Darwin's proof, chapter 7

It's been a long time since I've posted. I've been busy with work and other things. I hope to be able to post more often in a few weeks. For now, I will continue my review of Darwin's Proof, by Cornelius Hunter. Most of the posts before this deal with Hunter's book, if you would like to review them.

The review of Chapter 7 will be much shorter than the previous. Usually I have copious notes over each page, but I have almost none in this chapter. This chapter is theology. In Chapter 6, Hunter objected to the religious assumptions of evolutionary biologists. Although he criticized the view of God behind biologists view of design, he never replaced it with an alternative view. Even with theology, creationists seem to rely on negative argumentation rather than a positive case. However, I thought that in this chapter, he would finally present a view of God that can explain all of the observed facts. He seems to think biologists create a straw man God, so I was interested in the proper view of God. He did not supply it in this chapter.

The chapter is simply a review of how God has been viewed over the centuries. As far as I know, it is accurate, although I am not an expert on the history of theological views. He points out that by the 19th century, God had become a more rational God, and less based on faith or revelation. He seems to find this objectionable. He objects to applying reason to God. It is this rational God that Darwin and the evidence for evolution argued against.

He gives reasons for the change in theological views. For example, people tried to use reason to explain evil. It all makes sense to me and seems like an improved God, but it is clear I am supposed to object to it. As usual, Hunter does a good job of convincing me of the evidence against his views. He presents Hume's argument against design and anthropomorphizing God very well. He never explains any errors in Hume, other than it is too rational. By the 19th century, God became more distant and science and religion became separate. This seems to have been for good philosophical reasons, but again, Hunter objects.

In the whole chapter, he never presents his alternative God. I keep waiting for it, but it never arrives. I have only to presume he is doing the usual smoke and mirrors of creationists. When the evidence doesn't fit with a rational God, retreat to a mysterious God. I assume Hunter's God is a God whose purpose is beyond our comprehension, who is so inscrutable that we cannot possibly make sense of his creation. In other words, he is an untestable, any thing goes God. Although Hunter never explicitly states this, I will work under that assumption.

Hunter doesn't seem to realize that the rational God to which he objects follows directly from intelligent design. The whole basis of ID is that God is a rational designer: That we can use reason to see the works of God; That we can infer God from his handiwork. The ID God is the god of Paley and the 19th century. Hunter objects to the view of God that follows directly from his views on evolution. If we retreat to Hunter's God of mystery, there is no positive case left for ID. None of the arguments about designers or irreducible complexity or information hold up. So in Hunter's hand, ID consists of negative arguments against evolution and negative arguments against a rational God, but has absolutely no positive content, scientific or theological.

Hunter again objects to Darwin when Darwin, discussing the nested hierarchies of classification, said "if species had been independently created, no explanation would have been possible of this kind of classification." Hunter objects to Darwin claiming to know the inscrutable ways of the creator and telling him how he should have created. But even if we move to Hunter's God, Darwin is correct. Hunter's God does not explain this classification. All Hunter can say is that God did it that way for his mysterious reasons. That is not an explanation. An explanation has to consist of more than "it is that way because it is that way." Hunter, and ID in general, fails to even deserve being called an explanation. In two chapters on the theology of evolution, Hunter has yet to have a single sentence that actually explains why any of the patterns we see exist, or why things are this way rather than another way.

Ultimately, what Hunter objects to is that evolutionary biologists give ID the benefit of the doubt. They assume it makes testable explanations that follow from a designer, and then point out the tests fail. Hunter loudly objects to such crude theology. A proper understanding of God does not lead to any conclusions or any testable claims. It is especially ironic that his greatest objection to evolution is that it explains too much.