J.P. Moreland and the Book “Theistic Evolution” (Part 1: What do William Paley, Richard Dawkins, and J.P. Moreland all have in common?)

Last November, the 1,000-page Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique hit the shelves. Written by Biola professor J.P. Moreland, Discovery Institute’s Stephen Myer, systematic theologian Wayne Gruden, among others, the book essentially argues against theistic evolution and groups like BioLogos and the Faraday Institute that endorse it.

This post is not a book review of a 1,000-page book. Rather, I am going to respond to a brief interview Moreland gave as the book was coming out. Now, over the past four years, I’ve done my fair share of reading and writing regarding the “creation/evolution debate,” in terms of critiquing the claims Ken Ham and his young earth creationist organization, Answers in Genesis. In doing so, I’ve come to the conclusion that the fundamental reason why men like Ken Ham object to the theory of evolution and the claim that the universe is billions of years old isn’t because they hold serious scientific arguments that say otherwise.

No, the fundamental reason is that they start with a wooden, literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1-11 and an assumption that Genesis 1-11 is giving scientific/historical information. Therefore, since evolution/billions of years thus conflicts with their assumption that Genesis 1-11 is to be read in such a wooden, literalistic fashion, they conclude that evolution/billions of years is an attack on the authority of Scripture. Thus, they conclude that the only reason why anyone would ever read Genesis 1-11 any differently than their wooden, literalistic interpretation is that they have decided to “put more faith” in “fallible science” than the “infallible word of God.”

And with that, they are convinced that this “battle” is just another front in the larger “culture war” that Christians must fight in order to bring morality back to our culture.

Now, J.P. Moreland is not a young earth creationist. For that matter, I don’t think anyone associated with the book is a young earth creationist. But what I couldn’t help thinking was I read Moreland’s interview about the book was that many of his critiques and characterizations of theistic evolution are eerily similar to the very critiques and characterizations of Ken Ham. And when I say that, I don’t mean to disparage Moreland, but rather to point out what I feel is a deeper problem that far too many people have in regard to understanding evolution, the Bible, and the Christian faith.

Simply put: they’ve turned a basic scientific enterprise into a religious conflict. That is something I just don’t get.

Moreland’s Overview of Theistic Evolution
When asked about what the book Theistic Evolution addresses, Moreland articulates three basic definitions of “theistic evolution”: (1) microevolution (which he says everyone believes), (2) the thesis of common descent, and (3) the “blind watchmaker” thesis. He then says that the bulk of the book addresses the “blind watchmaker” thesis, although it does touch upon the thesis of common descent as well.

Now what struck me is the odd way Moreland described what theistic evolution is: “Theistic evolution affirms that the general theory of common descent and the blind watchmaker is true, but God in some way or another guided the processes — as long as there is no way to detect that he did it.” (He then said that “detecting God scientifically” would be Intelligent Design). My first thought when reading this was, “You can’t ‘affirm the blind watchmaker’ and then say, ‘God guided the process.’” That is an oxymoron if there ever was one.

The “God as watchmaker” claim was originally a philosophical argument put forth by William Paley in the 18^th century. He started with the deistic assumption of a highly mechanized universe (i.e. like a watch), and then argued that such mechanical complexity points to an “intelligent designer” (i.e. God is the watchmaker). But it needs to be emphasized that Paley wasn’t attempting to scientifically explain how the universe works. His starting assumption was that of deism (the universe is like a watch), and he attempted to make a philosophical case that the mechanized universe points to an intelligent “watchmaker.”

Scientists, though, eventually discovered that the natural world is a whole lot more complex than a watch. And it was none other than the atheist Richard Dawkins who, in his 1986 book, popularized the phrase “the blind watchmaker” to argue that natural processes are all there is, and there is no God, or intelligent designer. And please note, by claiming that, Dawkins (like Paley) was also attempting to make a philosophical argument—namely, that there is no God, and that nature is all that exists.

But both claims of Paley and Dawkins are fundamentally based on deistic assumptions about the universe that are decidedly unbiblical from the jump—namely, that the universe is essentially a machine that God supernaturally “poofed” into existence way back when, but then left it to be run solely by natural laws and is thus largely detached from the created order. Modern day disciples of Paley thus argue that God occasionally steps in and “monkeys with the machinery” in order to do miracles, whereas atheists like Dawkins simply say there is no God in the first place, and therefore miracles don’t happen.

But please note, neither Paley’s “watchmaker” nor Dawkins’ “blind watchmaker” is a scientific argument. Both are philosophical arguments that are rooted in a deistic concept of the universe. Therefore, Moreland is simply wrong to say that theistic evolution “affirms the blind watchmaker,” because it doesn’t. The “blind watchmaker thesis” is fundamentally a philosophical argument for atheism, and theistic evolution (obviously) doesn’t affirm atheism, and it isn’t rooted in deism.

Furthermore, Moreland actually reveals his own deistic mindset when he then says, “The theistic evolutionist wants to make sure no theology or religion or any idea of God or any of that enters into the methods of science.” His problem with theistic evolution is that it argues that God doesn’t just occasionally “monkey with the machinery,” but the very notion of a God who occasionally steps in to “monkey with the machinery,” comes from an Enlightenment/deistic worldview, and not a biblical one.

The biblical worldview regarding the natural universe is that God is intimately involved on a constant basis. He didn’t “create it back then,” and then leave it to itself, only to occasionally intervene. Biblically-speaking, what we call “natural laws and processes” are simply descriptions of how God continually creates and maintains the created order. Thus, theistic evolution simply acknowledges that the natural laws and processes are God’s laws and processes, and that He creates by means of them. God doesn’t have to “enter into the methods of science,” anymore than a painter has to “enter into a paintbrush,” for the natural processes are God’s creative paintbrush.

If I may put it this way:

• The theory of evolution is a scientific argument;
• Paley’s “Watchmaker” and Dawkins’ “Blind Watchmaker” are philosophical arguments rooted in a deistic conception of a mechanized universe;
• Moreland’s criticism of theistic evolution is that it isn’t based on that deistic conception of a mechanized universe, in that it doesn’t attempt to argue when and where God stepped in to “monkey with the machinery;”
• Theistic evolution, really simply saying, “As a scientific argument, evolution is convincing—let’s praise God for such creativity!”

Moreland’s Misunderstanding of What Evolution Addresses
The second thing Moreland addresses in the article is the things he feels are problematic for evolution, and that theistic evolutionists should think twice about before accepting evolution:

• The origin of life: evolution can’t explain the origin of life
• The origin of biological information: random processes and natural law can’t account for it
• The Cambrian Explosion: how does one explain the “explosion” of various life forms within that rock strata?
• The origin of consciousness
• Irreducible complexity

I’m sure that the book delves into these objections in greater detail, which is unfortunate for this reason. Now, I’m not a scientist, but I do know enough about evolution to know that it doesn’t attempt to address things like the origin of life, the origin of biological information, or the origin of consciousness. Therefore, the fact that evolution doesn’t answer those questions doesn’t call it into question, because evolution doesn’t attempt to address those questions in the first place. To be clear, evolution is a scientific theory that attempts to explain the natural processes that bring about the varieties of life forms we see today. It explains the variations of life that happen once life has begun—it doesn’t address the issue of how life itself began.

Secondly, in regard to the Cambrian Explosion, Moreland’s comments are a bit misleading. Asking, “How does one explain the ‘explosion’ of life forms that happened in the Cambrian era?” gives the impression of a veritable “poofing” of life forms into existence. But the fact is that the so-called “explosion” took place over 55 million years. Sure, over that 55-million-year time span, we’ve discovered a wide range of life forms coming into existence, but perhaps “explosion” isn’t the best way to describe it…unless you believe explosions last for 55 million years.

Conclusion Thus Far
In my next post I will focus specifically on the part of Moreland’s interview in which he makes basically the same arguments against theistic evolution that Ken Ham makes about theistic evolution, old-earth creationism (of which Moreland ascribes to), and any other claim that isn’t young earth creationist. But what I hope is evident in this post in the underlying problem most people (not just Moreland) tend to have when trying to wrap their heads around the issue of evolution, and particularly theistic evolution.

Simply put, one’s worldview is the lens through which one looks at the world and attempts to make sense of it. What happens a lot of the time, though, is that people mistake the things they are looking at as being the basics of their worldview; they fail to realize that their worldview is the lens through which they are viewing those things, and they never bother to consider whether or not that “lens” is the right prescription. And sometimes, they don’t even realize they are looking through a particular lens.

What I’ve tried to show in this post is that, whether it be William Paley, Richard Dawkins, or even J.P. Moreland, they all seem to be trying to assess the scientific evidence we see in the natural world through the Enlightenment lens of deism. They don’t realize that as soon as you raise the question, “When does God jump in to monkey with the machinery?” you are immediately assuming that Enlightenment worldview and are looking at things through that deistic lens.

Therefore, it shouldn’t be surprising that Moreland finds theistic evolution problematic. When you put on deistic lenses, theistic evolution is going to seem to be out of focus.

But maybe the problem is the lenses.