Darwin's Proof, chapter 9

I am now on Chapter 9 of my review of Darwin's Proof. This will be a short review. The book stopped dealing with science about half way through. It is now purely a religious apologetic.

Hunter begins by explaining how when Jesus was crucified, people expected more from him, miracles or signs or to save himself. Likewise, we expect more from creation, some kind of perfection. Hunter tells us again, as in chapter 8, that creation is very imperfect, because of the fall. He openly rebukes 18th century philosophy, as well as the design arguments of William Paley. He calls this the "paradigm of perfection". He seems to recognize that creation isn't that perfect. He continues to insist that evolution depends on a view of perfect designing God. He continues with his idiosyncratic view that all evidence for evolution is really just an argument against the paradigm of perfection. Hunter never explains why evolution is very convincing to people from non Western religions, such as those in Asia, even though those religions generally do not view God as a perfect designer.

Of course, Hunter can't do away entirely with the idea that creation is somehow the expression of God's handiwork, so he explains that creation is a general revelation. God reveals himself in creation. Scripture is the more specific revelation. Many people would look at creation and think that this reveals a God of cruelty and poor design, but again, that is because of the fall. All of the good things in the world are the revelation of God, the bad things are the fall.

I found some of his views of general revelation to be amusing. Hunter explains how scriptures uses analogies to explain things. For example, the kingdom of heaven is like a little bit of yeast that works through a large amount of dough. False teachers are like a brood of vipers, etc. Hunter then asks if it was serendipity that creation just happened to be full of analogies to spiritual truths, or if God created the world to have these analogies. In other words, he is suggesting that vipers were created to give us an analogy for false teachers or yeast created to give us an analogy for small things producing a large effect. Does he really have that little confidence in the human imagination to suggest that analogies can't be found in almost anything? Does he really believe that everything around us, all of the creatures we see, are there just as Sunday school lessons for us?

Hunter suggests that a caterpillar in its cocoon is a symbol of the crucified Christ, to be resurrected soon. So metamorphosis, found in millions of arthropods, not just butterlies, a process with clear ecological benefits to the organism, a process on which other species and ecosystems depend, is nothing more than a Sunday school lesson. I could find such Sunday school lessons in anything I want, including fictional stories. I could use the butterfly as an analogy for a Hindu myth of death and rebirth. Even as theology, this is hopeless, leave alone as science.

Hunter says creation's purpose is to communicate truths and contribute to our salvation. He doesn't explain why an evolved world couldn't do the same thing. Hunter contradicts himself at the end of the chapter, stating the perfections in nature reveal the glory of God. Even he can't get away from the paradigm of perfection.

Hunter returns to his point that patterns in the world could be the product of an underlying purpose, rather than evolution. He points to the pentadactyl limb as such an exmaple. Perhaps it is part of God's design to have this pattern in separate creations. He ignores the most famous example of a deviation from that pattern--The panda's thumb. It has an extra digit that doesn't follow this underlying theme. Why would God make an exception to his pattern in just this one case? Hunter must be familiar with Gould's famous essay, and must know it was aimed at exactly the argument he made, that patterns reflect an underlying design element. Gould argued that both evolution and creation can explain well designed or universal patterns, but only evolution can explain the odd exceptions or poorly designed elements.

And Hunter yet again says that no matter what we we in nature, we would explain it by evolution. When I teach evolution, I challenge my students to think of things that could not be explained by evolution. I offer Pegasus, the flying horse, as such a creature. Evolution modifies pre-existing structures, it does not create things like wings from scratch. That's why all flying vertebrates have wings from modified limbs. If we regularly saw creatures such as Pegasus, we would disprove evolution. Hunter thinks we would explain it away. I am willing to openly say numerous observations that would falsify evolution, from Pegasus to a rabbit in the Cambrian. They would not be explained away. Evolution would be falsified. I'm willing to put the theory of evolution on the block like that. Is Hunter willing to do the same with his views?