'God and Evolution'

Jay Richards, in a 4:06 minute video hosted on the Discovery Institute site: 'God and Evolution'

My transcript of the video --

"In this book, 'God and Evolution,' the contributors and I, we wanted to focus on what we think are the central issues alive in the debate: both about Darwinism, about Intelligent Design, and about what's called "Theistic Evolution."

Everybody knows at an intuitive level that there's some kind of tension, or some kind of conflict, between what most people believe about God and what most people believe about Darwinian evolution. But, it's often poorly defined. I mean, you know, a lot of people spent a lot of time focused on these really detailed exegetical questions from Genesis 1, or something like that.

I think, in fact, what you have to do is you have to look at the sort of central aspects of what it means to be a theist: what does 'theism' mean, what does it entail? And, what does the mainstream neo-Darwinian 'theory of evolution' claim, and entail?

If everyone's allowed to just sort of create private definitions in their heads, so that when I say "evolution," what I mean is "a purposeful, teleological process of something that works itself out over time, but that was present in the beginning," well, sure, "Theistic Evolution," that's easy. Right? Because I've just defined 'evolution' in a totally theological and teleological sense.

The problem is that you've got to focus on what the theorists themselves mean by the word, 'evolution.' It doesn't just mean "change over time," it doesn't just mean "common descent;" it certainly doesn't mean this progressive or teleological idea, like it meant, say, 150 years ago. When English speakers use the word 'evolution,' they usually mean "Neo-Darwinian Evolution," which means that all the adaptive complexity you see is the result of random genetic mutations acted upon by 'natural selection.' And they mean that as an impersonal and purposeless process.

So, when they say 'random,' that's not just some mathematical term that's perfectly compatible with a view of God's Providence: they mean purposeless. And that's the problem; it's a logical problem: not even God can direct an undirected process. You can't have purposes for a purposeless process. This is just straightforward logic.

So, if you want to integrate your understanding of God and your understanding of 'evolution,' you've got to get the meanings of the terms straight. And you don't want to [inaudible] private definitions of these words. And then, I think you can do some real fruitful thinking and exploring.

It's not as if every aspect of the 'Word of God' and every aspect of the word 'evolution' are incompatible; it's that the general[ist?] or orthodox meanings of 'theism' and "Neo-Darwinian Evolution," as understood by the theorists themselves, are incompatible. And that's the thing, frankly, that I think a lot of theistic evolutionists don't want to face squarely.

There are probably two dozen books on "Theistic Evolution," broadly construed, that have been written in the last ten years or so. In fact, it's sort of a cottage industry. But, if you read a lot of these books, what you discover is that way too many people are trying to defend some version of "Theistic Evolution," and it ends up being an exercise in ambiguity: it's almost as if the purpose of the book is to confuse you, so that there's fog, and fuzz, and ambiguity. Because, they don't, frankly, want to face the key source of conflict.

It would be very nice if the mainstream view of 'evolution' and our religious beliefs were perfectly compatible. It's not like science and religion are intrinsically at war; but it's certainly possible that some content in a particular prevalent theory could conflict with certain religious views. And I think that's what we need to face squarely.

So, what 'God and Evolution' does, that most of the books on "Theistic Evolution" don't do, is that we focus very squarely on the key issues, and we, if anything, try to clarify, rather than muddy, the waters in this debate.

And my comments --

"Everybody knows at an intuitive level that there's some kind of tension, or some kind of conflict, between what most people believe about God and what most people believe about Darwinian evolution. But, it's often poorly defined."

I think, to some degree, it's intentional that the conflict is poorly defined. Certainly, DarwinDefenders (and, perhaps, some DarwinDeniers) have little incentive to properly define the argument, nor the terms used in it.


"I think, in fact, what you have to do is you have to look at the sort of central aspects of what it means to be a theist: what does 'theism' mean, what does it entail? And, what does the mainstream neo-Darwinian 'theory of evolution' claim, and entail?"

What we call "public education" in this country hasn't been about education for a good 50 or 60 years (the rot goes back a century, to when the "progressives" took over), but rather is geared toward indoctrination of propaganda in its captives -- toward the inculcation of "proper" attitudes as opposed to training and exercising their charges' capacity for reason.

AND STILL, most Americans come out of the public indoctrination centers rejecting Darwinism -- even if they can rarely clearly articulate *why* they reject it (and, after all, disabling their captives' capacities for clear articulation, and clear reasoning, is a selling point of the public indoctrination centers), they do grasp the heart of the issue.


"If everyone's allowed to just sort of create private definitions in their heads, so that when I say "evolution," what I mean is "a purposeful, teleological process of something that works itself out over time, but that was present in the beginning," well, sure, "Theistic Evolution," that's easy. Right? Because I've just defined 'evolution' in a totally theological and teleological sense.
.
The problem is that you've got to focus on what the theorists themselves mean by the word, 'evolution.' ... [when they use the word] it certainly doesn't mean this progressive or teleological idea, like it meant, say, 150 years ago."

Amusingly, that's what the word 'evolution' was clearly understood to mean 150 years ago. This is why Saint Chuckie avoided using the word until after his "Bulldog" had sufficiently muddied the waters.

The word 'evolution' was coined and first used in embryology to denote the structured goal-directed/teleological development of embryos, the "unrolling" of what was already there. The word -- and the concept -- was later (and before the time of Saint Chuckie's grandfather) applied to the growing social conviction (*) that there was some sort of organic relationship among and between living entities.

(*) Contrary to the hagiography, Saint Chuckie didn't invent the concept, nor convince anyone to "evolution;" the idea was widely accepted long before he was born. What Saint Chuckie did was come up with an amusing way to pretend that one could get God out of the picture.


"So, when they say 'random,' that's not just some mathematical term that's perfectly compatible with a view of God's Providence: they mean purposeless. And that's the problem; it's a logical problem: not even God can direct an undirected process. You can't have purposes for a purposeless process. This is just straightforward logic."

*Everyone* understands that this is what the DarwinDefenders mean, even if they cannot properly or clearly articulate their understanding -- that what is at stake is our very natures and the nature of reality itself.

Even though modern-day "public education" is set up to disable the capacity for reason amongst its captives, it cannot be completely done, for they are made in the image of God: they are, by their very natures, rational beings. Darwinism denies this, and everyone really does grasp, on some level, that critical fact.


"It's not as if every aspect of the 'Word of God' and every aspect of the word 'evolution' are incompatible; it's that the general[ist?] or orthodox meanings of 'theism' and "Neo-Darwinian Evolution," as understood by the theorists themselves, are incompatible. And that's the thing, frankly, that I think a lot of theistic evolutionists don't want to face squarely."

Indeed.

If words were always used logically, than "theistic evolutionist" would be but another term for "theistic proponent (*) of intelligent design." But, instead, the "theistic evolutionists" are among the most vicious opponents of ID (and, often, among the most dishonest); they are, in fact, "useful idiots" as they shill for Darwinism, scientism, and atheism.

(*) Not all proponents of intelligent design are "theists;" some, in fact, are 'atheists' or God-deniers. I don't how such persons square that particular circle, but there you have it.