Good point. Sorry @Rational_Theist_Matt. It is just a little disorienting when you seem to be arguing for their point of view. If your concern is the theology, can you explain that some more?
What exactly is your theological objections? Science itself makes no theological claims, but perhaps you are concerned that it does not directly reference God’s action or purpose? This would be another place where I think evolution is not complete, because it does not tell us the whole story.
Recently, an interesting discussion ensued on this point on another site:
Dr. Joshua Swamidass, a theistic evolutionist, joined us recently at TSZ. I think the following comment of his will lead to some interesting and contentious discussion and is worthy of its own thread:
… if we drop “Darwinian” to just refer to the current modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, you are right that the scientific account does not find any evidence of direction or planning. I agree with you here and do not dispute this.
So the question becomes, really, is it possible that God could have created a process (like evolution) with a purposeful intent that science could not detect? I think the answer here is obvious. Of course He could. In fact, I would say, unless He wanted us to discern His purpose, we could not.
In my view, then, evolution has a purpose in creating us. Science itself cannot uncover its purpose. I find that out by other means.
The purpose of theistic evolution | The Skeptical Zone
And then ensuses an entertaining conversation (>650 comments so far) where an atheist (keiths) eloquently argues that (1) my position is consistent with mainstream science and (2) my position is logically possible. Probably the most important comment from me is this…
I do not know how God directed evolution, but there are several possible answers.
Perhaps (as Ken Miller muses), God tweeks mutations through manipulating quantum fields.
Perhaps (as Michael Behe argues), God encodes all the required information in the initial conditions of the Big Bang.
Perhaps (as Francis Collins hypothesizes), God sent an asteroid to kill of the dinosaurs to prepare the way for mammals, and then for us. Of course, there are an uncountable number of historical contingencies like this by which God could direct evolution, without ever leaving a signature in DNA for purpose.
Perhaps (as Owen Gingerich alludes), God miraculously inspires some mutations.
Perhaps (as the Molinist explains), God accesses all possible realities and chooses to instantiate the one that produces us.
Perhaps (as the Reformed theologians posit), God does everything through predestination, there is no more conflict with evolution than there is in our perception of free will.
Which of these is it? Or some combination of multiple? Or something I haven’t listed? I do not know. Frankly, I do not really care. What is clear to me is that there are several logically and scientifically consistent ways of resolving the puzzle. Of course, none of these models appears to be detectable to science. So all of these models leaves me with my main claim:
Evolution is purposeful (in my view), but science cannot detect its purpose. The purpose of theistic evolution | The Skeptical Zone
Later on, Keiths took to defending Molinism as a logical possibility (even though he still has his objections from theodicy). And I added.
I wanted to just remind everyone that we are not the first people to think about these issues. I think one idea particularly important (and to which I am drawn) that I think resolves this paradox is Molinism. This, of course, is exactly what Keiths is talking about. Molinism - Wikipedia
This could explain how things that are “random” can still be purposeful. The proposal here is that God has full knowledge of all possible worlds, and then chooses to actualize the “best possible” world. From our point of view, evolution still looks random (and still even could be fundamentally random), but God exerts His will by choosing the reality that leads to us. This proposal resolves several key challenges.
- It solves the logical problem of theodicy.
- It resolves the conflict of free-will vs. predestination
- It makes clear that evolution, even if intrinsically random, can be purposeful and predetermined.
- It is not mutual exclusive with other mode’s of divine action.
- It explains why we see a world governed by natural laws.
So, with all this out there. What exactly is your theological objection to mainstream science’s understanding of evolution?
(@eddie look! I’m talking about divine action!)