Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Indirect Design and the Revelatory Potential of Biology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Compatibility of Evolution and Design

Part of the book series: Palgrave Frontiers in Philosophy of Religion ((PFPR))

  • 249 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter develops a model for the compatibility of design and evolution as explanations, examining how the evidence from biology continues to support belief in design. It argues that we can save both the rationality of an intuitive design discourse and the rationality of seeing biological teleology as evidence of design, even when adopting an evolutionist view of biology. Design and evolution function as conjunctive explanations, so that the success of evolutionary explanations does not remove the explanatory power added by design. Potential objections to the model are considered, building on the traditional philosophical objections. One of these is the problem of natural evil, which has been seen as refuting all design-based views. I argue, however, that the combination of evolution and design that this book has developed can respond to all these concerns as well as any other theological approach, and may even help in better responding to the problem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Kim ’s argument is applied to the case of theistic evolution by Leidenhag (2019), who argues that many forms of theistic evolution in which God’s causal role is not clearly specified can indeed be criticized for causal overdetermination. However, Leidenhag differs from ID proponents in arguing that the Creator’s causal role does not need to be scientifically detectable. For an excellent discussion of these points, see Skogholt (2020) and Leidenhag (2020).

  2. 2.

    For a further, more robust, reconstruction of Mayr’s concepts, see Ariew (2003). I am indebted to Visala (2011, 125–139).

  3. 3.

    Here, the role ascribed to God may seem too limited for some. For them, I would add that a wider theological perspective on biological purpose could also answer other questions, such as “Why does evolution appear to have a direction”, and might provide further understanding of how divine causation relates to the particulars of evolution. For instance, one might have theological reasons for believing (or not believing) that divine control of evolution extends beyond that required for setting up the process.

  4. 4.

    It seems to me that this duality of possible design arguments may create a dilemma for those who would rely on evolution as a defeater of design arguments. The proponent of design could argue roughly as follows: if evolution is highly contingent and its outcome is highly improbable, then reaching this outcome would be better explained by theism. However, if evolution is not as improbable and not as contingent, then the patterns of evolution are explained to a large degree by the background conditions and laws, and evolution simply pushes the search for an explanation further.

  5. 5.

    To be fair, there is a way to extend Plantinga’s account in a manner close to the idea that the divine guidance of mutations could help supplement evolutionary explanations, mentioned at the end of this chapter. Plantinga could argue that we can accept evolutionary explanations as correct, but that taken by themselves evolutionary explanations are still improbable (or cannot predict the actual evolution of a species like humans), and hence this leaves space for supplementing evolutionary explanations with the additional idea of divinely guided mutations. Nevertheless, evolutionary explanations are not typically regarded as this improbable.

  6. 6.

    The possibilities of commonsense reasoning as the basis of design arguments is also defended by Axe (2017). However, unlike the strategy adopted here, Axe’s defense is anti-evolutionist.

  7. 7.

    Vodder (2018) pressed me for clarity on this point in response to Kojonen (2016b), in which I presented an earlier version of some arguments here.

  8. 8.

    The program discussed by Wahlberg is Tonica Fugata 9.0., released by Capella Software, but many other similar programs also exist. A free demo version can be downloaded from http://www.capella.de/Download_tonica.cfm.

  9. 9.

    Harrison (2017) is an excellent discussion of the metaphysics of mathematics and its relevance for theism.

  10. 10.

    Ayala ’s theodicy is critically analyzed by Doran (2009) and Berhow (2019).

  11. 11.

    In the philosophy of religion, such a “problem of good” has recently been used in the discussion of the “evil God” hypothesis (Page and Baker-Hytch 2020).

  12. 12.

    Quoted in Loikkanen (2015, 181).

  13. 13.

    This, at least, is Dembski’s position as he has clarified it in dialogue with his critics, such as Michael Ruse. Dembski (2004, 9) argues that “Ruse is wrong that the Explanatory Filter separates necessity, chance and design into mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories.” See also Dembski (2008, 221) for similar comments. As Corabi (2009) and Berhow (2019) also note, the ID perspective allows for a great deal of regularity in nature.

  14. 14.

    Baker-Hytch (2019) argues that harms may be connected in a way that if are able to suffer, then it is better for them to be mortal. Peels’ (2018) analysis of natural selection fits well with this kind of argument.

  15. 15.

    Wahlberg aims his critique particularly against the versions of the evolutionary theodicy presented by Haught (2000, 53), Polkinghorne (2011, 83), and Southgate (2008).

  16. 16.

    Quoted in Murray 2011, 144–145.

  17. 17.

    There have been attempts to argue that the human fall might have effects on the history of the cosmos already before the Fall. See, for example, Dembski (2008); for a critique see Sollereder (2018, 67–70) and Peels (2018, 552–554).

  18. 18.

    Murray (2011, 170–175) presents further problems for the idea that evolution is necessary for moral autonomy, or that creation out of nothing would threaten it.

  19. 19.

    Here my discussion, however, sidesteps the major theological views of compatibilism and theological determinism—some forms of which attempt to argue that divine determinism does not remove creaturely culpability. The link between responsibility and freedom was notably criticized by the Protestant reformers Luther (Visala , Vainio 2020), and Calvin (e.g., Bignon 2017). Many of the same theologians would also oppose the application of the concept of moral responsibility to God, and our ability to evaluate God’s actions in general (Davies 2006; Dougherty and McBrayer eds. 2014).

  20. 20.

    Adopting a full-blown process view of God, in which divine omnipotence and creation out of nothing are questioned, might arguably provide a different picture, but would also mean giving up central features of the traditional understanding of God, which would result in other serious problems. For example, as Pak (2014, 2016) argues in depth, in such a view it is difficult to guarantee that good will ultimately triumph over evil.

  21. 21.

    While it may be difficult to find a line of argument that gives God only the glory but not the blame, I think there is a stronger difficulty in giving God only the blame but not the glory. If God’s use of evolution does not remove God’s responsibility for the bad features that evolve (despite creaturely freedom), then why should it remove God’s responsibility for the good features that evolve? It therefore seems to me that the rejection of the evolutionary theodicy as unworkable should also lead to the rejection of evolutionary explanations as removing divine glory for biology.

References

  • Argyll, George. 1885, April. What Is Science? Good Words, 236–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariew, André. 2003. Ernst Mayr’s ‘Ultimate/Proximate’ Distinction Reconsidered and Reconstructed. Biology and Philosophy 18: 553–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axe, Douglas. 2017. Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed. San Francisco, CA: HarperOne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayala, Francisco. 2007. Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker-Hytch, Max. 2019. God, Evil and Organic Wholes. Unpublished Paper, Presentation at the Helsinki Analytic Theology Workshop 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behe, Michael J. 1999. Review. God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution. Metaviews, December 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. New York, NY: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berhow, Michael. 2019. Dysteleology: A Philosophical Assessment of Suboptimal Design in Biology. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskar, Roy. 1978. A Realist Theory of Science. 2nd ed. Hassocks: Harvester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bignon, Guillaime. 2017. Excusing Sinners and Blaming God: A Calvinist Assessment of Determinism, Moral Responsibility, and Divine Involvement in Evil. Eugene, OR: Pickwick.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooke, John Hedley. 1991. Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Robin. 2018. The Argument from Physical Constants: Fine-Tuning for Discoverability. In Two Dozen (Or So) Arguments for God’s Existence, ed. Jerry L. Walls and Trent Dougherty, 89–107. Oxford: Oxford University Press. A Previous Draft Is Available at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6ab2/7366b32edcf3d12587a07397e0d1d8e496fd.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conway Morris, Simon, and Stephen Jay Gould. 1998. Showdown on the Burgess Shale. Natural History Magazine 107 (10): 48–55. Available at http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/naturalhistory_cambrian.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corabi, Joseph. 2009. Intelligent Design and Theodicy. Religious Studies 45 (1): 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, Conor. 2010. Darwin’s Pious Idea: Why the Ultra-Darwinists and Creationists Both Get It Wrong. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, Charles. 1860. To Asa Gray, 22 May 1860. Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter No. 2814. Available at https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2814.xml.

  • ———. 1958 [1887]. In The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Barlow. London: Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, Brian. 2006. The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil. London and New York, NY: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, Richard. 2006. The God Delusion. London: Bantam Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Smedt, Johan, and Helen De Cruz. 2020. The Challenge of Evolution to Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dembski, William A. 1999. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dembski, William. 2002. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dembski, William A. 2004. Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design. Downer’s Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008. Making the Task of Theodicy Impossible? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evil. In The Evolution of Evil, ed. Gaymon Bennett, Martinez J. Hewlett, Ted Peters, and Robert J. Russell, 218–233. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, Daniel C. 1995a. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, Daniel. 1995b. Comment on Brian Goodwin, ‘Biology is Just a Dance.’ Edge Conversations. Edge.org. Available at https://www.edge.org/conversation/brian_goodwin-chapter-4-biology-is-just-a-dance#21968.

  • Dennett, Daniel, and Alvin Plantinga. 2011. Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickins, T., and R. Barton. 2013. Reciprocal Causation and the Proximate–Ultimate Distinction. Biology & Philosophy 28 (5): 747–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doran, Chris. 2009. From Atheism to Theodicy to Intelligent Design: Responding to the Work of Francisco J. Ayala. Theology and Science 7 (4): 337–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, Trent. 2014. The Problem of Animal Pain: A Theodicy for All Creatures Great and Small. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, Trent, and Justin P. McBrayer, eds. 2014. Skeptical Theism: New Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Draper, Paul. 2012. Darwin’s Argument from Evil. In Scientific Approaches to the Philosophy of Religion, ed. Yujin Nagasawa, 49–70. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fergusson, David. 2018. The Providence of God: A Polyphonic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Feser, Edward. 2017. Five Proofs of the Existence of God. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garvey, Jon. 2019. God’s Good Earth: The Case for an Unfallen Creation. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, Marie. 2002. On Attempts to Salvage Paley’s Argument from Design. In Science, Philosophy, Theology, ed. John O’Callaghan. South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, David. 2012. Can Evidence for Design be Explained Away? In Probability in the Philosophy of Religion, ed. V. Harrison and J. Chandler, 79–102. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Glass, David, and Mark McCartney. 2014. Explaining and Explaining Away in Science and Religion. Theology and Science 12 (4): 338–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glass, David, and Schupbach, Jonah. 2020. Conjunctive Explanations. Unpublished Paper, Part of the Conjunctive Explanations in Science and Religion Project (2018–2020).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, Stephen Jay, and Richard Lewontin. 1979. The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society. Series B 205 (1161): 581–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, Asa. 1860. Natural Selection Not Inconsistent with Natural Theology. Atlantic Monthly for July, August and October, 1860. Darwiniana: Essays and Reviews Pertaining to Darwinism. New York: D. Appleton, 1888 [1874].

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, Victoria S. 2017. Mathematical Objects and the Object of Theology. Religious Studies: An International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion 53: 479–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, David Bentley. 2005. The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami? Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haught, John F. 2000. God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, Joseph. 2015. How Culture Is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Phillip E. 1993. Creator Or Blind Watchmaker? First Things 29: 8–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Curtis. 2015. Darwin’s Dice: The Idea of Chance in the Thought of Charles Darwin. New York, NY and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Jaegwon. 2007. Physicalism, Or Something Near Enough. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kojonen, Erkki Vesa Rope. 2016a. The Intelligent Design Debate and the Temptation of Scientism. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016b. Salvaging the Biological Design Argument in Light of Darwinism? Theology and Science 14 (3): 361–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018. Design Discourse: A Way Forward for Theistic Evolutionism. Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 60 (3): 435–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2019. Is Classical Science in Conflict with Belief in Miracles? Some Bridge-Building between Different Positions. In God’s Providence and Randomness in Nature: Scientific and Theological Perspectives, ed. Robert John Russell and Joshua M. Moritz, 205–234. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laland, Kevin, Kim Sterelny, John Odling-Smee, William Hoppitt, and Tobias Uller. 2011. Cause and Effect in Biology Revisited: Is Mayr’s Proximate–Ultimate Dichotomy Still Useful? Science 334 (6062): 1512–1516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, John. 2004. Divine Faith. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibniz, Gottfried. 1956. In The Leibniz-Clark Correspondence, ed. H.G. Alexander. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leidenhag, Mikael. 2019. The Blurred Line Between Theistic Evolutionism and Intelligent Design. Zygon 54 (4): 909–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2020. The Problem of Natural Divine Causation and the Benefits of Partial Causation: A Response to Skogholt. Zygon 55 (3): 696–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List, Christian. 2019. Why Free Will Is Real. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Loikkanen, Juuso. 2015. Early Lutheranism and Natural Theology. Teorie Vědy/Theory of Science 37 (2): 173–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luther, Martin. 1921 [1529]. The Large Catechism. In Triglot Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. German-Latin-English. St. Louis: Concordia.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1964. Lectures on Genesis. In Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, vol. 6. St. Louis: Concordia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, Ernst. 1961. Cause and Effect in Biology. Science 134 (3489): 1501–1506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, Alister. 2002. A Scientific Theology, Vol. 2: Reality. London: T&T Clark.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Darwinism and the Divine: Evolutionary Thought and Natural Theology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. Re-Imagining Nature: The Promise of a Christian Natural Theology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McLeish, Tom. 2014. Faith and Wisdom in Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2020. Evolution as the Unwrapping of the Gift of Freedom. Scientia et Fides 8 (2): 43–64. https://doi.org/10.12775/SetF.2020.014.

  • McMullin, Ernan. 2009. On the Origin of Terrestrial Life: A Christian Perspective. In Exploring the Origin, Extent, and Future of Life: Philosophical, Ethical, and Theological Perspectives, ed. Constance M. Bertka, 80–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, Stephen C. 2017. The Difference It Doesn’t Make: Why the ‘Front-End Loaded’ Concept of Design Fails to Explain the Origin of Biological Information. In Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical and Theological Critique, ed. J.P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K. Gauger, and Wayne Grudem, 217–236. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Calum. 2020. Do Animals Feel Pain in a Morally Relevant Sense? Philosophia. Published Online 13 October. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-020-00254-x.

  • Moritz, Joshua M. 2019. Contingency, Convergence, Constraints, and the Challenge from Theodicy in Creation’s Evolution. In God’s Providence and Randomness in Nature: Scientific and Theological Perspectives, ed. Robert J. Russell and Joshua M. Moritz, 289–328. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, Michael J. 2011. Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, Thomas. 2012. Mind and Cosmos Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. New York, NY and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, Michael, and Sarah Coakley, eds. 2013. Evolution, Games, and God: The Principle of Cooperation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oord, Thomas Jay. 2015. The Uncontrolling Love of God: An Open and Relational Theology. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, Ben, and Max Baker-Hytch. 2020. Meeting the Evil God Challenge. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 101 (3): 489–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pak, Kenneth. 2014. Could Process Theodicy Uphold the Generic Idea of God? American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 35 (3): 211–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. Divine Power and Evil: A Reply to Process Theodicy. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Paley, William. 2008 [1802]. Natural Theology. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peckham, John. 2018. A Theodicy of Love: Cosmic Conflict and the Problem of Evil. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peels, Rik. 2018. Does Evolution Conflict with God’s Character? Modern Theology 34 (4): 544–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, Johannes, and Petri Ylikoski, eds. 2007. Rethinking Explanation. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, Ted, and Martinez Hewlett. 2003. Evolution from Creation to New Creation: Conflict, Conversation and Convergence. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plantinga, Alvin. 1977. God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Polkinghorne, John. 2011. Science and Religion in Quest of Truth. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratzsch, Del. 2001. Nature, Design and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratzsch, Del, and Koperski, Jeffrey. 2019. Teleological Arguments for God’s Existence. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 Edition). Ed. Edward N. Zalta. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/teleological-arguments/.

  • Russell, Robert J. 2013. Recent Theological Interpretations of Evolution. Theology and Science 11 (3): 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaffer, Jonathan. 2016. The Metaphysics of Causation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 ed.). Ed. Edward N. Zalta. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/causation-metaphysics/.

  • Schmidt, William E. 1991. 2 ‘Jovial Con Men’ Demystify Those Crop Circles in Britain. The New York Times, September 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, John R. 2020. Animal Suffering and the Darwinian Problem of Evil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schupbach, Jonah N. 2016. Competing Explanations and Explaining-Away Arguments. Theology and Science 14 (3): 256–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sedley, David. 2007. Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity. Sather Classical Lectures 66. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Skogholt, Christoffer. 2020. I Walk the Line: Comment on Mikael Leidenhag on Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design. Zygon 55 (3): 685–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snellman, Lauri. 2019. Anti-theodicy and Antitheodicies. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 11 (1): 201–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sollereder, Bethany. 2018. God, Evolution, and Animal Suffering: Theodicy Without a Fall. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Southgate, Christopher. 2008. The Groaning of Creation: God, Evolution, and the Problem of Evil. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018. Theology in a Suffering World: Glory and Longing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sterba, James P. 2019. Solving Darwin’s Problem of Natural Evil. Sophia 59: 501–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stump, Eleonore. 2010. Wandering in Darkness: Narrative and the Problem of Suffering. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Talbert, Matthew. 2016. Moral Responsibility: An Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timpe, Kevin. 2013. Free Will in Philosophical Theology. New York, NY and London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello, Michael. 2019. Becoming Human: A Theory of Ontogeny. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, Thomas F. 2013. Divine Purpose and Evolutionary Processes. Zygon 48 (2): 454–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visala, Aku. 2011. Theism and the Cognitive Science of Religion. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2019. Vapaan Tahdon Filosofia. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visala, Aku, and Olli-Pekka Vainio. 2020. Erasmus versus Luther: A Contemporary Analysis of the Debate on Free Will. Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 62 (3): 311–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vodder, Hans W. 2018. Salvaging Biological Design Or Doing Away with It? A Criticism of Kojonen’s Proposal. Unpublished Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, Andreas. 2016. Without a Platonic Library of Forms, Evolution Couldn’t Work. Aeon.com. March 16. Available at https://aeon.co/essays/without-a-library-of-platonic-forms-evolution-couldn-t-work.

  • Wahlberg, Mats. 2012. Reshaping Natural Theology: Seeing Nature as Creation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Was Evolution the Only Possible Way for God to Make Autonomous Creatures? Examination of an Argument in Evolutionary Theodicy. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 77 (1): 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017. A Cosmological Argument Against Physicalism. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 9 (2): 165–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigner, Eugene. 1960. The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. Richard Courant lecture in Mathematical Sciences Delivered at New York University, May 11, 1959. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 13: 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiker, Benjamin, and Jonathan Witt. 2006. A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Helsinki Faculty of Theology, Helsinki, Finland

    E. V. R. Kojonen

Authors
  1. E. V. R. Kojonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. V. R. Kojonen .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kojonen, E.V.R. (2021). Indirect Design and the Revelatory Potential of Biology. In: The Compatibility of Evolution and Design. Palgrave Frontiers in Philosophy of Religion. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69683-2_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation