Evolution and Theodicy: How (Not) to Do Science and Theology

Abstract

This article uses Christopher Southgate's work and engagement with other scholars on the topic of evolutionary theodicy as a case study in the dialogue of science and Christian theology. A typology is outlined of ways in which the voices of science and the Christian tradition may be related in a science-theology dialogue, and examples of each position on the typology are given from the literature on evolution and natural evil. The main focus is on Southgate's evolutionary theodicy and the alternative proposal by Neil Messer. By bringing these two accounts into dialogue, some key methodological issues are brought into focus, enabling some conclusions to be drawn about the range and limits of fruitful methodological possibilities for dialogues between science and Christian theology.Christopher Southgate has been one of the leading voices in the sciencetheology dialogue for many years, making major contributions to various specific debates in the field. The breadth and quality of his scholarship, together with his theological acumen, are such that his contributions to substantive debates are also object lessons in methodology. From watching Neil Messer is Professor of Theology at

“Landscape Plotted and Pieced”: Exploring the Contours of Engagement Between (Neuro)science and Theology

“…An implicit recognition of these issues, and also possibly of the accuracy of Drees's stark assessment, is attested to by ongoing and multiple attempts to rearticulate, reframe, or reimagine different aspects of the field (e.g., Drees ; Gregersen , 419–29; Gregersen and van Huyssteen ; Hefner et al. , 419–522; Messer , 821–35). It is also apparent in the stringent criticisms already noted, which have attended the emergence of new subdisciplinary fields such as neurotheology.…”

Response With a Select Bibliography

“…I greatly welcome these contributions. As Messer says, identifying with more precision disagreements about method and theology can only stimulate the quality of future enquiry (Messer , 833). As in the past, I am very appreciative of the care with which he analyzes our approaches.…”

“…As Messer rightly says, the different weighting of these instincts says much about the differences between us. My concern over his choice is that the unity of the scientific account (which is not just the latest conjecture but is based on well‐established complexes of theory, both in relation to geophysics and molecular biology) is rendered incoherent by the Nichtige theory, which holds that goodness in creation is at least theoretically distinguishable from “shadow.” In Messer's terms, his “type 4” position, according Christian doctrine priority in the conversation, risks drifting as he himself admits “towards type 5, separating voices of science and the Christian tradition to the extent that the scientific voice can no longer make any contribution to theological understanding, and dialogue ceases” (Messer , 833).…”

“…Messer mentions at one point “the peace of creation in Genesis 1” (Messer , 832). This is a very interesting phrase.…”

“…The second key interpretative move in seeing Genesis 1 in terms of peace is a particular reading of the descriptions of creation in that chapter as “good” ( tôv ). The counter‐Gnostic and anti‐Manichaean history of the early Church propelled it not only into an affirmation of creatio ex nihilo but also into a belief that tôv must connote “altogether good,” lacking all disvalue (or “brokenness” in Messer's terminology, , 832). That disvalue then had to result from sin, or more generally from some privation of the perfect good.…”