Emory Forum on Evolutionary Biology and Morality

This past week I attended a discussion about evolutionary biology and its relation to human nature and morality at Emory University (Georgia). The presenters were Frans de Waal, an agnostic/atheist who works at Emory, and Jeffrey Schloss, an Evangelical Christian biologist from Westmont College. In part the forum was a continuing response by faculty and students to the outspoken Creationist views of one of their own, Dr. Ben Carson. Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist. He is also an important neuroscientist with some impressive accomplishments. The issue began about a year ago with a commencement address. His views are encapsulated in the following quote:

Ultimately, if you accept the evolutionary theory, you dismiss ethics, you don’t have to abide by a set of moral codes, you determine your own conscience based on your own desires. You have no reason for things such as selfless love, when a father dives in to save his son from drowning. You can trash the Bible as irrelevant, just silly fables, since you believe that it does not conform to scientific thought.

The first part of this statement was demonstrated to be empirically false by de Waal, who gave a shorter version on his TED talk for his presentation that evening. I recommend watching it if you haven't seen it. You won't forget the videos of the monkeys.

Jeffrey Schloss followed up with a discussion of how the various perspectives of the explanatory power of evolution in regards to morality interrelate to his and to de Waal's views. Later, both men sat down with a moderator and talked about some of their differences. Anyhow, I got to ask a question of Schloss. It went something like, "In your chapter for Evolution, Games, and God you give three possibilities for evolutionary "directionality", especially in light of intentional sacrificial altruism. 1) evolutionary necessity 2) happy/ fortunate possibility 3) grace-mediated "impossibility" Which do you think is more correct?

Schloss is a great guy, and I got to meet him personally afterward. His response combined elements of 2 and 3, which I think is fair, but also seemed a bit on the "safe" side. This is especially clear when the grace he referred to was the "common grace" of the Wesleyan tradition. Common grace is a nice concept, and may even be theologically necessary, but it is hard to see what it adds to this discussion.

During the forum and afterward, I wondered if option 1, despite appearances, wasn't also open to theists as well. Simon Conway Morris (Cambridge paleontologist) has written and spoken extensively on the phenomenon of evolutionary convergence. In short, animals that are unrelated and separated in time and space develop strikingly similar adaptations. Morris suggests a "tilted plane" view of evolution could be an implication, providing a sort of teleology/teleonomy without vitalism. Of course, any suggestion of teleology, even at this level, runs into atheistic criticisms of importing religion into science. However, since this is an empirically verifiable phenomenon, it seems perfectly acceptable to wonder about its meaning or even uphold it as compatible (not as a proof) with a number of metaphysical viewpoints, including Christianity. Anyhow, my thoughts ran to Morris' work as a way in which the first option of Schloss' typology might be possible. Perhaps a push from the 'rear' through the constrained options and a "lure" (to use a Process term) from the 'front', pulling us toward God? Very speculative, I know, but I often hear the invitation to metaphysics when reading about and discussing science. The world, if you begin reflecting on it, is a deeply mysterious place.