Does Evolution make belief in God untenable? At the recent conference, Faithful Science? – Just How Well Do Science and Faith Get Along? I presented a paper examining this question.[1] This blog series has grown from that paper and the discussions I had with the theologians and scientists in attendance at the conference.

It is commonly argued that darwinian evolution renders belief in God rationally untenable because it refutes the teleological argument, commonly referred to as the argument from design. Darwin himself suggested this in his autobiography;

John Dupre adds, “Darwinism undermines the only remotely plausible reason for believing in God.”[3]

However, this purported refutation of theism is far too quick for several reasons. First, the claim that darwinian evolution refutes the teleological argument is false. There are several different versions of teleological arguments. What is arguably true is that it undercuts one particular version, that proposed by William Paley in Natural Theology. Although, in a recent study Del Ratzsch has suggested Paley’s argument has in fact been misunderstood and when these misunderstandings are stripped away it is not clear that discovery of the laws of natural selection do refute it.[4] Nevertheless, to rebut one particular teleological argument is not to undercut them all.

To justify the inference that darwinian evolution refutes teleological arguments one would need to show that darwinian evolution provides grounds for rejecting all such arguments. It does not. If one focuses on the contemporary literature, it is evident that there are currently several teleological arguments from design that are untouched by darwinism which are being seriously defended in the literature. These arguments may or may not be sound but whether they are or not has nothing to with darwinian evolution.

Two examples will suffice to illustrate this; the first is the teleological argument proposed and defended by Richard Swinburne in The Existence of God. Swinburne proposed an inductive teleological argument based on “The orderliness of the universe.” Swinburne elaborates what he means by this;

Swinburne argues that theism explains this order and that its existence increases theism’s probability. Regardless of the merits of Swinburne’s argument, it is evident that darwinian evolution does not refute it. This is because darwinism, far from explaining away such laws, actually assumes their existence;

The second example is the teleological argument defended more recently by Robin Collins. Robin Collins appeals to the existence of what has been dubbed cosmic fine-tuning, the contention that, “Almost everything about the basic structure of the universe--for example, the fundamental laws and parameters of physics and the initial distribution of matter and energy--is balanced on a razor’s edge for life to occur.”[5] Frances Collins explains that for life to evolve there are around 15 constants necessary, each must have precise values and if they were off by a million or one in a million, life could not evolve.[6] Robin Collins argues that this fine-tuning is significantly more probable if theism is true than if atheism is true and hence confirms theism over atheism.

I do not here wish to go defend (or criticise) this argument in any depth, my point is simply that darwinian evolution does not refute it. This is because the cosmic fine-tuning argument appeals to the conditions needed for life to evolve. The fine-tuning both Collins’ refer to are preconditions for the evolution of life to occur. As they are preconditions, evolution can hardly provide an explanation for this at all; even if it could, it is not clear that this would show that the probability of such fine-tuning occurring if atheism were true is as probable as it occurring on the background hypothesis of theism’s truth.

Hence, darwinian evolution does not undercut teleological arguments. It is worth noting that even it did then the conclusion that Dupre and Darwin draw, that theism is rationally unwarranted, does not follow. Even if all versions of teleological arguments were refuted by Darwin, it does not follow that all the other arguments for God’s existence are undercut; even if they were, it could be the case that belief in God is justified independently of any argument. Let me briefly elaborate on both these ideas.

The first, Dupre’s suggestion that the argument from design is the only plausible ground for believing in God, is simply false. In Two Dozen or So Theistic Arguments Alvin Plantinga sketched 26 arguments for God’s existence currently being defended in the literature. Earlier this year, Blackwell published the Blackwell Encyclopaedia to Natural Theology which contains current versions of 11 arguments used to defend the existence of God in the literature today. While the cogency of these arguments remains, like most philosophical claims, a subject of substantive debate it is undisputed that they exist and have been give serious and sophisticated advocacy from competent philosophers. To rebut them then requires serious philosophical argument not assertion.

The suggestion then that a refutation of all teleological arguments dismantles the case for theism is false. A true refutation of the plausible grounds for theism would involve a detailed rebuttal of all of the arguments for theism, not just commentary on one type.

Even if it were the case that teleological arguments were the only arguments for the existence of God, it does not follow that their failure would undercut the rational acceptability of theism. Such an assertion assumes that theism is rationally justified only if there is a good argument for it. It is widely acknowledged in epistemology that not all beliefs need to be demonstrated by argument to be rational. To claim they do creates a regress problem;

To avoid this problem an influential movement in epistemology known as foundationalism maintains that at the base or foundation of one’s noetic structure are beliefs that one is justified in believing independently of any argument. These are called properly basic beliefs. Since the late 1970’s an extremely important movement within Philosophy of Religion, known as the reformed epistemology movement, has offered detailed and rigorous defences of the contention that for theists, belief in God can be a properly-basic belief. The most important defender of this position is Alvin Plantinga, though many others such as William Alston and Nicholas Wolterstorff have defended similar views. Plantinga notes the implication of this movement, “The demise of the teleological argument, if indeed evolution has compromised it, is little more of a threat to rational belief in God than the demise of the argument from analogy for other minds is to rational belief in other minds.”[8]

It seems then that the claim that evolution undercuts teleological arguments is a non starter. Even if it were true, this conclusion only has significance if all other arguments for God’s existence are also refuted and an argument can be provided that shows that belief in God is not properly-basic. This would require significant philosophical work, over and above, any appeal to natural selection. It is evident then that by itself, darwinian evolution would prove very little except, at best, that one 19th century argument by Paley might be unsuccessful.

[1] I am grateful to Alvin Plantinga who sent me a copy of his unpublished paper, “Science and Religion: Where Does the Conflict Really Lie?” which was extremely helpful in formulating my thoughts.
[2] Charles Darwin Life and Letters of Charles Darwin ed Francis Darwin (NY: D. Appleton, 1887) Vol. 1 279.
[3] John Dupre Darwin’s Legacy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003) 56.
[4] Del Ratzsch Teleological Arguments for God's Existence Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
[5] Robin Collins “God, Design, and Fine-Tuning” originally published in God Matters: Readings in the Philosophy of Religion eds Raymond Martin and Christopher Bernard (New York: Longman Press, 2002).
[6] Frances Collins The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for the Existence of God (Free Press, 2006) 75.
[7] Roy Clouser Knowing With the Heart (IVP, Downers Grove, 1999) 69.
[8] Alvin Plantinga “Science and Religion: Where Does the Conflict Really Lie?” (unpublished).

RELATED POSTS:
Darwinian Evolution, Chance and Design

I have some news!!! Official as of this morning: this semester, instead of doing one of the elective papers on offer to 4th year law students, I will be undertaking Supervised Research on the question, "What does 'freedom' mean in 'freedom of religion,'" with the Academic Dean, Professor Paul Rishworth, described on the Law School's faculty page as "the country’s leading legal academic expert on the New Zealand Bill of Rights," as my supervisor!!!

:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

I am very excited about this as it says in the student handbook that "only students who have already shown research capability will be given permission to do a supervised research paper." It also says that applications will be approved on a case by case basis and you have to have a very good grade point average to apply. I had always wanted to undertake supervised research but I never thought of applying until the Dean of Students suggested it a couple of weeks ago; I never thought of applying as I never thought I would get approval to do it.

When I began my degree back in 1993 it was very difficult. I enrolled as a 19 year old single mother. I wanted to study because I had at that point screwed up my life and I was determined to set a better example for my daughter. We were on our own. I would not just sit on welfare, I would better myself and ensure that I could provide for us.

I was living in Hamilton, my family were in Auckland so I had little support. I did not have a computer at home but back then nothing relevant was online anyway; nowadays I can sit at home and log into NexisLexis, Brookers, Westlaw, Justis and so on, back then I had to hire a babysitter and go into the law library and find the relevant volumes on the shelves. It was the same with typing assignments, I would write them in one all-nighter stint as it was cheaper to pay for one overnight babysitting session than several. As hiring babysitters cost money, I was juggling a job as well. On top of all that, I was trying to escape a violent, abusive and controlling relationship it wasn't until my second child to this man that I managed to break away from whatever was holding me there and regain my life.

In order to balance my priorities as a studying, working, single mother I made a decision early on that A's were for students who did not have my circumstances and as B's and C's get degrees that was that. It was very hard for me to decide this as I am a very driven personality who really likes to achieve but study was not the only area in my life that was important to me to achieve in, being a good parent was more important - especially given the violence my older two children had already been exposed to in their infancy.

Later when I met and married Matt things got easier. I could leave him with the kids, we had a computer, things were increasingly coming online, I cut back to part-time study and I finally allowed myself the luxury of chasing A's. But that early period cost me the grade point average necessary to even contemplate applying for areas of study such as the honours program, supervised research, masters program, etc.

On paper I did not and do not look like one of the above average students and certainly not post-graduate material. Last year when I applied to Auckland Law School (arguably the best law school in New Zealand) having had an 8 year break from Waikato Law School (arguably the worst law school in the country) with the aforementioned very average transcript I was not surprised when Auckland only reluctantly accepted me and I received a sternly worded letter at the beginning of 2008 indicating that I was in by the skin of my teeth; I was on probation, they would only accept me as a Waikato Certificate of Proficiency student and that I would have to prove myself before they would even accept me as an Auckland LLB student. Then just a month after I began study there was the car accident which as you know rendered me permanently injured, and back then, unable to attend lectures and with a sitting tolerance of 30 minutes, unable to sit through exams or do big stints at the computer.

So, to be holding in my hand today the approval to undertake the type of study that only the best law students are permitted to engage in at the best law school in the country under one of the best legal minds in the field is somewhat giddying when you consider where I have come from and the battle I have faced and overcome to get here.

Now I have the opportunity to really make my mark and open the door to the Masters of Jurisprudence that I really want to undertake, I am scared stupid I have bitten off more than I can chew! Still I am very happy.

Sorry all, it appears that between last nights bloggers drinks and this morning JS-Kit have switched us over to their Echo upgrade for comments which has effectively wrecked the hours of work I, along with the help of Bethyada and Stephanie, put into making comments appear seamlessly integrated and appears to no longer give you a link back to your own blog.

On the bright side the comments appear legible even if they don't look that tidy so I will get to work understanding Echo and seeing what I can do to improve the current state of affairs.

UPDATE
In true JS-Kit style the instructions for customising Echo were hopelessly techie assuming a huge amount of knowledge the average blogger does not possess. Given that Echo has munted the way our comments display I am pleased to report that I managed to turn Echo off and switch back to the previous format. Comments are back to normal.

On Saturday the NZ Herald's John Roughan demonstrated why journalists should not engage in legal interpretation in his widely criticised piece on the smacking referendum, "Sinister undertones to referendum instigator."

At the time I struggled to ascertain whether Roughan was being deliberately deceptive or he just didn't get it. He essentially quoted the non-controversial, much more straight-forward, parts of the anti-smacking law, the new s59 (1),(2) and (3) of the Crimes Act, to attempt to prove that the law was not confusing and claims to the contrary were a smoke screen put up by those who desire "the right to flog children." Aside from his slander, his article was widely criticised because he omitted to mention the most controversial and confusing clause in the new section: s59 (4).

More than one person asked me to write a critique of this piece but was unable to due to my injuries flaring up badly this week and massive transport headaches. I also worried that my status as a law student meant anything I wrote would not carry the necessary weight (funny how that does not apply to journalists with significantly less law papers to their name than I). Not to worry, because today the Herald features a most excellent response by Jim Evans, Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Auckland no less; see "Jim Evans: New section 59 is clearly a mess."

Professor Evans clearly and simply explains not only the confusion caused by the controversial sub-section (4) but also the less widely noted but equally concerning problems that sub-section (2) creates. He concludes with what we have consistently maintained,

"This is not clear legislation. In creating this law, Parliament abandoned its constitutional responsibility to say with clarity just which conduct is criminal.

The section results from a political fudge. Whatever other views one takes about the topic of smacking, that much at least ought to be kept clear."

I encourage you to read both articles, especially if you have not voted yet and you are confused by all the contradictory claims being made by both sides. I have included the piece of legislation under scrutiny as a term of reference below.

Don't forget to vote in the smacking referendum - mail your papers back by August 20.

RELATED POSTS:
Fisking Margaret Mayman: The Flawed Moral Theology on the Smacking Referendum
Fisking Ian Hassall: The Arbitrary Ethical Reasoning on the Smacking Referendum
No Defences Permitted for the Accused

The last few days have really been stressful in terms of transport issues. As Matt mentioned on the way to my grandfather's memorial our family car broke down and was diagnosed with a fairly major condition. Then when I got to the memorial late I was loaned my grandfather's car which I then had to navigate off Waiheke Island in the via car-ferry and then find my way home, in the dark, from a part of Auckland I rarely drive in with no map.

Well this morning Sherry frantically texted me at 8.15am asking me to phone her urgently. She was on the train to Uni and had then discovered her train ticket and her wallet were not with her and the train people were going to throw her off the train in Mt Albert (a long distance from both home and Uni). To make matters worse she had an important Biology test at 9 am. The train people would not take my credit card and were basically hardline - produce cash or a ticket or get off the train (fair enough but it still sucked).

As anyone who drives in Auckland knows getting from Henderson to Mt Albert train station and then to Uni by 9am when you are not leaving til 8.15am is seriously pushing it. Worse I was in my pyjamas, so were the other kids and Christian needed to be at school accross the other side of Henderson (equally thick and nasty traffic) by 8.40am. Somehow I got him to school and Sherry to her test only 5 minutes later (with her wallet which I'd found on the floor where she'd been studying last night) and I was about to go "phew" and relax but then I noticed that my grandfather's car was overheating!

ARGH!

About another hour of mucking around with locating water and phoning my dad we (me and the younger two homeschooled kids) were finally on our way home. Though unfortunatly my grandfather's car looks to have an equally serious mechanical problem as our family car.

Give me the days when you could travel by horseback.

UPDATE

Poor Sherry. After getting to her test late this morning and having a long day at Uni she has just texted me to say that the train taking her home has broken down and she has been taken off the train and taken to Newmarket - well off the path between Uni and Henderson - and has no idea how she is going to get home. I just phoned Maxx the transport company and asked how they intended to get her home and first they told me that that train was now fixed and no one had been put on busses (why is she texting me saying all the passengers had been taken off the train and were on a bus then?) and then they said, "well doesn't she have any other money?" I pointed out that she had handed them her train ticket, they'd accepted it and as such they then had an obligation to get her home and to not leave her in Newmarket. Silly me, I thought giving her a train ticket for transport would be sufficient. I got put through to someone else who said she didn't think they would dump the passengers in Newmarket and then she put me through to someone else who she promised me would know but the someone else turned out to be an answerphone that promptly hung up on me. Hopefully sanity and customer service will prevail and they will get her home...

Here are the top 10 NZ Christian blogs based on HalfDone's NZ blog stats for July; these stats make up part of the calculations for the MandM top 10 NZ Christian Blog rankings for July 09:

There will be no Sunday Study this week as the past week has been taken up with preparing for the memorial service on Waiheke Island, the Faith and Science conference I spoke at yesterday and two other deadlines for written work due Friday; and on top of all that, our family car blew its head gasket yesterday morning, on the motorway no less, causing us to miss the first ferry to the memorial service. I ended up not going, getting the car towed instead and going to the conference early and Madeleine ended up sending the kids back on the passenger ferry by themselves while she took her Grandfather's car off the island by car-ferry, which saw her lost in Half Moon bay last night without a map - major dramas - all ended well but it was a long week followed by a very long day yesterday and we need a break.

We won't be away too long as Chuck Bird has alerted us to a terribly dishonest piece in the Herald about the anti-smacking law that must not go unanswered and I intend to tidy up my conference paper notes and put them up as a series entitled "Does Evolution Make Belief in God Untenable?"

In the mean time, if any of you have any particular bible passages you'd be interested in my dedicating a Sunday Study to in the future please leave them below.

On the ferry to Waiheke Island yesterday as I watched all the Hauraki Gulf's islands pass me by I remembered the hours I had spent on those waters as a child on my Grandfather Mark's boat. I told my children as they too looked out the ferry window that I had been on that beach, climbed to the top of that island and one day I'd seen a wallaby (of all things!) on the one closest to us, Motuihe Island; it had run past our picnic and my younger cousin had chased it along the beach yelling "here wally, wally" at the top of his lungs. I remember Mark laughing and telling us that Motuihe was one of the few places in New Zealand you could find wallabies.

Being in Mark's house for the wake, I showed my kids all the little trinkets that my sister and I used to love, the strange shells, the lump of onyx and the human skull that Mark had once found, whilst walking on a beach, that he used as bookend - only Mark would find a human skeleton and take the skull home! I showed them the poems on the walls, the pieces of art and the simple way he lived and I thought about Mark and about how much time I had spent not being with him and not thinking about him. Like many grandchildren, I was too busy with my own life and yesterday as we gathered as a family and remembered him I found out things about him I had never known.

I didn't know that he was born in England which makes me only 2nd generation kiwi. I knew he wrote poetry and had a passion for the written arts, he was one of the many English teachers our family has produced, but I did not know how gifted he was or of his writing accomplishments until I saw the full array of his published works yesterday and read the Waiheke Gulf News article on him which was published on Thursday; extracts and link below.

Distinguished poet Mark Richards publishes his last volume

Mark Richards – poet, writer, teacher, sailor, musician – died peacefully at home on Waiheke last Sunday. He was 87. Shortly before his death, he had his thirteenth collection of poetry published.

...

It is fat - not a slim volume at all. An extraordinary achievement in the last quarter of his life. The book’s foreword is by New Zealand writer David Hill who notes that “the poems in this collection are vigorous, varied, quickened by verbal and intellectual energy and discoveries, just like their author.”

And looking at poet Kevin Ireland’s brief biography at the front, it’s clear that Mark Richards was no passive observer of life as it passed by.

Born in London in 1922, he was the grandson of the novelist, poet and essayist Maurice Hewlett. He arrived in New Zealand in 1927 with his parents, who farmed near Tauranga before moving to the North Shore in 1933. After an apprenticeship, interrupted by five years in the army and airforce, he became a journeyman printer on the NZ Herald. After attending Auckland Teachers College 1949-51, he graduated from the University of Auckland in 1954, then went on to teach at Takapuna Grammar School until 1977. He became friends with poets A.R.D Fairburn and R.A.K Mason, who deeply influenced his writing and he published early poems in Arena, a quarterly literary journal based in Wellington.

In 1960, he won first prize for his poem Go Back Lazarus in the Cheltenham Festival Poetry Competition, which at that time, says Ireland, was arguably the most prestigious international prize awarded to a New Zealand poet. And for the next ten years his poems, plays (mainly in verse) and talks were frequently broadcast. His books of poems were regularly published from 1958 to the present and his satirical history of New Zealand, 1840 and All That came out in 1991.

From 1996, he developed an interest in detective novels, creating a character called Simon Bridger who stars in three published novellas as an amateur detective helped by his friends. Oh and he married and had three children (and grandchildren and great grandchildren) along the way - Michael [my father], Hugh and Barbara.

His poems range across a broad canvas from war and ageing to personal relationships, visions of the future, sailing and landscapes, particularly around the North Shore of Auckland and the Hauraki Gulf. In form they are also varied – from sonnets to narrative to free verse. I find his writing honest, wry and accessible – intelligent without being pompous. He is especially unflinching about the ageing process;

...

David Hill concludes at the end of his foreword. “These are poems of craft as well as art… They fit together nicely, as do the boats, homes and music the author has shaped in his eventful life. They’re strong, well-wrought, and written with respect and awareness. They and their maker have done a damn good job.”