[5] Concluding remarks

I have argued that when seen in context, the evolutionary sciences do not present substantial challenges for theology. The principle related challenge is the need to provide an account of special divine action that is coherent with the natural sciences. Evolution today appears to provide no help with this problem. However, due to the statistical nature of the field, it is possible for believers to see the divine hand in the particular pathways that evolution has followed. If further research confirms that Conway Morris is correct when he says that the “emergence of something like ourselves [is] a near inevitability,” this will add substantial credibility to this position.

It is true that the strength of the argument from design in the early nineteenth century provided a temporary apologetic boost to theism in general and claims of special divine action in particular. It is understandable that some scholars lament the passing of ‘classic’ natural theology and hope that it can be resurrected. However, I would argue that once Darwin and others had neutralised this argument, the apologetic options returned to approximately their previous form.Convincing arguments for many Christian beliefs remain intact. Nevertheless, it should be admitted that special providence remains central to mainstream theology, and presently finds little support from the natural sciences.

While the evolutionary sciences are not likely to provide evidence of particular divine acts in natural history, theological reflection upon the creative capacity of natural selection in history can be extremely valuable. As Peacocke has observed “Christian theology has been at its most creative and most vital when it has faced the challenges of engagement with new systems of thought encountered in new cultural contexts.”

It is sometimes claimed that an evolutionary account of creation means that any perception of beauty or design in nature is mistaken, and any inclination we may have to praise God for what we see is naïve; in reality we are looking at the results of a process ruled by chance. A deeper understanding of the evolutionary sciences reveals that this extreme view is false. Everywhere we look we can see the particular (contingent) effects of general providence. As Aubrey Moore went on to conclude, an understanding of evolution reveals that “either God is everywhere present in nature, or He is nowhere.”

This essay has tackled a very small part of the puzzle. A more complete analysis should consider the following: the relation of evolution to the problem of evil and suffering, the ongoing work on quantum indeterminacy and special divine action, the proposal that God can use ‘information’ to effect changes in nature,as well as a more thorough investigation of the related metaphysical positions, notably materialism and determinism.

 Printer-friendly | Feedback | Contributed by: Adrian Wyard