Abstract
This chapter develops a model for the compatibility of design and evolution as explanations, examining how the evidence from biology continues to support belief in design. It argues that we can save both the rationality of an intuitive design discourse and the rationality of seeing biological teleology as evidence of design, even when adopting an evolutionist view of biology. Design and evolution function as conjunctive explanations, so that the success of evolutionary explanations does not remove the explanatory power added by design. Potential objections to the model are considered, building on the traditional philosophical objections. One of these is the problem of natural evil, which has been seen as refuting all design-based views. I argue, however, that the combination of evolution and design that this book has developed can respond to all these concerns as well as any other theological approach, and may even help in better responding to the problem.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Kim ’s argument is applied to the case of theistic evolution by Leidenhag (2019), who argues that many forms of theistic evolution in which God’s causal role is not clearly specified can indeed be criticized for causal overdetermination. However, Leidenhag differs from ID proponents in arguing that the Creator’s causal role does not need to be scientifically detectable. For an excellent discussion of these points, see Skogholt (2020) and Leidenhag (2020).
- 2.
- 3.
Here, the role ascribed to God may seem too limited for some. For them, I would add that a wider theological perspective on biological purpose could also answer other questions, such as “Why does evolution appear to have a direction”, and might provide further understanding of how divine causation relates to the particulars of evolution. For instance, one might have theological reasons for believing (or not believing) that divine control of evolution extends beyond that required for setting up the process.
- 4.
It seems to me that this duality of possible design arguments may create a dilemma for those who would rely on evolution as a defeater of design arguments. The proponent of design could argue roughly as follows: if evolution is highly contingent and its outcome is highly improbable, then reaching this outcome would be better explained by theism. However, if evolution is not as improbable and not as contingent, then the patterns of evolution are explained to a large degree by the background conditions and laws, and evolution simply pushes the search for an explanation further.
- 5.
To be fair, there is a way to extend Plantinga’s account in a manner close to the idea that the divine guidance of mutations could help supplement evolutionary explanations, mentioned at the end of this chapter. Plantinga could argue that we can accept evolutionary explanations as correct, but that taken by themselves evolutionary explanations are still improbable (or cannot predict the actual evolution of a species like humans), and hence this leaves space for supplementing evolutionary explanations with the additional idea of divinely guided mutations. Nevertheless, evolutionary explanations are not typically regarded as this improbable.
- 6.
The possibilities of commonsense reasoning as the basis of design arguments is also defended by Axe (2017). However, unlike the strategy adopted here, Axe’s defense is anti-evolutionist.
- 7.
- 8.
The program discussed by Wahlberg is Tonica Fugata 9.0., released by Capella Software, but many other similar programs also exist. A free demo version can be downloaded from http://www.capella.de/Download_tonica.cfm.
- 9.
Harrison (2017) is an excellent discussion of the metaphysics of mathematics and its relevance for theism.
- 10.
- 11.
In the philosophy of religion, such a “problem of good” has recently been used in the discussion of the “evil God” hypothesis (Page and Baker-Hytch 2020).
- 12.
Quoted in Loikkanen (2015, 181).
- 13.
This, at least, is Dembski’s position as he has clarified it in dialogue with his critics, such as Michael Ruse. Dembski (2004, 9) argues that “Ruse is wrong that the Explanatory Filter separates necessity, chance and design into mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories.” See also Dembski (2008, 221) for similar comments. As Corabi (2009) and Berhow (2019) also note, the ID perspective allows for a great deal of regularity in nature.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
Quoted in Murray 2011, 144–145.
- 17.
- 18.
Murray (2011, 170–175) presents further problems for the idea that evolution is necessary for moral autonomy, or that creation out of nothing would threaten it.
- 19.
Here my discussion, however, sidesteps the major theological views of compatibilism and theological determinism—some forms of which attempt to argue that divine determinism does not remove creaturely culpability. The link between responsibility and freedom was notably criticized by the Protestant reformers Luther (Visala , Vainio 2020), and Calvin (e.g., Bignon 2017). Many of the same theologians would also oppose the application of the concept of moral responsibility to God, and our ability to evaluate God’s actions in general (Davies 2006; Dougherty and McBrayer eds. 2014).
- 20.
Adopting a full-blown process view of God, in which divine omnipotence and creation out of nothing are questioned, might arguably provide a different picture, but would also mean giving up central features of the traditional understanding of God, which would result in other serious problems. For example, as Pak (2014, 2016) argues in depth, in such a view it is difficult to guarantee that good will ultimately triumph over evil.
- 21.
While it may be difficult to find a line of argument that gives God only the glory but not the blame, I think there is a stronger difficulty in giving God only the blame but not the glory. If God’s use of evolution does not remove God’s responsibility for the bad features that evolve (despite creaturely freedom), then why should it remove God’s responsibility for the good features that evolve? It therefore seems to me that the rejection of the evolutionary theodicy as unworkable should also lead to the rejection of evolutionary explanations as removing divine glory for biology.
References
Argyll, George. 1885, April. What Is Science? Good Words, 236–245.
Ariew, André. 2003. Ernst Mayr’s ‘Ultimate/Proximate’ Distinction Reconsidered and Reconstructed. Biology and Philosophy 18: 553–565.
Axe, Douglas. 2017. Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed. San Francisco, CA: HarperOne.
Ayala, Francisco. 2007. Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
Baker-Hytch, Max. 2019. God, Evil and Organic Wholes. Unpublished Paper, Presentation at the Helsinki Analytic Theology Workshop 2019.
Behe, Michael J. 1999. Review. God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution. Metaviews, December 4.
———. 2007. The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Berhow, Michael. 2019. Dysteleology: A Philosophical Assessment of Suboptimal Design in Biology. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.
Bhaskar, Roy. 1978. A Realist Theory of Science. 2nd ed. Hassocks: Harvester Press.
Bignon, Guillaime. 2017. Excusing Sinners and Blaming God: A Calvinist Assessment of Determinism, Moral Responsibility, and Divine Involvement in Evil. Eugene, OR: Pickwick.
Brooke, John Hedley. 1991. Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, Robin. 2018. The Argument from Physical Constants: Fine-Tuning for Discoverability. In Two Dozen (Or So) Arguments for God’s Existence, ed. Jerry L. Walls and Trent Dougherty, 89–107. Oxford: Oxford University Press. A Previous Draft Is Available at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6ab2/7366b32edcf3d12587a07397e0d1d8e496fd.pdf.
Conway Morris, Simon, and Stephen Jay Gould. 1998. Showdown on the Burgess Shale. Natural History Magazine 107 (10): 48–55. Available at http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/naturalhistory_cambrian.html.
Corabi, Joseph. 2009. Intelligent Design and Theodicy. Religious Studies 45 (1): 21–35.
Cunningham, Conor. 2010. Darwin’s Pious Idea: Why the Ultra-Darwinists and Creationists Both Get It Wrong. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.
Darwin, Charles. 1860. To Asa Gray, 22 May 1860. Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter No. 2814. Available at https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2814.xml.
———. 1958 [1887]. In The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Barlow. London: Collins.
Davies, Brian. 2006. The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil. London and New York, NY: Continuum.
Dawkins, Richard. 2006. The God Delusion. London: Bantam Press.
De Smedt, Johan, and Helen De Cruz. 2020. The Challenge of Evolution to Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dembski, William A. 1999. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Dembski, William. 2002. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Dembski, William A. 2004. Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design. Downer’s Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.
———. 2008. Making the Task of Theodicy Impossible? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evil. In The Evolution of Evil, ed. Gaymon Bennett, Martinez J. Hewlett, Ted Peters, and Robert J. Russell, 218–233. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht.
Dennett, Daniel C. 1995a. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Dennett, Daniel. 1995b. Comment on Brian Goodwin, ‘Biology is Just a Dance.’ Edge Conversations. Edge.org. Available at https://www.edge.org/conversation/brian_goodwin-chapter-4-biology-is-just-a-dance#21968.
Dennett, Daniel, and Alvin Plantinga. 2011. Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dickins, T., and R. Barton. 2013. Reciprocal Causation and the Proximate–Ultimate Distinction. Biology & Philosophy 28 (5): 747–756.
Doran, Chris. 2009. From Atheism to Theodicy to Intelligent Design: Responding to the Work of Francisco J. Ayala. Theology and Science 7 (4): 337–344.
Dougherty, Trent. 2014. The Problem of Animal Pain: A Theodicy for All Creatures Great and Small. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Dougherty, Trent, and Justin P. McBrayer, eds. 2014. Skeptical Theism: New Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Draper, Paul. 2012. Darwin’s Argument from Evil. In Scientific Approaches to the Philosophy of Religion, ed. Yujin Nagasawa, 49–70. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fergusson, David. 2018. The Providence of God: A Polyphonic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feser, Edward. 2017. Five Proofs of the Existence of God. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press.
Garvey, Jon. 2019. God’s Good Earth: The Case for an Unfallen Creation. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.
George, Marie. 2002. On Attempts to Salvage Paley’s Argument from Design. In Science, Philosophy, Theology, ed. John O’Callaghan. South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press.
Glass, David. 2012. Can Evidence for Design be Explained Away? In Probability in the Philosophy of Religion, ed. V. Harrison and J. Chandler, 79–102. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Glass, David, and Mark McCartney. 2014. Explaining and Explaining Away in Science and Religion. Theology and Science 12 (4): 338–361.
Glass, David, and Schupbach, Jonah. 2020. Conjunctive Explanations. Unpublished Paper, Part of the Conjunctive Explanations in Science and Religion Project (2018–2020).
Gould, Stephen Jay, and Richard Lewontin. 1979. The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society. Series B 205 (1161): 581–598.
Gray, Asa. 1860. Natural Selection Not Inconsistent with Natural Theology. Atlantic Monthly for July, August and October, 1860. Darwiniana: Essays and Reviews Pertaining to Darwinism. New York: D. Appleton, 1888 [1874].
Harrison, Victoria S. 2017. Mathematical Objects and the Object of Theology. Religious Studies: An International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion 53: 479–496.
Hart, David Bentley. 2005. The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami? Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Haught, John F. 2000. God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Henrich, Joseph. 2015. How Culture Is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Johnson, Phillip E. 1993. Creator Or Blind Watchmaker? First Things 29: 8–14.
Johnson, Curtis. 2015. Darwin’s Dice: The Idea of Chance in the Thought of Charles Darwin. New York, NY and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kim, Jaegwon. 2007. Physicalism, Or Something Near Enough. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kojonen, Erkki Vesa Rope. 2016a. The Intelligent Design Debate and the Temptation of Scientism. London: Routledge.
———. 2016b. Salvaging the Biological Design Argument in Light of Darwinism? Theology and Science 14 (3): 361–381.
———. 2018. Design Discourse: A Way Forward for Theistic Evolutionism. Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 60 (3): 435–451.
———. 2019. Is Classical Science in Conflict with Belief in Miracles? Some Bridge-Building between Different Positions. In God’s Providence and Randomness in Nature: Scientific and Theological Perspectives, ed. Robert John Russell and Joshua M. Moritz, 205–234. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press.
Laland, Kevin, Kim Sterelny, John Odling-Smee, William Hoppitt, and Tobias Uller. 2011. Cause and Effect in Biology Revisited: Is Mayr’s Proximate–Ultimate Dichotomy Still Useful? Science 334 (6062): 1512–1516.
Lamont, John. 2004. Divine Faith. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Leibniz, Gottfried. 1956. In The Leibniz-Clark Correspondence, ed. H.G. Alexander. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Leidenhag, Mikael. 2019. The Blurred Line Between Theistic Evolutionism and Intelligent Design. Zygon 54 (4): 909–931.
———. 2020. The Problem of Natural Divine Causation and the Benefits of Partial Causation: A Response to Skogholt. Zygon 55 (3): 696–709.
List, Christian. 2019. Why Free Will Is Real. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Loikkanen, Juuso. 2015. Early Lutheranism and Natural Theology. Teorie Vědy/Theory of Science 37 (2): 173–186.
Luther, Martin. 1921 [1529]. The Large Catechism. In Triglot Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. German-Latin-English. St. Louis: Concordia.
———. 1964. Lectures on Genesis. In Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, vol. 6. St. Louis: Concordia.
Mayr, Ernst. 1961. Cause and Effect in Biology. Science 134 (3489): 1501–1506.
McGrath, Alister. 2002. A Scientific Theology, Vol. 2: Reality. London: T&T Clark.
———. 2009. Darwinism and the Divine: Evolutionary Thought and Natural Theology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
———. 2016. Re-Imagining Nature: The Promise of a Christian Natural Theology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
McLeish, Tom. 2014. Faith and Wisdom in Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2020. Evolution as the Unwrapping of the Gift of Freedom. Scientia et Fides 8 (2): 43–64. https://doi.org/10.12775/SetF.2020.014.
McMullin, Ernan. 2009. On the Origin of Terrestrial Life: A Christian Perspective. In Exploring the Origin, Extent, and Future of Life: Philosophical, Ethical, and Theological Perspectives, ed. Constance M. Bertka, 80–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meyer, Stephen C. 2017. The Difference It Doesn’t Make: Why the ‘Front-End Loaded’ Concept of Design Fails to Explain the Origin of Biological Information. In Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical and Theological Critique, ed. J.P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K. Gauger, and Wayne Grudem, 217–236. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.
Miller, Calum. 2020. Do Animals Feel Pain in a Morally Relevant Sense? Philosophia. Published Online 13 October. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-020-00254-x.
Moritz, Joshua M. 2019. Contingency, Convergence, Constraints, and the Challenge from Theodicy in Creation’s Evolution. In God’s Providence and Randomness in Nature: Scientific and Theological Perspectives, ed. Robert J. Russell and Joshua M. Moritz, 289–328. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press.
Murray, Michael J. 2011. Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nagel, Thomas. 2012. Mind and Cosmos Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. New York, NY and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nowak, Michael, and Sarah Coakley, eds. 2013. Evolution, Games, and God: The Principle of Cooperation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Oord, Thomas Jay. 2015. The Uncontrolling Love of God: An Open and Relational Theology. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.
Page, Ben, and Max Baker-Hytch. 2020. Meeting the Evil God Challenge. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 101 (3): 489–514.
Pak, Kenneth. 2014. Could Process Theodicy Uphold the Generic Idea of God? American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 35 (3): 211–228.
———. 2016. Divine Power and Evil: A Reply to Process Theodicy. London: Routledge.
Paley, William. 2008 [1802]. Natural Theology. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford University.
Peckham, John. 2018. A Theodicy of Love: Cosmic Conflict and the Problem of Evil. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing.
Peels, Rik. 2018. Does Evolution Conflict with God’s Character? Modern Theology 34 (4): 544–564.
Persson, Johannes, and Petri Ylikoski, eds. 2007. Rethinking Explanation. Dordrecht: Springer.
Peters, Ted, and Martinez Hewlett. 2003. Evolution from Creation to New Creation: Conflict, Conversation and Convergence. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
Plantinga, Alvin. 1977. God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
———. 2011. Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Polkinghorne, John. 2011. Science and Religion in Quest of Truth. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.
Ratzsch, Del. 2001. Nature, Design and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Ratzsch, Del, and Koperski, Jeffrey. 2019. Teleological Arguments for God’s Existence. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 Edition). Ed. Edward N. Zalta. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/teleological-arguments/.
Russell, Robert J. 2013. Recent Theological Interpretations of Evolution. Theology and Science 11 (3): 169–184.
Schaffer, Jonathan. 2016. The Metaphysics of Causation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 ed.). Ed. Edward N. Zalta. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/causation-metaphysics/.
Schmidt, William E. 1991. 2 ‘Jovial Con Men’ Demystify Those Crop Circles in Britain. The New York Times, September 10.
Schneider, John R. 2020. Animal Suffering and the Darwinian Problem of Evil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schupbach, Jonah N. 2016. Competing Explanations and Explaining-Away Arguments. Theology and Science 14 (3): 256–267.
Sedley, David. 2007. Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity. Sather Classical Lectures 66. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Skogholt, Christoffer. 2020. I Walk the Line: Comment on Mikael Leidenhag on Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design. Zygon 55 (3): 685–695.
Snellman, Lauri. 2019. Anti-theodicy and Antitheodicies. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 11 (1): 201–211.
Sollereder, Bethany. 2018. God, Evolution, and Animal Suffering: Theodicy Without a Fall. London: Routledge.
Southgate, Christopher. 2008. The Groaning of Creation: God, Evolution, and the Problem of Evil. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
———. 2018. Theology in a Suffering World: Glory and Longing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sterba, James P. 2019. Solving Darwin’s Problem of Natural Evil. Sophia 59: 501–512.
Stump, Eleonore. 2010. Wandering in Darkness: Narrative and the Problem of Suffering. Oxford: Clarendon.
Talbert, Matthew. 2016. Moral Responsibility: An Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Timpe, Kevin. 2013. Free Will in Philosophical Theology. New York, NY and London: Bloomsbury.
Tomasello, Michael. 2019. Becoming Human: A Theory of Ontogeny. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tracy, Thomas F. 2013. Divine Purpose and Evolutionary Processes. Zygon 48 (2): 454–465.
Visala, Aku. 2011. Theism and the Cognitive Science of Religion. Farnham: Ashgate.
———. 2019. Vapaan Tahdon Filosofia. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
Visala, Aku, and Olli-Pekka Vainio. 2020. Erasmus versus Luther: A Contemporary Analysis of the Debate on Free Will. Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 62 (3): 311–335.
Vodder, Hans W. 2018. Salvaging Biological Design Or Doing Away with It? A Criticism of Kojonen’s Proposal. Unpublished Paper.
Wagner, Andreas. 2016. Without a Platonic Library of Forms, Evolution Couldn’t Work. Aeon.com. March 16. Available at https://aeon.co/essays/without-a-library-of-platonic-forms-evolution-couldn-t-work.
Wahlberg, Mats. 2012. Reshaping Natural Theology: Seeing Nature as Creation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
———. 2015. Was Evolution the Only Possible Way for God to Make Autonomous Creatures? Examination of an Argument in Evolutionary Theodicy. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 77 (1): 37–51.
———. 2017. A Cosmological Argument Against Physicalism. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 9 (2): 165–188.
Wigner, Eugene. 1960. The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. Richard Courant lecture in Mathematical Sciences Delivered at New York University, May 11, 1959. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 13: 1–14.
Wiker, Benjamin, and Jonathan Witt. 2006. A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kojonen, E.V.R. (2021). Indirect Design and the Revelatory Potential of Biology. In: The Compatibility of Evolution and Design. Palgrave Frontiers in Philosophy of Religion. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69683-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69683-2_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-69682-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-69683-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)