Ross Douthat has a neat post on whether natural selection undermines some concepts of Christianity.
The idea that evolution-by-natural-selection somehow disproves religion in general, or theism more specifically, is basically preposterous. The idea that the mechanism of natural selection, in which the development of man requires millions of years of strife and suffering and death in the animal kingdom, poses a specific challenge to Christian beliefs about the nature of God is more plausible, and warrants a more serious response than the "hey, evolution is too compatible with a belief in designer God" rejoinder that some Christian apologists, D’Souza included, often employ.
Specifically he thinks it challenges the idea of "the fall" and offers three retorts: 1) animals don’t matter, 2) sin affected animals on a fall prior to human’s (apparently C.S. Lewis’s favored belief), 3) the fall ran both backwards and forward in time.
I personally am not attached to the concept of the fall and only tend to like the story in a subversive freedom isn’t free way, but nice to see actual logical engagement. As with most everything else, I don’t tend to find concepts that interesting unless they’re falsifiable and Douthat has rather different views than I do but may be similarly inclined on that point.
Anyways, several commenters also point out that through natural selection and other means the idea of a omnipotent+benevolent god is both falsifiable and fairly obviously untrue. I’m willing to write-off silly paradoxes but even then it’d be possible to design a universe with both freedom and much less suffering than in our present one. On the other hand my main problem with a lot of liberal theology is that it just tends to take all the falsifiable statements away which often just leaves mush behind, nice friendly mush to be sure, but still mush.
Anyways, I’m going to continue to mostly avoid theology on this blog, but I reserve the right to occasionally comment on articles or posts I like.
Recent Comments