I don’t often jump into the fray of the evolution/Creation debate mostly because I find both extremes stray from central Biblical truths as well as engage in superfluous non-scientific speculation. The most important thing about Creation we need to hold onto is “In the beginning, God…” (or, another way of translating this - “When God began…” ) All the scientific speculation we do can only get us back so far. Ultimately, we are faced with the mystery of a “First Cause”. And, that is the realm of God.
Given that the evolution debate garners such interest, though, now and then I like to check in to see what terms are now being bandied about to explain the unexplainable. I found in the New York Times an article entitled - “An Evolutionary Theory of Right and Wrong” which reviews the book Moral Minds by Marc D. Hauser. Hauser, a Harvard biologist, hypothesizes that people are born with a moral grammar wired into their neural circuits by evolution.
Again, this speculation only takes us so far. Let’s assume for a moment that we are born with a “moral grammar” hardwired into our brains. Why would Hauser automatically assume that ”evolution” did the hardwiring? This seems a tremendous leap of faith. It would be similar to saying that this computer I’m writing with was randomly assembled by a process that has no inherent Intellect whatsoever. Somehow, parts just came together over time and were encoded essentially through natural selection (again - selection by whom?).
Isn’t it more logical, even scientific, based on the observable evidence of how our computers are programmed to hypothesize that there is a Programmer who writes this moral grammar in us? (As the Bible puts it, ”I will write my law in their hearts.”)
Why would Hauser believe evolution is the Programmer? It’s possible that he just wants to supplant traditions (particularly religious ones), first by undermining their authority. The article suggests that one of the implications of this theory is -
“parents and teachers are not teaching children the rules of correct behavior from scratch but are, at best, giving shape to an innate behavior. And it suggests that religions are not the source of moral codes but, rather, social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior.”
On the surface, I have no problem with this contention. Parents, teachers, and religious leaders are not the sole authority for moral teaching. God is. But in calling moral behavior “innate” and “instinctive”, Hauser misses the mark. We need to ask - ”Who gave us this instinct?” I would contend that the degree to which we serve as moral agents is the degree that the image of God is restored in us through the Spirit of Christ. This can happen to anyone - believer or not - according to God’s good plan. Believers don’t corner the market on morality. God does.
Why would Hauser try to undermine religion’s traditional authority? It’s quite simple - almost instinctive, you might say.
“Matters of right and wrong have long been the province of moral philosophers and ethicists. Dr. Hauser’s proposal is an attempt to claim the subject for science, in particular for evolutionary biology.”
In other words, Hauser and his fellow evolutionary biologists want to be the priests of modern culture. More than this, they want to be its gods. It’s just a short step from describing how we tell the difference between right and wrong to telling us what right and wrong are.
To a large extent, I think, Hauser describes an evolutionary process that is occuring in the minds of many people. Many do look to science, technology, academia, and particularly the marketplace, to determine right from wrong.
This evolutionary process isn’t happening on its own, however. It is under the direction of a Maker who has loosened the reins to allow us to go our own way. This Maker, however, has revealed to us in the person of Jesus Christ (the Word/grammar of moral behavior) how best to live. We are more than computers running through a program. We are free moral agents who can choose between the life-giving good and the death-dealing wrong.
Your comments are thoughtfully written.
I wonder if those that think that we are wired to be moral would consider that we just as easily may be born to be sinners. But that idea’s not so new and the book may have already been written.
The turning point of my life was when I tried a little exercise. I, who thought of myself as a basically good person, tried not to sin for a day. Or an hour. Or five minutes.
The Pistol fires back: How long did you make it?
Interesting to me is that in the fall, God seems dismayed that man has eaten the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, man’s eyes are opened and he enters the world of the spiritual being with some rudimentary acquaintance with the moral dimension (now they are like us, says God). But man is a carnal being as well and now knows he/she is naked and must lie/cover up because attributions about good and evil (shame and guilt) are possible. This change in man that is recounted in Genesis doesn’t seem like it comes from God’s specific design of man, rather it comes across as something that just occurred, given God’s dismay… which, is why we need a solution to this spiritual/carnal rift in ourselves.
I’ve read Hauser (posted on him) and I don’t know what his religious beliefs are, but I’m comfortable with the idea of a law written on the heart as something evolving in man that extends beyond that beginning of eyes opened in Genesis, in that fuzzy zone between evolution which may follow scientific principles and the availability of grace that allows a transcendance of strict, old fashioned scientificism of a handless invisible hand. I even have some thoughts about election in all of this, but it’s fanciful and I just don’t even want to deal with the reactions people may have to this very complicated, serious subject (I’m not prepared as a scientist or theologian to argue it and don’t have an interest in doing so).
I did write a long, also somewhat fanciful piece in my own blog about an evolutionary look at the creation and fall that you may have read. If not, here is the link to it. I hope people don’t get in a twist about it; it’s just an exploration of possibility:
http://drx.typepad.com/psychotherapyblog/2006/10/the_genesis_acc_1.html
The Pistol fires back: Thanks for the link. No doubt science and theology can make great conversation partners. The trouble only comes when one tries to cut off the conversation and make bold pronouncements from a place on high only God has access to.