Savouring Grace

So it was late at night when I read Sorry Vegans, Brussel Sprouts Like to Live, Too, a cheeky article in the New York Times that fueled the ire of the “thou doth protest” segment of the non-animal eating population. Normally by the time I get to reading anything (besides the fattening food section) in the NYT, the comments are already closed.  I happened to see that they were still open, so I seized the rare opportunity to wax philosophical…barely.  The next morning, over 500 comments had been published, so I wasn’t even going to start searching for mine, but just in case, I decided to click the comment highlights.  I was stunned to see my comment (#252) there with 20 others.  Here’s what I said:

Why is it okay for animals and plants to eat other animals and plants, but not for humans to do the same? If we are merely animals and plants ourselves, why the ethical distinction? Why are humans the only living beings which evolved from instinctual beings into reasoning beings? Why haven’t other species evolved into equally intelligent life forms? Why only primates? Evolution may feebly attempt to explain how, but it can never answer why. Science shows us how everything works, but not the purpose for existence.

I also posted a link to my blog, so that has resulted in almost 100 hits in the past two days.  I was wondering when the first email would arrive, and it finally did.  From an evolutionary biologist.  So I wrote him back and here is the transcript (my words bolded – his points start after my introduction as follows):

Hi,

I appreciate you taking the time to track me down and address my questions, as well as challenge my statements, especially since you are the only one to write to me out of the almost 100 people who have since visited my blog.

I wish I had the time to carefully research each item, but this season of my life is devoted to raising and educating my young children, and we are not yet at this advanced stage of studying biology (having just finished first grade life science and now tackling 2nd grade earth science and astronomy).

That said, I will attempt to respond to each point, albeit at times feebly (it’s a word I really enjoy using).

I think you are making the relatively simple questions that you ask seem a lot more complicated than they in fact are.

I was just asking the questions as they occurred to me, not with any intent to convolute them. I actually think evolution makes it all much more complicated than it is. In fact, I think it takes more faith to believe in its assumptions and conclusions than in intelligent design.

Humans, in the evolutionary process of becoming more social and interdependent on one another, had to abandon certain individualistic instincts. This is why we have a whole set of legal precepts -mirrored by religious precepts [e.g. the 10 commandments]- specifically designed to allow human society to function despite our instincts.

This relates, though, to the question I posed after the one about our distinctive ethical nature – the one about why have only primates evolved to this level of intelligence? And not other species, like say deer or dolphins? I have never researched this so I am honestly asking. I would also like to address this point that you bring up about morality being essential to our survival, but that’s a whole thesis in and of itself, and as I prefaced this email, I unfortunately cannot delve into that right now.

For example, the commandment “thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife.” This ethical precept is mirrored in countless (dare I say all?) non-judeo-christian cultures. It is obvious that our instincts (maximize reproduction) work against the social fabric, so we need rules that curb such instincts.

This does not contradict Christianity. In fact, it affirms what the Bible says about God writing his laws on our hearts. Also, having studied ancient history and now studying the middle ages, it is fascinating to see how much other peoples borrowed from the Jews and Christians, who were also among the very few monotheists of early civilization.

Omnivores often use the evolutionary argument to justify their dietary choices, but this would be as absurd as using an evolutionary argument to justify having sex with as many people as possible, consensual or otherwise.

Think about it and you will see that the two arguments are equally absurd.

I can’t disagree here. The initial question of my comment was addressing the evolutionists who say it is unethical to eat animals and plants, not the biologists who equate ethicism to survival of the fittest, which is what all evolutionary arguments boil down to no matter how much people try to use them for other purposes.

You describe evolution as “feeble,” yet it has incredible accuracy and predictive ability. And for you to suggest that evolution can not explain why, I can only conclude that you are purposefully obfuscating. Read Darwin’s “Origin of Species” and you will see that he spent most of the book explaining the why. The remarkable thing is that he had no idea HOW the evolutionary changes could be passed on. The rediscovery of Mendelian genetics and the discovery of the function of DNA in inheritance, as well as the subsequent decades of molecular biology advances, have given the resounding “how” to Darwin’s “why.”

The concluding sentence of my comment clarified that by “why” I meant for what purpose, i.e. meaning. And if there is no meaning in survival except survival itself, then why do we seek meaning and purpose beyond mere existence? This is where I’d rather just refer you to C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity, as he makes a much more compelling and convincing case than I can muster right now. Especially on the eve of Christmas Eve, which actually is now Christmas Eve. And I haven’t even wrapped any presents.

To deny this is to deny your evolutionarily endowed intelligence.

Denied. Evolution is a process, with a beginning and an end. God is the intelligence behind every process, and he has no beginning and no end. Just as we are mortal, our minds are limited, so his infiniteness transcends our comprehension.

I hope you won’t be offended but I do find it somewhat amusingly ironic that I subtly probed people to examine popular assumptions and you responded with an almost an evangelistic fervor to convert me to Darwinism (I exaggerate, but only slightly).

I really think there is nothing wrong with not eating animal products (though personally I couldn’t imagine life without cheese), but I believe in the New Testament teaching that no foods are forbidden, and each person must go by their own conscience. There are many Christians who are vegans and vegetarians. But I am still stumped as to what people would eat who don’t consume animals or plants!

(I probably won’t be publishing any comments until after Christmas, but you can go ahead and post them)