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.