The Problem of Evil:

1
The Problem of Evil
Theodicy and Modern Science
Dr. Gary A. Stilwell
2
Theodicy of John Calvin (1509-1564)
A look at the theodicy of and the Doctrines
associated with John Calvin Built on the
Theology of St Paul St Augustine
3
John Calvin - Brief Summary
Predestination and Theodicy St. Augustine's
doctrine of predestination arose again with John
Calvin. "Double predestination" - election of
both the saved and the damned. There can be no
free will since God alone decides who is saved or
damned. Salvation only of the elect. Evidence
of election - upright life, church membership,
worldly success and experience of being "born
again". The graced will be saved, those not
graced get just deserts.
4
Theodicy of John Calvin - cont.
St. Paul had taught a doctrine of election,
grace, and predestination in Romans 829-30,
914-25 and in Ephesians 14-6, 28-9, 311-12
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined
to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order
that he might be the firstborn within a large
family. And those whom he predestined he also
called and those whom he called he also
justified and those whom he justified he also
glorified (Romans 829-30).
5
Predestination
How is this predestination to be understood?
One possibility is that since God is
omniscient, he has foreknowledge of how people
will behave in the future and, thus, has
predestined them to eternal life, or not based on
that foreknown behavior. But, this
possibility leaves the decision to be saved in
the hands of human beings and would seem to take
away God's sovereignty.
6
Predestination and Augustine
St. Augustine, in his battles with the Pelagian
heresy, had come to the conclusion since humans
are corrupt and incapable of gaining salvation
on their own, that God alone must have decided
whom to save. And, since God is the same for
all eternity, he would have made his decision in
eternity, before time began. God also had to
decide whom to pass by - the mass of perdition -
and allow to be damned.
7
Predestination and Augustine - cont.
Augustine has often been credited with a less
harsh version of predestination than that of the
later Reformers. He is supposed to have held
to single predestination and also maintained that
man still had a free will as we saw stated in the
section on the Council of Orange held in 529 CE.
If fact, Augustine did hold that man had free
will, but it was a will so weakened by the Fall
that it was free only to sin - not free to not
sin. Only those elected to receive God's grace
could use their will to not sin. As to
predestination, what did Augustine actually say?
In his greatest work, The City of God XV.1 and
XXI.24, he states
8
Predestination and Augustine - cont. City of God
By two cities I mean two societies of human
beings, one of which is predestined to reign
with God for all eternity, the other doomed to
undergo eternal punishment with the
Devil. And, In fact, if the Church had such
certain information about people as to know who
were already predestined, although still under
the conditions of this life, to go to the eternal
fire with the Devil, then the Church would pray
as little for them as it does for him the
Devil. This is a very clear statement of
double-predestination.
9
The Reformation
Martin Luther (1483-1546)
and John Calvin (1509-1564)
10
The Reformation
There were earlier attempts at internal
reformation. Martin Luther could not abide the
financial and spiritual corruption of selling
indulgences, so he tried to reform from
within. That did not work, so he split and
developed the following key doctrinal views -
justification by grace - priesthood of
believers - sola scriptura - rejection of
shrines, scholasticism, sacraments, cults,
celibacy . . .
11
Calvin - cont.
Calvin revived the 1000 year old doctrine of St.
Augustine. Calvin now also concluded that since
God was totally sovereign and his will never
changed, it was the logical conclusion that God
must have decided one's fate from all eternity
he necessarily predestined who was saved and who
was damned. The Church in spite of its
admiration for Augustine, could not allow that
doctrine of "double predestination" to stand, and
it had been declared invalid at the Council of
Orange in 529 CE. Now, with Calvin, it was back
and the elect of God would be saved and the rest
of the mass of damnation would not.
12
Calvin - cont.
It would seem that St. Paul, St. Augustine, and
Calvin had reached an unimpeachable conclusion
as to God's sovereignty, unchangeable will, and
the inability of fallen humanity to contribute
anything to its own salvation. But, as the
Church had done earlier with Augustine, other
Reformers would now do to Calvin and the
Reformed Church that is, find a way around this
doctrine! Luis de Molina (1535-1600) Jacobus
Arminius (1560-1609)
13
Luis de Molina (1535- 1600)
Sought to reconcile the doctrines of grace and
free will. Opposed the Augustinian/Thomistic
doctrine of grace which held that the infallible
efficacy of grace was primary, with the free
cooperation of the human will being secondary.
Molina stressed the libertarian freedom of the
human will, while also holding to the priority
of grace.
14
Luis de Molina (1535- 1600) - cont.
This subtle difference is important because
Molina thought that Thomistic freedom was only
an illusion in that they held to an external
causal predetermination that seemed to deny
self-determination of the human will. His goal
was to combat the heresy of the Reformers which
maintained that both sinners and the righteous
have lost the freedom of will due to the Fall
of Adam.
15
Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609)
Reformed minister from Holland, who was in the
vanguard of those who objected to this harsh
doctrine and in 1610, his disciples produced a
document called the Remonstrance. Also called
The Five Arminian Articles, was aimed at what
they considered the most egregious articles of
Calvinism. In general terms, Arminianism can
be considered a developed form of
Semi-Pelagianism and very similar to
Molinism. Main idea divine grace and human
will jointly accomplish sanctification - man
must take the first step. Augustine corrupt,
Pelagius well, Semi-Pelagian sick
16
Compare Doctrine - Calvin
We are saved by the sovereign power of God. The
Father chose a people, the Son died for them, the
Holy Spirit makes Christ's death
effective by bringing the elect to faith and
repentance, thereby causing them to willingly
obey the gospel. The entire process (election,
redemption, regeneration) is the work of
God and is by grace alone. The elect person
cannot respond in any way other than positive.
God, not man, determines who will receive the
gift of salvation. From Calvin's Institutes of
the Christian Religion We call predestination
God's eternal decree . . . each man . . .
eternal life is fore-ordained for some, eternal
damnation for others.
17
Compare Doctrine - Arminian
We are saved through the joint efforts of God
(taking the initiative) and man
(responding) man's response being the
determining factor. God has provided salvation
for everyone, but His provision becomes
effective only for those who, of their own free
will, "choose" to cooperate with Him and
accept His offer of grace. God predestines to
salvation those whom he foresaw (before
creation) would believe. At the crucial point,
man's will plays a decisive role thus man,
not God, determines who will receive the
gift of salvation.
18
Compare Doctrine - Arminian - cont.
Interestingly, many others would follow in the
footsteps of Arminius, one of the most famous
being John Wesly and his Methodism.
19
The Reformed Church's Aversion to Theodicy Making
Can the Reformed Calvinist even have a theodicy?
The answer, according to many Calvinist
theologians is, in no way. Reformed theologians
chastise Christian laymen for even considering
such a thing, especially when they try to invoke
the free will theodicy. They say that many
Christians, in a misguided effort to explain evil
in the omnipotent and all-loving God's world,
actually buy in to the non-Christian's version
of the Problem of Evil. (Reformed God is
sovereign and we have no free will)
20
The Reformed Church's Aversion to Theodicy Making
- cont.
But, what does scripture say? If we have access
to the infallible word of God on any given
subject, why would anyone want to fall for the
logic of the worldly philosophers? Infallible
Scripture clearly states that God determines
absolutely everything that is or that happens
He is not passively permitting things but
actively willing them "I am the LORD, and there
is no other. I form light and create darkness,
I make weal and create woe I the LORD do all
these things" (Isaiah 456-7).
21
The Reformed Church's Aversion to Theodicy Making
- cont.
By determining everything, the ancient Israelites
realized that God was the maker of both good
and evil, for there was none other in
control of the universe. But, doesn't this make
God responsible for the Problem of Evil and
thus allows us to stand convicted by the logic of
the non-Christian 1. The Christian God is
all-powerful and all-loving. 2. If he is
all-powerful, then he is able to end all evil.
3. If he is all-loving, then he wants to end all
evil. 4. But evil still exists. 5. Therefore,
the Christian God does not exist!
22
The Reformed Church's Response to Theodicy Making
- cont.
The non-Christian argues that given the existence
of evil, the Christian God cannot logically
exist. But, the non-Christian cannot establish
the premise that an all-loving God must
necessarily destroy evil or desire to destroy
evil. They don't even use the Biblical
definition of love.
23
The Reformed Church's Response to Theodicy Making
- cont.
Since the Bible teaches about both the love of
God and the reality of evil, and that evil is
under God's sovereign control -- it is
legitimate to conclude that, from the biblical
perspective, the love of God does not
necessarily imply that he must destroy evil, or
that he must have already destroyed it. Now we
show that the premises of the argument do not
necessarily lead to the non-Christian's
conclusion in the first place rather, very
different conclusions are possible
24
The Reformed Church's Response to Theodicy Making
- cont.
1. The Christian God is all-powerful and
all-loving. 2. If he is all-powerful, then he is
able to end all evil. 3. If he is all-loving,
then he wants to end all evil. 4. But evil still
exists. 5. Therefore, God has a good purpose for
what we see as evil.
OR 5. Therefore, God will eventually destroy
evil.
25
Ninth Interlude Six Million Years before the
Present
Then God said, 'Let us make humankind in our
image, according to our likeness and let them
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over
the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and
over all the wild animals of the earth, and over
every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.'
(Genesis 126) Sixty million years passed
and the complexity of the newly liberated
creatures progressed. New species would evolve
from older forms and would eventually become the
large-brained creature grown complex enough to
accomplish what no other creature had done. They
were able to manipulate their environment. A
chaotic event that happened five billion years
ago as a result of the previous ten billion
years of cosmic evolution had by now been
amplified greatly and its progeny was lurking in
the cosmos.
26
Humans Appear
1.5 MYA
2 MYA
Sahelanthropus
3 MYA
Lucy
5 MYA
6 MYA
27
Newtonian Science and Determinism
For almost 2000 years the cosmology of Aristotle
(384 - 322 BCE), along with the slight
modifications of Ptolemy ( 85 - 165 CE)
reigned supreme. It was a scientific model of
the universe that was based on the best
evidence of the times. Universe as a series
of concentric spheres with the Earth at the
center, with the planets, moon and sun orbiting
it and finally surrounded by the outermost
fixed sphere of the stars.
28
Newtonian Science and Determinism - cont.
This view was incorporated into the Christian
faith as part of its teachings, giving to God
the Realm beyond the outermost sphere. The
"scientific" explanation of reality was
incorporated into Church teaching with the full
force of authority. The scientific ideas of
Copernicus and Galileo were condemned as foolish
and absurd and heretical since it "expressly
contradicts the doctrine of Holy Scripture in
many passages."
29
Newtonian Science and Determinism - cont.
Copernicus (1473-1543) saw a flaw in the
Ptolemaic model and sought to replace it using
better observations. Earth was no longer at
the center of the universe and the exalted
status of humankind was thereby diminished.
30
Newtonian Science and Determinism - cont.
Still, the idea that the sub-lunar world was
controlled by imperfect matter was intact, while
the super-lunar world of the planets and stars
remained the realm of perfection and the domain
of God. Then came Isaac Newton (1642-1727).
Newton wondered why things were attracted to the
earth, why does an apple fall downward instead
of flying off into space from the spinning
earth?
31
Newtonian Science and Determinism - cont.
The two attractions were the same force! The
last refuge of perfection was thus banished with
the realization that there was no sub and
super-lunar realms of imperfection and
perfection. There was only the universal law
that operated on the earth and the heavens.
Now, the domain of God was taken from us as
well.
32
Newtonian Science and Determinism - cont.
These laws showed the world to be a giant
mechanism that could be understood by human
reason, and without resort to the religious
concept of a personal God managing everything
behind the scenes. Indeed, a clockwork
universe eliminated the need for anything but an
initiator to get things started, and then leave
the mechanism to its own devices.
33
Newtonian Science and Determinism - cont.
Many intellectuals of the Enlightenment either
rejected God altogether or, at least, relegated
Him to retirement. If appeared obvious that a
clockwork universe in which all future events
were already determined would contradict a need
for the God of theology. Therefore, many
accepted God as the creator that got the
universe started, then rested while it ran
itself. These were the Deists, many of whom
were the Founders of the United States of
America.
34
Newtonian Science and Determinism - cont.
Many other claimed that nature was perfectly
capable of starting itself and thus eliminated
God from scientific inquiry altogether.
35
Newtonian Science and Determinism - cont.
One such was the Marquis de Laplace (1749-1827).
"Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis".
Laplace was simply saying that science deals
with natural law and that God must be removed if
the laws are to be useful. In other words,
there is no place for miraculous interventions
if we are to make scientific predictions. Laplac
e may have just eliminated God from his
equations, but others would use this opportunity
to eliminate the need for God altogether,
making the world truly mechanistic and
materialistic.
36
Newtonian Science and Determinism - cont.
So, the eighteenth century mechanistic universe
was believed to have eliminated the need for
traditional religion, and this belief is still
around. Should it be?
37
Newtonian Science and Determinism - Models and
Myths
A similar situation to that of contradictions
within religion exists within science and
philosophy in that theories and schools of
thought may contradict each other, and the
answers you get from any discipline may depend
on who you ask. The big difference is that
theories are just that models of the world that
help us understand it and make useful
predictions.
38
Newtonian Science and Determinism - Models and
Myths
Few would claim that these models actually depict
reality and, furthermore, it is recognized that
they will have to be changed or replaced, as new
information warrants. This open-minded
attitude gives us the hope for new and more
refined facts about the world, which is good in
itself. However, it does not offer, nor claim
to offer, ultimate truth - except when science
becomes dogmatic as the post-Newtonian era
showed.
39
Newtonian Science and Determinism - Models and
Myths
The scientific method has proved to be one of the
most important concepts ever devised by man -
delivered us from doubt and dogma - provided the
way for the ordinary person's physical
comfort, undreamed of by the kings of antiquity.
It has been so successful that we have
incorporated it into our being, and have come
to believe that it holds the key to all of
our big questions.
40
Newtonian Science and Determinism - Models and
Myths
But, does it? Be wary of claims to absolute
truth in any endeavor!
41
Newtonian Science and Determinism - Leibniz vs.
Voltaire
The Problem of Evil disturbed Leibniz (1646-1716)
all his life. St. Augustine had argued 1300
years earlier that this world was not what God
had intended that the Original Sin of Adam and
Eve has so corrupted their nature that God's
originally good world was tainted by sin. It
is the inherited sin of the human race that is
the cause of moral and natural evil in the
world.
42
The Theodicy of Leibniz vs. Voltaire
Leibniz disagreed with Augustine and said that
this world was good and had been so since
creation. As a matter of fact, since God chose
it, it had to be the best of all possible
worlds.
43
Leibniz vs. Voltaire
He argued in his Theodiciee that evil exists
because of the necessarily limited nature of the
God's omnipotence (logically, can God create a
rock so heavy that God cannot lift it?) and
of God's intended good purpose in creating the
material world. Leibniz asked, what would the
best world look like. He suggested that it
would be one which maximizes three things 1 --
the virtue of free, ration, sentient beings 2 --
the mirroring of God's goodness and splendor in
the creation through a vast variety of things
and creatures 3 -- the greatest variety of
phenomena governed by the simplest, most elegant,
most beautiful set of laws. Like the great
mathematician he was, he recognized the
impossibility of maximizing three separate
functions.
44
Leibniz vs. Voltaire
So, out of all the possible worlds that God might
have created, His absolute goodness requires Him
to actualize only the best one possible. That
would be the one in which the detrimental effects
of the logical trade-offs among His three
purposes were minimized - this very best one in
which we live. ----- Voltaire looked at the same
world of which Leibniz was so pleased and asked
Really? This mess is the best God could do? The
empirical evidence challenged the philosophical
optimism of Leibniz.
45
Leibniz vs. Voltaire
Voltaire was a child of the Enlightenment and
was unimpressed with Leibniz's
metaphysics. Besides, the great Lisbon
earthquake had just destroyed faith in God's
design, so -- He satirized him as the
irrepressibly optimistic buffoon, Dr Pangloss in
Candide.
46
Darwin's Theodicy
The physics from Copernicus, Newton and Laplace
- removed man from the center of the universe,
- abolished the domain of God, and - eliminated
the continuing need for God. Now, biology would
step in and remove the last vestige of mankind's
specialness. We weren't even created in God's
image, but, rather developed slowly from a
primordial soup through multiple steps from
lower life forms including monkeys. How the
mighty had fallen from their place "a little
lower than the angels."
47
Darwin's Theodicy - cont.
Why the need to introduce such a horrific idea to
account for our existence? What was wrong with
the perfectly good stories found in Genesis 1
and 2? Well, finding sea shells in high
mountains millions of years old suggested that
the earth itself could not be only 6000 years
old. And, neither could life. More
importantly, fossils of plants and animals that
no longer existed were found in earth strata
that dated back millions of years. If Noah
had saved all of God's creatures, where did
these come from?
48
Darwin's Theodicy - cont.
Around 1800, the French scientist Jean Lamarck
(1744-1829) - organisms underwent changes
during their lifetimes - that were passed on to
their progeny. Wrong on the mechanism of
transferring the changes, but correct in noting
that they do evolve to fit their environment. It
was Charles Darwin that took up the concept of
evolving organisms and proposed a mechanism that
allowed for the changes noted by Lamarck.
Darwin did not know what changed, but he
inferred that it was a mutation that worked in
favor of the new offspring.
49
Darwin's Theodicy - cont.
Explained the millions of years old fossils of
plants and animals that no longer roamed the
earth. An awfully cruel way to run the world?
How could the world be good if creatures were
born only to eaten alive? If the world had
been created good by a good God, but then
corrupted by the sin of Adam, we might accept
the cruelty of Nature as punishment for the Fall
into sin. However, if the world was initially
designed that way by a creator God, wasn't His
ways intrinsically evil?
50
Darwin's Theodicy - cont.
Darwin struggled with this problem of evil. In a
letter to a friend, he stated "There seems to
much misery in the world. I cannot persuade
myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God
would have designedly created the parasitic wasp
with the express intention of their feeding
within the living bodies of caterpillars, or the
cat should play with mice."
51
Darwin's Theodicy - cont.
Darwin could not stand the thought of a good God
being responsible for such carnage as "nature
red in tooth and claw". No, it was better
than the world operate on purely mechanical
natural laws that absolved God of all
responsibility for the evils he found in nature.

52
Darwin's Theodicy - cont.
In the same letter, he added "I am inclined to
look at everything as resulting from designed
laws, with the details, whether good or bad,
left to the working out of what we may call
chance." Such a God would have to be retired
from the world, like the God of the Deists.
Theists could not help but question this kind of
God, for they asked, where comes the source for
the moral law. Remember, that Kant had left the
only proof for the existence of God as the proof
from morality. So, now, what proved the
existence of God?
53
Darwin's Theodicy - God of the Gaps
The really big gap in our knowledge is, how did
life get its initial start. Where did the DNA
molecule come from? Is it possible that it came
together by accident? The possibility that it
did indeed do so is allowed by the fact of the
immensity of the material universe and time.
Given 100 billion galaxies, each with 100
billion stars, over a period of 15 billion
years, the odds are good!
54
Darwin's Theodicy - God of the Gaps
Darwin does not address that problem. The God
of the Gaps is usually inserted here and it is
not an un- reasonable hypothesis.
Unfortunately, it is not science because of two
seriously big reasons. One, is that such an
hypothesis is neither testable nor falseifiable,
so can't be addressed the methods of science.
Two, we humans have always inserted the gods
into the gaps in our knowledge. When thunder
roared, Thor did it with his hammer when
lightning killed someone the gods were sending a
punishment and when Ben Franklin invented his
lightning rod, many preachers condemned it as
an affront to God's sovereignty.
55
God of the Gaps - cont.
Needless to say these gaps have gradually been
filled in with the natural laws discovered by
science, and the Gap God has been dethroned time
and again by new knowledge. Will the gaps ever
diminish to zero? If so, where will be room for
God? If we had filled the gap with God and
stopped short of asking what causes the
mutations necessary for the new selection, we
would be faced with a very unsatisfactory
theory. But science persisted and discovered
why mutations occur.
56
Religion vs. Evolution
The theory of evolution is denied by many because
it seems to make human existence purposeless.
Man has been knocked off his pinnacle as
described by Genesis and worst of all, the
stories found in the Bible are thus shown to
be false. What dire ramifications for the very
basis of Christian belie. - Jesus came to save
humankind from Adam's Fall. - No Adam, no Fall,
and no need for such saving. More so, why does
the Church, based on a false foundation, even
continue to exist?
57
Religion vs. Evolution - cont.
Biblical fundamentalists who believe in the
literal interpretation of Scripture do not have
an answer for this dilemma. Therefore,
evolution can not be right! Science says it is,
so here we have a severe case of cognitive
dissonance or, as a good alternative, a
non-literal interpretation of Genesis.
58
(No Transcript)
59
Scientific Models and Religious Myths
The Catholic Church seemed to learn something
from the Galileo fiasco and have now embraced
evolution as correct. They didn't always do so
and many churches yet today do not do so.
When a scientific model, such as evolutionary
theory (which is recognized as tentative and
incomplete), is established as a reasonable
description of reality but collides with the
established creation mythos of religion,
somebody will have to admit to being wrong.
60
Scientific Models and Religious Myths - cont.
When religion tenaciously hangs on to an obsolete
myth as fact, there is indeed a conflict between
religion and science. But, this is only
because religion failed to remember that it is
in the "why" business, and creation myths were
meant to describe "how" in a pre-scientific
world.
61
Scientific Models and Religious Myths - cont.
Few claim that evolution is the description of
reality, but that it is a good working model of
what most likely took place with life over the
millions of years, in which it has developed
from molecular components to the complex being
which is us. It is empirically far superior to
the ancient stories of how life came to be.
Religions only make themselves look foolish
when they deny the possibility of such a
reasonable model.
62
Scientific Models and Religious Myths - cont.
The problem is that what the religion of the time
of Darwin (and some still today) failed to see
was that by insisting that an obsolete myth prop
up their religion that religion (and its
dependent ethics) would topple when the prop
finally failed. Tying absolute truth to a
shaky story tends to make that truth seem a bit
fallible.
63
End of Newtonian Science, etc.
Next 10th Interlude Emergence Evolution and
Intelligent Design The New Physics and
Indeterminism
64
Tenth Interlude Five Thousand Years before the
Present
So God created humankind in his image, in the
image of God he created them male and female he
created them. God blessed them, and God said to
them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the
earth and subdue it and have dominion over the
fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and
over every living thing that moves upon the
earth.' God said, 'See, I have given you every
plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all
the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit
you shall have them for food. And to every beast
of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and
to everything that creeps on the earth,
everything that has the breath of life, I have
given every green plant for food.' And it was so.
God saw everything that he had made, and
indeed, it was very good. And there was evening
and there was morning, the sixth day. (Genesis
127-31) The large-brained creatures continued
to progress and now manipulated their environment
so well that they had no equal among the other
creatures and subdued them for the benefit of
themselves. . .
65
Humans Create Culture
Almost 5,000 years ago, we created
high civilization
66
Emergence
The whole is greater than the sum of its
parts! How come when you mix water and flour
together you get glue?.. and then you add
eggs and sugar... and you get cake? Where
did the glue go ? You know darned well where it
went!
67
Emergence - cont.
That's what makes the cake stick to your butt.
So, is a cake simply flour, water, eggs, and
sugar? No, the cake emerges from the
interactions of the parts!
68
Emergence - cont.
Science has for the past 300 years been involved
in the analysis of systems. That is, science
has reduced the larger system, such as the human
body to its component parts in order to
understand how it works. This method has served
us well for a long time, but there are
situations where it utterly fails. How does
an assemblage of essentially dead pieces of
matter conspire to become a living being? Are
we really more than the sum of our parts?
69
Emergence - cont.
It would appear that we are, in that those
complex systems posses properties that are not
apparent in the parts that comprise it. There
appear to be emergent properties that cannot be
predicted from an understanding of its parts.
To get at these new properties, it does no good
to keep looking at the pieces. One must take
a systems-level approach if we are to understand
emergent complexities.
70
Emergence - cont.
Some examples of emergence Physics atomic
nuclei protons, neutrons (each is
identical) Chemistry add electrons for
chemistry water hydrogen atoms and oxygen
atoms Biology life carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,
71
Emergence - cont.
Scientific analysis is reductive - it can explain
how life descends to protons. Something else
will have to explain how life emerges from those
protons. At least two choices for explaining
the emergence of life - someone added an "élan
vital" to the mixture of dead matter - or it is
simply the result of a different kind of
new ingredient - interactions among the parts.
72
Evolution and Intelligent Design
Modern science holds to the theory of evolution
to account for the existence of all known
species of life, including humans. Copernicus
and Gallileo had moved us from the center of the
universe and Newton's science had eliminated the
sharp distinction between the sub-lunar realm of
materialism and the heavenly realm of the
spiritual. Now, Man was just another animal!
It was too much for many to take. Religions
had developed to explain Man's place and purpose
in the world and science had obliterated the
religious view.
73
Evolution and Intelligent Design - cont.
Darwin had proposed two main issues that species
evolved and that they did so by natural
selection. Most of his contemporary supporters
bought into the evolution part, but there was
much consternation over the mechanics of just
how it worked - not all accepted natural
selection as that mechanism. A little known,
and briefly forgotten, Catholic monk named
Gregor Mendel was busily working in his garden
to experiment on variations among vegetables.
He found that something transmitted
characteristics . . .
74
Evolution and Intelligent Design - cont.
Once the theories of Darwin and Mendel were
merged into a single theory of how
characteristics pass from generation to
generation, Darwin's theory of natural selection
now had a scientific testable mechanism that
explained how it worked. Neo-Darwinism was
born of the combination of the two ideas and now
forms the basis for all of biological science.
75
Evolution and Intelligent Design - cont.
Many religious theists had no problem with this
science. God was still in charge as the primary
cause of all natural laws and simply intervened
in the process with secondary causes in order to
account for evolution being the correct way to
describe nature. But, what about scripture?
Genesis tells us how life and all species of
life began. And, it isn't compatible with
evolution! Creation science was born to counter
the atheistic Darwinianism which denied Holy
Scripture. There were two ways of understanding
the world of life - the atheistic way of
evolution or the religious way of creationism.
76
Evolution and Intelligent Design - cont.
If evolution was to be taught, then the science
of creation should be likewise taught. A
serious problems since it was clearly based upon
the Christian faith, and teaching a particular
religion in our society where church and state
are separated was against the law of the
land. We've seen Thomas Aquinas' teleological
arguments for the existence of God and and
William Paley's argument for an obvious design
in the world we see about us. If there is
purpose and design in the world, there must be a
very clever designer.
77
Evolution and Intelligent Design - cont.
Something had to cause everything, especially the
extremely complex things, we observe. This
fact seems so obvious that surely no one would
object to recognizing that there was operating
in the universe an intelligent design (known as
ID). It seemed that evolution had met an
equally valid counter theory that did not have
ties to any particular religion and should,
therefore, be taught alongside the older
materialistic theory. Mind was at work in the
world and not just the impersonal random
mutations of natural matter.
78
Evolution and Intelligent Design - cont.
There are at least two problems with this new
approach. The first and easiest to explain is
who was proposing ID and what was the entity
identified with ID. (Christian religion and
God) ID proponents say it could be aliens, but .
. .
79
Evolution and Intelligent Design - cont.
The second problem is more complicated and will
require a bit more thought. It has to do with
the nature of science itself. For an endeavor
to be called scientific it must meet rigid
requirements, some of which are 1. Useful, in
that it describes, explains, and predicts
observable phenomena. 2. Sparse, in that it
proposes only those factors necessary to do
number 1. 3. Empirically falsifiable by being
able to fail a test of its validity. 4. Testable
by repeatable and controlled experiments. 5.
Dynamic, in that it can be modified as new data
are gathered. 6. Progressive, in that it
incorporates older explanatory theories. 7.
Non-dogmatic, in that it admits of not being the
final and certain word on the subject.
80
Evolution and Intelligent Design - cont.
Intelligent Design fails on six of the seven
some would say on all seven. Perhaps its major
failure is found in number 3 falsifiability.
If a theory can not be potentially proven false,
it is not a scientific theory. The Theory of
Evolution, on the other hand, has met each of
these criteria over and over and has proven
itself to be the basis of all biological
study. Evolution, or the mechanism of natural
selection may someday be falsified and a new
theory will be proposed. This has happen many
times in science - take the Newtonian theory of
gravity -- falsified by Einstein.
81
Evolution and Intelligent Design - cont.
However, Newton's theory had met all 7
requirements, and Einstein's theory was
progressive and included Newton as a subset
special case of his new theory. That's the way
science works. If ID would work that way, it
should be included in the science curriculum.
It doesn't and it shouldn't! But, is ID a
viable explanation of reality??
82
Resolving the Apparent Dichotomy
Many -- if not most -- Americans think of the
creation and evolution controversy as a
dichotomy with "creationists" on one side, and
"evolutionists" on the other. Assumption leads
to the unfortunate conclusion that because
creationists are believers in God, that
evolutionists must be atheists. It's a FALSE
Dichotomy! The true situation is much more
complicated. The dichotomy is really a
continuum with extreme creationism at one end
and extreme evolutionism at the other, thus
From Eugenie Scott National Center for Science
Education
83
The Creation/Evolution Continuum
Creationism Flat Earthers
Geocentrists
Young-Earth Creationism
Old Earth Creationism
Gap Creationism
Day-Age Creationism

Progressive Creationism
Intelligent Design Creationists

Theistic
Evolution
Materialist Evolution

Methodological

Philosophical
Evolution
84
The Creation/Evolution Continuum
The first two entries hold to strict Biblical
literalism and they reject virtually all of
modern physics and chemistry as well as biology.
Flat Earthers Geocentrists
85
Resolving the Apparent Dichotomy - cont.
Flat Earthers -- Members of the Flat Earth
Society believe that the shape of the earth is
flat because a literal reading of the Bible
demands it. Geocentrists -- Geocentrists accept
that the earth is spherical, but deny that the
sun is the center of the solar system. Both
flat-earthers and Geocentrists reflect the
cosmological views of ancient Hebrews. As with
flat-earth views, the water of Noah's flood came
from above a solid firmament. A literal reading
of the Bible "It is not an interpretation at
all, it is what the words say." (Willis, 2000)
86
Ancient Hebrew Cosmology
Flat Earth
87
Earthrise Apollo 8
2500 years of scientific advance
88
Heliocentric
Even the Church has apologized to Galileo for
denying the heliocentric theory of the
world! Everyone has a right to their beliefs --
but some beliefs are just willful ignorance.
89
Resolving the Apparent Dichotomy - cont.
The next group of creationists on the continuum
are less strictly literal in their interpretation
of the Bible, but they still hold to Special
Creation by God Young-Earth Creationism Old
Earth Creationism Gap Creationism Day-Age
Creationism Progressive Creationism Intelligent
Design Creationists
90
Resolving the Apparent Dichotomy - cont.
Young-Earth Creationism -- Few in this group
interprets the flat-earth and geocentric
passages of the Bible literally, but they
reject modern physics, chemistry, and geology
concerning the age of the earth. This is a good
time to review some geological science --
91
Ages of the Earth - sea shells on Everest
92
Ages Shown to Scale
Precambrian
That mountain showed strata from this time The
earth was over 4,000,000,000 years old before
the mountain started. It built up over 300
Million years. And eroded over 280 Million years.
93
Geological Ages - 4.6 BYA
1 10 MYA
94
Resolving the Apparent Dichotomy - cont.
Old Earth Creationism -- This group accepts the
ancient age of the earth. But, theologically,
the most critical element of Special Creationism
is Gods personal involvement in Creation Gap
Creationism -- Claimed that there was a large
temporal gap between Genesis chapter I1 and
chapter I2. Day-Age Creationism -- This model
accommodates science and religion by rendering
each of the six days of creation as long periods
of time -- even thousands or millions of years
instead of merely 24 hours long. Progressive
Creationism -- They reject the inference
that earlier forms are genetically related to
later ones kinds are separate creations
descent with modification does not occur.
95
Resolving the Apparent Dichotomy - cont.
Intelligent Design Creationism This is descended
from Paley's argument that God's design could be
seen in life (Paley 1803). Some organs seem
"irreducibly complex." Modern IDC still makes
appeals to the complexity of life and so varies
little from the substance of Paley's argument,
but the arguments have become far more
technical, delving into microbiology and
mathematical logic. In large part, IDC is used
today as an umbrella anti-evolution position
under which creationists of all flavors may
unite in an attack on scientific methodology in
general. A common tenet of IDC is that
all beliefs about evolution equate to
philosophical materialism. Center for Renewal of
Science and Culture (CRSC) Behe, Michael,
Darwin's Black Box (Free Press, NY,
1996) Dembski, William, The Design Inference
(Cambridge University Press, 1998) Johnson,
Phillip, Reason in the Balance (Inter-Varsity,
Downers Grove, IL, 1995)
96
The Creation/Evolution Continuum
Creationism Flat Earthers
Geocentrists
Young-Earth Creationism
Old Earth Creationism
Gap Creationism
Day-Age Creationism

Progressive Creationism
Intelligent Design Creationists

Theistic
Evolution
Materialist Evolution

Methodological

Philosophical
Evolution
97
More Geology
How do we know so much about the age of the
earth? Years of study of rock strata and
fossils Major breakthrough in 1960's -- Plate
tectonics
98
Plate Tectonics
99
Plate Tectonics - cont.
Plate -----gt Converging Plates cause uplift
lt----- Plate
100
USA
Divergent
Convergent
Transform
101
250 Million Years Ago - Dinosaurs Starting
India
Asia noted in red
102
150 Million Years Ago - End of Jurassic
103
90 Million Years Ago - In Cretaceous
104
30 Million Years Ago - Mid Cenozoic
105
0 Million Years Ago - Holocene
106
Evolutionists
This last group accepts all of modern science,
some with reservations Theistic
Evolution Materialist Evolution Methodological
Philosophical
107
Resolving the Apparent Dichotomy - cont.
Theistic Evolution Theistic Evolution says that
God creates through evolution. Theistic
Evolutionists vary in beliefs about how much God
intervenes in the process. It accepts most or
all of modern science, but it invokes God for
some things outside the realm of science, such as
the creation of the human soul. This position
is promoted by the Pope and taught at mainline
Protestant seminaries. e.g., Teilhard de Chardin
108
Resolving the Apparent Dichotomy - cont.
Materialistic Evolution (Both Method
Philosophical) Materialistic (Naturalistic)
Evolution differs from Theistic Evolution in
saying that God does not actively interfere with
evolution. It is not necessarily atheistic,
though many Materialistic Evolutionists believe
that God created evolution. Methodological
materialism limits itself to describing the
natural world with natural causes (matter and
energy) it says nothing at all about the
supernatural, neither affirming nor denying its
existence or its role in life. Gould, Stephen
J., Rocks of Ages Science and Religion in the
Fullness of Life
109
Resolving the Apparent Dichotomy - cont.
Philosophical materialism says that the
supernatural does not exist. It says that not
only is evolution a natural process, but so is
everything else. 1. Is life reducible to atoms
and molecules? 2. Is mind reducible to brain,
which in turn is composed of atoms and
molecules? 3. Is the universe as a whole
reducible to mindless matter? Philosophical
materialism is the philosophy of nature which
answers "yes" to all three questions.
110
Resolving the Apparent Dichotomy - cont.
Some people confuse Darwinism with Evolution.
Darwinism is simply Charles Darwin's proposal
for the methods by which natural processes cause
the evolution of the species. "Darwin
continually emphasized the difference between his
two great accomplishments establishing the fact
of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural
selection--to explain the mechanism of
evolution." (Stephen J Gould) Many scientists,
before and since, have supported evolution while
proposing alternative mechanisms that drive it.
Evolution of galaxies, of the earth, of plant
and animal life on the earth are accepted by
essentially all scientists, except those who are
conservative Christians - those who believe in
the inerrancy of the Bible.
111
Resolving the Apparent Dichotomy Summary
Creation science Young-Earth creationists form
the majority of creation scientists. They
believe that the earth, its current life forms,
and the rest of the universe were created by God,
less than 10,000 years ago. Only very minor
changes within various species have happened
since creation no new species have evolved or
been created. Inerrant truth of (Old
Testament). Old Earth creationists believe that
geology, radiometric dating has shown that the
world is billions of years old. However, they
believe that God created the earth and the rest
of the universe. Theistic evolution
Evolution happened just as supporters of
naturalistic evolution believe, but it was a tool
created, used, and/or controlled by God.
Naturalistic evolution The origin of the
universe happened about 14 billion years ago. The
earth coalesced about 4.5 billion years ago. Life
subsequently began, probably as bacteria, and has
been evolving ever since. The process of
evolution has been driven by purely natural
forces, without input from a God or a Goddess or
multiple deities.
112
Recent Developments
Lucy
Common Ancestor
113
End of Intelligent Design
Start with the modern physical sciences