You raise some points in the last letter about conflicts you perceive between science and theism.

You raise the contention that one reads about between religious views and the theory of evolution. This is a topic that receives a lot of attention and there are many misconceptions here. Some theologians, in the nineteenth century, came out with a positive position on the theory proposed by Darwin. They felt that it was possible for God to use evolution as a way to bring changes into the world. They were answered by opponents of the theory by saying that the theory of evolution highlights a very inefficient and quite frankly, wasteful process.

One of the strongest oppositions to evolution was based on the Augustinian interpretation of Genesis. Creation was seen as perfect from the very beginning and the situation started to deteriorate with the fall, which also introduced death into the world. Now this view is quite wrong because we have sufficient evidence that allows us to know that death was present in the world even before man made his appearance. The basic argument was whether the world was perfect and a paradise before the fall or whether it was not. And the theory of evolution came out strongly in favor of the latter view.

However, Augustin’s interpretation of Genesis is not universally accepted, especially by the Eastern Church. The countering view sees that the world is a divine work in progress with perfection being achieved in the eschaton. The eschaton is the period beyond history, when history will have achieved the goal for which it was created. One of the chief proponents of this view was the Church Father Iranaeus who insisted, yes, the creation is good. However, God created people and the world short of perfection. Man is seen as immature and needing to grow in wisdom and maturity. In Iranaeus’ view, the world was not created perfect but it is destined for perfection. There was not so much a fall (interestingly this is a term totally absent from the New Testament) but there was a failure to ascend. Man was always mortal because he couldn’t support immortality in his being. As we have stated before, mortality is not a punishment but a consequence of createdness. Immortality was never lost because it was something never possessed.

In the eschaton creation will be perfect and will reflect God’s goodness. This is an area which is sometimes overlooked in theology but it is extremely important for understanding creation and man’s fate. But we also have to be careful when considering the eschaton since the danger here is to look almost exclusively to the future at the expense of the present. A balanced view is called for.

Meanwhile, there is a shadow side to creation which remains a mystery and seems to be expressed through the wastefulness of change achieved through evolution. Why this is so, we cannot at this stage say. Why does life come from death of another living thing? Why is violence so prevalent in nature? There are many questions that flood us but we need to be patient and prayerful in order to understand better and maybe see some glimmers of understanding.

In general, we should de-emphasize the fall and focus on the eschaton. After all, if we want to see the purpose and goal of an acorn, we need to look at an oak tree (but keep in mind that without the acorn, we will have no oak). It is the eschaton which will enable us to finally see the inner meaning and purpose of creation. And continually keep in mind that we are seeing from a creation that has been fractured and it cannot give us final and complete answers to the mysteries that confront us. And this applies to scientific answers as well.

One of the underlying fears about science and particularly biology is that they seem to imply that God is not necessary for the operation of the world and the conclusion is drawn that He does not exist. This is particularly underlined in biology where chance seems to play the overriding control as to what does and does not happen. There are many biologists that claim there is no purpose operating in evolution. Everything that takes place occurs simply because of randomness and chance. Moreover, it is pointed out that strict competitiveness and cruelty are the hallmarks of the natural world. In light of these views, is it any wonder that the theory of evolution is seen as threatening to faith?

But is the theory of evolution really saying what we have seen in the previous paragraph? Is it really that haphazard and pointless? Some have pushed this view to the exclusion of any other considerations but evolution is much richer and much more complex than we sometimes say. In order to deal with things, unfortunately we tend to oversimplify and a classic example of this is to invoke genes as a universal explanation for biological events. As we will see, this is a gross oversimplification.

What we have seen from recent studies is that evolution in fact is not as haphazard as some tend to make it. There has to be an element of chance in what is happening in the biosphere in order to allow novelty and newness to make its appearance, but contrary to common views, this chance is constrained, it is controlled. This comes out in what is referred to as evolutionary convergence. Evolutionary convergence shows that we live in a constrained world of limited possibilities. These complex biological systems may arise from very different starting positions, but again and again converge on the same evolutionary solution to the problem, whether it is sight or other properties. In a nutshell, what convergence shows is that the same ends can be and are achieved through a variety of ways. Thus for example, the ‘camera eye’ of humans (as opposed to the ‘compound eye’ of many insects) has evolved at least seven times during evolutionary history. This seems to indicate that there is a tendency towards forming the camera eye in nature and this is an example of what is meant by evolutionary convergence coming through constraint. The important lesson we can draw from this is that evolution is indeed not as haphazard as it is sometimes portrayed. What convergence hints at is that contrary to a common misconception, the emergence of human intelligence is almost a total certainty given the conditions that apply in the biosphere.

Darwinian evolution is often portrayed through the myths of nineteenth century Europe. Darwinian metaphors are grounded in the culture which saw sin and fallenness as the chief descriptions of the world. It is through this lens that the myth, the grand story, of evolution was framed and we still adhere to it. It is through the lens of competitiveness and social individualism that evolution came to be seen. And it is this ‘atomism’, this separateness of individuals that colored our social view of society and became the dominant model of how human society should be structured because it was based on what we thought we perceived in nature. We saw nature as almost exclusively fiercely competitive and we translated this model into human society through capitalism which comes into force with the proclamation of the theory of evolution.

We often hear about nature red in tooth and claw and there is truth in the observation that there is much violence in nature. But, to counterbalance this we should acknowledge that nature is not just about competition but also about co-operation or symbiosis. A common example of this are lichens which combine a fungus with an alga living in happy and fruitful harmony which benefits both species. Another classic illustration of co-operation are the bacteria in our gut who thrive and survive and at the same time enable us also to survive through enabling our bodies to process food. In fact, bacteria which are often seen as our enemy number one, number about the same as the number of cells in our body and they are indispensable for our existence. Nature is much more nuanced and more subtle than our simplistic labels of it indicate.

This is not to deny that nature is not perfect and many questions stand before us as to why there seems to be so much violence and so much waste. Any ideas on this would be mere speculation and we must learn more, and patiently explore nature more so as to possibly get closer to answering this question. There are also hints about this matter in scripture but they are so slight that it is very difficult to comment on them in a more comprehensive explanation. In the book of Isaiah there is an intimation of some primordial revolt before even the appearance of humans. And there is the shadowy figure of Satan whose role in the affairs of the world and man are not always as clear as we sometimes make them out.

There is enough food for thought here and I will be stopping. You raised some questions about biochemistry and I will try to delve into this in the next letter with the full realization that this is not an area that you are comfortable with. But, we will see that the effort will pay off by removing some of the mystification and actually opening a door to a deeper appreciation as to what the theory of evolution is saying.

Sincerely,
Bar-Abbas