Christian ethics and human evolution

As a fellow “husky”, @jpm, I can certainly corroborate everything you have said.

As for the survival benefits to a population made possible by a host of stout warriors… I literally refer to the old ways of war by a Host!

Imagine pre-Classical Greek battles, where men stand in an open field, silently (or even loudly) offering up words and imprecations to the Divine, to give them the victory this day!

And then, suddenly, at the crest of the hill, the opposing tribe of a neighboring city appears. There’s a preternatural silence that is almost deafening… as the distant line of men begin to descend from the heights.

And then the line begins to pick up speed, moving down from the crest with an obvious quickening … shields reflecting the sun brilliantly, and the just visible glint of spear tips are noted. At the bottom of the hill we see the prayers of the devout coming to their end, and heads craning about to confirm that the defending line is ideally situated and in proper array.

The descending lines of hostile warriors are now leveling off from the hill’s slope, but are now practically galloping towards the expected crash of shields and the unrelenting ferocity unleashed by rival Gods and the men who fight for them. But what is this?! These men are not the sleek, wire-ey warriors like those easily vanquished last summer on the other side of their territory.

These men are thick, and corpulent, well-fed antagonists who must have had to hunt and fish many more hours in a week to be so turgid with flesh! Our first sight of such flabby masses trigger some hopes of yet another easy victory. But only too late do we realize that we should have lined up much further away from the crest of the hill. These men, these human rhinos, are only moments away, and we collectively realize that only the most determined posture will stop these behemoth berserkers from passing right over our corpses on the way to our treasuries, our food stocks and our women!

The terrible sounds of metal smacking metal, human skin smacking armor, and the unwitting expulsion of air and voice from the throats of so many of our compatriots, our neighbors, our kin slam together into a terrific cacophony of slaughter. Strong men, muscular men, are mowed down in two’s and three’s by the well-linked waves of meaty, bulky masculine embodiments of hostile zeal.

We do not all die. Some have survived long enough to avoid a second line’s spear points… long enough to begin to run … to fight again some new day … and after a year of feasting on the meals that would make us as mighty as this newly arrived raging army of indifferent obesity!

This, then, is my paean to rotund, fat men, who know the power of mass times speed … and maybe even have a pig haunch still in their war satchels - - as they divide their newest plunder pried from the grips of much leaner men, more noble men, but with fatally lower BMI’s!!!

[Note from Author: Please feel free to share this with other stout men, in the classroom or in the office, so that they too will experience the vicarious joys of fat victory!]

1 Like

I remember reading [the lean health-nut] Yancey’s impressions of a former [and much more rotund] Chesterton, who had apparently noted at one time that he never trusted thin men and found the large ones much more jovial and less judgmental, etc. I’m probably doing profound violence to Chesterton’s views here, but with his BMI, I’m sure he could have brushed this all aside. Anyway, Yancey couldn’t help but take the criticism personally as a thin person himself, and I’m with Yancey on that. If we ever face a line of archers, George or @jpm, I hope you’ll let me stand behind you. More likely I may be running the other way while you face the challenges. “It won’t impress the women” as Calvin’s tiger friend, Hobbes once noted … “but there’s no sense impressing them and then getting killed.”

:fearful:

1 Like

How can we relate this to ethics and human evolution? Certainly, in prehistory, human found an advantage in more efficient metabolisms, as food was scarce, you had to eat a lot in times of abundance to get you through the times of want. Perhaps we were programmed to get while the getting was good. Tribal conflict also came of this as groups fought for resources.
Interesting that the gospel turns this on its head, and we are to feed the hungry, give the naked our clothes, and love the tribe next to us as ourselves rather than work to make theirs ours.
Perhaps this inborn selfishness is the basis of “original sin” and is what we seek salvation from.

1 Like

I guess it’s a little too late to fast for Lent!

1 Like

Have yet to find more reading time. The last book was “How God Works” by Marshall Brains which is a good book to look at critical thinking and how to fail it by selfish thinking. We should use it in Church to teach people how not to pray.

Regarding the failure of evolution through the existence of Carnivors and viruses as mentioned by Stephen the nececessity of predators for ecological stability might look counterintutitive initially but it is natures method to limit excessive selfishness to allow diversity to occur. It is shown in a nice narrative about the yellowstone park about wolves changing rivers. Our predator is self inflicted damage, e.g. to kill ourselves or each other, but in the end it is the bacteria and viruses that will keep us at bay and kerb our excesses.

Surely one can see the ethics reflected in evolution, but correlation does not mean causality. In fact it shows that the process is bound by it. The one thing however you do see played out in evolution is, that to be loved does not mean to get your wishes fulfilled, or to live materialy happily ever after. Love means to stand by one another when times get tough for the self to help us to get over it - e.g. the “self thing” and learn about the non material reality and energy of love, eternity and freedom from the constraints of space and time.

As Goethe once wisely said

To find you in infinity of space and time
one must first divide
and then combine.

I’ve done quite a bit of research on this topic as I’ve been working toward my M.A. in Theology.

God does everything that He does for some purpose. Therefore, the method that He chose for Creation, namely biological evolution, must have some bearing on our ethics as His image and likeness in the world.

Here are four examples of ways that evolutionary theory can have an impact on Christian ethics:

Common descent: Investigations into genetics have shown us the common descent not only of all human beings, but of all life. Everything is related. All life is family. By tracing the genomes of various life forms, we can see the symbiotic relationships between organisms and the biosphere. This information from secular science informs Christian ecological ethics and advances our understanding of stewardship.

Gradual emergence: Evolutionary theory teaches us that God created slowly, over long stretches of time, allowing His creation a degree of freedom (constrained by the laws of physics, chemistry, etc). God did not force creation into some ideal form. Contemporary understandings of human anatomy, for example, reveal that evolution did not give us ideally engineered spinal columns. The implication for Christian ethics is a greater tolerance of those aspects of creation that we might deem as imperfect. The gradual emergence of life in all of its variety shows us God’s immense patience as a Creator. We, as co-creators with Him, should emulate that patience, accepting creation as good, not perfect, and working (with guidance from His Spirit) gradually over time to bring harmony to God’s ongoing work.

Dissemination of information: Although I am not a fan of Richard Dawkins’ theological perspective, his linking of biological evolution and the selection, adaptation, and reproduction of ideas bears upon education in all of its forms, and, to my thinking, particularly upon catechesis, evangelization, and missiology. While Jesus characterized the kingdom of God using the image of a planted seed, contemporary biological understandings deepen that metaphor. Each generation of Christians selects the Gospel by embracing it for themselves, adapts it for use in a changing world, and then reproduces it for the next generation. Although (as evolution teaches us), this process is not necessarily linear, it is organic, and as stewards of the Gospel we would do well to be mindful and intentional about how we disseminate Christianity to non-Christians and to our children.

Behavioral ecology: In your original post, you mentioned areas into which evolutionary theory has spread. Behavioral ecology is the study of how behaviors evolved in response to environmental factors. It can help Christians practice discernment in an ever evolving world by examining ways in which our human instincts, which may have conferred a biological advantage in the past, may have become maladaptive due to changes in our environment. A good example is how prior to the technology of refinement of sugar, our brains and taste buds started selecting sweet food because it was good for us. However, as we learned to exploit refining techniques to give ourselves an overabundance of sweet taste, the environment changed and eating candy bars all day became maladaptive. Behavioral ecology can cast light on the teleological (both extrinsic and intrinsic) purposes for God’s good creation, and can help us to use our resources and develop our technologies in life-giving ways.

There should be a note of caution that evolutionary theory has not always been applied in adaptive ways to ethics, particularly in various “social darwinisms” and other such mistaken applications of natural selection (i.e. some of Nietzsche’s ideas after he went off the deep end). However, I strongly believe that evolutionary theory, seen in the light of the Gospel, asks important questions that can deepen our understanding of God’s will for our lives.

1 Like

Thank you for your comments. Your statement that “common descent” provides insight for Christian ecological ethics and stewardship is important and of special interest to me. I wonder if you would be kind enough to “unpack” this a little.

I have trouble reconciling two of your ideas: “common descent” and “co-creators.” On the one hand, you seem to indicate that the “common descent” taught by Darwin and human evolutionary history should help us to understand ourselves as creatures among creatures – “dusty earthlings,” part of the larger whole of the biosphere, subject to all the principles, patterns, parameters, and limits of the ecosystem. Of course, this idea is already contained in Scripture. Here there is a convergence of science and theology. All of this ought to be a crushing blow to the hubris of modern man vis-à-vis the massive problems we face in this century – all of which are caused by us modern men.

On the other hand, you say we are “co-creators” with God. How can this be reconciled with the idea of common descent? One of the greatest assets of Scripture and of classical theism is the uniqueness of God and our radical difference from Him: There is a God, and we are not God. We are part of creation – again, confirmed but evolutionary science. How can we possibly think of ourselves as co-equal with God in any respect? Are we to set aside this vital theological and moral resource? Please explain.

Thank you again.

Is hearsay a good basis for making judgments?

1 Like

I would suggest that your ascription of beliefs to Stephen is just as fatally flawed as your ascription of beliefs to Dawkins.

Perhaps you should ask questions instead?

1 Like

What I her him say is clearly part of what I base my judgement on. And as he talks a lot and is proudly presented by his disciples there is plenty to choose from

Thank you John for your kind words and clarifying question.

By “co-creator” I don’t mean “co-equal.” I mean a “co-operator” or a “co-llaborator” or a “co-worker” with God, Who in His humility invites us to be willing participants in His ongoing work.

I think a “both/and” approach can clarify what it means to be both of common descent with the rest of creation, and to be co-creators with God. He reveals Himself through both faith and reason and through both divine revelation and scientific inquiry. Science alone cannot suffice, because the scientific method cannot discern the ethical preconditions necessary for science to take place, but at the same time science can inform a correct interpretation of Sacred Scripture and clarify our understanding of it.

Science, apart from divine revelation, can risk extrapolating from our common descent to reduce human beings to one kind of animal among other animals. This has been a trend in the thinking of some people, who, through what I think is a misguided sense of humility, can place human beings on a level of moral equivalency with other evolved biological forms, even going so far as to see people as a sort of scourge upon an ecosystem which will continue with or without human involvement. There can be a tendency to see humans as one species among many, denizens of one planet among many, of one star system among many, of one galaxy among many, insignificant inhabitants of a pale blue dot.

Scripture, on the contrary, says in Hebrews 2:6-8:

“What is mankind that you are mindful of them,
a son of man that you care for him?
You made them a little lower than the angels;
you crowned them with glory and honor
and put everything under their feet.”
In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them.
Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them."

By saying that God made humans a little lower than the angels, the author of Hebrews implies a sort of hierarchy of creation that establishes people above the rest of the creatures, even as we share the same biological origins through the evolutionary mechanisms through which God creates.

Yet we should remember the sort of servant leadership that Jesus exemplified both through His teachings and through the conduct of His life.

In Mark 10:43-45 He says,

“Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Therefore the sort of dominion that human beings have over creation must be rooted in service, both because this promotes our own survival in a symbiotic ecosystem and because we have a moral duty to practice benevolence.

As far as our status as “co-creators,” I think you are right that we have to be very careful in how we define this term. It should not imply that we stand on a par with God nor that we think that equality with God is something to be grasped. The Genesis narrative itself draws a distinction between our creation imago dei and the temptation of the serpent to become “like gods.”

However, the Genesis narrative also invites comparison between God’s creative power and that He has endowed us with. When God creates, He divides the things, puts the things in their proper place, and then names them. He then puts the man in the garden and has him tend the soil (necessarily practicing right division by breaking up the soil), plant the seeds (putting the things in their proper place), and name the animals (studying creation to discern how best to care for it). The actus humanus of labor and study embodies God’s image and likeness in the world, and carries on His creative work in the service of creation.

In my way of thinking this is the difference between seeing human beings as being like Zeus, with power displayed as with an arm outstretched to hurl a thunderbolt, and seeing human beings display power like Jesus, who saved us through the power of His outstretched arm by willingly stretching out His arm on the cross. The power of God is the power of patience, self-emptying, and humility.

Both ironically and fittingly, the massive problems we face stem from the desire to be like the gods of our own imagining. The narrative of the fall in Genesis 3 shows that the more we try to exercise power through force and worldly means, seizing for ourselves easy and attractive “knowledge,” the less like God we become and the more abject the misery that we create.

As co-creators, we cannot create from nothing, as only God can, nor can we sustain what we have created in its being. Even in the act of writing, of creating a universe and putting it on paper, we work from pre-existing materials, from the physical stuff of the pen and paper, from the letters and words and literary tradition we have received, from the education received from our parents and teachers, and from the cognitive abilities God has crowned us with.

However, we do have a unique ability among all of the other creatures to consciously shape our own environment, even transcending our genetic biology and environmental conditioning through the free exercise of our will.

This is evident throughout our history, as human beings have even bent evolution to suit our purposes. Various animals (dogs and sheep come to mind) and also plants have evolved not through natural selection alone, but increasingly through human selection. This will be even more so the case through application of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing techniques, and is a powerful reason why scientific inquiry must be informed by divine revelation and its attendant moral/ethical lessons. Otherwise, such technologies will create suffering rather than alleviating it.

Even without technological application, human beings are co-creators with God through our sexuality, as He has given us the means to join with Him in creating new human beings created in His image and likeness, as well as ours. In a way that is similar to how the Love that exists between the Father and the Son and the Son and the Father is the Holy Spirit, a Person within the Holy Trinity, the love that exists between a man and a woman can under the right circumstances come to exist as a unique human person when the two become one flesh.

So I agree with you that “There is a God, and we are not God.” We do well to remember that when we try to be like gods, we become less like God, and create suffering. But when we allow the Holy Spirit to conform us to the image of God, incarnated in Christ, we become His presence in the world.

3 Likes

The question is, should you go by what other people say, or what Dawkins himself says?

2 Likes

The question is why you would think I would not make up my mind about him myself? He is very outspoken and does not shy away from public debate unless it involves William Lane Craig.

To return to the original dilemma of ethics and evolution, when it comes to the understanding of ethics by naturalists I should go by what those say who shout loudest, as moral truth is relative, thus derived from a majority view - or if you wait long enough by the outcome of evolutionary judgement - if you believe in judgement at all. But then if it is random chance - anything goes and it would not matter what is true.

Evolution cannot honestly be described as random chance, as it involves selection–the antithesis of random chance.

1 Like

@marvin

Are we really going to go through this foolishness about the word “random” all over again?

  1. We have to distinguish between the so-called randomness of dice (which, however, is under the complete lawfulness of Newtonian physics) - - and

  2. The purported randomness of sub-atomic particles (which frequently doesn’t appear to follow any deterministic natural laws that humans are yet aware of) - - and

  3. “Randomness” as perceived by the human mind and “randomness” as perceived by the Divine mind.

And, finally, what does this have to do with BioLogos and its position that God, in fact, invokes his intentions into the process of Evolution?

Good that we agree that evolution is anything but random, but does that mean that you agree with me that evolution is an ethical judgement call? It teaches you cooperation and life support. However, is the basic of ethics absolute or does it “evolve” in itself. Atheists tend to argue the idea that morality arose from evolution as to allow to argue ethics to be current opinion and not absolute as proposed by the theological worldview.

Looks like my stab at the proposed randomness has upset you. I would have hoped you to understand that I am not a proponent of randomness, quite the opposite, thus I feel justified to be ironic about it but it looks like some people do take comments far too serious :slight_smile:
Even the “random” decay of particles is not random but can be described by a function that describes the process of randomness.
What does it have to do with the process of Biologos and evolution?
Guess my sarcasm about the randomised view of atheism went right past you. You might want to consider the dilemma of evolution to be described as an unguided process as demanded by a naturalistic worldview, thus to create ethics, compared to evolution being based on ethics, thus the failure to adhere to the morals to lead to deletion. If you arrived here by chance or deterministically should make a significant difference on how we justify our existence.

@marvin

I would expect that your specific phrase “… evolution to be described as an unguided process as demanded by a naturalistic worldview…” would almost certainly never be included in any revised Mission Statement BioLogos would craft.

It would seem that such an expression, ironic or not, is exactly opposed to what many BioLogos supporters would consider important to the movement: to teach the Christian ideal that God guides all natural things, including Evolutionary processes.

looks like we miss each other as I try to say that this is exactly the problem that people do not understand. Thus the dilemma for Christians when faced with a materialists explanation of evolution that they think evolution is incompatible with theism, whilst in reality the concept of evolution itself is not the problem, but how it is explained by the atheist community is logically incoherent. Even if the consider it not a chance operated process but as judged by survival fitness, one has to argue what survival fitness is all about, e.g. that is is not the fastest eater or the best killer of the competition, but the one that loves its neighbours, thus contributes to the stability of the system. Once you achieve that transition in understanding every Christian should be happy to recognise that there is a coherent method in the message, e.g. that evolution is controlled by the word of God.

Interestingly to love thy neighbour does not mean to get intimate with one another, nor to tolerate their excesses or to fulfill their wishes as materialists tend to think about love, but to lead them out of temptation to love in the way Christ told us to love.

1 Like

Can you tell me where you have read about how atheists approach morality and ethics? The sentence above is nonsensical, but perhaps I just didn’t understand. As a humanist and leader in a humanist community, I am naturally curious about how people decide what it is I believe.

2 Likes