The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning

Abstract

A remarkable but little studied aspect of current evolutionary theory is the use by many biologists and philosophers of theological arguments for evolution. These can be classed under two heads: imperfection arguments, in which some organic design is held to be inconsistent with God's perfection and wisdom, and homology arguments, in which some pattern of similarity is held to be inconsistent with God's freedom as an artificer. Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ayala, F.: 1988, ‘Evolution, The Theory of’, Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed., Encyclopedia Britannica, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brady, R.H.: 1985, ‘On the Independence of Systematics’, Cladistics 1, 113–126.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brooke, J.H.: 1985, ‘The Relations Between Darwin's Science and his Religion’, in J. Durant (ed.), Darwinism and Divinity, Basil Blackwell, London, pp. 40–75.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Burian, R.: 1986, ‘Why the Panda Provides no Comfort to the Creationist’, Philosopica 37, 11–26.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cain, A.J.: 1964, ‘The Perfection of Animals’, in J.D. Carthy and C.L. Duddington (eds.), Viewpoints in Biology, Vol. 3, Butterworths, London, pp. 36–63.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cornell, J.: 1987, ‘God's Magnificent Law: The Bad Influence of Theistic Metaphysics on Darwin's Estimation of Natural Selection’, Journal of the History of Biology 20, 381–412.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Darnbrough, C.: 1986, ‘Genes — Created but Evolving’, in E.H. Andrews, W. Gitt, and W.J. Ouweneel (eds.), Concepts in Creationism, Evangelical Press, Herts, England, pp. 241–266.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Darwin, C.: 1859 [1964], On the Origin of Species, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Darwin, C.: 1877 [1984], The Various Contrivances by Which Orchids Are Fertilized by Insects, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dawkins, R.: 1986, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Eldredge, N. and J. Cracraft.: 1980, Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process, Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Frair, W. and Davis, P.: 1983, A Case for Creation, Moody Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Futuyma, D.: 1983, Science on Trial, Pantheon, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Futuyma, D.: 1985, ‘Evolution as Fact and Theory’, Bios 56, 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ghiselin, M.: 1984, The Triumph of the Darwinian Method, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gilkey, L.: 1985, Creationism on Trial, Winston Press, Minneapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gillespie, N.: 1979, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gould, S.J.: 1977, Ever Since Darwin, W.W. Norton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gould, S.J.: 1980, The Panda's Thumb, W.W. Norton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gould, S.J.: 1983, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, W.W. Norton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gould, S.J.: 1986, ‘Evolution and the Triump of Homology, or Why History Matters’, American Scientist 74, 60–69.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gould, S.J.: 1989, Wonderful Life, W.W. Norton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gould, S.J.: 1991, Bully for Brontosaurus, W.W. Norton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Haeckel, E.: 1876, The History of Creation, D. Appleton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hick, J.: 1967, ‘Evil, The Problem of,’ in P. Edwards (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

  26. Hoffman, A.: 1989, Arguments on Evolution, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Holton, G.: 1993, Science and Anti-Science, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jacob, F.: 1982, The Possible and the Actual, Pantheon, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jukes, T. and Osawa, S.: 1991, ‘Recent Evidence for Evolution of the Genetic Code’, in S. Osawa and T. Honjo (eds.), Evolution of Life, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 79–95.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Junker, R. and Scherer, S.: 1988, Entstehung und Geschichte der Lebewesen, Weyel Lehrmittelverlag, Giessen.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kohn, D.: 1989, ‘Darwin's Ambiguity: The Secularization of Biological Meaning’, British Journal for the History of Science 22, 215–239.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kolakowski, L.: 1982, Religion, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kitcher, P.: 1985, ‘Darwin's Achievement’, in N. Rescher (ed.), Reason and Rationality in Natural Science, University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland, pp. 127–189.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Landgren, P.: 1993, ‘On the Origin of “Species”: Ideological Roots of the Species Concept’, in S. Scherer (ed.), Typen des Lebens, Pascal Verlag, Berlin, pp. 47–64.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Leibniz, G.W.: [1710] 1985, Theodicy, Open Court, La Salle, Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Lewontin, R.C.: 1984, ‘Adaptation’, in E. Sober (ed.), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 234–251.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lewontin, R.C.: 1987, ‘The Shape of Optimality’, in J. Dupre (ed.), The Latest on the Best, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 151–159.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Løvtrup, S.: 1987, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, Croom Helm, London.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Maynard Smith, J.: 1978, ‘Optimization Theory in Evolution’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 9, 31–56.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Mayr, E.: 1964, Introduction to the facsimile reprint of On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Mayr, E.: 1983, ‘Darwin, Intellectual Revolutionary’, in D.S. Bendall (ed.), Evolution from Molecules to Men, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 23–41.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Mayr, E.: 1991, One Long Argument, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Murris, H.: 1986, ‘The Concept of the Species and its Formation’, in E.H. Andrews, W. Gitt and W.J. Ouweneel (eds.), Concepts in Creationism, Evangelical Press, Herts, England, pp. 175–207.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Naylor, B.G.: 1982, ‘Vestigial Organs are Evidence of Evolution’, Evolutionary Theory 6, 91–96.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ospovat, D.: 1980, ‘God and Natural Selection: The Darwinian Idea of Design’, Journal of the History of Biology, 13, 169–194.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Owen, R.: 1849, On the Nature of Limbs, John Van Voorst, London.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ridley, M.: 1985, The Problems of Evolution, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ridley, M.: 1986, Evolution and Classification, Longman, London.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Rieppel, O.: 1988, Fundamentals of Comparative Biology, Birkhauser Verlag, Basel.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Russell, E.S.: [1916] 1982, Form and Function, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Scadding, S.: 1981, ‘Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?’, Evolutionary Theory 5, 173–176.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Scadding, S.: 1982,‘Vestigial Organs do not Provide Scientific Evidence for Evolution’, Evolutionary Theory 6, 171–173.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Schaller, G., Jinchu, H., Wenshi, P., and Jing, Z.: 1986, The Giant Pandas of Wolong, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Scherer, S.: 1993, ‘Basic Types of Life’, in S. Scherer (ed.), Typen des Lebens, Pascal Verlag, Berlin, pp. 11–30.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sober, E.: 1984, The Nature of Selection, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Sober, E.: 1993, Philosophy of Biology, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Williams, G.C.: 1992, Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nelson, P.A. The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning. Biol Philos 11, 493–517 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138329

Download citation

Key words

  • natural theology
  • imperfection
  • suboptimality
  • homology
  • methodological naturalism
  • creationism
  • panda's thumb
  • pentadactyl limb
  • Stephen Jay Gould
  • Darwin's theology