Arthur Jones
Review: John F Haught, *God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution* (Oxford:
Westview Press, 2000, 221 pp, hb, £19.50, ISBN 0-8133-6723-9), 'Science &
Christian Belief' 14 (1), April 2002, 93-94.
Haught is a theologian who seeks to show that evolution 'provides a most
fertile setting for mature reflection on the idea of God.' (cover). After
developing his theology of evolution in the first six chapters, he then
considers, in its light, the supposed meaninglessness of the universe (ch
7), ethics (ch 8), ecology (ch 9), and divine action (ch 10). Haught accepts
modern Darwinism (14, 106), but his rejection of the materialist ideology
(14, 32) is very evident in the later chapters.
Haught insists that all scientists have a metaphysics and identifies three
dominant perspectives. The first, a 'metaphysics of the past' (86), is
common to most materialist readings of evolution. From this perspective all
events, including the evolution of life and mind, were implicit in the
original cosmic conditions and needed only contingency, law, time and space
to come to realisation. The second, a Greek metaphysics of the eternal
present (84, 92, 94), common to much traditional theology, holds that a
hierarchy of levels of being is held up from above. Haught argues that these
two views rule out genuine novelty, and render evolution pointless (186).
The third, promoted by Haught, is a 'metaphysics of the future' (88) that
locates the divine source of being in the future as the goal of a world
still in the making. Haught argues that only this allows for real novelty.
It is an exhilarating vision that is widely applauded, but is it viable? A
major problem is an empirical one. Haught rejects materialism, arguing that
the evolution of novelty demands a beckoning God. Yet he proposes that any
such 'interaction' will be empirically undetectable and that the
naturalistic accounts of evolution will be complete in their own terms
(74-75, 99, 104). But even if it is agreed that the laws, constants and
initial conditions of the universe have to be very tightly constrained for
life and mind ever to be sustainably present, that does not mean, or prove,
that life and mind will, or even can, emerge in such a universe. At the very
least, it remains an open question whether organisms could arise without
intelligent intervention. Despite the regular hype, the research continues
to indicate that mutation and natural selection, or the various more recent
suggestions from, e.g., complexity and chaos theory, are hopelessly
inadequate to the task. Furthermore, Haught is unwise to conclude so firmly
that his 'theory' would not itself carry empirically detectable consequences
(cf 183).
Haught appears to regard the idea of God intervening in nature with
revulsion. Yet however one might wish to gloss the word, the Scriptures
portray a God who constantly 'intervenes', even to the extent of entering
his creation as a creature. Naturalistic evolution must be demonstrated, not
simply assumed because it comports so comfortably with a preferrred
metaphysic, especially when that metaphysic is so clearly alien to
Scripture.
That last comment brings us to the heart of the matter, that of authority.
Is Scripture our authority, or, if not, what is? Haught assures us that the
idea of an originally and instantaneously completed creation is
'theologically unthinkable' (37), and he insists that a perfect creation
ruined by sin (141), death as judgment (162), a primordial couple, Adam and
Eve, rebelling against God in the Garden of Eden and passing down the
consequences of that disobedience to their descendants (137), are all myths
that cannot be reconciled with evolutionary science and so must be rejected.
Yet he constantly describes aspects of his perspective as 'biblical' as if
that matters (108, 147-50) and other things (which he rejects) as
'unbiblical' as if that too is important (107). Yet he is arbitrarily
selective in his use of Scripture and radically reinterprets (33) those
selections in the light of his metaphysics. To take two specific examples,
'original sin' becomes 'our estrangement from . the enlivening new creation
yet to come' (140) and John 3:16 means that 'the very substance of divine
life is poured out into the creation, and that the world is now and forever
open to an infinitely replenishing future.' (111). God does not coercively
control; hence he is not responsible for all the imperfections and evil of a
universe that is still in the process of making itself (38). But entirely
absent from Haught's 'gospel' is any concept of that righteousness, justice
and judgement of God that is also fundamental to Scripture and without which
the nature of God's love cannot be grasped. The authority for Haught's
'reinterpretation' is his own fertile imagination. His new gospel is yet
another postmodern story that can carry no objective authority for anyone
else.
Despite my rejection of his overall thesis, I still found much in this book
that was stimulating and challenging: his critique of the Greek dualism that
still dominates much Christian thought (65) the importance to morality of
the conviction that it has 'the backing of the universe' (132, ch 8), his
emphasis on the importance of our experience of inwardness to reflection on
cosmology as well as psychology (94, ch 10). But, sadly, it is only some of
the bathwater that is worth keeping.
Arthur Jones
Dr Jones has taught science and religion courses at London and Bristol
Universities and is currently Research Consultant for Curriculum Development
to the Christian Schools' Trust.
POWRÓT