Basic Assertions by Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882, figure 1 on right) in The Origin of Species[1] 1. “Species are not immutable,” but can and do change (evolve) by infinitesimal changes from one generation to the next (“descent with modification”). He estimates that it takes 14,000 or more generation for complete evolution from one species to another, based on his own horticultural experiments.[2] 2. Common Ancestry: Descent with modification accounts for the variety of all biological life, so that it is possible to say that all biological species evolved from single-celled ancestors.[3] 3. The Mechanism of Biological Evolution: This process takes place by means of “Natural Selection”—a blind and impersonal mechanism in nature which inexplicably selects the best traits in each species and passes them on to succeeding generations, while gradually eliminating unhelpful, extreme, and counterproductive traits.[4] a. While Natural Selection may seem to be random, it is actually not random at all, but has an intelligent mind of its own.[5] b. Darwin calls Natural Selection the “Creator” several times, yet debunks any consideration of an intelligent mind, or Creator God, from beyond this world.[6] Strangely enough, Darwin’s popularity by the end of his life was such that officials of the Church of England agreed to bury him at Westminster Abbey in London following his death (figure 2). It seems that he was a “Treasure to the English People,” despite his rather atheistic sentiments. Social Applications of Darwinist Thought[7] -Herbert Spencer, Principles of Sociology (1897): “The poverty of the incapable, starvation of the idle, and those shoulderings aside of the weak by the strong are the decrees of a large, far-seeing benevolence.” -Walter Bagehot, Physics and Politics: Thoughts on the Application of Principles of Natural Selection and Inheritance to Political Science (1872) claimed that the concept of natural selection could be applied to groups of people, meaning that certain groups of people naturally rise higher than others. This opens a door for racism and the non-compassionate use of wealth, as reflected in Andrew Carnegie’s Wealth (1889). Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1924) claimed that an accurate historical understanding of the human race “by no means believes in an equality of the races, but along with their differences it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated, through this knowledge, to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe.”[8] Christian Responses to Darwinian Theory[9] 1. Outright Rejection Charles Hodge, “What is Darwinism?” (1874): “The conclusion of the whole matter is, that the denial of design in nature is virtually the denial of God. Mr. Darwin’s theory does deny all design in nature, therefore, his theory is virtually atheistical . . . .” 2. Accommodation James Woodrow, “Evolution” (1884): “So far as the definition [of evolution] is concerned, the immediate existence might be attributed to God or to chance; the derived existence to inherent uncreated law, or to an almighty personal Creator, acting according to laws of his own framing.” a. Result: Theistic Evolution—the belief that God was responsible for the initial creation of the earth, and allowed creation to develop along evolutionary lines. The creative “days” (Hebrew יום, “yom”) of Genesis chapter one were therefore long periods of time, not 24-hour days. This can be asserted because יום is used in some places in Scripture to refer to 24-hour days, but in other places for longer periods of undetermined length. b. A variation of this thinking by more conservative Christians became known as the “Gap Theory,” which posited that the “formless void and darkness” of Genesis 1:2 was evidence of divine judgment on a pre-historic world which may have existed for an unknown length of time. God had apparently judged that world and began re-creating with the light of Genesis 1:3. This view has never been widely accepted, however, even among conservative Christians, as it is highly speculative scientifically and relies on spurious Biblical interpretation. 3. “Separate but Equal” Camps John Augustine Zahm, Evolution and Dogma (1896): “In other words, evolution is not opposed to revelation, but to certain interpretations of what some have imagined to be revealed truths.” -In this approach, science and religion are viewed as separate but equal disciplines, with science dealing with the material world while religion deals with the moral and immaterial world. True Darwinists laugh at this artificial distinction, however, since true Darwinism requires a naturalistic or materialistic view of reality, meaning that there is no effective reality outside the material world. So is Darwinism Necessarily Atheistic? While Darwin was very reluctant to make such a statement, and said it only in a very roundabout fashion in his works, more recent Darwinists are more forthright. For example, in an interview about his book A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988) British physicist Stephen Hawking explained, "What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary."[10] Theists will often counter with the question, “But what existed before the Big Bang? What caused the elements and conditions of the Big Bang to exist so that it could happen in the first place?” Hawking’s answer is that "Because there are laws such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going."[11] Oxford mathematician and philosopher John Lennox has noted at least three fallacies in Hawking’s statements: 1. Hawking: “Because there are always laws such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Lennox: “But the law of gravity is not nothing.” 2. Hawking: “…the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Lennox: “But if I explain X because of X (that is: the universe creates itself), this is Alice-in-Wonderland thinking.” In other words, it is circular reasoning. 3. Lennox: “A law of nature (like gravity) depends on nature existing.” The conclusion of Lennox: “What all this goes to show is that nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world famous scientists.”[12] The Major Scientific Problem for Darwinian Theory: Incompatibility with the Fossil Record Fossil records as they exist are repeatedly typified by[13] a. sudden appearance of numerous new forms of already well-developed biological species in each new geological layer, with no clear connection to earlier, less-developed ancestors. b. stasis, meaning the relative stability and apparent unchanging structure of each species. c. sudden extinction of many species with the end of a geological layer. Darwin recognized this problem and spent whole chapters trying to get around it or to explain it away. He dismissed the essence of the problem by simply stating, “I believe the answer mainly lies in the [geological] record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed . . . .” He later adds that “. . . we ought not expect at the present time to meet with numerous transitional varieties in each region, though they must have existed there, and may be embedded there in a fossil condition.”[14] Another problem for Darwinian theory connected to the fossil record is the huge difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Darwin and his disciples have pointed to well-documented fossil records such as that of the horse, which show obvious evolution within a single species (micro-evolution). This is a far cry, however, from demonstrating transition from one species to another (macro-evolution).[15] Nevertheless, Darwin’s oft-repeated defense was that the common ancestry thesis is so logically appealing that empirical testing was not necessary. The Success of Darwinism By the late nineteenth century, Darwinian evolutionary theory was accepted as virtual fact by the scientific community and was even popular among some religious leaders, especially the more liberally-minded, despite the lack of strong empirical evidence. Thanks are due to Thomas Huxley (1825-1895; British biologist), James Woodrow (1828-1907; Professor of Natural Science at the Presbyterian Seminary at Columbia, SC and uncle of later US President Woodrow Wilson), Herbert Spencer (1820-1903; British philosopher and political theorist), and John Fiske (1842-1901; Professor of History at Harvard). In addition to the support which Darwin’s biological theory received from numerous scientists, its success seems to have been due at least partially to the fact that its sociological implications fit precisely with the spirit of the age, offering ready philosophical answers for the questions and challenges facing the USA and the nations of Western Europe (Great Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Spain, and Italy) in the late nineteenth century—issues brought by the industrial revolution, immigration of non-Anglo Saxons, imperialistic ventures in the Pacific and Latin America (and for Western Europeans, imperialism on the continents of Africa and Asia). In other words, even though Darwin himself was very reluctant to apply his theory to human social and political structures, “Social Darwinism” quickly became popular because of the way it was applied to questions of imperialistic domination and big business. It is not difficult to perceive, moreover, as some have contended, that another reason for Darwinism’s success is because of its assumption that the physical universe is a closed system, meaning that all observable phenomena are explainable by reference to factors in the material world, precluding any intervention by a superior being from beyond this world. In other words, Darwinism may have succeeded among cultural elites precisely because it denies the need for an intelligent Creator. For many, this carried with it a welcome sense of freedom from any divinely-originated moral responsibility.[16] A particularly interesting and enigmatic chapter in the history of Darwinism is the Scopes “Monkey Trial” in Dayton, TN in July 1925. John Scopes, a local science teacher who admitted that he had taught the basics of evolutionary theory in the classroom, volunteered to be the defendant in a test case against a recently signed TN law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the public school classroom. The case quickly became a media circus because of the colorful personalities involved. Famous attorney Clarence Darrow was hired by the American Civil Liberties Union to argue the case for Scopes’ defense, while William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925, figure 3)—three-time presidential candidate and former Secretary of State—agreed to lead the prosecution. The climax of the trial came when Darrow manipulated Bryan into acting as an “expert” witness for the creationist viewpoint, and thereby embarrassed Bryan and the prosecution’s cause with meticulous questions regarding spurious Biblical interpretations. Although Scopes was convicted and fined $100, he was soon released on appeal. In the process, creationism and all forms of conservative religious sentiment were subjected to blistering ridicule from journalists such as Herbert L. Mencken of the Baltimore Sun. Adding to the Christians’ sense of defeat was the event of Bryan’s death shortly after the conclusion of the trial. As a result, thinking persons distanced themselves from conservative Christianity, which then avoided the public spotlight for the next decade or more. Well-educated conservative Christians began to re-emerge in the 1940s with the formation of the National Association of Evangelicals, renewed efforts in higher education at both collegiate and seminary levels, and a new wave of mass evangelists such as Billy Graham and Oral Roberts.[17] Meanwhile, a rather curious reversal of attitude took place in Dayton, TN by the late twentieth century. This small town, which had only very reluctantly stepped into the media spotlight with the Scopes trial, began to realize the potential economic benefit to be gained by promoting public access to the sites associated with the trial. When one visits Dayton today, therefore, one cannot miss the numerous signs marking the locations of homes and offices of local individuals involved in the trial, and hotels in which the well-known visitors stayed. In addition, a small museum has been created in the basement of the county courthouse, telling of the trial and its significance (figures 4 and 5). [1] Charles R. Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (J. W. Burrow, ed. New York: Penguin Books, 1985 [London: John Murray, 1859]), 81, 88-90. Darwin’s work was highly anticipated and wildly popular upon its first printing, selling out of the London bookshops in two days. [2] Ibid., 160-161. Critique: For his examples, Darwin uses his own horticultural experiments and similar experiments by other scientists. The great fallacy here, however, is that he is violating one of the cardinal principles of evolution by using evidence gathered from artificial selection by human agency to explain what is supposed to have happened by natural selection. Although he does not admit it, he seems to sense the weakness of his argument here, and falls back on the vast eons of time assumed by Natural Selection as his safety net. The mathematical probability of such biological development, even given such long periods of time, is still too small to merit consideration. For a pro-Darwinian discussion of the matter, see Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Natural Selection Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: Oxford, 1986). For an argument from the viewpoint of Intelligent Design (Theism), see Philip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995) and Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997), as well as the helpful materials at www.arn.org (Access Research Network) and www.theory-of-evolution.org. [3] Darwin, 171, 207, 211. For a critique of this probability, see Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Touchstone Books, 1998). [4] Darwin, 131-133, 169. Critique: Again, Darwin’s examples supporting the “fact” of Natural Selection are all taken from experiments involving artificial selection of specimens by human agents. [5] Ibid., 169, 173, 203-204. [6] Ibid., 399, 404, 416-417. Contrary to a popularly-circulated story of the late nineteenth century, there is no hard evidence that Darwin on his death bed confessed to his “sin” of the mistaken notion of biological evolution and confessed faith in God. Had he done so, however, it would have been greatly pleasing to his wife Emma, who was a faithful Christian. [7] See Darwinism and the American Intellectual: An Anthology (R. Jackson Wilson, ed. Chicago: Dorsey Press, 1989), introduction. [8] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1943 [1924]), 383. [9] Darwinism and the American Intellectual, chapter one. [10] Der Spiegel, 17 October 1988. [11] “Stephen Hawking: God did not Create the Universe,” BBC: News: UK, 2 September 2010. “Light the blue touch paper” is a British term referring to lighting a wick to ignite fireworks. [12] John C. Lennox, God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design is it Anyway? (London: Lion, 2011), 32. [13] Johnson, Darwin on Trial, chapters two through five. [14] Darwin, 206, 207. The entirety of chapters six and nine are devoted to defending his theory against the thinness and “imperfection” of the fossil record. Critique: Darwin seems to be taking quite a leap of faith to support his theory, yet he ridicules faith in an intelligent Creator God. [15] Johnson, chapter four. Johnson shows decisively that innumerable small changes do not necessarily add up to “big” changes or, in other words, that in many cases it has been shown that infinite amounts of microevolution have not added up to macroevolution. For his part, Dawkins argues the very opposite (chapter two). [16] Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1976), chapters seven through nine; John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Darwin’s Leap of Faith (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1998), 131. [17] George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925 (New York: Oxford, 1980), 184-189. |
Darwin vs. God
|