Anothers Review of Cobb Back to Darwin: A Richer Account of Evolution, John B. Cobb, Jr.
(ed.), William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008 (ISBN 978-0-
8028-4837-6), xiv + 434 pp., pb $36.00
The unstated but carefully enforced rule in writing about Darwinism for
respectable publications is the following: you can poke as many holes
into Darwin’s theory as you want, as long as you don’t make a gap wide
enough for someone to drive intelligent design through it. A corollary
follows. The more holes you poke, the more you must distance yourself
from the intelligent design movement. Even showing sympathy for that
movement could bring the wrath of the self-appointed boundary police
(those who patrol the border between science and religion) down on
your head. This is really unfortunate, because the current debates about
Darwinism focus on the origin of human intelligence as well as the
perplexing persistence of design in both the language of biologists and
the evolutionary process itself. This book, which is at the cutting edge of
this debate, is nonetheless a good example of this rule and its corollary
in action.
On its face, process philosophy seems to have much in common with
Darwinism. Both posit a dynamic account of nature and a subsequent
ethics of interconnectedness. In reality, however, few philosophical
schools have more at stake in rejecting Darwinism in order to insure
their own survival. Process metaphysics posits some form of intelligence
(what process terms ‘subjectivity’) throughout all the layers of
nature, and it sees goal-directed activity in even the most micro of
events. If evolution is a random staggering through unshaped biological
space, then philosophy cannot explicate its underlying patterns as a
coherent and rational process. A process, as opposed to a stumble, has
a purpose that is the philosopher’s job to conceptualize. Purposeless
evolution puts process philosophy out of business.
Though I studied Whitehead and Hartshorne extensively in college
and graduate school, I have neglected them ever since, in part because
I thought process theology tended to mimic the analytic methods
and nomenclature of the scientific worldview it was trying to critique.
Process philosophy tries too hard to specify God’s action in the world,
I thought, and ended up substituting a strangely scientific sounding
metaphysics for a deeply satisfying religious mystery. I now see that
process philosophy’s ambition to extend rational principles to the
natural world in contrast to Darwinism’s attempt to eliminate purpose
in nature is a real strength, and I amvery grateful to this book for giving
me back my early passion for process thought.
Process philosophers and theologians have battled Darwinism
before, but this is now the book to read to get the whole overview of
what should become a real war. Darwinism has always been metaphysically
weak, if not confused, and process thought has always been the
252 Theology, Ethics and Philosophy
© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
most metaphysically robust and confident of modern philosophical
systems. It was only a matter of time, then, thatWhitehead and Darwin
would go at it, and the result is a truly exciting intellectual engagement.
Unlike most collections of essays, this book is not an exercise in ‘parallel
play’. There is real engagement among the authors and an impressive
development of issues and arguments. That coherence is a product of
the 2004 conference in Claremont, California, where this volume originated,
but it is also a tribute to the work of the editor, John Cobb. He
contributes two essays and prefaces for each of the four sections. Cobb
keeps the discussion focused, especially by how he frames the contributions
of Francisco Ayala, a Professor of Biology at the University of
California. Ayala is the one contributor who sees no need to revise the
staples of Darwinism. He thus stands out in this book, but Cobb
handles his work appreciatively but firmly.
A book of this nature would be impossible to summarize were it not
for Cobb’s editorial labors. At times, Cobb speaks as if the problems of
Darwinism are purely rhetorical, due to a bit of well-meaning exaggeration
on the part ofDarwin’s defenders. ‘The problems highlighted in this
book’, he writes in the preface, ‘are certain assumptions and overstatements
in the post-Darwin development of evolutionary theory’ (p. viii).
What Cobb calls neo-Darwinism, by which he means the synthesis of
Darwin’s original theory with modern genetics, is typically expressed,
he argues, in ‘tight and extreme formulations’ (p. ix). Given the criticisms
launched by most of the authors, this is gentle and polite language. Most
of the contributors are working toward a reintegration of science and
religion that would radically alter the Darwinian worldview by gutting
its core assumption about the lack of purpose in nature. The consensus in
these essays, with the exception ofAyala, is that Darwinism is beholden
to a mechanistic metaphysics that cannot do justice to theway evolution
really works. The result is a challenge not just to the metaphysical
backing of Darwinism but also to ‘much empirical evidence’ (p. ix) that
is neglected by Darwinism’s extreme formulations.
All of these essays deserve careful attention, but due to space limitations
I want to highlight the ones written by Jeffrey Schloss and David
Ray Griffin. Jeffrey Schloss, Distinguished Professor of Biology atWestmont
College, demonstrates howDarwinism has not only contributed to
discussions of natural evil but also has employed this discussion inways
that are fundamental to its rejection of teleology. Darwinists harp on
‘useless traits, clumsy design, or suboptimal function as a scientific
argument against special design’ (p. 113). Waste, destruction, and the
superabundance of death are used against the doctrine of creation, with
the assertion that ‘surely we don’t want to blame God for this carnage’.
Schloss points out that the criteria intelligent design theorists use to infer
design involves irreducibility, not optimality.Moreover, for the believer,
with evolution ‘not only do we end up with defective products, but in
Theology, Ethics and Philosophy 253
© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
addition the very causal process appears deeply morally objectionable’
(p. 115). Darwinism is committed to an exegesis of natural evil that is
inherently theological and yet philosophically and scientifically incoherent.
As Schloss points out, if natural evil is awarranted argument against
God, then ‘natural beneficence becomes an argument against neo-
Darwinism, which cannot brook altruism’ (p. 115).
In his second contribution to this volume, Schloss takes on the thorny
topic of providence. He asks two questions: first, whether the empirical
evidence actually supports claims to adirectionality, and second,
whether the mechanisms posited by Darwinism provide an adequate
causal explanation. He expertly surveys the problem of determining
what directionality is and how alleged trends like complexity might
even be measured. He then looks at size, energy expenditure, and life
history trends (parental investment, for example) to argue that evolution
shows evidence of ‘contingency constrained by necessity [which]
is what produces telos’ (p. 348). He concludes that the cosmos is not
empty but rather ambiguous, which frames religion in terms of hope
rather than calculated certainties.
David Ray Griffin, emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion at
Claremont School of Theology, returns to earth after writing several
books debunking 9/11 to produce two essays that are as grounded as
they are insightful and provocative (in a good way!). In the first, he
draws out the religious implications of Darwinism, elaborating on a
list that includes general scientific doctrines, metaphysical doctrines
unique to Darwinism, derivative scientific doctrines, scientific doctrines
unique to Darwinism, and moral and metaphysical implications. For
readers of this brilliant theologian who might have wondered if he had
lost his way in conspiracy theories about the ‘true’ cause of 9/11, these
essays represent not only sound but also essential readings in the relationship
of creation and evolution. He ends this chapter with a remarkably
clear, balanced, and helpful reflection on the role of evolution in
public schools. There is no conspiracy theory about either atheist biologists
or right-wing religious fanatics, but there are somewarnings about
why evolution is harder to teach properly than one might have thought.
In his second essay, Griffin argues for the superiority of process
thought to both Darwinian reductionism and intelligent design.Whitehead,
he argues, can account for the emergence of novelty in evolution
without appeals to the supernatural. This might be, but then Whiteheadians
cause their own problems by appealing to a panexperientialism
that is metaphysically plausible but a hard sell to most scientists
and even most theologians. In this essay Griffin works through a subtle
variety of forms of materialism and other metaphysical assumptions
to demonstrate how process thought can provide a much need
modification of Darwinian gradualism. This criticism of gradualism
links Griffin’s work with intelligent design theorist Michael Behe, and
254 Theology, Ethics and Philosophy
© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Griffin is brave enough to admit that. He is sensitive, however, to being
targeted with guilt by association.
There are many other fine essays here. A. Y. Gunter looks at alternatives
to ultra-Darwinism, Dorion Sagan uses thermodynamics to bridge
Darwinism and process philosophy, Ian Barbour brings his exemplary
wisdom and perspective to the problem of contingency and teleology,
Philip Clayton continues to demonstrate why he is the outstanding
thinker of emergence today, and perhaps most importantly of all, John
Cobb usesWhitehead to show how organisms themselves are agents of
evolutionary change, something that hyper-Darwinism is loathe to
admit. These thinkers find agency, purpose, and meaning everywhere
they look in nature, and most of all, they find the old boundaries that
‘protected’ science from religion to be at best obsolete and at worst an
impediment to empirical research. It is time to stop beating up on
intelligent design and admit that we have entered a new phase in
exploring Darwinism’s many limits.