligence, not by random chance.
Anti-selectionism is more difficult for Kitcher to discard to the “vault of dead science,” but he spends forty pages detailing the problems with anti-selectionism. Basically, it boils down to this: anti-selectionism uses baseless assumptions about probability that do not reflect reality. Scientists who have studied mutation rates have come up with numbers that suggest the timescale of evolution on Earth is sufficient to allow the development of species purely through the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection.
Evolution and the Threat to Religion
Kitcher spends the final chapter offering a muddled explanation of why evolution is such a threat to religion. He describes traditional Christianity as a providentialist religion–one that recognizes a Creator who “cares for his creatures, who observes the fall of every sparrow and who is especially concerned with humanity.” Evolution is incompatible with this view of a loving God, Kitcher claims, because evolution cannot operate without pain and suffering. What happens if we believe in a providential God and in evolution?
The general inefficiency of the processes [of evolution], the extreme length of time, the haphazard sequence of environments, the undirected variations, the cruel competition through which selection so frequently works, is all foreseen. And the individual nastiness to which Darwin points are expected outcomes of deploying these sorts of processes. If we search the creation for clues to the character of the Creator, a judgment of whimsy is a relatively kind one. For we easily may take life as it has been generated on our planet as the handiwork of a bungling, or chillingly indifferent, god.
…
[A] just Creator cannot consign vast numbers of its creatures to pain and suffering because this will promote some broader good. Divine justice requires that the animals who suffer are compensated, that the suffering isn’t simply instrumental to the wonders of creation but redeemed for them.
Kitcher suggests that the only way to reconcile religion with the facts of evolution is to reject providentialism and adopt a view he calls spiritualist religion.
Spiritual Christians abandon almost all the standard stories about the life of Jesus. They give up on the extraordinary birth, the miracles, the literal resurrection. What survive are the teachings, the precepts and parables, and the eventual journey to Jerusalem and the culminating moment of the Crucifixion. That moment of suffering and sacrifice is seen, not as the prelude to some triumphant return and the promise of eternal salvation–all that, to repeat, is literally false–but as a symbolic presentation of the importance of compassion and of live without limits. We are to recognize our own predicament, the human predicament, through the lens of the man on the cross.
Kitcher realizes that spiritual Christianity is vulnerable to criticism–after all, he’s thrown out the authority of scripture, so his religion is based on nothing but whims–but is unable to offer any real defense. What Kitcher proposes is nothing more than a complete rejection of biblical Christianity; he picks and chooses the scriptures he likes, and assembles meaningless mishmash. And he does this for no good reason: just because Kitcher is personally unable to reconcile the problem of pain with a providential God does not mean it cannot be done. Pain has been the subject of religious debate for the entire history of Christianity, and Kitcher’s summary rejection of a providential God based on the problem of pain is a testament to his lack of scholarship.
Living With Darwin offers a nice treatment of the history of objections to Darwinism, but it is marred by Kitcher’s superficial and trite philosophy.
So, he doesn’t address theistic evolution?
What is Kitcher’s background? Does he have a particular religious background to react against?
He apparently feels there is no future of faith, that eventually the world will be enlightened enough to catch up with his naturalistic, scientific world view where faith is not required for anything. Is that a fair assessment?
No, Kitcher doesn’t address theistic evolution. He’s writing specifically in reaction to the Intelligent Design (ID) movement in America. Theistic evolution states that Darwinian evolution and religion are compatible. ID rejects that idea.
As for Kitcher’s background, he mentions that he was raised in a Christian home but that he rejected Christianity fairly early (by high school age, I think.) Kitcher describes himself as a secular humanist.
Kitcher thinks the future of faith is a more spiritualist form of religion, one that rejects the literal truth of holy texts. He does think that anyone who is truthful will admit that the biblical canon is riddled with errors and has no authority. The only intellectually honest options are to reject religion entirely–which Kitcher recognizes is impossible because most people need the emotional security–or to embrace a spiritualist religion that does not require any literal truth.
It just seems to me that in a book like that he would have to address theistic evolution. It is a position that a fair number of people take, and it contests his idea that evolution incompatible with Christianity.
I agree with you. But Kitcher seems insistent that evolution is incompatible with traditional forms of Christianity.
Yes:
“evolution is incompatible with traditional forms of Christianity.”
Either evolution is true or God’s word is true:
As we are told in the Ten Commandments:
Exodus 20:11
“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth,
the sea, and all that is in them,…”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=20&version=31&context=chapter
God was there, God does not lie. I’ll believe God.
Exactly, JoeU. I’ll also believe God about the Flood. Gotta love how Man has set his own understanding as the ultimate god. We live in an era where Darwinism is god and science is the religion, and if you doubt Darwin then you are a heretic.
JoeU, I think the point Jasen was trying to make is that millions of Christians do believe in traditional Christianity–they believe Jesus is the Son of God, that he lived a sinless life and died on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins, etc.–but take the Genesis creation account as at least partly poetic.
Now of course it’s debatable whether or not a poetic interpretation is the most reasonable interpretation of Genesis. But the point is that millions of believers do not see an inherent incompatibility between evolution and Christianity. So Kitcher’s whole argument–that the future of religion is a form of spiritual Christianity which rejects the Bible as the inspired word of God–is baseless.
Kenneth,
I was not quoting Genesis, I was quoting the Ten Commandments of God as recorded in Exodus:
Exodus 20: 1,11
The Ten Commandments
1 And God spoke all these words:
. . .
11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth,
the sea, and all that is in them, …”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=20&version=31&context=chapter
God used His words to create:
Psalm 33:6
By the word of the LORD were the heavens made,
their starry host by the breath of his mouth.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=33&verse=6&version=31&context=verse
It seems that a certain number of people are once again questioning God’s word, and listening to the serpent:
Genesis 3:1
[ The Fall of Man ]
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, . . . ”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=3&version=31&context=chapter
Further on in the Bible,
God tells us:
Isaiah 45:12
It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it.
My own hands stretched out the heavens;
I marshaled their starry hosts
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=45&verse=12&version=31&context=verse
It is not only in Genesis, Psalms, Isaiah, etc. that God tells us when and how he created, … but throughout the Bible.
Since it is to God we have to give an account:
Romans 14:12
So then,
each of us will give an account of himself to God.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=14&verse=12&version=31&context=verse
When I give an account, I won’t be telling God:
“I thought You were just recording a bunch of poetry”
God is telling us the truth:
Titus 1:2
God, … does not lie, ”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=63&chapter=1&verse=2&version=31&context=verse
Once again:
Yes:
“evolution is incompatible with traditional forms of Christianity.”
An ever growing number of people are seeing that evolution is false, and that Christianity and the Bible are compatible with Creation Science:
See: Creation scientists and other biographies of interest
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
I trust God to tell us the truth.
JosephU said: When I give an account, I won’t be telling God: “I thought You were just recording a bunch of poetry”
I very much agree. We must accept the literal truth of Christ’s sacrifice. Otherwise our faith is meaningless. But on judgment day, nobody should be worrying about whether or not they believe in a literal six-day creation. The only critical thing at that point is whether you have accepted Jesus’s offer of salvation–not whether your doctrine is perfect.
In fact, the Scripture you quote is a great example of that. Romans 14:12 says: “So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.” The context of that verse is about doctrinal disagreements. The chapter begins by saying: “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.” (In context, the weak-faith people were the ones committed to a too-literal interpretation of the Scriptures, specifically in the dietary requirements of Jewish law.) So when it comes to a literal six-day creation, I’m not worried one way or the other. It isn’t essential to a traditional (i.e., what Kitcher calls a providentialist) view of Christianity. And that’s why I believe Kitcher’s book to be flawed, because he assumes that it is a fundamental part of Christianity, which, if removed, will cause the whole edifice of faith to come crumbling down.
If you want to argue that accepting a non-literal interpretation of the creation account is a slippery slope to rejecting the authority of the whole Bible, then we can have that discussion. Kitcher skips that whole discussion and presumes that rejecting a literal six-day creation will inevitably lead to a rejection of Christianity.
Actually, Darius, to be nitpicky, Darwinism is in fact NOT god, even to modern evolutionists. Darwin is considered the father of evolutionary theory, but his theories are actually no longer ascribed to in the fury that he is constantly attacked by most Christians. Much like Copernican and Archimedes are considered part of the scientific method father-figures, so is Darwin. The theory now has stretched and grown way beyond his observations in an Ecuadorian archipelago.
I know, I’m being picky, but far too often the Christian opponents of evolution write books “discounting” 30 year old ideas, using 5th grade science books as templates for their righteous indignations. Because of this, the parents/children that read them and quote them to their teachers are laughed at. Ask me how I know, as I was one of those kids.
Great review, Kenneth. Very well researched.
You wrote in a comment:
It isn’t essential to a traditional (i.e., what Kitcher calls a providentialist) view of Christianity. And that’s why I believe Kitcher’s book to be flawed, because he assumes that it is a fundamental part of Christianity, which, if removed, will cause the whole edifice of faith to come crumbling down.
You took the words right out of my mouth. He apparently ignores the large part of Christians who don’t ascribe to the “7,000 years old of earth or younger, or you are going to HELL” crowd, which was preached at me by a pseudo-scientist at a youth group meeting once. Believing that determining the age of the earth is an impossible task (like me) does not make my faith invalid. I really appreciate you for pointing out that major flaw in Kitcher’s book.
Well said, Jew. Nice book review as well.
JoeU: You said, “God was there, God does not lie. I’ll believe God.” Read First Kings 22. God lies.
Darius: You said, “Gotta love how Man has set his own understanding as the ultimate god.” That’s just not a fair statement. God created us with human understanding, which, frustratingly, is substantially less than his own. Why did he do that? I don’t know…maybe because he wants us to think like humans. Maybe—just maybe—he wants us to wrestle with varying witnesses and pieces of evidence and try to reach some kind of conclusion. But because we don’t have God’s understanding, we cannot look through any other lens other than that of our own perspective. This is in no way synonymous with setting our own understanding as the ultimate god. Admittedly, far too many people do this. But to imply that arriving at a conclusion other than a literal interpretation of the Bible is setting up an alternate god is both arrogant and intellectually dishonest.
“Maybe—just maybe—he wants us to wrestle with varying witnesses and pieces of evidence and try to reach some kind of conclusion. But because we don’t have God’s understanding, we cannot look through any other lens other than that of our own perspective.”
Are all of life’s questions answered by pieces of evidence? Have we not the lens of faith?
Some may say that it is lame to use faith as a crutch whenever we can’t logically understand, but somehow it was God’s idea to make faith part of the picture.
Great point, Thainamu.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at, Thainamu. Faith must be based on evidence. We can’t just believe things for no reason.
A.W. Tozer: “I do not recall another period when “faith” was as popular as it is today. If only we believe hard enough we’ll make it somehow. So goes the popular chant. What you believe is not important. Only believe… What is overlooked in all this is that faith is good only when it engages truth; when it is made to rest upon falsehood it can and often does lead to eternal tragedy. For it is not enough that we believe; we must believe the right thing about the right One.”
That’s not to say we need to prove everything beyond mathematical doubt in order to believe. That kind of proof is impossible. But we do need evidence upon which to base our beliefs. When there is room for differing interpretations of Scripture, that is acceptable (according to Romans 14.)
What some seem to forget (or ignore) is that man’s “wisdom” is finite. So one should be very loath to prop up our own knowledge above that which God has said in his Word. Personally, I believe that Christians should believe that God LIKELY created the world exactly as He said in Genesis, but it is possible that there is some symbolism or what not in the account. In other words, err on the side of faith, not human reasoning (since we are flawed).
OK, I can understand that point of view, Darius. As long as we’re not getting into the realm of “God created the world exactly as he said in the Bible, and then he made it appear billions of years old as a trap to test our faith.” I’ve heard that before, and it is absurd. I have a hard time taking it on blind faith that God created a whole universe filled with false evidence to trip up weak believers. If the Genesis creation account is literally true, then the physical evidence in the universe will be consistent with that form of creation.
“Personally, I believe that Christians should believe that God LIKELY created the world exactly as He said in Genesis, but it is possible that there is some symbolism or what not in the account.”
One thing about Genesis is that it is very hard to classify. It has some of the markings of an historical narrative, yet it has some of the prophetic symbolism also; some of the same prophetic symbols are in the book of Revelation - the tree of life, for instance.
I believe the Genesis creation story to be a literal account, but I think the confusion comes when we attempt to interpret the story within the confines of our current corrupted world. What I mean is that prior to the Fall, things were obviously much different. So if we ask the question of whether the creation took place in seven literal days, we have only our own experience in the fallen world to imagine the concept of time in the world’s pristine state. It just doesn’t work. And because there is no way we can intellectually theorize what a world without sin was like, that cripples science’s ability to figure out the “Origin of Species” or how we have come to the place where we are now.
“I’m not sure what you’re getting at, Thainamu. Faith must be based on evidence. We can’t just believe things for no reason.”
I was responding to Hungry’s assertion that “we cannot look through any other lens other than that of our own perspective.” Our own perspective is gained by looking at the evidence with our own intelligence and our own logical abilities, coming to our own conclusions. I interpreted Hungry’s comment to exclude the lens of faith and that is what I was objecting to.
I think there is a problem, a temptation, for highly intelligent people to do just as you say, “need to prove everything beyond mathematical doubt in order to believe.” (Look how many brilliant scientists are godless and faithless.) If one were to be able to do just that, no faith would be needed because we would have mathematical proof instead. Faith is not logical–otherwise, it wouldn’t be called faith. My point isn’t that you don’t need evidence on which to base our beliefs, but rather that the level of evidence is not so high as to make faith unnecessary.
Back to the topic of Darwin: I grew up with the “believe in a literal 6-day creation or you’re going to hell” crowd. My current stand is I don’t know exactly how long creation took, but I do believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. I can’t help but see God’s creative and intelligent hand in nature. And I’ve lived long enough to know that in my lifetime science has changed its mind on a number of things, and that trend is likely to continue. That’s not to say that if I live to be two hundred scientists will all become Christians–it is just to say that science is always changing its mind about “truth.”
Ken, I think that 6-day creation is (or can be) separated from old-earth/young-earth discussions. After all, Genesis implies that the earth (or some matter) was already there when God started Creation.
“Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”
“was” can also be interpreted as “became.” Either way, leaves plenty of room to believe that the earth (or the material that the earth would come to be made of) had been created some amount of time before the Genesis account.
At the same time, our methods of testing age aren’t exactly without flaws (carbon dating, etc.). Furthermore, most testing is done with the secular ASSUMPTION that the world is old. All that to say, I don’t see much fruit in getting worked up about the age of the earth.
As for the origins of man… Biblical accounts aside, in my opinion, macro evolution is a very weak theory, one which has limited evidence for it. Evolution was man’s way of removing God from the process. Christians have modified evolution much like they’ve modified many other pagan ideas and “Christianized” them, in this case taking on the term Theistic Evolution. Never mind that evolution as an idea is mostly without merit.
“it is just to say that science is always changing its mind about “truth.”
Take the recent global warm-mongering as an example. First we’re cooling, now we’re heating up. MAKE UP YOUR MINDS!
Thainamu: I’m not sure what you mean by “lens of faith,” but I’ll try to clarify what I mean. I’m convinced that everyone has faith. The difference is where they place it. Yann Martel says it nicely in his book, Life of Pi: “It was my first clue that atheists are my brothers and sisters of a different faith, and every word they speak speaks of faith. Like me, they go as far as the legs of reason will carry them—and then they leap.”
Faith isn’t a separate lens. It’s a significant part of our life experience which shapes and colors our lens. I didn’t mean to imply our lens is only influenced by pieces of evidence and rational thought; that was poorly worded on my part. But I would hope that reason affects what we put our faith in.
In my personal journey, I have found that reason confirms much of the Bible’s claims. The overwhelming complexity of life points to a Creator. From there, I find it reasonable that we are made in his image. I find it reasonable that he would want to reveal himself to us. I find it reasonable that God desires relationship with us. I find it reasonable that he doesn’t want us to kill or injure or oppress each other. I find it reasonable that the only way to change the world is through self sacrifice and service. The list goes on. Certainly, I can’t prove any of it, if I’m wrong, as the apostle Paul argues in First Corinthians, I along with every other believer am to be pitied more than anyone else. It is a risk I’m willing to take.
But I don’t find all orthodox conservative Christianity to be reasonable. Among the things I have a problem with is the idea that God would write a creation account that is in conflict with so much of what the human race has discovered.
I’m probably going to hell.
Darius said: Ken, I think that 6-day creation is (or can be) separated from old-earth/young-earth discussions. After all, Genesis implies that the earth (or some matter) was already there when God started Creation.
That’s a good point. I tend to lump the two together in my mind, but they are orthogonal concepts.
Hungry said, “But I don’t find all orthodox conservative Christianity to be reasonable.”
There’s plenty in orthodox conservative Christianity that I don’t find to be reasonable either: the virgin birth, Christ’s sacrifice, Christ’s resurrection, the forgiveness of sins, etc. None of those things are a bit reasonable, but they are the core of things we accept by grace with faith to become believers. And that’s what I mean about reason and logic only going so far–the essence of Christianity is not natural, but is supernatural and therefore must be accepted on faith.
“I find it reasonable that the only way to change the world is through self sacrifice and service.”
Our self sacrifice is never selfless enough and our service is never pure enough. It is a wonder that any good comes of our pathetic efforts. God’s supernatural work in and through us is the only explanation.
“I’m probably going to hell.”
I hope not.
Thainamu said: “There’s plenty in orthodox conservative Christianity that I don’t find to be reasonable either: the virgin birth, Christ’s sacrifice, Christ’s resurrection, the forgiveness of sins, etc. None of those things are a bit reasonable”
They seem quite reasonable to me. Reasonableness and supernaturalness aren’t mutually exclusive concepts.
I think your definitions of “reasonable” are different. Does the virgin birth actually seem reasonable other than to someone who already has FAITH that God exists?
And not just that God exists, but that he would care about us pathetic creatures enough to do something astounding about it.
I don’t find the idea of a providential God to be unreasonable. If I created a universe I can easily imagine that I might care about my creatures. I don’t understand those who struggle to understand why God would care about mankind. He created us, after all. It doesn’t take any big leap of faith to believe he cares for us.
“They seem quite reasonable to me. Reasonableness and supernaturalness aren’t mutually exclusive concepts…I don’t find the idea of a providential God to be unreasonable. If I created a universe I can easily imagine that I might care about my creatures.” Well said, Kenneth Martens. From my point of view, the evidence in favor of a loving Creator is overwhelming. From that base, which I have supreme confidence, so much of Christianity makes sense, including the things you mentioned, Thainamu. If you like, I’ll map out my thoughts on why they make sense to me.
“It is a wonder that any good comes of our pathetic efforts.” I couldn’t disagree with this statement more. We are created in the image of God, to be good and to do good things. We are redeemed. These concepts abound in the Bible; I don’t understand how we manage to miss them so often. Furthermore, in my experience, God does a vast majority of his work through people. He seems to prefer a partnership with humanity over micromanaging everything; else why would there be so much crap in the world? And finally, I’ve seen plenty of instances where people who have no interest in God and don’t think of Jesus as any more than an ancient philosopher bring much healing to a wounded world. Our efforts are limited and flawed, but they aren’t pathetic.
“I hope not.” Me too.
Kenneth said, “I don’t find the idea of a providential God to be unreasonable. If I created a universe I can easily imagine that I might care about my creatures. I don’t understand those who struggle to understand why God would care about mankind. He created us, after all. It doesn’t take any big leap of faith to believe he cares for us.”
I too agree that it would make enough sense for a creator to care about the things he created. What doesn’t make sense is the outlandish way went about doing so: allowing us to sin, allowing us to hate him, sending his most beloved son to earth so we could hate him too, letting him die in a humiliating fashion, bringing him back to life again, and then letting us reject him some more. None of that is reasonable in the least. The only reasonable thing for God to do is called universalism. If I were making the rules we’d all be saved and live happily ever after. But I don’t make the rules. Universalism is not what scripture teaches.
Hungry said, ” ‘It is a wonder that any good comes of our pathetic efforts.’ I couldn’t disagree with this statement more.”
That might be because you haven’t lived long enough. I don’t mean to be rude when I say that, it is just that it is my experience (and I think there is biblical evidence of this also) that sin is ever a threat in even those most devoted to God.
“We are created in the image of God, to be good and to do good things. We are redeemed.”
Man was created in God’s image, to be sure. But when sin came into the picture, the pretty picture got ugly. We are redeemed if we accept God’s offer of forgiveness; not everyone does. The good works of the unredeemed, though they look nice to us, are filthy rags to God.
Thainamu: I had so much to say in response that I wrote an article on the subject. I don’t know when it will be up.