Skip to main content
Log in

The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning

  • Published:
Biology and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A remarkable but little studied aspect of current evolutionary theory is the use by many biologists and philosophers of theological arguments for evolution. These can be classed under two heads: imperfection arguments, in which some organic design is held to be inconsistent with God's perfection and wisdom, and homology arguments, in which some pattern of similarity is held to be inconsistent with God's freedom as an artificer. Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ayala, F.: 1988, ‘Evolution, The Theory of’, Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed., Encyclopedia Britannica, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, R.H.: 1985, ‘On the Independence of Systematics’, Cladistics 1, 113–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooke, J.H.: 1985, ‘The Relations Between Darwin's Science and his Religion’, in J. Durant (ed.), Darwinism and Divinity, Basil Blackwell, London, pp. 40–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burian, R.: 1986, ‘Why the Panda Provides no Comfort to the Creationist’, Philosopica 37, 11–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, A.J.: 1964, ‘The Perfection of Animals’, in J.D. Carthy and C.L. Duddington (eds.), Viewpoints in Biology, Vol. 3, Butterworths, London, pp. 36–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornell, J.: 1987, ‘God's Magnificent Law: The Bad Influence of Theistic Metaphysics on Darwin's Estimation of Natural Selection’, Journal of the History of Biology 20, 381–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darnbrough, C.: 1986, ‘Genes — Created but Evolving’, in E.H. Andrews, W. Gitt, and W.J. Ouweneel (eds.), Concepts in Creationism, Evangelical Press, Herts, England, pp. 241–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C.: 1859 [1964], On the Origin of Species, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C.: 1877 [1984], The Various Contrivances by Which Orchids Are Fertilized by Insects, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R.: 1986, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldredge, N. and J. Cracraft.: 1980, Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process, Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frair, W. and Davis, P.: 1983, A Case for Creation, Moody Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Futuyma, D.: 1983, Science on Trial, Pantheon, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Futuyma, D.: 1985, ‘Evolution as Fact and Theory’, Bios 56, 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M.: 1984, The Triumph of the Darwinian Method, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilkey, L.: 1985, Creationism on Trial, Winston Press, Minneapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, N.: 1979, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S.J.: 1977, Ever Since Darwin, W.W. Norton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S.J.: 1980, The Panda's Thumb, W.W. Norton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S.J.: 1983, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, W.W. Norton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S.J.: 1986, ‘Evolution and the Triump of Homology, or Why History Matters’, American Scientist 74, 60–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S.J.: 1989, Wonderful Life, W.W. Norton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S.J.: 1991, Bully for Brontosaurus, W.W. Norton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haeckel, E.: 1876, The History of Creation, D. Appleton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hick, J.: 1967, ‘Evil, The Problem of,’ in P. Edwards (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

  • Hoffman, A.: 1989, Arguments on Evolution, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton, G.: 1993, Science and Anti-Science, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, F.: 1982, The Possible and the Actual, Pantheon, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jukes, T. and Osawa, S.: 1991, ‘Recent Evidence for Evolution of the Genetic Code’, in S. Osawa and T. Honjo (eds.), Evolution of Life, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 79–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Junker, R. and Scherer, S.: 1988, Entstehung und Geschichte der Lebewesen, Weyel Lehrmittelverlag, Giessen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohn, D.: 1989, ‘Darwin's Ambiguity: The Secularization of Biological Meaning’, British Journal for the History of Science 22, 215–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolakowski, L.: 1982, Religion, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P.: 1985, ‘Darwin's Achievement’, in N. Rescher (ed.), Reason and Rationality in Natural Science, University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland, pp. 127–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landgren, P.: 1993, ‘On the Origin of “Species”: Ideological Roots of the Species Concept’, in S. Scherer (ed.), Typen des Lebens, Pascal Verlag, Berlin, pp. 47–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibniz, G.W.: [1710] 1985, Theodicy, Open Court, La Salle, Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, R.C.: 1984, ‘Adaptation’, in E. Sober (ed.), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 234–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, R.C.: 1987, ‘The Shape of Optimality’, in J. Dupre (ed.), The Latest on the Best, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 151–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Løvtrup, S.: 1987, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, Croom Helm, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J.: 1978, ‘Optimization Theory in Evolution’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 9, 31–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E.: 1964, Introduction to the facsimile reprint of On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E.: 1983, ‘Darwin, Intellectual Revolutionary’, in D.S. Bendall (ed.), Evolution from Molecules to Men, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 23–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E.: 1991, One Long Argument, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murris, H.: 1986, ‘The Concept of the Species and its Formation’, in E.H. Andrews, W. Gitt and W.J. Ouweneel (eds.), Concepts in Creationism, Evangelical Press, Herts, England, pp. 175–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naylor, B.G.: 1982, ‘Vestigial Organs are Evidence of Evolution’, Evolutionary Theory 6, 91–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ospovat, D.: 1980, ‘God and Natural Selection: The Darwinian Idea of Design’, Journal of the History of Biology, 13, 169–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, R.: 1849, On the Nature of Limbs, John Van Voorst, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridley, M.: 1985, The Problems of Evolution, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridley, M.: 1986, Evolution and Classification, Longman, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel, O.: 1988, Fundamentals of Comparative Biology, Birkhauser Verlag, Basel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, E.S.: [1916] 1982, Form and Function, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scadding, S.: 1981, ‘Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?’, Evolutionary Theory 5, 173–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scadding, S.: 1982,‘Vestigial Organs do not Provide Scientific Evidence for Evolution’, Evolutionary Theory 6, 171–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaller, G., Jinchu, H., Wenshi, P., and Jing, Z.: 1986, The Giant Pandas of Wolong, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, S.: 1993, ‘Basic Types of Life’, in S. Scherer (ed.), Typen des Lebens, Pascal Verlag, Berlin, pp. 11–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E.: 1984, The Nature of Selection, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E.: 1993, Philosophy of Biology, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G.C.: 1992, Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nelson, P.A. The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning. Biol Philos 11, 493–517 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138329

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138329

Key words

Navigation