In this morning’s Templeton classes, Dame Gillian Beer, a Darwin scholar and emeritus Cambridge professor, described the scandal caused by the publication of the Origin of Species. Many immediately saw this as a threat to religion, especially the notion that we’re all part of a grand family, the monkeys cousins of man.
Interestingly, though, Charles Kingsley, a prominent English scholar, wrote him a letter November 1859 saying the opposite:
“I have gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of Deity, to believe that he created primal forms capable of self development… as to believe that He required a fresh act of intervention to supply the lacunas which he himself had made. I question whether the former be not the loftier thought.”
In other words, the theory that God had to perfect his own work with constant minor adjustments implies a lack of perfection in the first attempt. On the other hand, if the process itself leads toward natural improvement, or even perfection, than the process itself is perfect, and worthy of a great God.
Dame Beer noted that when another correspondent made a similar point, Darwin “had a great relief” that his theory could co-exist with some form of Theism. Whether that relief was due to political factors — the hope that he would not be viewed as the enemy of all religion – or a lingering desire to find a theology that comported with his scientific theories, she did not know.
|
Previous Posts
Good Bye
Today is my last day at Beliefnet (which I co-founded in 1999). The swirling emotions: sadness, relief, love, humility, pride, anxiety.
But mostly deep, deep gratitude.
How many people get to come up with an idea and have rich people invest money to make it a reality? How many people get to create
posted 8:37:24am Nov. 20, 2009 |
read full post
»
"Steven Waldman Named To Lead Commission Effort on Future of Media In a Changing Technological Landscape" (FCC Press Release)
STEVEN WALDMAN NAMED TO LEAD COMMISSION EFFORT ON FUTURE OF MEDIA IN A CHANGING TECHNOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE
FCC chairman Julius Genachowski announced today the appointment of Steven Waldman, a highly respected internet entrepreneur and journalist, to lead an agency-wide initiative to assess the state o
posted 11:46:42am Oct. 29, 2009 |
read full post
»
My Big News
Dear Readers,
This is the most difficult (and surreal) post I've had to write. I'm leaving Beliefnet, the company I co-founded in 1999.
In mid November, I'll be stepping down as President and Editor in Chief to lead a project on the future of the media for the Federal Communications Commission, the
posted 1:10:11pm Oct. 28, 2009 |
read full post
»
"Beliefnet Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief Steps Down to Lead FCC Future of the Media Initiative" (Beliefnet Press Release)
October 28, 2009
BELIEFNET CO-FOUNDER AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF STEPS DOWN TO LEAD FCC FUTURE OF THE MEDIA INITIATIVE
New York, NY - October 28, 2009 - Beliefnet, the leading online community for inspiration and faith, announced today that Steven Waldman, co-founder, president and editor-in-chief, will re
posted 1:05:43pm Oct. 28, 2009 |
read full post
»
Secularizing the Cross (Christian Activists: Be Careful What You Wish For)
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week, in Buono v. Salazar, about whether a white 6 1/2 foot cross can be displayed in a national park as a tribute to World War I soldiers. Though it's depicted as a classic clash of the secular and the religious, it actually illustrates why Christian act
posted 1:15:51pm Oct. 08, 2009 |
read full post
»
|
posted April 17, 2009 at 10:30 am
Here’s another quote from Kingsley that expresses the same thought but maybe even better:
“We knew of old that God was so wise that He could make all things; but behold, He is so much wiser than that, that He can make all things make themselves.”
posted April 17, 2009 at 10:52 am
and back to the earlier post on accidental or inevitable, I think that should be nuanced a bit. Are the explicit results of evolution completely a) unpredictable & b) non-purposeful? Many atheists say yes (and many Christians including ID proponents agree with the implication and thus discount evolution). What Conway-Morris is saying mostly is that a) is not necessarily true – it seems predictable – maybe only in a broad sense.
From my point of view, I don’t really care if Conway-Morris is right or wrong (he’s challenging the mainstream from what I understand). The point for Christians is that evolution does NOT imply that God cannot fulfill his purposes – even if he created with mechanisms that are unpredictable (to us – but not to God) or if he gave his creation “freedom to make choices” (back to Kingsley’s remark).
Hey, we’ve come to accept some coexistence between free-will & predestination (after centuries of arguments), why can’t we accept the coexistence of a creative process that may include “random” components with the sovereignty & ultimate fulfillment of God’s will?
posted April 21, 2009 at 11:10 am
Missing the point here entirely. Evolution is not a linear path toward perfection. It is the continual adaptation to environmental, genetic, nd many other changes Some adaptations allow for success, reproduction, and survival, and others lead to early, non-reproductive death. There is no goal, no ultimate perfect “Aristotilean” return to the prototype. Think of it as a constantly changing fractal pattern, adapting to the time of day, of light, of energy, and any of a myriad other things. Randomness is not a curse, it is a state of being. Until we get beyond this there is little hope for understanding evolution.