Evolution vs. God #2

Response to Dawkins

I was disappointed at how little I disagreed with Dawkins. My first skimming thought that I’d write “rhetoric” under the first six paragraphs, but it isn’t really all that bad. I fear only that, because I agree with Dawkins on so many of his points, I don’t support the points that a non-scientist might find controversial. Basically everything I’ve left uncontested, though, is really solid. Generally, I find that the most difficult thing about talking with evolutionary biologists is that they get so defensive about being right about evolution that they just spout rhetoric and talking points. They won’t listen to a rational believer in God, and so it is very difficult to talk to them at all. And they are unyielding in insisting that their way must be accepted 100% or the opposing party be cast off. The problem is that they demand acceptance of something that resembles a bill in Congress – one core issue up for debate, and then a whole bunch of little pork projects on the side that cater to individual parties and often have little substance, usefulness, or relevance other than to the solely self-interested party. I wish it wasn’t this way, but, honestly, my experience has been that the vast majority (I would say 80% is a low estimate) of evolutionary biologists are extremely combative about this sort of thing. It is a shame, because with a little concession on their part, they could end the evolution in schools debate once and for all.

Before 1859 it would

I’m not sure evolution is the greatest show in the universe. But it’s a good one. And, I don’t know why God’s greatest work couldn’t be the creation of life, and why evolution couldn’t be the universe’s greatest work. I’m not sure that they’re mutually exclusive, although there are some boundary issues there to iron out if one wanted to make the argument black and white.

Indeed, evolution is probably

Aside from appealing to the hubris of man, this paragraph has little by way of content. Sure, most scientists believe life evolved somewhere out there, and that if it did it would probably be subject to natural selection. I fail to see the relevance to this context. Aside from saying evolution is great.

What is so special

Okay.

The laws of physics,

Evolution puts on a great show.

Never once are the

So, he actually isn’t correct. We don’t know anything certainly at all about how life was generated, and anyone who ever tries to tell you otherwise is: a) from the future; b) a shortsighted scientist who should publish the work and sit back ready for the Nobel Prize to be awarded; or c) someone who is spouting talking points and is more interested in sounding smart than in being right. Not even kidding we just don’t know how life got started, and I think it’s one reason that the evolutionary biologists (a group I consider myself a part of) that are so combative (~95% of evolutionary biologists, of which I do not consider myself a part) is because they aren’t safe on this point. Which is what gets them into trouble. We don’t know how life got started, and we would life to know.

What we are almost certain of is that once life got started, Darwinian evolution ruled the day. I am aware of no empirical evidence that is not consistent with the current theory of Darwinian evolution, which has not fundamentally changed since its inception by Darwin himself. Much more academic men have articulated some stunning insights, but fundamentally, it is just as Dawkins says, the nonrandom survival of randomly varying coded information.

A word about theories. One of the best ways to get a scientist to think you are not a clever person is to tell them, “Well, that’s just a theory. Don’t know that the word theory means you don’t know.” A short lesson in scientific inquiry: you don’t “prove” things in science. You only: a) disprove- ; or b) describe findings that are consistent with – a given hypothesis. For example, the “law of gravity” is not a standalone scientific law; it is a part of “Gravitational Theory”. One law of gravitational theory is the law of gravity. But if gravitational theory changed, the law of gravity could change along with it (or, other parts might change and that particular law would remain). The point is, theories are only things that people haven’t disproved yet. And when they do we’ll make new ones. If you have more questions about this, please contact me individually and we’ll discuss it more.

What if the greatest show

This is an interesting argument that I can’t entirely say I disagree with, aside from a few points. I am in no way aware of a definition of God that says, “must have created the universe.” Also, what if the God did create it after coming from a universe. The question of where it all began is not one that I have any idea where to begin, and I will discuss it no farther, other than to say, that for those two reasons, Dawkins does not mutually exclude his arguments from that of a possible God. Whether he’s right that it must necessarily emerge by gradual degrees from simpler beginnings. Given an infinitely large universe over an infinitely long amount of time with an infinitely large number of resources (those things might not be realistic things to give myself, but hey – I’m going for the gusto) I’m willing to say anything could have happened.

To midwife such emergence

First, yes, yes, yes. Second, if a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was to talk to Dawkins about God – a God, who we believe epitomizes among other things perfect obedience to law – he would by his definition above be obliged to acknowledge that our God is legitimate. Nice. I should build this into post #3, but I will say here that the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teach that we worship a being who is not magical, and that He never violates natural law.

Where does that leave

Actually, think about the scientist, who, in the lab, does what we believe God did: create life. Would that scientist, once he simulated the conditions to create life, and life was created, leave it at his bench, saying, “I’ve now created life. I have no reason to live anymore?” Dawkins just spent six paragraphs talking about how great a show evolution is. Maybe the creator could call His work good, and rest from his labors for a season.

Beyond that I have no idea what the divine designer is necessarily less complex than the entities he was wheeled out to explain, or how, Dawkins has shown that God was never alive in the first place. He can say it, but hasn’t given that any backing.

Now, there is a certain

That would not be me.

Well, if that's what

I don’t know how the congregation of a church or mosque would respond. It sounds pretty atheistic to me, too, I guess.

All in all, if I had to pick one of the two, I prefer Dawkins. I agree that Armstrong is probably an atheist in Christians’ clothing. And, honestly, I think that the basis for Dawkins’ arguments is fairly fundamentally sound, except for when he starts lying.

Next installment: how the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints bring the two together. Without speculating. At the beginning I’ll disclaim that this church has no official position on the evolution subject; but even without going into muddy waters along those lines, I’m pretty sure I can reconcile these two arguments into a compelling presentation of truth. Truth be told, given the way I’ve set it up, most members of my church could tell you exactly where I’m going.

Evolution vs. God #1

I found an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend, which stimulated a return to posting. I have very much enjoyed the wrestle I've gone through here, and hope it may be instructive to some who may read it; if not, it was an enjoyable exercise nonetheless.

Here's the article:

The Wall Street Journal doesn't want me to post their text, though, so you'll have to link to the article and read it in another window alongside the blogger window. Hopefully not too confusing.

The point of the post? To comment on the debate between God and Evolution, for which I have found arguments on both sides of the aisle very unsatisfying (scientists appear to have little understanding of what the religious believe, and the religious do little except argue against the talking points of the scientists, which are usually fairly flawed in their analysis of what Darwin actually said, making for a circle of argument based on entirely false pretenses). The point is, I think that the mainstream Christian (including Protestant sects and Catholicism) community has it wrong, and that those who ridicule that community (the “scientists”) are also wrong. Post one makes some points (though they really can’t be arguments, since I’m presenting my beliefs with the assertion that they are true, rather than focusing on validating their truth) against Armstrong. Then I’ll respond to Dawkins. Then I’ll talk about how the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints provide answers neither of these two parties offer. In doing so, I point out in capital letters THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS HAS NOT STATED A POSITION ON THE EVOLUTION QUESTION. THIS MEANS THAT TOMORROW A STATEMENT COULD BE MADE THAT IT IS TRUE OR FALSE, AND I WILL, PENDING INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATION THAT I AM CERTAIN WILL COME SHOULD SUCH A STATEMENT BE MADE, ADOPT THAT VIEW. Until then, in the absence of statement, I am free to create MY OWN OPINION, using the truths of the gospel as recorded in canon and modern revelation as building blocks for my arguments. WHAT FOLLOWS IS MY OWN OPINION. Any references I cite, however, will be those accepted as true doctrine of the church (quotations from church authorities and scripture). The punchline, which will be discussed in the third posts, is this:

God, in whose image mankind is created, created the worlds and all things that in them are for his own purposes, which are not fully made known to mankind. God often operates in the lives of individuals through natural, rather than supernatural laws. His use, therefore, of natural laws of evolution to create the worlds should not surprise us but should instead inform us more fully in his true nature.

I recognize that in saying “god may have used natural selection to create the worlds” and then saying “that teaches us something about him” is not great reasoning, because if he didn’t, then it teaches us something flawed. But, justification of my argument, again, awaits post #3.

Karen Armstrong says we need God to grasp the wonder of our existence

Richard Dawkins has been ...

Armstrong misses the point in the first paragraph: I would argue that the idea that Evolution inherently excludes the possibility of an interested creator, or an involved creator is false. She goes on throughout the article to argue that the literally conceived creator is the problem, but not the creator itself. We need to find the “god beyond god” (a concept perhaps left ambiguous to entice us to actually read her book). In fact, evolution makes no claim that an intelligence rules the cosmos: only that it can proceed without the apparent intervention of the Ruler. She then capitalizes on the idea of the history of pain and death left us by the fossil record, which also clearly excludes the possibility of a truly benevolent creator. In doing so, she has already consented that her opponent holds the higher ground in several ways: religion is inconsistent (a benevolent God could not have created such a cruel world); religion is unsophisticated (in persisting it has failed to recognize its inconsistencies); and that if evolution is true, it necessarily excludes the possibility of the existence of the Creator. Presumably, she will now reveal how a more sophisticated analysis of God – rendering God as figuratively and spiritually, rather than literally, conceived – will lead us to truth. Since I believe God was, in fact, first literally conceived (at least from the perspective of the human race), I think her argument is flawed from the outset. Also, without an understanding of the purposes of God for this earth and its creations, I think that arguing that the natural history reflects a necessarily cruel history is flawed. In the absence of context (some would argue that the history is the context), one simply needs to understand the context. Which I would argue is that the creation, even for a time, is sufficient unto itself. I’ll have to look hard for a reference for that, so until further notice, please be clear that that’s not a statement of doctrine.

As a petty aside, but an instructive one, I think her use of “wastefulness” is way out of context. To illustrate, as a bacteriologist (far “superior” to my subjects, but still much less superior than God, by comparison, is to us) I grow huge populations of bacteria on a daily basis, only to use a small portion of what I have grown; or I manipulate huge numbers only to save a small number of the overall manipulated population. I don’t do this because I desire to be wasteful; I do it in the interest of practicality and because, from my perspective, the resources necessary to overproduce a population have a far inferior cost to that of attempting to do my experiments on a single bacterial cell (which would need to be repeated so many times that it would actually require the use of far more resources). The resources available on this earth may be everything to us, just as the resources of a single bacterial culture may look like the world to the bacteria; to the Great Creator, the Great Scientist, this may not be the case.

But Darwin may have ...

The benefit of being a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is that I can completely ignore arguments that Darwin deals a blow to western faith. It’s completely irrelevant. That’s why this church had to be restored. But Armstrong’s real point I think is to turn modern Western thought back to its root, where the meaning of God is based inside the individual; not that God is an glorified individual himself.

But by the end of ...

So, Newton and Paley were responsible for the Western revolution that transformed God into fact. I’d also like to point out that Newton was, from the perspective of one who adopts that God uses natural laws, probably wrong: “the motions which the Planets now have could not spring from any naturall cause alone but were imprest by an intelligent Agent” (farther down in the paragraph of this letter to Richard Bentley (it’s a safe link if you want to check it out) ) Newton’s “…very well skilled…” quote appears). To Newton, God is required for the creation because the creation could not have occurred without God. My point is, the only God who makes sense is one with whom the creation could have occurred independently.

But the Great Mechanick ...

In other words, by transforming Western religious thought into fact, the religious were in trouble since it removed the need for God; when the next logical step (exclusion of God altogether) was taken, the religious were in trouble, because they had cast off the “non-empirical” God. She argues that Darwin makes that step.

While I must admit I have read relatively little of Darwin directly, I have no idea where Darwin showed that there could be no proof for God’s existence. I doubt that he did. I know he thought his work implied it, but implying and showing are two different things. This is an excellent example of the religious regurgitating the arguments of the scientist, rather than understanding the theories themselves. What Darwin did show was a path by which species changed and developed and were created in the apparent absence of an intervening creator.

Symbolism was essential to ...

Here she argues for the precedent of reading scripture prior to the “Newtonian revolution” I’m calling it. By calling on a long history of the use of figurative representations, symbols, analogies, parables, and allegories, she implies strongly that this was the only way to represent God.

Of course, I argue that some scripture should always be read literally, discerning between the literal and figurative passages as dictated by the voice of the spirit of revelation that God promises to each individual who seeks Him. Armstrong might argue that as a neophyte couched in modern Western religious convention, I am missing her entire point. I would simply respond that the fact that symbolism was used does not mean that it was exclusively used. It was only a part of the appropriate worship. Any lack of indication of such a blend of literal and figurative usage can then be blamed on the inadequate historical record.

Most cultures believed that ...

I’m not sure that from ancient precedent it necessarily follows that their tradition was right. But, if you’re curious whether I think that different kinds of knowledge are learned in different ways, please consider:

“What do we mean when we testify and say that we know the gospel is true? Contrast that kind of knowledge with “I know it is cold outside” or “I know I love my wife.” These are three different kinds of knowledge, each learned in a different way. Knowledge of outside temperature can be verified by scientific proof. Knowledge that we love our spouse is personal and subjective. While not capable of scientific proof, it is still important. The idea that all important knowledge is based on scientific evidence is simply untrue.” (Dallin H. Oaks, “Testimony,” Ensign, May 2008, 26–29)

The point is, I’m not saying religious knowledge isn’t acquired differently than “secular” knowledge; only that the fact that the Greeks associated mythos with accuracy and the logos with necessity (interesting since she calls the logos the pragmatic mode) doesn’t mean that’s the right way of doing it. I think the Greeks were wrong about a lot of things; for example, (applicably) their approach to religious worship. So this argument represents a second major step in the wrong direction for Armstrong (the first was giving Dawkins so much credit).

In the ancient world, ...

I don’t like how Armstrong illustrates religion as a crutch. Some use it as a crutch, but that doesn’t mean it was supposed to be used that way.

There can never be ...

Again, just because it worked to convince some people of something doesn’t mean that it led them to truth. It just led them to something.

Religion was not supposed t...

I don’t like this definition of the purpose of religion, but it results natural from her arguments. Religion and God are only what we need them to be; they are different for each individual based on the circumstances of that individual. I prefer to think that the purpose of religion is to teach truth – which is exactly what she argues against. It can’t be defined as an absolute.

Some dislike the idea of absolute truth because of its limitations. I like the following quote from Joseph Smith to put that in context: ““I stated that the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints … are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.” (referenced here, which contains a compilation of quotations from Joseph Smith on the subject – it’s a very good compilation if you care to check it Limitless revelation leads to limitless truth.

I like her question at the end. My answer is: It teaches us something about God. She argues that it should remind us to turn inward to find God, which is where He truly is.

Darwin made it clear o...

Ultimately, I don’t really understand how she can argue Darwin showed this. It doesn’t follow from anything that I know about Darwin or from anything she’s written. That is, I’m assuming she’s saying, “Darwin’s theories, which moved western religious thought to the natural exclusion of God from its empirical approaches, showed we can’t turn God into something empirical”.

Interestingly, Armstrong’s arguments of a worshipping a God, not of divine personality but of our own making indeed marks a return to ancient worship, recorded in scripture: “And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell (Deut. 4: 28)”. Here is Armstrong’s third flawed conclusion. The entire point is that God is a personality. The only way we understand ourselves – and liberate ourselves from the crutch of religion, moving to independent and pure action in our own spheres – is as we understand God (Joseph Smith, Lectures on Faith).

But what of the ...

Here she sums it up. God is transcendant enlightenment.

Of course, I disagree. God’s existence and magnificence has nothing to do with obtaining inner peace. God is God. He is there regardless of what happens, and it is his truths that stand as unmovable bulwarks behind which we can find safety. Ironically, it is the discovery of God within ourselves – not a God of our own making, but a God to whom we have submitted, humbly and faithfully so that he can teach us by his spirit that what He is is within each of us. We don’t discover Him for our purposes – we do it for our own, which ultimately brings glory to him, bringing us to the realization that our fates are intertwined. Our hearts are turned to our Father just as His has always been turned to us. We are not to justify the existence of God by using Him as a crutch to resolve our inner conflicts, but to justify our own existence by submitting to His will, which will then become our own. In him we find ultimately rest, but on His terms; not our own.