Evolution and Divine Revelation:
Synergy, Not Conflict, in
Understanding Morality
Templeton/A.S.A. Lecture, Baylor University, March 25, 2004
Loren Haarsma
Physics & Astronomy Department, Calvin College
For this talk, I will
• accept strong scientific
evidence for human
evolutionary history;
• assume no serious
hermeneutical
objections;
• assume God created
humans at least in part
through evolutionary
processes;
• focus on areas with the
highest potential for
“conflict” between
science and theology.
Theologians ask if a behavior is right
Traditional Christian theology would say that
• Morality has an absolute, objective basis
in God’s will (even if we humans do not all
agree, and do not perfectly understand,
that will).
• Religious beliefs are not purely subjective;
they can be objectively correct or
objectively incorrect.
Biologists ask if a behavior is adaptive
• We assume
guilt is not
adaptive in
lions.
• Is guilt
(or, more
generally,
morality)
adaptive in
humans?
Two types of claims:
1. Scientific claim: We can construct
accurate evolutionary explanations for the
existence of human moral and religious
sentiments. (E.g. Moral and religious
sentiments are adaptive.)
2. Philosophical claim: If these evolutionary
explanations are scientifically accurate,
then human moral and religious beliefs
cannot have any objective status or truth
content.
Two types of responses:
1) Attack the scientific credibility of
sociobiology and evolutionary
psychology.
2) Reject the philosophical
extrapolations which go beyond
the science.
Evolutionary accounts of morality
usually start with altruism
• Everyday meaning of “altruism”: Having
feelings of goodwill towards others; being
nice without expecting anything in return.
• Sociobiological definition of “altruism”:
acts which reduce an organism’s own
reproductive chances while benefiting the
reproductive chances of others.
Scientifically established theories
for evolution of limited altruism
1) Parental care
2) Kin selection
3) Reciprocal altruism
•
•
Theoretically well understood
Examples observationally confirmed
A scientific “baby”:
Hypotheses for evolutionary / genetic
basis of
altruism beyond kin & reciprocation
1) Altruism and morality are non-adaptive
side effects of other adaptive traits.
2) Culture pushes (or trumps) genes.
3) “Individual” selection ― altruism &
morality are adaptive for individuals.
4) “Group” selection ― altruism &
morality are adaptive at group level.
Common features amongst these
evolutionary hypotheses:
•
•
presuppose a critical role for human
intelligence, memory, rationality;
presuppose long-term interpersonal
interactions in complex social groups.
Under these conditions, evolution of
morality is thought to be possible,
perhaps inevitable.
Some philosophical bathwater
1) Extrapolating from “how morality
evolved” to “why morality exists”
Some philosophical bathwater
1) Extrapolating from “how morality
evolved” to “why morality exists”
“Morality, or more strictly our belief in
morality, is merely an adaptation put in
place to further our reproductive end.”
--Ruse & Wilson, 1993
This seems to be what Donald MacKay
called the fallacy of “nothing but-tery”
Consider a hypothetical robot which has
self-replication subroutines….
Some philosophical bathwater
2) Labeling every action which improves
reproductive success as “selfish”
An equally supportable philosophical
“spin”: being nice to others causes
individuals and groups to flourish.
Humans have a rich spectrum of
motives.
Some philosophical bathwater
3) Claiming that a genetic basis for
behavior undercuts free will.
In evolutionary theory, behavioral
plasticity is often adaptive. If
anything, this argues in favor of some
forms of free will.
It is not evolutionary theory per se, but
reductionist versions of Philosophical
Materialism, that deny free will.
Some philosophical bathwater
4) Claiming that a genetic basis for behavior
undercuts moral responsibility
• The more we know about biological factors
which affect our behavior, the more we
can take responsibility for our actions.
Some philosophical bathwater
5) The “science-or-God” fallacy
The biblical picture is that God is in
control of, and God can use, “natural”
processes and apparently random
events.
Some philosophical bathwater
6) Theological explanations and
mechanistic explanations both appear
to answer “Why” questions – in
apparently conflicting ways.
•
•
•
•
Examples:
Why do polar bears have thick fur?
Why do humans have religious sentiments?
Why would humans come to believe
certain religious propositions?
Some philosophical bathwater
6) Theological explanations and
mechanistic explanations both appear
to answer “Why” questions – in
apparently conflicting ways.
Evolutionary arguments function at the
group level, not the level of individuals.
Claims about why individuals believe
certain things require auxiliary
neuropsychological hypotheses.
Some philosophical bathwater
7) Religion may be adaptive regardless
of whether or not God exists. Does
this undercut belief in God?
A scientific explanation for the existence
of religious sentiments should not
undercut belief in God’s existence
any more than a scientific
explanation for stars and planets
should. God can work through
natural processes.
Some philosophical bathwater
8) Moral Relativism
Does Philosophical Materialism imply Moral
Relativism?
This is an area of ongoing debate amongst
Philosophical Materialists.
To all Christians who enter the debate
regarding Philosophical Materialism
and Moral Relativism, I ask:
• avoid circular arguments and
oversimplification of “Materialism,”
• avoid promoting an unbiblically low view of
creation and general revelation.
1. Our moral and religious
sentiments are intrinsic parts of
our created human nature.
2. God also has personally
revealed himself to human
beings.
Divine special revelation augments,
rather than replaces, evolutionary
accounts of human moral and religious
sentiments.
Evolutionary accounts, in and of
themselves, are necessarily
incomplete, in both scope and content.
Divine special revelation adds to our
understanding of moral and religious
sentiments:
1) Belief content
2) Clarification of
ambiguities
3) Objective standards
4) Expansive scope
(“love enemies”)
5) Eternal significance
6) Context of divine
relationship
7) Accountability to our
Creator
8) Ordering of moral
obligations
9) Divine grace
10)Command to extend
grace