Agnostic, atheistic, and theistic (theistic evolution) Darwinists all claim that biotic reality has emerged due solely to chance and necessity. The question for them is, can chance and necessity beget agency? Since human beings are considered agents, this is an important cultural and moral question. If biotic reality only emerged through chance and necessity, the logical entailment is that all biotic processes are due to these as well. If this is the case why would a Darwinist call the human being an agent? They might just as well call any sort of process down to the most fundamental an agent. But if agency can mean anything, isn’t it really a meaningless term?

This is also an important issue for theology. All the major religions affirm some level of freedom in humans. This is what makes them agents. I believe this is also one of the reasons why the Catholic church has recently been forthcoming in its rejection of the Darwinian framework. Here’s a good summary of what’s going on. On the other hand the Episcopals seem to be aligning themselves with the Darwinian view. How will they deal with the issue of agency once the logical conclusions of their position are drawn out?