From today’s New York Times Book Review comes two interesting morsels about Charles Darwin that ought to slightly soften Christian antagonism to him as the destroyer of faith.
One new book, “Darwin’s Sacred Cause: How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwin’s Views on Human Evolution,” argues that his abolitionist sentiment drove him toward a “belief in blood kinship, a ‘common descent’” of all human beings. If we all come from the same place, we cannot claim one human to being superior and capable of enslaving another.
Another review (of Banquet at Delmonicos) highlighted the existence of the “Deistic Darwinians.” These would include Charles Kingsley, who responded to Origin of Species by writing: “We know of old that God was so wise that he could make all things ; but behold, he is so much wiser than even that, that he can make all things make themselves.”
Responding to another friend, Asa Gray, who had made a similar defense, Darwin himself wrote:
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one ; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms, most beautiful and most wonderful, have been and are being evolved.”
I’ve written before that Thomas Jefferson believed in intelligent design. The conflict, it seems, is not between science and God, it’s between Biblical Revelation and Religion.
posted February 2, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Steve,
I believe you are precisely on the mark when you wrote, “The conflict, it seems, is not between science and God, it’s between Biblical Revelation and Religion.”
If there is a battle between science and God it would be either a conflict of interest or an simple oxymoron. As a seminary prof. pointed out over and again. you cannot argue revelation, you can only accept it or deny it. Religion is just a way to fill the time and keep reminding ourselves between revelations. But science continues forever. It is for many God;s revelatory act through which we can practice discovery. You can argue discovery and the interpretation of results. And that is what makes science so much fun! When science and religion meet it can be explosive in either a negative (destructive, as in dividing communities and people) or positive way (helping people appreciate the value of both, as Darwin did with abolitionism).
posted February 2, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Ok, so Jefferson and Darwin were both capable of believing in nonsense. And I’m having fun with that, but let us not forget that when Jefferson was alive there was no evidence against a Creator and Darwin would have had to make a leap of thought that was just too great for him.
We cannot take people out of their time. It is as absurd to be surprised at this as it is to argue that because Darwin, writing in 1859, did not have the mountain of evidence to prove evolution beyond any rational doubt, was wrong because he had the details off.
posted February 2, 2009 at 9:06 pm
“If we all come from the same place, we cannot claim one human to being superior and capable of enslaving another.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but was Darwin a Macro-evolutionist? If so, then wouldn’t ALL lifeforms come from the same place. Implying that same logic, even plants and animals, fungus, bacteria, mold, parasites, and viruses share the same amount of dignity as humans.
posted February 3, 2009 at 10:06 am
Darwin may or may not have believed in the invisible hand of the divine being involved in the evolutionary process, but I think that the use of the phrase “intelligent design” confuses the issue. “Intelligent Design” is like a patented term, one that has specific — anti-Darwin — implications.
Jefferson believed in divine providence — God’s invisible hand — but I’m not sure he’d go along with Philip Johnson’s definitions.
But, as we approach Darwin’s 200th birthday, it’s worth considering his beliefs and understandings. It’s also important to remember that one can be religious and affirm the evolution as the scientific explanation of how things have come to be!
posted February 3, 2009 at 9:02 pm
@Tom
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but was Darwin a Macro-evolutionist?”
The term term macro-evolutionist is pretty meaningless: micro- and macro- evolution are just different degrees of the same process. Obviously he believed that new species come into existence over time.
“If so, then wouldn’t ALL lifeforms come from the same place. Implying that same logic, even plants and animals, fungus, bacteria, mold, parasites, and viruses share the same amount of dignity as humans.”
I don’t think the logic extends to all life forms. The philosopher Peter Singer has a lot of work relating to this – and (very roughly) comes to the conclusion that the respect/protection due to an organism should be proportional to it’s awareness and ability to feel pain/pleasure. Very interesting stuff. I have a gut level disagreement with some of his conclusions but cannot really claim to refute his arguments.
posted February 10, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Playboy magazine is in a serious article about a world that had not been touched by the hand of Charles Darwin, is rather interesting to imagine what would happen or if he thought we would not have contributed their ideas to humanity, if they wish read entering http://www.playboy.com.mx/