Prairie View

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Evolutionist's Dilemma

I'm two-thirds of the way through the book by Michael Pollan: The Omnivore's Dilemma. In the part I'm reading right now, the author wrestles with the ethics of meat eating. Although he has always been a meat eater, as part of his desire to be well-informed about many peripheral issues related to food, he immerses himself for a time in the writings of people with ties to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Some of their ideas make sense to him, and he decides to adopt a vegetarian diet, at least temporarily, the better to focus on the problem.

In the process of trying to sort through the issues, he reflects on the concept of equality, which he wholeheartedly espouses where humans are concerned. But he is not entirely convinced that animals also belong in this sphere of beings who are to be treated with equality. In an effort to find resolution, and perhaps to counter what seems illogical to him in the PETA philosophy, he tries to get to the bottom of what makes humans and animals fundamentally different. Given that animals also possess intelligence and experience pain, he searches for other key differences to bolster his feeling that a true difference exists.

The author's professional background is in journalism. He teaches it at the university level. His philosophical background is apparently not very much informed by religion, although there are hints of at least ethnic Jewishness. He observes that when Joel Salatin (sustainable agriculture guru) prays before a meal, he says a "rambling and strikingly non-generic version of grace, offering a fairly detailed summary of the day's doings to a Lord who, to judge by Joel's tone of easy familiarity, was present and keenly interested." (p. 203) I suspect that "present" and "keenly interested" is not how Pollan usually thinks of God.

Throughout the book, Pollan examines and explains many issues in their evolutionary context. For example, the digestive system of cows and the growth patterns of grasses evolved together to make grass-eating by bovines a beneficial relationship for both cows and grasses. In the sense Pollan uses it, Evolution is clearly of the sort that should begin with a capital letter. It encompasses explanations for how all earthly things came to be and how they continue to change.

In the PETA section of the book, I keep wishing that someone would tell Pollan that Genesis provides a solid basis for confidence that humans and animals are, in fact, fundamentally different, and the moral issues that apply to humans do not universally apply to animals. I was thinking of a diagram I once saw in a Francis Schaeffer book that I have found very helpful. It was in a section that addressed the nature of God, man, and the rest of creation. (Bear with me here. I've cited this before.)

In one diagram, the word "God" appeared above the line, and "man" and "the rest of creation" appeared below the line. This diagram represented the truth that the Creator is distinct and separate from everything He made. As an object of worship, nothing below the line qualifies. Only God is to be worshipped. Note that in this way of looking at truth, man and animals are on the same plane. That's what is apparently giving Pollan pause. He sees that animals are like man in some ways (intelligence and the experience of pain, for example), and he's not sure what it means for morals and ethics.

It's the truth in the other part of the diagram that Pollan doesn't seem to have a clue about. In this representation of how things are, Schaeffer has both God and man above the line, and "the rest of creation" below the line. The issue here is "created in the image of God." In all of creation, only man qualifies as being in the same sphere as God, because he was created in God's image. No other created thing or being has this distinction. It is for this reason that, while many ethical standards do apply to the treatment of animals, eating them for meat does not constitute a moral "equality" dilemma. A stewardship or health dilemma? Perhaps. But not an intrinsically moral one based on equality.

Joel Salatin comes to the rescue here in explaining things to Pollan. Pollan asks him how he could bring himself to kill a chicken. He replies, "That's an easy one. People have a soul, animals don't. It's a bedrock belief of mine. Animals are not created in God's image, so when they die, they just die." (p. 331)

A professor told me once that he objects to Christian people "putting a lid down over everything." In the context, he was clearly referring to how people who believe the Bible reference it in their understanding of all sorts of issues, sometimes perhaps failing to deal honestly with complexity. I agree that Christians are sometimes guilty of using the Bible as a smothering lid. But I have found the first eleven chapters of Genesis as being more like a sturdy bubbling pot than a smothering lid. The pot comfortably holds all sorts of knotty issues, and they simmer there alongside similarly knotty issues, blending, but not being obliterated in the process. Neither do they repel whatever else is in the pot, as oil repels water. The Genesis pot is admirably suited as a foundational document, and what comes out of it is serviceable and savory--not cooked to mush under the lid. I credit Ken Ham's writings for illuminating Genesis as an inspired revelation for how to make sense of all kinds of earthly puzzles.

For people who are in the throes of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," Genesis provides answers that help show the way. The Evolution paradigm simply comes up short. Michael Pollan needs to know this.

**************************

I highly recommend the book, The Ominvore's Dilemma. While I see origins differently than Pollan does, he does very well what he sets out to do--examine the question What should you eat? He does this by tracing several kinds of meals all the way back to their origins, following primarily three different delivery routes-- the Industrial, the Pastoral, and the Personal. In the Industrial section, he examines both conventional and large scale organic food systems. In the Pastoral section, he looks at locally produced and consumed food. (Here is where he encounters Salatin.) In the Personal section, he looks at hunting and foraging.

Some of what I find in this book is unsettling. I feel even more disillusioned than before with the interactions between government, farmers, and industry, and I started from a far-from-enamored beginning point. It's too early to tell exactly where Pollan is going with his conclusions, but I, for one, see the pastoral approach as having much to recommend it.

Tell me what you think.

2 Comments:

  • I really enjoyed this book but agree with your critique of Pollan's thinking. I think a Christian worldview does help with the distinction between humans and animals. I also feel those who believe in a Creator have an even greater responsibility to care for the creation. Respectful care of soil, plants and animals seems to me to be, in a way, an act of worship.

    My two cents,
    Deb Miller, Portland, OR
    Susannah's nephew's wife :)

    By Blogger Deb, at 7/16/2009  

  • Thanks for writing. I've been looking in on your blog and know you've given some thought to these things. I agree with your view of Christians and creation care.

    Susanna, Hilda and Yolie are all gone right now--in IN, helping with Mom/Grandma.

    By Blogger Mrs. I, at 7/16/2009  

Post a Comment



<< Home