Many of life’s questions demand answers, and one could spend a lifetime seeking them. Some such questions require answers that are exceedingly difficult to find and, once found, even more difficult to substantiate. The toughest of these questions may very well be pertaining to the existence of God. While remaining unquestioned among the majority for centuries, the idea that a deity exists has since been an issue of regular debate, and so it continues with the writing of this paper.
The following paragraphs seek to address the question: Has evolutionary theory demonstrated that the so-called proofs for God’s existence are misguided?
Positions
In the debate over God’s existence, there are only two positions. On one side, there are those who have a theistic worldview and on the other side, there are those who have an atheistic worldview. The term “worldview” is important to this discussion, as you will later see. According to author and philosophy professor David Naugle, a person’s worldview is their “interpretation of reality” and their “basic view of life” (Naugle 2002, 260). Hence, a person with a theistic worldview philosophically presupposes that God exists, while a person with an atheistic worldview philosophically presupposes that God does not exist.
Evolutionary theory originates from the atheistic worldview. To make the argument that there is no God; atheists must find convincing alternatives to the traditional theistic positions concerning such topics as the origin of life and the nature of man. Holding to the presupposition that God does not exist, those with an atheistic worldview have traditionally turned to scientific materialism for the empirical evidence to support their position. Huston Smith says: “[Darwinism] is supported more by atheistic philosophical assumptions than by scientific evidence” (Pearcey 2005, 153). Evolutionary theory offers something with which an atheist can work.
Most people relate evolution to the research of naturalist Charles Darwin. Rightfully so, it was his philosophical position and his theory of “natural selection” that brought evolution to the forefront of the debate over God’s existence. Natural selection, as Darwin defines it, is the “principle by which each slight variation [of a trait], if useful, is preserved” (Darwin 1859, 162). Darwin’s idea of natural selection provided the theory of evolution with a plausible mechanism through which it could account for atheistic theories such as a naturalistic origin of life. Stephen Jay Gould suggests that the power of natural selection lies in its ability to “dethrone some of the deepest and most traditional comforts of Western thought” (Gould 1998). In other words, it challenges the comfort we find in a benevolent creator.
Darwin neither was the first nor was he the last scientist to hold to the idea of evolution. Separating the common understanding of evolution from Darwin’s theories would be difficult. Today, scientists who hold to an atheistic worldview are trying to do just that. To understand the idea of evolution used in today’s debate, let us look at the definition provided by biologist and evolution proponent Douglas Futuyma. “In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve.” Futuyma argues that evolution is all-pervasive, and so it seems. Defined simply as “change,” it is difficult to see it as anything but pervasive. However, Futuyma’s definition is not that simple. He goes on to say:
[Biological evolution] is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions (Futuyma 1986)
The last sentence in this quotation specifies exactly what change Futuyma is referencing. Futuyma tells us that biological evolution refers to “successive” changes that lead “from the earliest protoorganism” to all living things. Hidden behind the idea of simple change is the idea of people (and every other form of life) developing from a single indefinable organism.
It is this theory of evolution that allows scientists to hypothesize an alternative to the biblical account of creation. As is evident in Futuyma’s definition, evolutionists believe that life, and indeed all that exists, evolved naturally from simple organisms. If this theory proves to be true, those with an atheistic worldview have reason to question God’s existence.
To address the question of evolution’s effects on the “proofs” of God’s existence we should also define exactly what “proofs” are in question. The “traditional arguments” for God’s existence are the teleological, the cosmological, the ontological, and the moral arguments (Grudem 1994, 143).
The teleological argument suggests that the world is “too complex and well ordered to have been produced by chance or random change.” Accepting this argument requires that one also accept that a creator must exist to account for such organized complexity. The same argument of complexity and order suggests that all things have a purpose.
The law of causality, or the law of cause and effect, underpins the cosmological argument. It suggests that all of the movement in this world requires an originating cause. The ultimate originating “cause” of all other “effects” must be “unmoved” or unaffected by any other cause. From this theory, it is logical to deduce that this unmoved cause of all things is God.
St. Anselm originally conceived the ontological argument. Anselm suggests that we cannot conceive of anything greater than God. If this is true, and He did not exist, our concept of God would be greater than He actually is. Because we can conceive God as such, He must therefore exist as such (Anselm 1965, anselm-proslogium.html).
The moral argument suggests that God exists because human beings have inherent moral codes. Everyone has a “sense of right and wrong, and for the need for justice to be done” (Grudem 1994, 143). While this is not always our pervasive behavior, it is true that most, if not all, people share a common sense of what is right and wrong. The moral argument credits God as the source of this moral code.
While many other arguments, both philosophical and scientific, offer evidence of God’s existence, this paper will focus on the consequence of evolution on these four “traditional arguments” (Grudem 1994, 143).
Position and Support
With an overview of evolution and four of the existence proofs, the question remains. Has evolutionary theory demonstrated that these so-called proofs for God’s existence are misguided? The answer is no. Let us look at how the evolutionary theory fares against each argument.
While the teleological argument claims the world is too complex to have originated “by chance or random change” (Aquinas 1996-97), evolutionary theory boasts exactly that. Darwin’s evolutionary theory claims that a simple organism evolved from inorganic matter and then continued to evolve (or change) into a multitude of complex organisms through the process of “natural selection.” In the theory of evolution, natural selection seeks to explain how the random process yielded progressive complexity and refinement rather than chaos (Darwin 1859, 162)
Not being a scientist, one will find it difficult to understand the barrage of empirical evidence offered up on either side of this debate. One thing that is obvious in recent publications is that the scientific community is making great efforts to separate the debate from Darwin’s earlier theories. Modern science easily challenges these original theories, known now to be erroneous. Darwin himself alluded to one of the most convicting errors. Darwin defines his theory as requiring “slight successive variations.” He goes on to say, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” (Darwin 1859, 162), and so it does. With today’s ability to view and study microbiology, Michael Behe points out many such “irreducibly complex” organisms undoubtedly exist (Behe 1996, 46).
Another aspect of the teleological argument is that the order and complexity of this world strongly suggests that all things that exist, do so to serve a purpose. The random events of evolution simply cannot account for purpose (Aquinas 1996-97).
The cosmological argument suggests that God existed prior to all things and therefore is the “unmovable first mover” or “first cause” of all things. Ample scientific evidence exists to argue that the universe has a clear point of origin, so there is little controversy there. So, for the universe to have been brought into existence it must have had some cause. To be expected, the people who hold to the cosmological argument suggest that this initial unmovable cause is God (Aristotle 2006, Arguments_for_Gods_Existence.pdf).
Faith is not absent from the scientific camp either. The evolutionists propose that scientific materialists hold to the “Big Bang Theory.” As a byproduct of the Evolutionary Theory, the Big Bang Theory seeks to offer an alternative to the Genesis creation account by suggesting that the universe was set into motion by a single large explosion. This idea is fully compatible with the idea of biological evolution, however it does not account for the origin of the “bang” itself. Admittedly, most theists do not attempt to account for the origin of God either; however, the “Big Bang Theory” is no more empirically conclusive than the book of Genesis (Singh 2004).
A “being which nothing greater-than can be conceived” is the foundation of the Ontological argument (Anselm 1965, anselm-proslogium.html). This argument proposes God’s existence based on the idea that God possesses all perfections and existence is perfection, therefore God must exist.
Evolutionary theory cannot address philosophical theories head on, so to address the Ontological argument, the atheists look to the methodologies rather than the theories. The scientific method suggests that only repeated observations can serve to verify or disprove a hypothesis. Holding to this principle, scientific observations cannot verify philosophical positions nor can they be used to disqualify them (Gauch 2003).
The Moral Argument suggests that objective morality exists therefore there must be a universal lawgiver. As an example, all civilizations consider the abuse and murder of innocent children to be immoral. Can we account for such moral consistencies without a common source of inborn ethics? Theists believe that God is this common source (Lewis 1952).
One evolutionary attempt at ethics comes from Herbert Spencer. Spencer developed an ethical system called Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism applies Darwin’s theory of natural selection to society and suggests that only the “fittest” should survive. In fact, Spencer holds to natural selection in such a way that he suggests that helping the poor would actually yield negative consequences for society. Social Darwinism does not answer why people often share a common sense of morality; in fact, it allows only the fittest to establish any sense of morality at all.
While many evolutionists today disregard Spencer’s idea of Social Darwinism, they do hold to some key tenets of evolution when it comes to determining their own ethical positions. Evolutionists claim that because humans share common origins with all other living things, we are neither better than nor different from any other living creature. At the same time, evolutionists also hold that human beings are set apart from the remaining world by their ability to reason. This ability to reason allows a society to replicate behavior such as kindness, honesty, and generosity. Society can replicate moral behavior to the next generation to some degree, but it can also replicate immoral behavior. With a foundation of natural selection, the later is much more likely. As such, evolution can easily account for moral decay but not moral consistency (Spencer 1857).
Objections
Many people automatically discount God’s existence because they believe to hold to a theistic worldview would require them to exercise faith. While this is true, people also fail to consider that scientific theories require just as much faith.
Evolution is one such scientific theory that requires an ample amount of faith. In his defense of evolution, Stephen Jay Gould attempts to explain that evolution is more than a theory; “It’s also a fact.” Gould explains, “Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them” (Gould 1994, 253-262). What are the facts of evolution? It is certainly not evolution itself. Evolution is only the theory comprised of the facts. The observable facts alone do not definitively dictate the theory of evolution. In addition, faith is required to believe that evolution successfully explains the facts. Gould goes on to say that a theory “generates falsifiable predictions which can be tested through controlled experiments and empirical observation.” This statement does not accurately depict the scientific approach to evolution. With evolution, scientists have not tested their theories with “controlled experiments and empirical observation,” but they have used “controlled experiments and empirical observation” coupled with their philosophical presuppositions to generate theories. Gould goes on to say, “A fact is obtained by a fairly direct observation.” Empirically observing the resulting theory of evolution is impossible must less “fairly direct.” Evolution is hard to justify as a scientific theory, must less a “fact” as Gould proposes (Gould 1994, 253-262).
A proper view of science, while relishing the wonder of what God has revealed to us through His creation, maintains the understanding that our empirical observations are limited and inconclusive. Tomorrow’s empirical discoveries will bring an entirely new world of understanding and may compromise what we believe to be true today.
A proper view of science also includes an understanding of its philosophical underpinnings. One should question the idea that science consists of unbiased empirical evidence. Harvard University Zoology Professor, Dr. Richard Lewontin, states his presupposition clearly.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated (Lewontin 1997, 31).
If this does not make his philosophical position clear, he goes on to say, “Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” (Lewontin 1997, 28). Obviously, Lewontin holds tighter to his philosophical position than he does his scientific integrity.
As expected, Stephen Jay Gould holds to a similar philosophical position. “Humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered” (Gould 1994, 253-262). With such blatant disregard for scientific principle, can we trust in the so-called evidence of science? Contrary to popular belief, evolution remains much more a philosophical position than it is a scientific one.
People also question God’s existence because of the presence of evil in the world. While evolutionary theory easily accounts for evil with its concepts of man (as being no more than an animal with the ability to reason), evil seemingly challenges God’s existence. If an omnipotent God exists, he would have the power to prevent evil. If an omnibenevolent God exists, he would be all-loving and not want people to suffer from evil. If God were not all loving and all-powerful, he would not be God. How do we account for an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God that allows evil to exist?
John Piper offers one of the most compelling answers. “The glory of God shines most brightly, most fully, most beautifully in the manifestation of the glory of his grace. Therefore, this is the ultimate aim and the final explanation of all things” (Piper 2005). How can we know the heights of God’s glory if we do not know the depth of man’s depravity? It is in the contrast of God’s glory with evil that we can see the vast discrepancy between God and man. It is then that we can truly acknowledge who God is. The best reflection of who God is took place in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which could not have taken place without the evil of the cross.
In closing, God’s existence does not rely on the concepts of any man, whether empirical or philosophical. It is a spiritual matter. In 1 Corinthians 2:14, Paul says: “a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (NASB). While science, logic, and philosophy can reveal knowledge of God, it is only when the Holy Spirit works in a person’s life that they can truly know that God exists through a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, His Son. Evolution has not, nor can it ever discount the real proofs of God’s existence. In fact, Darwin himself could not hold conclusively to an atheistic worldview. In The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, the author writes: “In later life, when asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally ‘an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind’” (Darwin, ed. 1905, 274). It seems that Darwin could ignore God, but even he could not deny God’s existence.
REFERENCE LIST
Anselm, St. 1965. Proslogion, in St. Anselm’s Proslogion. Oxford: OUP. Retrieved 10 October 2006, http://www.fordham.edu.
Aristotle. 2006. Metaphysics, 12.8, 1073a24-34. Retrieved 10 October 2006, http://www.josh.org.
Aquinas, Thomas. 1996-97. Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. New Advent Inc. Retrieved 10 October 2006, http://www.newadvent.org.
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: The Free Press.
Craig, W. L. 1985. Professor Mackie and the Kalām Cosmological Argument. Religious Studies, No. 20.
Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray.
Darwin, F. ed. 1905. The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. New York: D. Appleton & Co.
Denton, Michael. 1986. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler.
Futuyma, Douglas J. 1986. Evolutionary Biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
Gauch, Hugh G., Jr. Scientific Method in Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1994. “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” May 1981; from Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes, New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1997. Darwinian Fundamentalism, The New York Review of Books. Retrieved 10 October 2006 from http://www.nybooks.com.
Grudem, Wayne. 1994. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press.
Lewis, C. S. 1952. Mere Christianity. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Lewontin, Richard. 1997. “Billions and Billions of Demons,” New York Review of Books, (January).
Naugle, David K. 2002. Worldview: The History of a Concept. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Paley, William. 1800. Natural Theology, University Press, Oxford.
Pearcey, Nancy R. 2005. Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
Piper, John. 2005. The Suffering of Christ and the Sovereignty of God. Retrieved 10 October 2006, http://www.desiringgod.org.
Singh, Simon. 2004. Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe. New York: HarperCollins Publisher.
Spencer, Herbert. 1857. “Progress: Its Law and Causes”, The Westminster Review, Vol 67 (April).
No responses yet