Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil

The main premise of this interesting book is that evolution developed essentially as a religious idea: i.e., it makes certain assumptions about the nature of God. Hunter argues that Darwin rejected a God whose creation was rife with natural evil (e.g., parasitic wasp larvae eating their paralyzed hosts from inside). This is much like the problem of moral evil that Milton tried to solve, and Darwin, we are reminded, carried a well-worn copy of Paradise Lost on his classic voyages. Milton' s solution was that God lets humans chose between good and evil. Thus God is distanced from moral evil, and Darwin followed suit by distancing God (with a capital "G") from natural evil. Leibniz and his contemporaries used the term Theodicy for analyses of such problems of evil.

Thus, argues Hunter, any theory (theodicy) based on an argument that assumes what God would or would not do, is essentially non scientific "negative theology" [This is not the normal meaning of Negative Theology, which argues that one can not assume or say anything about God. For example: "whatever you call him, he is not that" Meister Eckhart]. Nonetheless Hunter argues that it claims for what God would not do are "a consistent theme for Darwin, and remain popular with today's evolutionists." For example Stephen J. Gould claimed that orchids would be different "if God had designed" them. Again, Gould in the New York Times (May 5 2002) is quoted: "Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution- paths a sensible God would never tread…" So the biologist's message is the same as Darwin's "God could do a better job- but didn't." But, this expression of dissatisfaction with God does not mean that evolution, therefore, explains nature, nor does it get rid of its perceived imperfections. I fear the imperfections are in how we see nature! Hunter, in early chapters, proves himself quite well-versed in a broad array of evolutionary topics. He points out that some biologists argue that God would not make "separate" species look alike (homologous). Why not? Nature does it! Nature is allowed to be both a good and a bad designer. Thus functional and non-functional organs are cited as equally good "evidence of evolution." In later chapters Hunter focuses on divine sanction (the idea that God is greater for designing natural laws that require no intervention or tinkering) and intellectual necessity (which argues that the world would be unintelligible if God contradicted or interfered with his/her own natural law). He also points out that the U.S. National Academy of Science's call to separate science and religion is essentially a "Gnostic" view (separating God from worldly nature) espoused by both Erasmus and Charles Darwin, and today by Gould and others. Hunter persuades us to investigate such philosophical issues if we are to understand natural law. But I suspect that we can only describe such law and order, and not explain it. Incomprehensible complexity (divine mystery) infuses all, and regardless of how much or little it has been analysed by science, we can, as Goethe noted, only know how, not why, it is intelligible, ordered or lawful. The reader should not confuse Darwin's God with another title: Finding Darwin's God (Miller, 1999), which is a less-provocative but rather simplistic "search for common ground between God and Evolution." Hunter, like myself, finds this book rather confused, but Miller makes the valid point that we need to distinguish between evolution as a "historical" phenomenon and a "process." (One might also distinguish between cosmic, organic and psychological domains). Those, like Hunter, who dispute the non- or quasi-scientific basis for assertions about natural selection operating on random mutation (etc.,) are questioning the process and not necessarily the historical record of organic evolution. Some heavyweight scholars (Grassé, 1971) charge that the fossil record is the only (historical) "evidence" of evolution, and that nothing in Biology "proves" the process, at the level of the origin of species (macroevolution). Thus, many would accept that evolution occurred, though we can't explain how. Hunter, though guarded, admits that evolution "may" have occurred, but worries that science claims to know the process, without recognizing Darwin's motivation to distance God from natural evil. Hunter even goes so far as to argue that biologists and paleontologists (including Teilhard de Chardin) have "elevated evolution to the status of a metaphysical truth" whether they believe in purpose (like Teilhard) or not. Hunter's concern is that atheists and agnostics are the least likely to acknowledge that their scientific convictions are based on metaphysics. Darwin's God is thought-provoking and quite well-grounded in the historical contexts which gave rise to Darwinism. Hunter warns against the pitfall of believing in new explanations just because previous ones were inadequate. He could have quoted Mary Midgley (1985) that "bad religion is being answered by bad science." Hunter also avoids advancing alternative explanations or "theories." Goethe would approve approaching science without preconceptions and leaving it without final or ultimate theories. Hunter manages this fairly well- though, he is at times a bit repetitive and selective. He may also open the door for creationists to argue that evolutionary theory has no merit at all. I was left with the urge to ask what he really believes!!

Grassé, P. 1971. The evolution of living organisms. Academic Press. 297p. Midgley, M. 1985. Evolution as a religion. Methuen. 180p. Miller, K. R. Finding Darwin's God. Harper Collins. 338p.