Byrnes, W. Malcolm

PhilPapers

Deeper Than Darwin: The Prospect forReligion in the Age of Evolution, by JohnF. Haught. Boulder, CO: Westview Press,2003. xvi + 214 pp. Index.This past summer, Cardinal ChristophSchönborn, the Roman Catholic Archbishopof Vienna and lead editor of the 1992 Cat-echism of the Catholic Church, published aletter in the New York Times titled “FindingDesign in Nature.”1 The Cardinal’s basicclaim was that Darwinian evolution is incom-patible with the Church’s belief in God-givenpurpose and design in nature. A response byFather George Coyne, S.J., Director of theVatican Observatory, published in The Tab-let, took issue with this claim.2  Coyne pre-sented an opposing view, one in which Goddoes not intervene in the evolutionary pro-cess, but out of love allows the universe toevolve as it will. Against this backdrop—andthat of a current national debate aboutwhether or not a “disclaimer” regarding thetheory of evolution should be added to biol-ogy textbooks in schools—John Haught’srecent book Deeper than Darwin seemsparticularly timely and appropriate. It canhelp Catholics to address the question, Un-der what circumstances is a belief in evolu-tion compatible with Catholic belief? (Forthe record, Haught’s answer is that the twoare compatible as long as by “evolution” onedoes not mean the materialistic version pro-moted by philosopher Daniel Dennett andscientist Richard Dawkins.)Deeper than Darwin is a sequel to anearlier book, God after Darwin, in whichHaught, who is Professor of Theology atGeorgetown University, argued that reli-gious belief and evolution are entirely com-patible. Not comfortable with just sayingthat religion and evolution are compatible,however, Haught has gone on to argue in thecurrent book that because the universe isinexhaustibly deep, neither intelligent de-sign nor evolutionary materialism is ad-equate to explain it. He promotes a theologyof “engagement” in which the scientific find-ings of evolutionary biology are accepted,but also are recognized as insufficient for un-derstanding the tremendous depth of the re-ality of the universe. Only religion can be-gin to plumb this depth.The book is divided into thirteen chapters,along with a preface, introduction, notes sec-tion and index. The titles of the chapters giveclues to their contents: “A Reading Prob-lem,” “The Depth of Nature,” “Deeper thanDawkins,” “Deeper than Design,” “Truth af-ter Darwin,” “Darwin and the Deities,” and “ADeeper Theology.” Part or all of eight of thechapters are adapted from articles publishedelsewhere. For example, Chapter Twelve isfrom a 2001 lecture comparing Paul Tillichand Teilhard de Chardin that was presentedat the North American Paul Tillich Society.Similarly, Chapter Nine is a response toFrederick Crews’ Dawkins-like criticism ofGod after Darwin that appeared in Crews’mammoth review (ten other books were in-cluded as well) in the New York Review of1 Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, “Finding De-sign in Nature,” New York Times, July 7, 2005,late edition (final), A23.2 George Coyne, S.J., “God’s Chance Cre-ation,” The Tablet (August 6, 2005), http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi/tablet-01063.840THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC BIOETHICS QUARTERLY \ SPRING  2006Books in 2001. One of the unfortunate con-sequences of having adaptations of previouswork as chapters is that there inevitably arevariations in style such that the chapters donot flow together quite as well as they wouldif they had been freshly written. Indeed,Chapter Nine, the one rebutting Crews, isvery tightly written. On the other hand, Chap-ter Ten, which appears to have been writtenfor the book, is more leisurely paced.Deeper than Darwin emphasizes that re-ligion, unlike science, is unique in that itsraison d’être is to strive to come to grips withreality in its inexhaustible and infinite depth.Haught divides the participants in the greatdebate about science (particularly, biology)and religion into four groups: (1) evolution-ary biologists, (2) evolutionary materialists,(3) intelligent design theory (IDT) propo-nents, and (4) evolutionary theists. He arguesthat groups 2 and 3 have what he calls a “read-ing problem,” in that they are unable to un-derstand the universe at multiple levels si-multaneously. He writes, “In their commonaversion to a multiplicity of distinct readinglevels, both IDT and evolutionary material-ism are willing to settle for a world devoidof depth, taking refuge in their respective ver-sions of literalism” (97).On the other hand, he notes that rank-and-file evolutionary biologists (group 1) aregenerally not averse to religion and that evo-lutionary theists (group 4), by believing innature’s ultimate intelligibility and infinitedepth, actually provide a favorable environ-ment for open scientific inquiry. Clearly,Haught himself falls into the fourth group,which he describes as having a theologicalresponse that “engages” with science. More-over, this group, as defined by Haught, has adistinct process orientation after the tradi-tions of Alfred North Whitehead and KarlRahner. A strong theme in his earlier books,including God after Darwin and The Prom-ise of Nature: Ecology and Cosmic Purpose,Haught’s process orientation is featuredprominently here as well. For example, in thechapter “Deeper than Dawkins,” he writes:[The immensity of cosmic duration]provides the scope for a high degree ofspontaneity and contingency in the ori-gin of the first living cell, in the remark-able transformations in the life-storyduring the Cambrian period, and in suchevents as meteorite impacts that dras-tically alter the biosphere and open upnew avenues for evolutionary experi-mentation. Nature’s contingencies andevolution’s randomness are not indica-tive of a divine impotence, but of a Godcaring and self-effacing enough to waitfor the genuine emergence of what istruly other than God, with all the risk,tragedy and adventure this patience en-tails (80).In several places in the book, Haught em-phasizes the narrative character of nature.“Life, after all, is a story,” he writes (47).Evolutionary biologists should embrace thenarrative character of evolution revealed byscientific discovery. Moreover—and this isthe heart of his argument in the book—thenature of evolution as a contingent, appar-ently random story should lead us to “ceaselooking for design as evidence of purposeand instead look deeper—into what I havebeen calling the promise of nature” (53).Haught’s strong belief in the central im-portance of the promise of nature appearsto arise from his recognition of the vital im-portance of eschatology (future-orienta-tion) for Christian belief. His focus oneschatology has caused him to tangle in thepast with other theologians, particularlyPassionist priest and theologian ThomasBerry, who has warned that an over-empha-sis on the attainment of future perfectioncan cause us to abandon our concern andcare for today’s natural world. Berry, Haughtmaintains, has focused too much on thesacramentality of the earth as opposed tothe eschatology of creation. Yet, some of thediscussion in Chapter Twelve might lead thereader to ask, Has Haught gone too far theother way, placing all of his theologicaleggs in the eschatological basket?In Chapter Twelve, which contains the lec-ture presented at the Paul Tillich Society,Haught discusses the relative merits ofTillich’s versus Teilhard’s ideas for the de-841BOOK REVIEWSvelopment of a comprehensive theology ofevolution. On the Tillich-Teilhard scale, heends up favoring Teilhard, arguing thatTillich’s ideas are not up to the task.3  But inthe process of arguing that the contributionsof Teilhard rather than Tillich are more valu-able in the task of forging a much-neededtheology of evolution, Haught makes a num-ber of statements that might call forth ques-tions from the reader. Some of his state-ments, along with the questions they raise,are presented below:• Haught: “The incompleteness of thecosmic project logically implies, there-fore, that the universe and human exist-ence have never, under any circum-stances, been situated in a condition ofideal fullness and perfection” (168).Questions: Does this imply that theearth today and in its previous stages ofevolution is and was less valuable thanit will be in the future? Moreover, wecan talk about the “sacred Earth.” Wasthe earth less sacred in the past becauseit was less perfect? What does thismean about how we should treat theearth today? Finally, is the earth stillevolving toward the future state of per-fection despite our (human) efforts todestroy her (for example, by human-in-duced global warming)?• On the subject of original sin, Haughtargues, with Teilhard, that there is nolonger a need to propose a “primordialmishap” (Teilhard’s words quoted inHaught’s book) to explain the appear-ance of evil. Haught: “Evolution …means that the world is unfinished. Butif it is unfinished, then we cannot justi-fiably expect it yet to be perfect. It in-evitably has a dark side” (169, originalemphasis). Questions: Does not thiseffectively transfer the origin of evilfrom the human heart to the very fabricof the evolving universe? How does thisrelate to the notion of the goodness ofcreation? And if the world intrinsicallyhas aspects that are evil, does this meanthat we can feel free to abuse the world?• On the topic of redemption and resto-ration of the world, Haught writes, “ascientifically informed understandingof redemption may no longer plausiblymake themes of restoration or recov-ery [in Jesus] dominant” (170). Further,“in Tillich’s thought, as in the classicalmetaphysics of pre-evolutionary theol-ogy, the futurity of being is still subor-dinated to the idea of an eternal pres-ence of being.” Such thinking “clips thewings of hope” that a full embrace offuture evolutionary possibilities wouldbring (172). Questions: Is not the co-existence of both a still-evolving uni-verse and a need for redemption inJesus a mystery that we do not under-stand? Based on what science has re-vealed about evolution, are we to con-clude that ancient biblical scholars (forexample) had no understanding oftruth? And should we therefore throwall of the pre-evolutionary babies outwith the evolutionary bath water?• Haught: “Teilhard was especially con-cerned to develop a vision of the worldin which young and old alike could feelgenuinely that their lives and actionstruly matter, that their existence is notjust ‘killing time’ but potentially con-tributing to the creation of a cosmos.Evolution provides the context for sucha vision” (174). Further, “our complic-ity in evil may now be interpreted lessin terms of a hypothesized break fromprimordial innocence than as our sys-tematic refusal to participate in the on-going creation of the world” (175).3 Recall that Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit priest,proposed in the 1950s that the universe is on anevolutionary journey toward the “Omega point,”i.e., God. This journey is marked by an increasein complexity. In Teilhard’s scheme, far from hav-ing come to a standstill with the dominance of earthby humans, evolution is progressing to the next,human-centered phase of evolutionary develop-ment, the “noosphere.” Teilhard, it seems, had anunbounded confidence in the ability of human cul-ture and society to help bring all of creation to fu-ture perfection in God.842THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC BIOETHICS QUARTERLY \ SPRING  2006Questions: In reference to this defini-tion of sin as laziness, i.e., our tendencyto not cooperate with the progressivemovement of the universe toward per-fection, are not humans and other crea-tures of the earth intrinsically valuable,regardless of how lazy they might ap-pear? What would St. Francis of Assisihave said to Haught on this point? Areanimals worth less because they cannotparticipate in building the “noosphere”as we can? Moreover, who decides what“the ongoing creation of the world” in-volves? Finally, is not just beingenough?In contrast to Chapter Twelve, which, as wesee, gives us more questions than answers,Chapter Eleven, titled “Deeper than Death,”brings us back to Haught’s Whiteheadian pro-cess orientation. Here, Haught gives us con-solation that all is not lost upon death. Hereminds us that each moment of our exist-ence is taken up and held in the mind of God,where it remains in its full immediacy. Noth-ing that is real is lost or forgotten. This pro-cess view fits well with the image of an un-folding, and evolving, universe that biologyand physics are giving us today.In conclusion, Deeper than Darwin goesbeyond the mere statement that Christianityand evolution are compatible. It argues thatwe must turn to religion, with its ancient in-terest in plumbing the depths of reality, inorder to understand life and the universe.Provocative in its strong emphasis on theconsonance between the notion of progressin evolution and the future-oriented (eschato-logical) aspects of Christianity, Deeper thanDarwin gives us much to consider as we re-flect anew on the significance of scientifictheory for religious belief.W. MALCOLM BYRNES, PH.D.Howard University College of MedicineWashington, D.C.

Deeper than Darwin: The Prospect for Religion in the Age of Evolution, by John F. Haught

https://philpapers.org/archive/BYRDTD.pdf

Deeper than Darwin: The Prospect for Religion in the Age of Evolution, by John F. Haught

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

PhilPapers