This article is a rebuttal to Drew Estes’ “From Darwin to Wall Street: Harnessing Evolutionary Theory for Smarter Investments.” In his paper, Estes argues that economics should adopt ideas from evolutionary biology moderately than physics. Like Estes, I query the philosophical core on which finance relies. But I advocate basing investment processes on a theistic worldview.
Estes claims: “A product, whether a good or a service, is the DNA of a company, and products are made up of many subunits or “premes.” The premium is the gene of commerce. They are the “units of inheritance” that differentiate product lines. Accordingly, premises are the first “replicators” of commerce, and corporations, like organisms, are merely its “survival machines.” [1]
The conclusions drawn from Estes’ article are extremely reasonable inside the framework of the naturalistic worldview. If existence results in essence, insights from evolutionary theory could prove useful in investing. But what if essence led to existence?[2] The problem in finance is its philosophical core; that’s, the worldview on which our analytical frameworks are based.
Naturalism, the philosophical basis of the speculation of evolution, is in direct conflict with theistic worldviews. If you begin from a distinct philosophical foundation, you’ll find yourself with a significantly different investment process. For more details, see . [3] A transient overview of the investment implications of two different philosophical foundations – naturalism and theism – is provided here.
Estes laments: “No other science is so completely ignored by its practitioners. … Economics should instead adopt ideas from evolutionary biology.” This turn away from science may more likely be the results of a wholesale adoption of evolutionary theory. Alvin Plantinga notes: “Science and science are not neutral, but are deeply involved in the battle between Christian theism, eternal naturalism and creative anti-realism.”[4] C.S. Lewis notes, “Men became scientific because they expected laws in nature, and they expected laws in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.”[5]
There are rational justifications for basing investment processes on a theistic worldview. The emergence of diverse funds focused on biblically responsible investing (BRI) could be unjustified inside the framework of naturalism. If Christian theism is true, then BRI-based means aren’t only justified but likely helpful.
Naturalism, Theism and Finance
Plantinga argues: “There is a superficial conflict but a deep agreement between science and theistic religion, but agreement and a deep conflict between science and naturalism.”[6] Therefore, there are the reason why investment processes based on components of naturalism equivalent to evolutionary biology don’t perform well. For example, naturalism denies the concept of biblical sin, a key aspect of Christian theism.
Naturalism is defined as “the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes and that supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or rejected.”[7] From a naturalistic worldview, some type of evolutionary theory is logical.
Theistic worldviews portray humans as greater than just sensual animals.[8] Financial decisions aren’t limited to furthering my very own narcissistic goals, no matter who is likely to be hurt. There are ideals that form the premise for investment-related decisions.
Scientific activities normally concentrate on what’s repeatable but not applicable to finance. According to Michael Ruse, science “concerns itself only with the natural, the repeatable, the legal.”[9] This definition is simply too restrictive because it excludes financing. According to John C. Lennox, science is a “method for inferring the best explanation.”[10]
Investment management is a difficult subject to check because, amongst other things, it suffers from performativity. Performativity implies beliefs about financial prices that change financial prices. In addition, it will be important to grasp what it means to be human. The reality of human depravity, including our own, helps develop appropriate financial guardrails.
Two economic conditions
Theistic worldviews have an essence that precedes existence: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”[11] In naturalistic worldviews, existence precedes essence. “I am a tiny speck of carbon-based dust, born in a time and place not of my choosing here, for an incredibly short period of time before my atoms are scattered back into the cosmos.”[12]
Modern economic evaluation has evolved from a normative approach (what ought to be) to a positive approach (what’s).[13] Modern economic evaluation is influenced by positivism and suits well with naturalism. Economic evaluation based on theism has a normative character and is in direct contradiction to naturalism.
Since economic thought was first formalized over two centuries ago, there have been essentially two different views of wealth. One view, first defined by Adam Smith and Jean-Baptiste Say, holds that wealth is primarily metaphysical – the results of ideas, imagination, innovation and individual creativity – and subsequently, relatively speaking, unlimited and liable to great growth and development is.
The other view of wealth, held by Thomas Malthus and Karl Marx, is that wealth is actually and primarily physical and subsequently ultimately finite. The modern account of this view argues that since usable energy is steadily decreasing in entropy, all wealth must actually be shared more fairly.”[14] Note that modern economic theory relies on the doctrine of scarcity. The biblically based approach relies on the doctrine of abundance, coupled with a mandate of responsibility.
products or people
When applying evolutionary theory to commerce, it’s comprehensible that the main target of research is on physical items. Estes claims, “In other words, products are like DNA. They are complex structures of subunits called premes, and premes, like genes in DNA, fight for inclusion in products. A premium is any attribute that influences a product’s value proposition. It can be as minor as employees at Chick-fil-A saying “It’s my pleasure” or as serious as iOS for Apple products.”[15]
When applying a theistic worldview to commerce, the main target of research is anticipated to be on the metaphysical, primarily human. For example, Chick-fil-A’s corporate purpose is: “To glorify God by being faithful stewards of all that is entrusted to us.” To have a positive impact on everyone who comes into contact with Chick-fil-A .”[16]
Also on Apple’s website: “Apple conducts its business ethically, honestly and in full compliance with the law.” We imagine our behavior is as critical to Apple’s success as making the perfect products on the planet.” Apple- Boss Tim Cook reiterates: “We do the right thing, even when it’s not easy.”[17] Leaders from firms with different worldviews share a concentrate on what matters, not existence.
It is much more sensible for people to be at the middle of product replication. Estes claims, “(Ideas float) like pollen ready to fertilize the mind of a receptive entrepreneur.” Ideas are inherently metaphysical and pollen is physical. Naturalism cannot allow the existence of ideas that transcend certain brain activity. Ideas are inherent in theistic worldviews and the reasonableness of an individual’s idea rests on the correspondence between what is occurring within the mind and actual reality.
There at the moment are at the least 90 BRI-based financial instruments.[18] As C.S. Lewis states: “In reality, moral rules are instructions for the control of the human machine. Every moral rule serves to prevent breakdown, strain, or friction in the operation of that machine.”[19] The mere existence of at the least 90 BRI-based funds suggests that investors want to speculate in funds that match their intangibles. From a Christian perspective, the human heart is at the center of the investment management challenge.
[2] Moreland and Craig state: “The essence of a thing is an individual nature that serves to define what that thing is.” Well, if a beings In order to exist, there should be a connected to this being act of being.” (Bold in original.) See JP Moreland and William Lane Craig, , 2nd Edition, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017), p. 477. For example, I’m a soul (essence) and I actually have a body (existence).
[3]Upcoming book by this creator. See https://robertebrooks.org/project/christian-apologetics-and-finance/.
[4]Alvin Plantinga, “On Christian Scholarship,” undated, http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/plantinga/ocs.html.
[5]Attributed to CS Lewis, quoted in John C. Lennox, (Oxford: England: Lion Hudson plc, 2007), p. 21.
[6]Alvin Plantinga, 2011, p. ix.
[7]See, https://www.naturalnavigator.com/news/2012/07/meaning-of-the-word-naturalism/.
[8]My perspective comes from the Christian worldview.
[9]Michael Ruse, (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1982), p. 322.
[10]John C. Lennox, (Oxford, England: Lion Hudson, plc, 2009), p. 32.
[11]See Genesis 1:1, Bible, English Standard Version.
[12]Emma Pattee: “Covid-19 is making us think about our mortality. Our brains are not designed for that.”, October 7, 2020, accessed online. Pattee quotes Sheldon Solomon.
[13]See Milton Friedman, “The Methodology of Positive Economics,” in (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1966. See also available at https://robertebrooks.org/project/opinion-editorials/.
[14]Warren T. Brookes, (NY: Universe Books, 1982), p. 12.
[15]See Estes (2024), cited previously.
[16]See https://www.chick-fil-a.com/about/company.
[17]See https://www.apple.com/compliance/.
[18]See https://www.faithdriveninvestor.org/mutual-funds.
[19]CS Lewis, Book III, Chapter 1, p. 59.
