Steve's Primordial Soup: Natural Evil

[This post is a continuation of a discussion (begun here) of Crawling Out of the Primordial Soup: A Step toward the Emergence of an LDS Theology Compatible with Organic Evolution" (PDF), by BYU biologist Steven Peck.]

If God used evolution as a method of creation, then we are faced with questions of natural evil. Why would a kind and loving God use such an inefficient and wasteful process, with all of the attendant pain and suffering, in order to produce humans? Why wouldn't he use a more direct method? Drawing on an essay by David Paulsen (Joseph Smith and the Problem of Evil), Steve suggests that for some unknown reason, natural selection is a necessary natural law. He then proposes that a spirit is required for conscious thought and that the Fall of Adam and Eve marked the embodiment of spirits. Life forms before the Fall were not conscious beings, and therefore did not experience pain.

Perhaps they cannot be fully divorced, but I think it would be useful to consider pain and inefficiency separately. First, I will focus on pain. I do not wish to minimize the pain experienced by the Earth's inhabitants, but I also do not think it should be inflated, either. As far as we can determine, physical pain requires a nervous system and brain of a certain level of complexity. I doubt that we can draw distinct lines, and the ability to feel pain may come in degrees, but I think we can safely rule out the perception of pain in plants and simple animals, for example.

The same kind of issues apply to emotional pain. And, in fact, there is feedback between our emotions and our perception of physical pain. So if we are going to ask how a loving God could use a process involving so much pain, we should recognize that many life forms apparently do not feel physical and/or emotional pain. Further, it should be made clear that natural selection is not a process that adds pain to mortal life. It is simply the outcome of differential survival and reproduction of offspring. It is a result of mortal conditions, not an additional cause.

Whatever the merits of the above, does rejecting evolution solve the problem? For the sake of argument, let's suppose that evolution is all wrong and that pain and death entered the world through the Fall about 6,000 years ago. In his book, River Out of Eden, Richard Dawkins wrote this memorable passage:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease.

All of that in a minute. Multiply that by the 6,000 years of the Ussher time line, and then multiply that by whatever number of mortal inhabited worlds exist in this universe. If mortal conditions are a necessary part of God's plan in "one eternal round," then we are still faced with vast amounts of pain and suffering (if such things can be quantified). Can we suppose that the creatures of this (or any) earth suffer the absolute minimum amount needed to fulfill God's plan, and no more? Further, under this scenario God is the creator of the many methods animals have for inflicting pain, and for the sensory systems needed to feel it in the first place. It is hard for me to see how evolution poses any significant problems for the nature of evil that are not already contained, and sometimes magnified, in traditional creationism viewed through a Mormon lens.

All of this forms part of the reason why I am not a fan of Steve's proposal that pain did not exist in the world until the Fall brought consciousness to Earth's life forms, though I appreciate his creative thinking. Not only does it seem to me like a theological just-so story invented to explain away the uncomfortable, it ultimately leaves the problem of suffering in place since the process is presumably endlessly repeated. As Steve notes, it also deprives any pre-existing humans, such as Neanderthals (or even other Homo sapiens), of consciousness in spite of the fact that they "had religious practices, created art, and made intricate tools." It just isn't clear to me that this idea gains us much, never mind the question of whether it's true.

At the same time, Steve's thoughts about a participatory fall are similar to my own. Whatever the historical truth behind Adam, Eve, and the Fall, the rest of us apparently fall simply by being born, which, we are taught, is the means by which our spirit leaves the presence of God and is joined to this mortal existence. We are also taught that we agreed to this. I don't know why suffering must be such an integral part of this world, but I take some comfort that for any individual organism, suffering is temporary and finite, and will ultimately be recompensed.

Finally, let's briefly return to the issue of inefficiency. Why use such a long process to produce humans when humans are the goal? On the one hand, we can posit that such long periods are nothing to God, and anyway this is a slippery slope because we can always imagine how things could be more efficient and wonder why God would let it be otherwise. On the other hand, perhaps it is fallacious to assume that the existence of humans is the only important goal. This sentiment was expressed by Hugh Nibley ("The Geological Problem" in Ancient Documents and the Pearl of Great Price):

John Chrysostom said that the sole purpose of the stars was to guide sailors at sea. There's no other purpose; therefore, why should there be life on other worlds? The stars have fulfilled their purpose if they just guide sailors at sea. Well, they do guide sailors at sea, but is that their only purpose? This is the thing we have to keep in mind here. So never forget this pluralism, this multiple use of the earth. It's not made for us alone. We are allowed to share it with God's other creatures, and we are told in the seventy-seventh chapter of the Doctrine and Covenants that other creatures have just as much right to the earth as we have. Not only that, but they have spirits and will be resurrected in their own world in their own time. We mustn't interfere with them in their proper places.

None of this really solves the basic question as to why God would use evolution. We may never be able to give a fully satisfactory answer, but the evidence is that he did, and I think it is important that we continue to engage with the question. I appreciate Steve's attempt to do so, even if I'm not convinced that he has uncovered the answer.

---