Darwin, Dawkins, & the Darkness in my Soul

This post is an assigned response (in a course on Christian Advocacy) to Social Darwinism, Richard Dawkins, and Down syndrome by Paul Louis Metzger 

In his post, Dr. Metzger treads dangerously close to the swamp of misunderstanding by writing semi-favorably about Darwin and Dawkins. He could be misunderstood by those on either side depending on their biases. However, in the process, he makes one very good point. He writes,

Why all this fuss on the need to understand Darwin and Dawkins on their own terms?

Charles Darwin

Generally, conservative Christians do not show much love for Darwin or Dawkins. Still, we need to practice the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12) and do to others what we would want them to do to us. We should try and interpret their claims in keeping with their intended aims rather than with how we might wish to interpret them for partisan purposes, just like we would want others to interpret our positions as we intend them. Take for example the accusations and misperceptions of others concerning the early church, where the church’s critics falsely claimed that Christians were engaged in cannibalism and orgies in their love feasts. Such accusations and misunderstandings hurt the church’s witness. Conservative Christians who take seriously the Golden Rule yet who are critical of Social Darwinian thought should be especially careful about not distorting the positions of others, including an atheist like Dawkins. After all, Christians committed to biblical absolutes don’t believe anything goes for the sake of the survival of our particular Christian species.

Do we interpret the claims of those with whom we disagree “in keeping with their intended aims” instead of how they best fit into our talking points? I hope so. Metzger’s appeal to “the Golden Rule” carries more weight than we might want to acknowledge. As with the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion, there needs to be equality under this rule. We need to exegete their work within their actual context no more, no less.

While I disagree with many of Darwin and Dawkins’ presuppositions, conditions, and conclusions I see no need to demonize them. We should live by an ethic such as that tweeted recently by Glenn Burris, "Never express hate on behalf of the God of love."
I would do well to consider their stories, to listen to them in their own words, to hear their own stated purposes. In addition, I am thankful for the added understanding of their positions that Dr. Metzger's post supplies… but in the end, Darwin’s theory and available evidence fail to adequately answer questions about the transitions of “life from non-life” and of one species to another (macroevolution). Dawkins’ utilitarian approach to morality is also inadequate in caring for the marginalized and powerless…for whom a utilitarian ethic—no matter its root—will always bring oppression and further powerlessness.

I appreciate my friend Becca McMartin’s comment on the original blog,

While Dawkins' utilitarian standard of happiness sounds good at first, it seems to create more problems than it solves. What is happiness? How is it judged? Who decided? Is it possible to predict the amount of happiness and act preemptively? Is happiness really the point of life? There are no easy answers.

It seems that...

Richard Dawkins

• One man replaces God the Creator with time and chance and hopes for the best. 
• The other replaces God the Judge with his own subjective matrix of happiness and suffering and judges as he feels fit. 

Both academic considerations are tragic and have led to untold suffering through the application of their ideas to policies and processes that have real-world consequences. Yet, to be honest, are we any different? Do we not all too frequently do the same things in our own hearts and lives? Do our closet motivations and classroom ideas come with significant collateral damage for others?

• Do we call God Creator and then treat resources—both environmental and human—as though they were our own possessions?
• Do we speak of a Righteous Judge and a Coming King, yet sacrifice the happiness and increase the suffering of others for the sake of our own comfort and convenience? We are inherently selfish, and apart from a completely hedonistic motive might settle for a utilitarian approach that validates our collective ego and those in power rather than truly valuing everyone. But to set aside our own happiness for that of another is indeed a challenge.

I hope not, but know that too often this is the case. In our hearts, we turn away from God and seek to build a framework to sustain us in our darkness and rebellion instead of abiding in the love of God. Sometimes it is in a macro (very public) way, and other times it is in a micro (private and internal) way. No matter, the darkness is shockingly real. 

Be appalled, O heavens, at this;
    be shocked, be utterly desolate, declares the Lord,
for my people have committed two evils:
they have forsaken me,
    the fountain of living waters,
and hewed out cisterns for themselves,
    broken cisterns that can hold no water. (Jeremiah 2:12-14)

Yes, I am thankful for this opportunity to better hear others’ thoughts in their own words. But even more, I am thankful for the opportunity they provide for me to search my heart for where I manifest such fallen thinking and actions…so that I might repent of my hewing and seek God who alone is good to all.

The Lord is gracious and merciful,
    slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
The Lord is good to all,
    and his mercy is over all that he has made…

The Lord is righteous in all his ways
    and kind in all his works. (Psalm 14:8-9, 17)

And without faith it is impossible to please him,

                for whoever would draw near to God 

must believe that he exists

              and that he rewards those who seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)