From here:
Speaking on misconceptions about Darwin's Origins of the Species, Brooke said: "the book is not an atheistic book. Darwin makes several references to the Creator and indeed adds more for subsequent editions where he argues that the Universe is not self-explanatory and that it is not unreasonable to refer to a creator."
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
September 18th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Heck, "theistic evolutionist" isn't half the story.
Check this out:
http://tinyurl.com/374kee
As I recently told my Biola MA students, On the Origin of Species could probably not be used as a primary text in any public high school biology classroom, unless the book were extensively redacted.
Comment by P A Nelson — September 18, 2007 @ 8:58 am
September 18th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
OT: Scott Ott of Scrappleface: New Lack of Evidence Boosts Certainty of Darwinism
:grin:
Comment by todd — September 18, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
September 18th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
From P.A.Nelson's link:
But doesn't Darwin (in a later edition?) wishfully think that life might have arisen through natural processes in a "warm, little pond"
But certainly Kenneth Miller thinks that Darwin was a theistic evolutionist, just as Miller is; which is why Miller titled his book, Finding Darwin's God.
Comment by Bilbo — September 18, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
September 18th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
From my reading of Darwin - and I'm far from a historian on the matter - I always regarded Darwin as more or less being a theist/deist who underwent doubts at times. Others' mileage will certainly vary.
Comment by nullasalus — September 18, 2007 @ 8:35 pm
September 18th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
nullasalus:
Don't we all? Darwin wasn't so unusual. He intuited the whole natural selection/differential reproduction thing, which explains quite a bit. Though it didn't attempt to explain origin of life, and he believed variation was quite Lamarckian by nature. It sort of tickles me what a demigod he's become for the 'New Atheists' and their underlings. I doubt he'd be all that tickled, though.
Ignoring issues that Darwin recognized hasn't made the NDS stronger. Pretending to know things they don't know hasn't made it look any stronger either. There might be no answers on this side of time. THAT is something that might need to be factored as a consideration at some point in these interminable games.
Comment by Joy — September 18, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
September 19th, 2007 at 9:44 am
"Warm little pond" was speculation in Darwin's private correspondence. In the multiple editions of the Origin, he never varied from arguing that the first life was divinely created.
Comment by P A Nelson — September 19, 2007 @ 9:44 am
September 19th, 2007 at 10:07 am
The point being? It is still relevant for this discussion–in fact one might argue that given the era and the emotionally charged nature of his theory that his private correspondence is more likely to reveal his actual beliefs.
But I have to say, personally I don't care. It doesn't matter one iota in the evolution-ID debate whether Darwin was an atheist or a theistic evolutionist, other than a minor talking point for one side or the other. Of course political advantage is a big part of this game from the perspective of the ID Movement, which is crying discrimination and persecution so often that instead of the Isaac Newtons of this or that, I now see them as the Al Sharptons of this or that.
Comment by David Heddle — September 19, 2007 @ 10:07 am
September 19th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
The point being that it was OK for Darwin to invoke an intelligent cause but espousing the same view today does open up one to discrimination. That is unless you view cases such as Richard Sternberg and Guillermo Gonzalez as something other than discrimination.
Comment by Eric T — September 19, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
September 20th, 2007 at 8:27 am
David,
Which complaints about discrimination are bogus? It seems the paper trail supports the claims most touted on ID blogs.
Comment by todd — September 20, 2007 @ 8:27 am
September 20th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Hi David,
If you haven't read it, take a look at Neal Gillespie's classic treatment of this question, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1979), esp. Chapter 7:
Any historically nuanced discussion of the meaning of "science" — e.g., one that takes into account the actual content of books like the Origin — wrecks the politically useful, but descriptively false, definitions employed in legal controversies such as the Dover trial.
Comment by P A Nelson — September 20, 2007 @ 8:30 am
September 20th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Paul,
Thanks for the information.
Allow me to clarify: as a scientist I don't care whether Darwin was an atheist or not. As a Christian I hope he was not. As someone with a modest but not consuming interest in history, I find the question of some interest. As it pertains to litigation or the culture wars–well, I personally find those activities to be so unsupported biblically that I cannot make myself look at them abstractly and assess whether Darwin's beliefs are important, but I'm willing to concede that it appears, based on the comments of those who do operate in that sphere, that they are.
Comment by David Heddle — September 20, 2007 @ 8:50 am
September 20th, 2007 at 9:05 am
The relevant question isn't Darwin's personal belief (although that, as you note, has historical interest of its own), but rather the content of his theories. Asking "was Darwin a theistic evolutionist" or "creationist" or whatever is simply a shorthand for "What do Darwin's theories assert about the world?"
As to litigation and culture wars: in general, I agree with you. Employing the tools of power in questions of truth is never a good idea, and usually ends in some cultural disaster (e.g., Dover) or another.
On the other hand, to be free to speak about the truth, the Apostle Paul (see Acts) used every right he possessed as a Roman citizen.
Comment by P A Nelson — September 20, 2007 @ 9:05 am
September 20th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Paul:
I don't see how. It seems to me that asking "is Darwin's theory correct?" is the shorthand for "What do Darwin's theories assert about the world?"
At the moment I am finally reading, as opposed to browsing, The Origin of the Species. (Aside: here is something new we can blame on Darwin: oversized, back-breaking textbooks! If I were the head of the California school board"”the only school board that really matters in textbook issues"”I'd perform a duty to mankind by placing a weight limit on textbooks.) Anyhow, while reading Origin I haven't considered whether or not Darwin was an atheist, and I don't see how whether or not I knew his beliefs would impact my evaluation.
To say that Darwin's beliefs affect his science is to start sounding very PZ-ian.
As for St. Paul, of course: speak the truth. But you'll note that Paul never organized politically, and his truth speaking was virtually limited to (1) preaching the gospel to unbelievers and (2) reminding believers about the gospel and telling believers how to behave regardless of their circumstances. Jesus (in a move exactly opposite to what the dispensationalists teach) literally ran away from the offer of political power. And he paid the Roman and Temple tax, partially funding his own murder, rather than organizing a "moral majority" that opposed taxation and Roman immorality. And no apostle that I am aware of ever advocated joining forces with heretics (say, for a modern example, Moonies) to fight immorality. They would, I feel confident, have witnessed to the heretic and not teamed up with him for any ministry until such time as he converted.
Comment by David Heddle — September 20, 2007 @ 9:53 am
September 20th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Paul:
If the descent with modification aspect of Darwin's theory is correct what does that say to you about the world? More specifically, what does that say about whether or not life is designed? Since Judge Jones has linked ID to religion in a legal fiat, are the religious beliefs of IDists any more relevant than those of Darwin?
Comment by Bradford — September 20, 2007 @ 10:23 am
September 20th, 2007 at 10:36 am
David Heddle:
I hear you on this one! Particularly since high schools stopped allowing students to visit lockers during the day (ours doesn't bother assigning them anymore) for "security reasons." Grandson's advanced biology book weighs at least 12 pounds! It is required for the course, teacher - an excellent Ph.D. on assignment from Duke - gave 'em out and told the students to leave them at home. He will not be teaching from or to that damned book.
A textbook that takes itself SOOO seriously that it would rather break kids' backs than teach them anything useful is completely worthless. There ought to be a law!
Comment by Joy — September 20, 2007 @ 10:36 am
September 20th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
I'm kind of confused here. Those seem like entirely distinct questions. "Is Darwin's theory correct?" would be a good follow up question to "What do Darwin's theories assert about the world?" but it's not shorthand for it.
What Paul said made sense in the context that he said it. When we ask "Was Darwin a creationist?" we don't mean "Was Darwin, in his personal heart of hearts, a creationist?" but rather "are the contents of Darwin's published theories creationist in what they say about the world [based on the standards it takes nowadays to get something declared creationist]?"
Comment by Deuce — September 20, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
September 20th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Deuce,
I must be missing the boat. It's probably my fault. I am dense when science discussions wax philosophical.
How can a scientific theory be creationist? Is general relativity creationist in what is says about the world? Is statistical mechanics? Is evolution? The question makes no sense to me. The theories either stand up to experimental scrutiny or they don't. At most they might be applied to say something about a specific theology, such as YEC-ism. Unless geology, quantum mechanics, astronomy, and cosmology are all conspiring to give the same wrong answer, then they make an overwhelming scientific case that the YEC view is wrong. But even then, they are not creationist or anti-creationist. They are just what they are.
Maybe you could give a clear example of how Darwin's published theories could be creationist in what they say about the world.
Comment by David Heddle — September 20, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
September 20th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
David Heddle:
I laughed when I read this because I remember reading an article about a year ago in which the author used almost your exact words. Instead of writing dense however he wrote that eyes glazed over. Let me see if I can help. Science has implications for non-scientific fields including philosophy. That effect has probably been underestimated by many including most scientists. It is not as if scientific data changes by invoking a philosophical framework within which to assess a theory. Rather differing extrapolations of data are likely to occur particularly when the philosophical implications impact values that are near and dear to many.
I brought up Judge Jones in a previous comment because it helps illustrate why Darwin might be considered a creationist by today's standards which are philosophical and legal in nature. There has clearly been an attempt to link the plausibility of any arguments favorable to design to secondary implications that can be drawn from them when such implications favor what Jones and like minded people consider theism. It is as if one better not think certain thoughts about DNA and the code by which it functions or be branded a creationst; a label that has been deliberately imputed with a negative connotation by anti-IDists.
It is my understanding that Darwin wrestled with the creator's influence on a physical process. That alone can be heretical. Darwin also understood that his natural selection process was applicable to existing, replicating organisms and that his theory must presuppose the existence of life. He did not appear averse to letting God in through the back door to reverse a phrase of a relatively well known anti-theist. Since terms like creationist can have severe legal effects within the USA, speculation as to whether an individual or the concepts he advocates are indeed "creationist" is an important consideration.
Comment by Bradford — September 20, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
September 20th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
What about the parts where he refers to a "Creator" to account for the original form(s) of life, which is the original topic of this thread? That's certainly part of his published work and explanation for life. I guess you could declare that those parts of his work are automatically not "theories" because they're non-naturalistic, but that's definitional ju-jitsu more than anything.
Well, yeah, technically only people can be for-this or anti-that, not propositions, and theories are collections of propositions. Technically, in that sense, the proposition "God created the world 6,000 years ago" isn't creationist either. It just is what it is. It's the person who believes the proposition that is a creationist. So if you want to be ultra-super-duper-logic-choppy about this, I guess the question could be rephrased as "are the contents of Darwin's published theories such that a person would be considered a creationist if they were to believe them [based on the standards it takes nowadays to get someone declared creationist]?"
Note, personally I don't think that Darwin could reasonably be construed as a creationist, and this whole thing has little more than historical interest for me also. I do think that if someone were to publicly make his statements today regarding abiogenesis, however, that they would almost certainly be labeled creationist in short order, which I find mildly ironic.
Comment by Deuce — September 20, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 8:08 am
Darwin was speaking poetically and non-scientifically when he invoked a Creator to explain the origin of life.
Comment by Zachriel — September 21, 2007 @ 8:08 am
September 21st, 2007 at 8:22 am
Please check the moderation queue. Thank you.
Comment by Zachriel — September 21, 2007 @ 8:22 am
September 21st, 2007 at 10:05 am
Zach, maybe you can toss up that rigid definition of science you drag around with you. Is the whispering of a muse scientific?
Hypotheses can be scientific in nature - and you claim that dreams can yield hypotheses…. are those scientific dreams?
I'm curious - when a scientist works under the assumption of the uniformity of nature are they doing science? If a scientist is working under assumptions that can't be proven true by the scientific method are the results his work yields scientific?
Comment by Doug — September 21, 2007 @ 10:05 am
September 21st, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Doug,
What is "the assumption of the uniformity of nature?"
Comment by David Heddle — September 21, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 2:51 pm
David,
Isn't it assumed that nature is uniform? That the laws of nature are consistent spacially and temporally. This is an assumption that scientists work under. If it wasn't then there would be no grounds to extrapolate into the past, into the future, or into untestable realms of the universe.
Comment by Doug — September 21, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Doug,
But those aren't untested assumptions. Spatial uniformity (translational invariance) implies conservation of momentum. Temporal uniformity implies conservation of energy. Rotational uniformity implies conservation of angular momentum. All of these have been tested.
Comment by David Heddle — September 21, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 3:06 pm
David,
Are you claiming that there are not presuppositions in science?
Or…. are you claiming that the uniformity of nature is tested and confirmed? Therefore not an assumption.
Please do understand that even if one had a hypothesis (nature is uniform) and one set out to test such a hypothesis and the results supported that uniformity, one wouldn't be able to claim, "I've proved my hypothesis that nature is uniform." It could always be the case that some set of data would contradict the claim. And how would you even test the claim historically? How could you test now that nature was uniform then?
The best you could even do with a claim is state that it isn't currently falsified.
Comment by Doug — September 21, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Doug,
You lost me. Uncle. All I know is this:
1) If the universe is invariant under spatial translations, then momentum should be conserved. Well, momentum is conserved.
2) If the universe is invariant under time translations, then energy should be conserved. Well, energy is conserved.
3) If the universe is invariant under rotations, then angular momentum should be conserved. Well, angular momentum is conserved.
See Noether's Theorem.
I believe there is a presupposition in science: namely that nature is orderly and comprehensible–that is, before we do science we presuppose that science is not a fool's errand.
Comment by David Heddle — September 21, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 3:45 pm
The uniformity of the whole of the cosmos is not something that can be proven by an isolated bit of data here and an isolated bit of data there.
And if it wasn't assumed from the get-go there would be no reason to probe the cosmos to find order - it wouldn't even be a cosmos, it would be a chaos.
Also, data always underdetermine the hypothesis. So the conclusions on all hypotheses are tentative - the best that can be said is that they currently aren't falsified.
But if we treated the uniformity of the whole cosmic backdrop as just another hypothesis in need of empirical support - a hypothesis that could never be conclusively shown to be true (just that it currently hasn't been falsified) - then what condition do we leave our 2nd order hypotheses that labor under that assumption of uniformity in nature?
Comment by Doug — September 21, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Er, I don't think "poetically" is the word here, at least not for all the times it was used. The word "Creator" had a pretty clear and universal meaning at the time. As he explained himself in his letter that you quoted "But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process." In other words, he was speaking literally rather than poetically, but also rather obfuscatorily in order to assuage public opinion by leaving God somewhere in the picture, even though he personally thought it was ridiculous to do so.
Comment by Deuce — September 21, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 6:15 pm
The definition of the Scientific Method I often refer to is orthodox and consistent with other such definitions.
Dreams are dreams. Dreaming of a snake swallowing its tail is not a scientific assertion or a hypothesis. However, such a dream can lead to a valid scientific hypothesis.
Scientists work under all sorts of assumptions, many of them incorrect.
The results are judged by their fit to the data and their ability to predict novel observations.
We can assign relative confidence levels to results, such as with statistical analysis. We might say a result is as sure as the Dawn. Do you wish to bet against our ability to predict the rising and setting of the Sun?
Comment by Zachriel — September 21, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 6:21 pm
David Heddle wrote:
This is misleadingly stated, and it doesn't deal with Doug's point.
It's misleadingly stated because although these conservation laws are indeed mathematical consequences of the assumption that the laws of physics are invariant under spatial, temporal, and rotational translations, neither the conservation of momentum, of energy, and of angular momentum nor the invariance of the laws and constants of physics is an observed fact at every region of spacetime, since, er, not every region of spacetime has been investigated to see if the relevant laws, constants, and quantities are in fact invariant and/or conserved in every such region. If there is some spacetime region where one of these quantities is not in fact conserved, then the laws of physics are not in fact invariant under spatial, and/or temporal, and/or rotational translations. And there might be such a region, for all we know.
For example, the conservation of energy is a consequence of the assumption, not an observation, that the laws and constant of physics do not change as time passes. So if one grants Doug the minimal concession that no physical observer has observed the entire history of the universe to see if the laws and constants of physics actually did change at some time, then it might be the case that energy is not (perfectly and uniformly) conserved in our universe.
Thus David's response does not really address Doug's point, but treats the entire universe as having certain properties on the basis of an induction. But as Hume famously pointed out, no law of nature is ever entailed by any inductive reasoning.
And in fact, there is some reason to think that certain quantities are not conserved. At 'times' shorter than the Planck time after the Big Bang started, energy may have disobeyed the conservation law. It may have 'flowed into' our universe from something other than our universe. More recently, Randall-Sundrum models have hypothesized that gravitational energy may also 'leak' from our universe.
Comment by stunney — September 21, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 6:28 pm
The Concluding Remarks in Origin of Species was clearly waxing poetical. As to the specific term, in context, it reads quite vaguely. His admission does indicate that he was truckling to public opinion. So your point is taken. But I still wouldn't take it at face value.
In context of his other thoughts, he regrets that he mixed the science with vague Deism because of what others insisted upon reading into them. When I read Darwin, I have no doubt that he thinks it is possible in concept to study the mechanisms of abiogenesis, and I don't find his invocation of a Creator to cover the Gap was meant literally.
Comment by Zachriel — September 21, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Stunney,
It can't be very misleadingly stated, since it is found, more or less as I presented it, in any number of elementary physics books.
Comment by David Heddle — September 21, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 8:34 pm
David Heddle wrote:
Well, so much the worse for any number of elementary physics books, because I'm afraid it is misleading, particularly in the context of the discussion you were having with Doug, and of topics of general interest to this blog.
You had written:
[Emphases added]
My comment assumed—-not unreasonably, I think—-that neither you nor anyone else has observed the entirety of the universe to see if momentum, and energy, and angular momentum are in fact always conserved in the universe as a whole, especially given the problematic nature of a big bang for observation in general, and for observing whether such conservation laws hold good in particular.
Comment by stunney — September 21, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:18 am
David Heddle:
But you forgot the qualifier that comes attached. These laws apply to closed systems. And even there they catch some grief on both the universal and quantum levels. Some of the multiverse speculations undermine the assumptive extrapolations of conservation laws as well.
A closed system is one in which the properties of interest are not affected by external influences. Which, when you get right down to it, is an ideal state of isolation that doesn't actually exist. For all its usefulness in given applications, it's as FAPP as everything else in science. IOW, non-absolute.
Comment by Joy — September 22, 2007 @ 10:18 am
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:15 pm
David asked:
I'll send you (via email) the pdf of Cosan's paper.
Darwin's "creationism" in the Origin was not YEC, obviously, but the logic of his scientific reasoning employed theological premises about the proper mode of conceiving God's action.
Consider, for instance, this passage:
The importance Darwin attached to this view — namely, that God created via the secondary laws He established — is reflected by his citation of Whewell's Bridgewater Treatise, as one of two epigraphs opening the Origin:
Creation via the instrument(s) of natural laws. Darwin's usage of "Creator" here and elsewhere in the Origin is not accidental.
Comment by P A Nelson — September 22, 2007 @ 12:15 pm