Was Darwin a Creationist?
by MikeGeneIn my previous blog, I asked if Darwin was a theistic evolutionist. Philosopher Chris Cosans asks a more radical question: Was Darwin a Creationist? (HT: Paul Nelson). Let me share a rather interesting excerpt from Cosans' paper (Cosans C. 2005. Was Darwin a creationist? Perspect Biol Med. 48(3):362-71):
Darwin's assertion in the Origin that all the living things we observe descended from one organism can be traced back to speculations he had made on theology during the 1830s.When considering the transmutation of species in his notebook from 1837 and 1838, Darwin considered the theological meaning of whether or not transmutation follows from a fixed natural law. He remarks at one point in his private notebook that:
Astronomers might formely [sic] have said that God ordered each planet to move in its particular destiny."”In same manner God orders each animal created with certain form in certain country, but how much more simple, & sublime power let attraction act according to certain law such are inevitable consequences let animal be created, then by the fixed laws of generation, such will be their successors. (Darwin 1838, p. 185)
Just as Newton showed the greatness of God in his Principia by explaining how the one law of gravity governs the motion of all the planets, Darwin is interested in showing that God did not make each species but created one organic being from which different species could be generated by fixed laws.
Although his beliefs about God developed over the ensuing 20 years, Darwin framed his biological Principia in a theological context. He opens the Origin with two epigraphs on natural theology. The first, by Whewell, refers to the British theological reconciliation of science and religion by holding that the laws discovered by science are secondary causes, while God, as the Creator of these laws, is the primary cause:"events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws." A second quote, from Bacon, states no man can "be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works," implying the need to study both scripture and science to understand the world in which we live. Almost 500 pages later, Darwin brings the Origin to a conclusion with a reference to Genesis that echoes his 1838 remarks about science and religion:"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed 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" (Darwin 1859, p. 490). In a single sentence Darwin interweaves the metaphysical breath of Genesis with the physical gravity of Newton's Principia.
Cosans also notes:
Popular culture views Darwin's theory as providing scientific evidence against religion. However, this is not supported by a close analysis of the text of the Origin and its implications. A simple way of reading the Origin as supporting theistic thinking is to see the first progenitors and the laws of reproduction, variation, and selection as the results of God's action. In his autobiography, Darwin confesses that this indeed was his conviction when writing the Origin. Many historians of science have discussed the ways Darwin's analysis drew upon the Christian theology of his time (Brown 1986; Gillespie 1979, p. 124; Richards 1999, pp. 130"“35). Although later in life Darwin began to entertain an agnostic perspective, this was after he had conceived of his theory. (emphasis added)
More wisdom from the article:
Although usually ignored by neo-Darwinists, Darwin's hint about the supernatural origins of life is actually a critical aspect of his framework of analysis. Throughout the Origin, he usually contrasts his account not with that of other evolutionists such as Lamarck or Chambers, but with that of someone we would now call a "special creationist." The position of Darwin's hypothetical creationist is the dialectical opposite of that endorsed in the Origin.The Origin's creationist would seem in fact to be a younger less sophisticated version of Darwin himself. In the introduction to the Origin, Darwin tells us he used to believe that "each species has been independently created" (p. 6). While the Darwin of the Origin believes all life is united by its common ancestor, his creationist rejects the unity of life. Darwin believes "all living and extinct forms can be grouped together in one great system" (p. 433), but his creationist believes each form is special and unique. Darwin accounts for the diversity of life as the result of natural selection acting on existing variation; his creationist accounts for it as the result of God creating the progenitors of the varieties of organisms.Whereas Darwin believes life came into being only once, his creationist believes "that at innumerable periods in the earth's history certain elemental atoms have been commanded suddenly to flash into living tissues" (p. 483).
And then this:
Owen claims that the special creationist and Darwin both ultimately rely on the action of God. Insofar as Darwin concludes the Origin with the Biblical phrasing, Darwin recognizes:"a direct creative act, something like that supernatural or miraculous one which, in the preceding page, he defines, as "˜certain elemental atoms which have been commanded suddenly to flash into living tissues'" (Owen 1860, p. 191). Darwin is no less a creationist than his dialectical rival merely because he limits God to one intervention. Indeed, Owen argues that in Darwin's theory, God's act of creation is even more miraculous. For it requires God, at that one moment, to impart to the progenitor the capacity to vary in such a way as to eventually result in the present organisms' "infinity of complications and their morphological results, which now try to the utmost the naturalist's faculties to comprehend and classify" (Owen 1860, p. 191). Darwin's theism requires God to have an incredible amount of foresight.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:38 am
So was Darwin a creationist? It depends how you define creationist. If we define it as someone who believes life on Earth was created, then Darwin was a creationist - but that would make you a creationist, Mike, wuld it not? Personally, I would define creationist as someone who believes each "kind" was created separately, but I accept that might just be me. You could even define it as someone who believes the universe was created (cf Denton).
Ah, so that must be why so many Christians accept Darwinism.
Comment by The Pixie — September 19, 2007 @ 6:38 am
September 19th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Christians have a wider range of degrees of belief in unguided evolution possible to them than Atheists. G K Chesterton summed it up as such:
"There is a very special sense in which materialism has more restrictions than spiritualism. Mr. McCabe thinks me a slave because I am not allowed to believe in determinism. I think Mr. McCabe a slave because he is not allowed to believe in fairies. But if we examine the two vetoes we shall see that his is really much more of a pure veto than mine. The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. Poor Mr. McCabe is not allowed to retain even the tiniest imp, though it might be hiding in a pimpernel."
Comment by WinglesS — September 19, 2007 @ 11:47 am
September 19th, 2007 at 11:58 am
WinglesS,
Very cool Chesterton quote.
Can anybody write like that anymore?
Comment by David Heddle — September 19, 2007 @ 11:58 am
September 19th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
WinglesS,
What a strange Chesterton quote. And stranger still that you and David (a working scientist) seem to approve of it.
Chesterton seems to think that one first chooses a philosophy, which from then on determines what one is "allowed" to believe. While it's true that religious believers tend to do this, it's hardly the ideal approach for those who are interested in the truth. When your philosophy no longer comports with the facts, it's time to ditch it — not to ask slavishly what you are and aren't "allowed" to believe.
In Chesterton's view, the more one is "allowed" to believe, the better. But a scientist desires the opposite, which is to rule out alternatives on the basis of reason and evidence.
Comment by keiths — September 19, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
September 19th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Hi Pixie,
Yes, and that is how Darwin understood "˜creationist' also. More wisdom from the article:
And then this:
Whoa! You know what this means, Pixie? I'm not a creationist; I'm a Darwinist. My views simply pick up from where Darwin left off. And given that most critics hate it when you call them Darwinists (one reason I don't do this), I'm more than happy to be labeled as a Darwinist (as it would be more accurate than the term, creationist).
MikeGene "“ ID Darwinist.
Comment by MikeGene — September 19, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
September 20th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Comment by Zachriel — September 20, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
September 20th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Not the sentiments of a creationist. One does not need to know the origin of matter in order to study it. But the same can be said for life. We can comprehend the way a cell functions without understanding anything about its origin. OTOH, those who think like Darwin are in no position to make scientific statements about the relationship between origins and teleology given a lack of empirical guidance.
Comment by Bradford — September 20, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Almost always ignored by creationists, which means of course, Darwin is not a creationist.
Stop playing Humpty Dumpty with the words. Fact is Darwin had rather deep, rather orthodox theological views. He usually tipped his hat to faith and religion, not out of fear of offending his wife, but out of respect to the church and the faith, and the strength of the ideas. All of this is on display in Darwin's writings — but as your amazement shows here, mining Darwin for what Darwin thought is not a custom of creationism or defenders of intelligent design by any name.
Just as there are no labs that do research in alternatives to Darwinian theory among the creationist/ID-io crowd, so there are few who bother to read the work of the man they love to condemn. And so they stumble over and recycle Bishop Wilberforce's ill-thought arguments time and time again. Santayana was right — but who knows it if no one reads it?
Comment by Anonymous — September 22, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Hi anonymous,
Welcome to Telic Thoughts. You write:
I doubt Chris Cosans reads TT. If you have a problem with his words, you could also write up a response for the professional literature (where those words appeared).
Comment by MikeGene — September 22, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
September 25th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Bradford wrote:
"One does not need to know the origin of matter in order to study it. But the same can be said for life. We can comprehend the way a cell functions without understanding anything about its origin."
Indeed, which is why Darwin never speculated on the origin of life, or matter (or gravity, etc.) in any of his published works. In other words, he agreed entirely with Newton's hypotheses non fingo*. This why we concluded in our evolution/design seminar last summer at Cornell that ID as it is presently constituted poses no threat to Darwinian evolutionary theory at all. To be more specific, Michael Behe completely accepts "common descent, with modification," and William Dembski has repeatedly asserted that CSI is almost entirely focussed on the origin of life and the origin of the genetic code, neither of which Darwin wrote about in his published works. In other words, ID leaves the whole of Darwin's Origin of Species completely untouched.
–Allen
*See: http://members.tripod.com/~gra...
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — September 25, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
September 25th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
It is also significant in the context of this thread that the only two books that Darwin enjoyed reading at Cambridge (while pursuing a degree in Anglican theology) were William Paley's A View of the Evidence of Christianity and Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature. Indeed, he mentions in his autobiography that these were his "favorite" books at Cambridge, and that he most enjoyed Paley's form of argument, which he emulated as much as possible in the Orign of Species.
–Allen
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — September 25, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
September 25th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Darwin wrote:
"In order to pass the B.A. examination, it was, also, necessary to get up Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy. . . The logic of this book and as I may add of his Natural Theology gave me as much delight as did Euclid. The careful study of these works, without attempting to learn any part by rote, was the only part of the Academical Course which, as I then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me in the education of my mind. I did not at that time trouble myself about Paley's premises; and taking these on trust I was charmed and convinced of the long line of argumentation."
Charles Darwin. Autobiography
From: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/h...
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — September 25, 2007 @ 3:10 pm