Must A Darwinian be Skeptical About Religion? Rachels: Chapter Three 1 Introduction This chapter is Rachels’ attempt to undermine the image of God thesis. Is evolution by natural selection compatible with religion? The answer largely depends on what we mean by “religion”. Rachels certainly thinks it is incompatible with Christianity, Specifically, it is incompatible with a religious view powerful enough to support the image of God thesis that is part of the foundation for the doctrine of human dignity. 2 Darwin’s Doubts Darwin thought he would enter the ministry at Cambridge. Over his lifetime, his private doubts about Christianity grew. His wife a devout Christian, and he was sensitive to her beliefs. At his death, likely an agnostic Never his intention to overthrow Christianity 3 Key concepts: Atheist, Theist, Deist, Agnostic 3 The Argument From Evil How can the belief in a good and powerful being be squared with the existence of a evil? “Evil” means natural evil (e.g., a natural event like a tsunami) and moral evil (e.g., an agent intended event like a murder) If the deity is all good, the deity would not desire evil to exist. If the deity is all powerful, the deity could prevent evil. Evil exists. So the deity is neither all good nor all powerful. So belief in such a deity is unreasonable. 4 Theological Responses Evil (badness) is necessary to make goodness meaningful - evil is necessary for contrast. Evil is punishment for human disobedience in the garden. Evil is a consequence of human free will – humans create evil. Evil is something necessary to build human character – one must struggle against evil to become a good person The reason for evil is incomprehensible to human beings 5 Key concept: The argument from evil. Review also Rachels’ responses to the theological explanations of evil’s existence in chapter three. 5 Darwin’s Twist on the Argument from Evil The argument only considers evil to humans (anthropocentric). But countless animals endured horrible pain before human existence, and do currently. The theological responses don’t address this point. The existence of evil (as pain), more consistent with evolution by natural selection than evolution by a an all-perfect Deity. A struggle for survival will entail pain for sentient beings. 6 Paley and the argument from design William Paley – elegant presentation of the analogical argument for design to show divine existence. The world shows unmistakable signs of a designer. One can infer from this that there is a God. The analogy: A telescope is an artifact to enhance vision. It clearly has a purpose. It’s absurd to think there is no maker, i.e. it is not the product of chance. An eye is a complex organ for sight. It clearly has a purpose and by analogy it’s absurd to think there is no maker. So, there is a designer and that is the deity. David Hume’s response to this argument. We do not have to infer the maker of a telescope. We know that he exists. We do have to.

1. Must A Darwinian be Skeptical About Religion?
Rachels: Chapter Three
1
Introduction
This chapter is Rachels’ attempt to undermine the image of God
thesis.
Is evolution by natural selection compatible with religion? The
answer largely depends on what we mean by “religion”. Rachels
certainly thinks it is incompatible with Christianity,
Specifically, it is incompatible with a religious view powerful
enough to support the image of God thesis that is part of the
foundation for the doctrine of human dignity.
2
Darwin’s Doubts
Darwin thought he would enter the ministry at Cambridge. Over
his lifetime, his private doubts about Christianity grew.
His wife a devout Christian, and he was sensitive to her beliefs.
At his death, likely an agnostic
Never his intention to overthrow Christianity
3
Key concepts: Atheist, Theist, Deist, Agnostic
3
The Argument From Evil
How can the belief in a good and powerful being be squared
with the existence of a evil?

2. “Evil” means natural evil (e.g., a natural event like a tsunami)
and moral evil (e.g., an agent intended event like a murder)
If the deity is all good, the deity would not desire evil to exist.
If the deity is all powerful, the deity could prevent evil. Evil
exists. So the deity is neither all good nor all powerful. So
belief in such a deity is unreasonable.
4
Theological Responses
Evil (badness) is necessary to make goodness meaningful - evil
is necessary for contrast.
Evil is punishment for human disobedience in the garden.
Evil is a consequence of human free will – humans create evil.
Evil is something necessary to build human character – one
must struggle against evil to become a good person
The reason for evil is incomprehensible to human beings
5
Key concept: The argument from evil. Review also Rachels’
responses to the theological explanations of evil’s existence in
chapter three.
5
Darwin’s Twist on the Argument from Evil
The argument only considers evil to humans (anthropocentric).
But countless animals endured horrible pain before human
existence, and do currently. The theological responses don’t
address this point.
The existence of evil (as pain), more consistent with evolution
by natural selection than evolution by a an all-perfect Deity. A
struggle for survival will entail pain for sentient beings.
6

3. Paley and the argument from design
William Paley – elegant presentation of the analogical argument
for design to show divine existence. The world shows
unmistakable signs of a designer. One can infer from this that
there is a God.
The analogy: A telescope is an artifact to enhance vision. It
clearly has a purpose. It’s absurd to think there is no maker, i.e.
it is not the product of chance.
An eye is a complex organ for sight. It clearly has a purpose
and by analogy it’s absurd to think there is no maker. So, there
is a designer and that is the deity.
David Hume’s response to this argument. We do not have to
infer the maker of a telescope. We know that he exists. We do
have to infer that God exists. But this is speculation. Secondly,
how do we know God has the properties traditionally associated
with the deity (perfect goodness, perfect love, omnipotence)?
After all, one could make the case that the world is a very
imperfect place (NB: the argument from evil) so perhaps the
Creator is imperfect. Finally, who designed the Designer?
7
Key concept: Paley’s argument for design. This argument is
ancient. A version of it is suggested in Romans 1:20 (NT)
7
The Argument From Design Versus Natural Selection
Darwin proposed ENS as an alternative. The key is to
understand the implications of variation and inheritance. An
adaptation will likely be inherited by offspring. The adaptation
might be so simple as light sensitive nerve cells which could
warn the individual of a predator. Variations that occur in that
organ which are more adaptive will be preserved and enhanced

4. via intensification of function (i.e., in later stages of
development, an organ confers an adaptive benefit to a greater
degree then it did when in first existed). The result is improved
adaptation to some local environment.
So, evolution does not require a supernatural force directing it.
Just variation, inheritance, and time
8
8
John Dupre on Evolution v. Creationism
Evolution is a better explanation than creationism because it is
based on empirical evidence, like the homologous (similar)
structures and arrangements * or genes in different species
suggesting common ancestors (e.g., DNA shared by humans and
chimpanzees) and the arrangement of fossils in the geological
record
But the argument from design’s theoretical apparatus explains
“… not a single detail of the actual structure of the world (54)”.
ENS does provide details.
If the argument from design fails, the only plausible reason for
believing in God is undermined thinks Dupre.
9
Dupre, Darwin’s Legacy: What Evolution Means Today, Oxford
2003.
*An example would be the arrangement of bones in different
vertebrates like humans, bats, and horses even though the limbs
serve different functions.
9
Theistic Responses – Darwinian Replies
Theistic versus naturalistic interpretations of natural selection.

5. A deity could be directing the process of natural selection
(theistic evolution). This is opposed to the naturalistic
interpretation that evolution is a materialistic and mechanistic
process.
Rachels: What we see in the world fits better with the
naturalistic account. Why? If God were involved, why create
vestigial organs which serve no purpose or why create inelegant
adaptations (‘contraptions’).
These would not be expected on the theistic interpretation
where the deity is believed to be all-powerful.
10
Theistic Responses – Darwinian Replies
A deity might be intervening only at certain times of the
evolutionary process (George Mavrodes)
Rachels: consistent but not reasonable (p 123-124)
It is not inconsistent to believe that the earth is only 6000 years
old and at that time God created the fossils, the strata, and
dinosaur bones (dinosaurs would not have existed). But it is
unreasonable.
There is evidence that evolution has occurred and that the earth
is 4.6 billion years old. Why would God choose to deceive us?
Same strategy applies to any theistic interpretation of evolution.
This would mean that God has created a world “… in which his
own involvement is so totally hidden that the process gives
every appearance of operating without any guiding hand at all
(125).”
11
Theism and Deism
Rachels: One can accept natural selection and still believe in a
deity, i.e., deism
Deism: A being created the world and its natural laws, but then

6. is “hands off”.
But this conception of a deity has much less content, and its
connection to human beings is unclear.
For the deist, God is a mysterious entity who is the first cause.
We know nothing else about God. But whether there is a being
like this is speculation, since the argument from design fails.
Darwin thought that the best approach is to confess one’s
ignorance about the first cause and remain silent (126).
Finally, deism’s conception of a creator is much different from
the theistic conception. The theistic conception in very rich in
content (God, the being that loves mankind, who is the the
source of morality and justice, who has a plan for us etc.) This
is very different conception from deism where God is a mystery.
Rachels: the atheistic conclusion can be resisted, but what
survives is so abstract and vague that it is of little use in
explaining nature and human nature.
12
Rachels’ Conclusion
The point of the chapter is to put pressure on the truth of the
image of God thesis.
Unless there are sound theological rejoinders, the argument
from evil seems to show that theism is false.
Evolution is a better fit with the observed facts of nature than
creationism so the argument from design fails.
Deism is possible, but the concept of “God” becomes too vague
and abstract to sustain robust religious worldviews.
By the end of this chapter, it is clear that Rachels (unlike
Gould) believes that there is a real conflict between Darwinism
and Christianity.
PBS Nova Film, “What About God?”
13

7. 13
The New Argument From Design – Fine-tuning the Universe
Scientists have noted that if even a few properties of the
universe were different, then human life would be impossible.
For example if the Big Bang had differed by one part in 1060
the universe would have collapsed unto itself or expanded too
rapidly for stars to form. Our universe appears to be “fine-
tuned” for life although such fine-tuning is very unlikely. The
only two possible explanations are that either fine-tuning is a
matter of chance, or that a being designed a universe that would
be hospitable to life. The latter must be the best explanation.
But is this a sound inference? Suppose we flip a coin 1000
times and record the successive results. The probability of
getting that outcome (the succession of 1000 numbers) is
enormously small (1 in 2 to the power of 1000). But the fact
that the result is so improbable gives us no reason to think that
it is the result of intelligent design.
14
Writing Assignment
What is faith? Does it differ from belief? Three paragraphs,
typed, proofed and in good order.
15