“Darwin was fully aware that his idea was a frontal assault
on the very notion of an intelligent Designer behind the world.
In fact, he might very well have formulated it precisely for that
purpose. The idea of a spiritual realm apart from matter seems
to have been anathema to him as a young man already. The
primary inspiration for his theory of natural selection did not
come from observation of nature. Perhaps not incidentally, his
writings also reveal glimpses of specific antipathy to the God
of the Bible, especially concerning His right to judge unbelievers
in eternity.”
Carl Wieland, “Darwin’s Real Message, Have You Missed It?” Creation Ex Nihilo (14(4):16-19, Sept.-Nov. 1992).
Wieland claims that Darwin developed evolution to propagate his anti-Christian feelings, rather than to find the best explanation of the data.
My view is that there probably are a significant number of devout Christians who also helped develop the scientific theory of evolution. Thus, the motives of these scientists would be above suspicion. I’m thinking of Alfred Russel Wallace. He independently discovered a view of evolution essentially the same as Darwin. If I remember correctly, he was a strong Christian. Wasn’t Theodore Dobzhansky also a Christian?
Is there anyway of finding/making a list of leading evolutionists who are Christians?
My claim is that Wieland’s slander falls apart when we consider all the people of faith who have contributed to formulating and promoting the theory of evolution.
Can I simply note that in most of the world, there is no difficulty in compassing the concepts that (1) There is a God who created the world and the laws governing how it functions, and that Jesus Christ was in some way His Son, and (2) the present diversity of species came about through evolutionary processes including mutation, natural selection, adaptation for econiches, etc.
Wieland is full of shit. Darwin went to college, studying to become a clergyman. He was a mediocre student and his father enrolled him, but the claim that CD felt disgust for Christianity and set out on some form of vendetta, has no basis in fact.
I think it would only be correct to include people who were involved in the development of other branches of natural science, particularly geology, where again, the observable evidence provoked the formulation of explanations other than a simple strict reading of the Biblical account. There seems to be quite a good overview of it here: http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/darwin/sect2.htm
If you absolutely need a list, certainly Dobzhansky, using Mendel’s genetics information has to go near the top as he pretty much created neo-Darwinism.
A current list would need to include Kenneth Miller, who has written several works on the subject of recogizing God while not going astray with Creationism or Intelligent design. Father George V. Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory has criticized Intelligent Design both scientifically and theologically. Michael J. Ghedotti is a believing biologist with a pro-evolutionary science web page.
On the other hand, I would note that all my decent sources have been Catholics–which might be a serous citation error when dealing with a certain brand of Creationist.
It is more important to note, I suspect, that Wieland is practicing bad science, bad history, and bad theology without makig an issue of who might oppose him. There is nothing in Darwin’s writings that have ever suggested he actually wanted to oppose religious belief: that is simply a lie.
(I think the claims that he studied for the clergy are also weak counter arguments. He appears to have been either an agnostic or a soft atheist, depending on how one reads his letters or defines those terms. I believe that like Mark Twain, the death of a beloved daughter seriously challenged any religious beliefs he might have held in his youth.)
Darwin did get much less devout as he got older, though, and in his autobiography described himself as an agnostic, and that he had lost his earlier religious faith. Weiland is also right that Darwin, in his autobiography, was opposed to the idea that God would punish unbelievers.
This, of course, doesn’t support Weiland’s more general point that Darwin was hostile to the idea of an intelligent designer when he started to develop his theory, or that he developed the theory for that reason. That’s clearly wrong in the one direction. But it’s also important, I think, not to go in the other direction and make him sing hymns while he was writing his books.
This post was originally made before I saw Tomndebb’s, so it wasn’t a response to his, and, in fact, I agree with him regarding Darwin’s probable views.
It’s also pretty patently absurd in the face of Wallace, who developed pretty much the exact same theory as Darwin, at the exact same time, and who was and remained a devout Christian.
I’m not very familiar with Teilhard de Chardin, but I’ve heard of him as a Christian theologian who also assisted evolutionary thought.
By the way, here is a link to Wieland’s full article:
Surprisingly, Wieland (mis)quotes Gould (!) as the source for the real meaning of Darwin’s evolution – that Darwin invented his theory in order to undermine Christianity. Wieland writes:
Gould argues that Darwin’s theory is inherently anti-plan, anti-purpose, anti-meaning (in other words, is pure philosophical materialism). Also, that Darwin himself knew this very well and meant it to be so.
Unfortunately, Wieland is probably quite convincing to some Christians who are on guard against any type of plot to oppose Christianity. I think, then, that individuals such as Richard Dawkins are doing a disservice to science education by attempting to use science to promote atheism.
Wieland seems to be laboring under the common false presumption that evolutionary theory in any way rests on Darwin’s authority or say so. I’ve seen this kind of thing a lot from creationists. they think if they can convince you that Darwin was a God-hating atheist or a racist or a liar or somehow of bad character, that they have some discredited the TOE itself. The fable about Darwin repenting on his death bed is another version of this. It’s like they think science is all about assertions from authority and that discrediting the authority discredits the science. Some of them seem to think that acceptance of evolution is based solely on Darwin’s say-so – like he was a philosopher or a preacher or something. Maybe that’s a symptom of those who are isololated in religionist, anti-scientific subcultures or upbringings where all truth comes from perceived authority (the Bible, Pastor Bob) and just assume that science is another version of the same thing. Like it’s a competing church or something.
Most creationists that I’ve met are impervious to reason, so I don’t think Dawkins is the problem-- the creationists are. People who find scientific “answers in Genesis” are the ones doing the disservice to science education.
Yes, though in the end Father Pierre was also quite off the official mainstream both as a priest/theologian and as a paleontologist , so “establishment” types in both fields can distance themselves just as far
Y’know, Tom~'s got a point, that’s an awful lot of* Catholics* on the evolutionary bandwagon… … must be some Jesuit plot
If you are going to blame someone for undermining a literal interpretation of Genesis, shouldn’t it be God? He is the one who laid down fossils in strata that shows a gradual transition from simple to complex, shared a common blueprint among divergent species, created radioactive decay that shows the earth is old, and has light reaching the earth that appears to have left its source 100s of millions of years ago.
I didn’t want this point to be overlooked, so I’m calling it out. I agree that this is one of the more interesting unspoken subtexts in this debate: the creationist types keep getting apparently sidetracked in attacks on the people as if it makes a difference. Some creationists attempt to attack the science, or provide alternate science (Behe, for example, however crappy his work might be), but for whatever reason the argument almost invariably slips into accusations of personal motive: Darwin wanted to destroy the church, Dawkins wants to kill God, whatever. It betrays a fundamental misconception of what science is and how it works, as if why somebody advances a set of facts has anything to do with the rigor and reliability with which those facts can be established, and demonstrates that the two sides really are talking past one another.
… must be some Jesuit plot 