By Adam Groza
Tonight as I was flying back from Little Rock, I read another chapter in the monumental let-down-of-a-book, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion is disappointing because in it Dawkins almost completely ignores recent philosophy of religion and either doesn’t bother to make arguments or settles for the classic “aren’t Christians mean/ignorant/simple minded” line of reasoning ad hominem.
But tonight the book hit an all time low.
In chapter six Dawkins deals with the roots of morality. In it he attempts to prove that morality is grounded in evolution, not God. Taking God out of the ethical equation doesn’t threaten morality because morality can be explained by evolution. Dawkins’ evolutionary explanation of morality goes something like this: We act morally because evolution has trained us to
- take care of family,
- take care of those we expect can take care of us (mutual benefit…),
- gain a reputation for generosity (which presumably shows your strength and improves one’s social standing and thus has evolutionary benefits), and
- act generously yet conspicuously in order that others think you are genuinely altruistic (not sure how others would know if you were actually conspicuous, but it is true that generosity has a way of “getting out”).
Thus, evolution can explain morality. In some cases, however, Dawkins argues that evolution misfires, leading us to show compassion when there is no direct benefit for doing so. The example he gives is of certain birds which vis-à-vis evolution are hardwired to feed the chirping baby birds in their nest; presumably these chicks belong to them and they are providing for their young. Evolution has taught other birds to put their chicks in the nests of other birds, and those birds will inadvertently feed their chicks. The trick is on them! They are feeding my baby birds! Birds that inadvertently feed other bird’s chicks as their own are an example of what Dawkins calls evolutionary misfiring.
So far there is nothing terribly bothersome about Dawkins’s account. However, things get hairy when he applies the theory of evolutionary misfiring to adoption.
Do we see examples of evolutionary misfiring in human interaction? Yes! Dawkins says that the need to adopt a child (page 252) is an example of evolutionary misfiring. But not to worry! Dawkins follows this up by saying he doesn’t mean to say adoption is misfiring in a pejorative sense, but only in an evolutionary sense. In other words, evolution has produced in us an irrational need to take in other children and care for them as our own.
Several conclusions are warranted. First, Dawkins does nothing to appease my fear that unchaining reality from God will result in a decline of morality, at least, the kind of morality that protects innocent life, promotes peace, and respects the weak. We Christians have not always properly stood for these principles, but they are rationally grounded in our view of reality, which does not seem to be the case with naturalistic evolution. Second, if adoption is evolution misfiring, doesn’t it stand to reason that we should wake up and stop draining our resources and start caring for our offspring alone? I mean, would it not be an evolutionary leap for those birds feeding others’ chicks to wake up and realize they are wasting resources for survival? Third, the evolutionary model does nothing to explain the fact that people often adopt and draw little or no attention to their act, in fact, some children are raised without knowing and people close to the family are unaware that a particular child is adopted. So where is the societal benefit in that, if adoption is only explained by way of promoting one’s image as a genuinely altruistic person?
I know people who have adopted children with special needs, for instance. Not too many people want to invite you over to dinner when you have a special needs child which requires special attention and consideration. I fail to see how adoption, in such cases, promotes one’s societal standing. Rather, it often leads to a constant loss of resources (time, money, etc) as well as strained societal relationships: Hardly a reasonable by-product of an evolutionary impulse to selfishness.
At any rate, I am glad Dawkins was honest enough to own up to the implications of Darwinian evolution. Taking in a helpless person who is often unaware (or in some cases incapable of becoming aware) that you exist and who is unable to repay you and making that person your child through adoption is perhaps the best picture of the Gospel. God takes us in and makes us His own. He chooses us as His children, cleanses us from the filth of our sin, and feeds us by faith a meal comprised on his own Son.
Evolution sees the selfless act of adoption as a mistake; some misguided thing we do: Inadvertently feeding some other person’s children.
Evolution provides a foundation for morality that is cracked, indeed.
Featured artist: Aradhna, music from The Welcome Wagon, The Civil Wars, John Davis and others. Welcome to Episode 09.
Browse. It’s the Weekly Town Crier. You know the Drill. Now, I said browse!
As you might imagine, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about church growth. When you start a church from nothing, you can’t help but think about such things. We’ve been considering very targeted mailers, “come worship with us” cards for members to hand out, community service, equipping people to live as missionaries in their own community, etc. I’ve also been thinking through the process of “assimilation.” How do we best develop visitors into fully engaged disciples? 
1