DOCSLIB.ORG

The Evolutionary Theodicy Problem Houston Schoonmaker Department of Biology; College of Arts and Sciences Abilene Christian University

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Evolutionary Theodicy Problem Houston Schoonmaker Department of Biology; College of Arts and Sciences Abilene Christian University Theodicy The Evolutionary Theodicy Problem Houston Schoonmaker Department of Biology; College of Arts and Sciences Abilene Christian University Evolutionary theodicies attempt to explain how innocent suffering, death, and extinction seen throughout the evolutionary process of evolution can coincide with believing in a loving God. Since Darwin, scholars have questioned the importance of studying natural selection at such an intricate level. With the knowledge of natural selection, the fact that great suffering is witnessed across nature permits doubts in discussions regarding a benevolent God that created the universe. In this paper, I begin with background information about evolution, theodicy, and how they are related. I look at two major perspectives: the belief that evolution ameliorates the theodicy problem or that evolution exacerbates the theodicy problem. After comparing these two opposing views, I critique the position that evolution is a gift to theology. At the conclusion of this paper, evolution will be seen as an aid to explain the innocent suffering witnessed in the world. Grief, in the context of Christianity, Christians with a basic knowledge of God, causes one to begin questioning God and the but also those that spend a vast majority of characteristics of His being. These questions their lives searching to explain the goodness vary from shallow, surface level questions, of God. to deep, philosophical questions that experts A further dimension to the theodicy have been trying to answer for years. One of problem introduced is seen in light of those deep philosophical mysteries is the evolution. Evolution, at its core, is the question of evolutionary theodicy. The proliferation of favorable genotypic and question of evolutionary theodicy presents phenotypic characteristics that stem from many different angles, and it invites a many life and death cycles. If evolution is variety of perspectives to speculate on the believed to have persisted since life began, it issue. The premise of the theodicy question would indicate that suffering, death, and sin is that if the presence of evil, death, and have always existed. Evolution can attempt suffering has existed since the formation of to explain the theodicy problem, but it is the earth, how does God remain good? The also the cause of confusion and problem of evil is that it inherits the ability misunderstanding. Whether evolution helps to counter the omni-benevolence and us to understand the theodicy problem or omnipotence of God. Evil has the ability to not, opinions can vary, especially when challenge God’s goodness and bring doubt. confronting God’s goodness. Including two It is then posed that either God can control opposite points of view allows a critical evil, but since He chooses not to, He is not analysis of the theodicy problem with an all-good; or He is unable to control evil, evolutionary basis, but with biblical therefore rendering Him incapable of being implications. Evolution helps to explain the an all-powerful God. The crux of the theodicy problem of God remaining good theodicy problem is the intersection of God while the presence of innocent suffering and being good but allowing suffering in the the inherent viciousness of nature and death world. This question challenges not just the is observable throughout time. Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2016-Spring 2017 |Volume 4 1 Theodicy Evolution and the Problem of Innocent The evidence that God exhibits those Suffering characteristics of love is observable through The theodicy problem poses the Jesus and His resurrection. The atonement contradiction that God is good but allows of Jesus’ death on the cross can be separated the manifestation of evil in the world. This into two types: objective and subjective. The is prevalent in discussions between theists objective perspective contains the idea that and atheists; due to the difficulty of grasping Christ’s death on the cross transforms the thought of an all-powerful, loving God creation, regardless of whether it was that allows suffering and death to enter the necessary. The cross plays a major role world, these discussions rarely promote a when trying to understand the possibility of change of thinking. One side of the suffering in light of a good God because it argument questions why God has allowed hints at the fact that God suffers, too. With four billion years of suffering among this idea of God being able to experience species, only to give a purpose to already suffering, the first time this could be seen is dead organisms. God has put in place a plan through the event with as much magnitude for Creation in which He oversees as the cross. Realizing that God co-suffers personally and is involved in. He is along with humanity, grants evolutionary intimately involved in every person’s life. theodicy a way to explain such a possibility The question of whether God allows evil to that God allows us to suffer because He manifest in the world is another aspect of the loves us. It is a challenge to justify the death theodicy problem that must be addressed of organisms, even if it is for a better future. when discussing the benevolence of God in The subjective view of suffering is that a broken world. Southgate states that “the when Christ is innocently put to death, His crux of the problem is not the overall system love for the world transforms creation. It and its overall goodness but the Christian’s transforms because Jesus was able to choose struggle with the challenge to the goodness the cross, but other organisms have had of God posed by specific cases of innocent suffering imposed on them by God for the suffering.”1 This statement comes in betterment of the whole species. With this response to the argument of theodicy in statement, death, which has been Christian practices. He explains that categorized as sin, is permissible because it Christians do not struggle with believing is beneficial for others. Unfortunately, some that the world is broken, but that a broken organisms have to act as a stepping-stone for world can challenge God’s power that the betterment and survival of the offspring. accompanies his ability to maintain While this ideology may seem cruel, it is goodness. Innocent suffering has rivaled the how these situations must be viewed when existence of God since the formation of the looking through the lens of evolution. theodicy question. In light of evolution, innocent suffering is what perpetuates the An Evolutionary Explanation succession of certain species. Exacerbates the Theodicy Problem The possibility that God may not be Darwin’s ideas about natural all-powerful is something that would cause selection tend to hint at the exacerbation of chaos in many Protestant circles. This is an the theodicy problem by looking at how unfavorable aspect that the theodicy vicious nature can be in regards to the problem presents. God may not be all- survival of the slightly better. Considering powerful, but He would still be all-loving. the timeline that Darwin was following, it is 1 Southgate, 2008, 13 Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2016-Spring 2017 |Volume 4 2 Theodicy understood that millions of years of death Nineteenth Century would demolish the and suffering had already occurred. John religious power that the Catholic Church had Haught states: “to anyone aware of the established. Once the idea of evolution was Holocaust, widespread warfare, genocides, presented to the people, people would turn political purges, and the prospect of from the church. This would result in the ecological catastrophe, evolutionary science church falling from prominence. is hardly going to add much to what is Theologians refer to Darwinian already the most pestilent of all human and evolution as “his dangerous idea.” Based on religious concerns, the problem of innocent this phrase, it can be concluded that the suffering. However, even if it fails to deepen religious institution was staunchly against the wound, evolution clearly seems to widen introducing evolution to the people. With it.”2 Haught blatantly states that evolution is this new scientific information, religious entirely detrimental to dealing with the institutions would struggle regaining a problem of theodicy. It is clear where foothold in society as an authoritative voice Haught stands on the issue, which provides in each community. Hunter states that an insight about the ongoing repercussions “Darwin’s solution [to theodicy] distanced of Darwin’s Origin of Species. With this God from creation to the point that God was assumption of the observed viciousness in unnecessary. One could still believe in God, nature, it implies that Darwin abandoned but not in God’s Providence. Separating any form of morality among nature. This God from creation and its evils meant that absence of morality challenged Darwin’s God could have no direct influence or view of God because of the many control over the world. God may have imperfections seen in organisms, plants, and created the world, but ever since that point it even his personal life. This led to the idea has run according to impersonal natural laws that creation was irrational and chaotic, that may now and then produce natural hinting that God lacks benevolence. Darwin evil.”3 With the distancing of God, it can did not set out to denounce the goodness of create a bigger theodicy problem because God. However, nature continually pushed then it portrays God as a watchmaker or him to doubt. Darwin’s fault was that he cosmic architect that set the universe into looked to natural processes and the motion, and has stepped away from any interactions between organisms to prove the interaction. This argument further pushes the existence of a good God: nature cannot questions of theodicy to be directed at God’s prove this.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Theodicy: an Overview
    1 Theodicy: An Overview Introduction All of us struggle at one time or another in life with why evil happens to someone, either ourselves, our family, our friends, our nation, or perhaps some particularly disturbing instance in the news—a child raped, a school shooting, genocide in another country, a terrorist bombing. The following material is meant to give an overview of the discussion of this issue as it takes place in several circles, especially that of the Christian church. I. The Problem of Evil Defined Three terms, "the problem of evil," "theodicy," and "defense" are important to our discussion. The first two are often used as synonyms, but strictly speaking the problem of evil is the larger issue of which theodicy is a subset because one can have a secular problem of evil. Evil is understood as a problem when we seek to explain why it exists (Unde malum?) and what its relationship is to the world as a whole. Indeed, something might be considered evil when it calls into question our basic trust in the order and structure of our world. Peter Berger in particular has argued that explanations of evil are necessary for social structures to stay themselves against chaotic forces. It follows, then, that such an explanation has an impact on the whole person. As David Blumenthal observes, a good theodicy is one that has three characteristics: 1. "[I]t should leave one with one’s sense of reality intact." (It tells the truth about reality.) 2. "[I]t should leave one empowered within the intellectual-moral system in which one lives." (Namely, it should not deny God’s basic power or goodness.) 3.
    [Show full text]
  • An Atheistic Argument from Ugliness
    AN ATHEISTIC ARGUMENT FROM UGLINESS SCOTT F. AIKIN & NICHOLAOS JONES Vanderbilt University University of Alabama in Huntsville Author posting. (c) European Journal of Philosophy of Religion 7.1 (Spring 2015). This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version is available at http://www.philosophy-of- religion.eu/contents19.html This is a penultimate draft. Please cite only the published version. Abstract The theistic argument from beauty has what we call an ‘evil twin’, the argument from ugliness. The argument yields either what we call ‘atheist win’, or, when faced with aesthetic theodicies, ‘agnostic tie’ with the argument from beauty. 1 AN ATHEISTIC ARGUMENT FROM UGLINESS I. EVIL TWINS FOR TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS The theistic argument from beauty is a teleological argument. Teleological arguments take the following form: 1. The universe (or parts of it) exhibit property X 2. Property X is usually (if not always) brought about by the purposive actions of those who created objects for them to be X. 3. The cases mentioned in Premise 1 are not explained (or fully explained) by human action 4. Therefore: The universe is (likely) the product of a purposive agent who created it to be X, namely God. The variety of teleological arguments is as broad as substitution instances for X. The standard substitutions have been features of the universe (or it all) fine-tuned for life, or the fact of moral action. One further substitution has been beauty. Thus, arguments from beauty. A truism about teleological arguments is that they have evil twins.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation As Theodicy: in Defense of a Kabbalistic Approach to Evil
    Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 14 Issue 4 Article 6 10-1-1997 Creation as Theodicy: In Defense of a Kabbalistic Approach to Evil Robert Oakes Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Oakes, Robert (1997) "Creation as Theodicy: In Defense of a Kabbalistic Approach to Evil," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 14 : Iss. 4 , Article 6. DOI: 10.5840/faithphil199714441 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol14/iss4/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. CREATION AS THEODICY: IN DEFENSE OF A KABBALISTIC APPROACH TO EVIL Robert Oakes The doctrine of Tzimzum (or divine "withdrawal") occupies pride of place in the Jewish mystical tradition as a response to what is arguably the chief theo­ logical or metaphysical concern of that tradition: namely, how God's Infinity or Absolute Unlimitedness does not preclude the existence of a distinct domain of finite being. Alternatively, how can it be that God, by virtue of His Maximal Plenteousness, does not exhaust the whole of Reality? I attempt to show that, while a plausible argument - one that does not involve the idea of Tzimzum - can be mounted against this "pantheism" problem, the doctrine of Tzimzum has considerable force as the nucleus of a theodicy.
    [Show full text]
  • Extinction, Natural Evil, and the Cosmic Cross
    Evolutionary Theodicy with Denis Edwards, “Christopher Southgate’s Compound Theodicy: Parallel Searchings”; Ted Peters, “Extinction, Natural Evil, and the Cosmic Cross”; Robert John Russell, “Southgate’s Compound Only-Way Evolutionary Theodicy: Deep Appreciation and Further Directions”; Bethany Sollereder, “Exploring Old and New Paths in Theodicy”; Holmes Rolston, III, “Redeeming a Cruciform Nature”; Ernst M. Conradie, “On Social Evil and Natural Evil: In Conversation with Christopher Southgate”; Philip Clayton and Steven Knapp, “Evolution, Contingency, and Christology”; John F. Haught, “Faith and Compassion in an Unfinished Universe”; Celia Deane-Drummond, “Perceiving Natural Evil through the Lens of Divine Glory? A Conversation with Christopher Southgate”; Nicola Hoggard Creegan, “Theodicy: A Response to Christopher Southgate”; and Neil Messer, “Evolution and Theodicy: How (Not) to Do Science and Theology.” EXTINCTION, NATURAL EVIL, AND THE COSMIC CROSS by Ted Peters Abstract. Did the God of the Bible create a Darwinian world in which violence and suffering (disvalue) are the means by which the good (value) is realized? This is Christopher Southgate’s insightful and dramatic formulation of the theodicy problem. In addressing this problem, the Exeter theologian rightly invokes the Theology of the Cross in its second manifestation, that is, we learn from the cross of Jesus Christ that God is present to nonhuman as well as human victims of predation and extinction. God co-suffers with creatures in their despair, abandonment, physical suffering, and death. What I will add with more force than Southgate is this: the Easter resurrection is a prolepsis of the eschatological new creation, and it is God’s new creation which retroactively determines past creation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Evil S2
    Theodicy Episode 190 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL S2 I. KEY THOUGHTS S3 1. The existence of evil is the greatest challenge for theism. S4 1. “There is little doubt that the problem of evil is the most serious intellectual difficulty for theism.” Stephen Davis, Encountering Evil (Knox Press, 1981), 2 THE PROBLEM S5 IF God is all-knowing, THEN he must know about evil IF God is all-loving, THEN he must want to abolish evil IF God is all-powerful, THEN he must be able to abolish evil BUT evil exists THEREFORE God is not all-loving & not all-powerful OR God does not exist THE SOLUTION S6 Theodicy èåïò (theos) God äéêç (dikç) justice DEF: arguments justifying the existence of evil in a world created by an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God 2. ALL theodicies include the notion of “Greater Good” S7 God allows evil because it serves an ultimate purpose in bringing overall good into the world º EG selling of Joseph by his brothers he ends up in Egypt & his family is saved from famine S8 2. “You [his brothers] intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.” Gen 50:20 3. Christian Theodicies have been intimately connected to Gen 3 & the Fall S9 K especially the COSMIC FALL Protestant Reformer John Calvin S10 3. “The earth was cursed on account of Adam [Gen 3:18] ... the whole order of nature was subverted by the sin of man ... Moses does not enumerate all the disadvantages in which man, by sin, has involved himself; for it appears that all the evils of the present life, which experience proves to be innumerable, have proceeded from the same fountain.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Evil As a Moral Objection to Theism
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Birmingham Research Archive, E-theses Repository THE PROBLEM OF EVIL AS A MORAL OBJECTION TO THEISM by TOBY GEORGE BETENSON A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY. Department of Philosophy School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham September 2014 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract: I argue that the problem of evil can be a moral objection to theistic belief. The thesis has three broad sections, each establishing an element in this argument. Section one establishes the logically binding nature of the problem of evil: The problem of evil must be solved, if you are to believe in God. And yet, I borrow from J. L. Mackie’s criticisms of the moral argument for the existence of God, and argue that the fundamentally evaluative nature of the premises within the problem of evil entails that it cannot be used to argue for the non- existence of God.
    [Show full text]
  • Theodicy and End-Of-Life Care
    Journal of Social Work in End-of-Life & Palliative Care ISSN: 1552-4256 (Print) 1552-4264 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wswe20 Theodicy and End-of-Life Care Simon Dein , John Swinton & Syed Qamar Abbas To cite this article: Simon Dein , John Swinton & Syed Qamar Abbas (2013) Theodicy and End-of-Life Care, Journal of Social Work in End-of-Life & Palliative Care, 9:2-3, 191-208, DOI: 10.1080/15524256.2013.794056 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15524256.2013.794056 Copyright Simon Dein, John Swinton, and Syed Qamar Abbas Published online: 18 Jun 2013. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1147 View related articles Citing articles: 2 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wswe20 Download by: [University of Aberdeen] Date: 19 September 2017, At: 06:54 Journal of Social Work in End-of-Life & Palliative Care, 9:191–208, 2013 Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group ISSN: 1552-4256 print/1552-4264 online DOI: 10.1080/15524256.2013.794056 Theodicy and End-of-Life Care SIMON DEIN Centre for Behavioural and Social Sciences in Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom JOHN SWINTON School of Divinity, History and Philosophy, King’s College, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom SYED QAMAR ABBAS Palliative Medicine, St. Clare Hospice, Hastingwood, Essex, United Kingdom This article examines theodicy—the vindication of God’s goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil from the perspectives of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
    [Show full text]
  • The Overcoming of Traditional Theodicy in Levinas and Metz
    religions Article Memory and History: The Overcoming of Traditional Theodicy in Levinas and Metz Manuel Losada-Sierra Faculty of Education and Humanities, Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, Bogotá 110111, Colombia; [email protected] Received: 15 October 2019; Accepted: 30 November 2019; Published: 4 December 2019 Abstract: Grappling with the marginalization of the marginal in Western thinking, this paper sets up a dialogue between Emmanuel Levinas’s philosophy and Johann Baptist Metz’s political theology in order to learn from their thoughts on the suffering of victims. For both Levinas and Metz, the idea of theodicy as an explanation of suffering is linked to the ontological conception of time and history, and therefore useless and unjustifiable by nature. The essential question of this research is how to give meaning to the concrete suffering of humanity in order to redeem history from the concept of an evolutionary progress which limits the possibility of hearing the cries of the victims of history. This article will show how Levinas’s and Metz´s rejection of traditional theodicy is closely related to the concepts of memory and history and, therefore, the paper will demonstrate how traditional theodicy becomes for both thinkers an ethical theodicy. Consequently, the ethical account of theodicy replaces the attempt to negotiate the goodness and power of God with the pain of human beings. From this perspective, ethics is shaped by a response to the cry of victims which summons the subject to understand freedom as limited and subordinated to ethical responsibility. In responding to suffering, philosophy and theology can meet beyond idealism and dogmatism.
    [Show full text]
  • The Order of Nature and Moral Luck: Maimonides on Divine Providence
    The Order of Nature and Moral Luck: Maimonides on Divine Providence Steven Nadler University of Wisconsin-Madison Rationalist Jewish thinkers, just because of their rationalism, faced a particular challenge when approaching the problem of evil. On the one hand, they were committed to the idea that the problem did have an answer, that the humble skepticism or fideism that closes the Book of Job (“God is so great that we cannot know him” [Job 36:26]) is not the last word on the matter. An explanation can indeed be given for the suffering of the virtuous and the prosperity of the vicious. There are accessible reasons why bad things happen to good people and good things to bad people. It is something we can understand. On the other hand, not even the most convinced rationalist of the medieval period was willing to say that God’s reasons are completely transparent to human understanding, that we can know the deepest secrets of divine wisdom and find therein the theodicean answer we seek. Another factor is the rationalist’s need to avoid the anthropomorphization of God. Maimonides, Gersonides, and others were all concerned to explain divine providence without resorting to the portrayal of God as a personal agent, one who regards each particular situation in its particularity and engages in the distribution of reward and punishment in a human-like way – fending off dangers from the righteous and hurling thunderbolts upon the vicious. This overall attitude is well captured by Maimonides’ approach to the problem of evil. He argued, of course, strenuously against the anthropomorphization of God; this is 1 one of the primary themes of the Guide of the Perplexed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lions Seek Their Prey from God: a Commentary on the Boyle Lecture
    S & CB (2005), 17, 41–56 0954–4194 R.J. BERRY The Lions Seek Their Prey from God: a Commentary on the Boyle Lecture John Haught asks how we can reconcile evolution with the idea of divine prov- idence: ‘The major question for theology, now as in the years immediately sub- sequent to the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, is how to reconcile the brute impersonality and blindness … in evolution’s recipe with trust in divine providence.’ In his book Can a Darwinian be a Christian? Michael Ruse1 focuses on the same point. He identifies as ‘the biggest question of all for the Christian believer is the “theodicy” problem. If, as the Christian believes, God is omnipotent and all-loving, then why evil? If He is all-powerful, He could pre- vent evil, and if he is all-loving, then He would prevent evil. Yet evil exists.’ For some this is a definitive proof against the sort of God revealed in the Bible. David Hull2 has written, The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror … Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural selection may be like, he is not the Protes- tant God of waste not, want not. He is also not the loving God who cares about his productions. He is not even the awful God pictured in the Book of Job. [He] is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray. This is the sort of interpretation which led to the notorious conclusion of Richard Dawkins3, that ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually ful- filled atheist’.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation and Theodicy: Protological Presuppositions in Evolutionary Theodicy
    Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 25/2 (2014): 3-28. Article copyright © 2014 by Adriani Milli Rodrigues. Creation and Theodicy: Protological Presuppositions in Evolutionary Theodicy Adriani Milli Rodrigues Adventist University of Sao Paulo, Brazil There are different positions regarding the understanding of the doctrine of creation in the face of the challenge of the evolutionary concept of origins. In broad terms, while some deny the theory of evolution1 in favor of a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation, many scholars attempt to comprehend this doctrine in certain consonance with that theory.2 1 The present study acknowledges the distinction between macroevolution and microevolution. The references to evolution in this text imply the concept of macroevolution. While microevolution refers to small changes within one species, macroevolution describes “the evolution of major new characteristics that make organisms recognizable as a new species, genus, family, or higher taxon.” Stanley A. Rice, Encyclopedia of Evolution (New York: Infobase, 2009), 253. This distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is used, for example, by Stephen Jay Gould. See S. J. Gould, The Panda’s Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History, reissued ed. (New York: Norton, 1992), 187-192. 2 Edward B. Davis indicates “four main patterns” that “govern most religious responses to evolution today: complementary” (“theological truths exist in a higher realm apart from scientific truths”), conflict against evolution (“rejection of evolution”), conflict against Christianity (“rejection of Christianity”), and “doctrinal reformulation” (“rejection of divine transcendence and the wholesale reformulation of traditional Christian doctrine”). Edward B. Davis, “The Word and the Works: Concordism and American Evangelicals,” in Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Discourse: a Way Forward for Theistic Evolutionism?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto NZSTh 2018; 60(3): 435–451 Erkki Vesa Rope Kojonen* Design Discourse: A Way Forward for Theistic Evolutionism? https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2018-0025 Summary: It is usually supposed that biological design arguments (where biologi- cal complex order is seen as evidence of a Creator) are made obsolete by Darwi- nian evolutionary theory. However, philosopher Alvin Plantinga and others have defended the continued possibility of a rational “design discourse”, in which biological order is taken as a sign of God’s purposeful action. In this article, I consider two objections to design discourse: (1) a theological objection to biologi- cal design based on the problem of natural evil, and (2) the evolutionary objec- tion, according to which evolutionary theory removes the justification for any biological design perception. Whereas Plantinga’s own response utilizes the arguments of the Intelligent Design movement, I argue in favor of utilizing “de- sign discourse” as part of a theistic evolutionist view. Keywords: theistic evolutionism, teleology, design argument, problem of natural evil, Alvin Plantinga Zusammenfassung: Es wird gemeinhin angenommen, dass biologische Design Argumente (welche die komplexe biologische Ordnung als Beweis für einen Schöpfer erachten) durch Darwins Evolutionstheorie obsolet werden. Der Philo- soph Alvin Plantinga und andere haben jedoch die Möglichkeit eines fortgeführ- ten rationalen „Design Diskurses“ verteidigt, der die biologische Ordnung als ein Zeichen Gottes zielgerichteter Handlung begreift. In diesem Artikel betrachte ich zwei Einwände gegen den Design Diskurs: (1) einen theologischen Einwand zum biologischen Design basierend auf dem Problem der natürlichen Übel und (2) den evolutionären Einwand, nach dem die Evolutionstheorie die Berechtigung jeder biologischen Design Vorstellung aufhebt.
    [Show full text]