|
Darwin in Church
Man in his arrogance thinks himself a great work. worthy the interposition of a deity, more
humble & I believe true to consider him created from animals. (Charles Darwin)
This is a fundamentally Christian appeal: Pride leads the list of the Seven Deadly Sins,
and Humility the list of the Seven Theological Virtues - sometimes wryly renamed the Seven Deadly Virtues. The other
major contributors to western thought, the Greeks, thought distinctly otherwise of pride and humility.
Fortunately, while reading Charles Darwin's "The Voyage of the Beagle," I had dog-eared
the page whereon our intrepid scientist, whose "Origin of Species" and "Descent of Man" would later set
the church on its ear, records attending Sunday service at a Tahitian mission church in Papiete:
Sunday October 22 "The chapel
consisted of a large airy framework of wood; and it was filled to excess by tidy, clean people,
of all ages and both sexes... At all events the appearance was quite equal to that in a country church in England.
The singing of the hymns was decidedly very pleasing, but the [sermon in Tahitian] language from the pulpit, although fluently
delivered [was rendered monotonous by] a constant repetition of words, like 'tata ta, mata mai.'"
Darwin felt compelled to form an opinion on the Tahitians' moral state because two previous voyagers' accounts had
left the impression that the natives were happy savages made miserable by the missionaries.
October 18 "Before we laid ourselves down to sleep, the elder Tahitian fell on his knees, and
with closed eyes repeated a long prayer in his native tongue. He prayed as a Christian should do, with fitting reverence,
and without the fear of ridicule or any ostentation of piety... Those travellers who think that a Tahitian prays
only when the eyes of the missionary are fixed on him, should have slept with us that night on the mountain-side."
October 20 "[Critics of Christian missionaries] forget, or will not remember, that human sacrifices
and the power of an idolatrous priesthood - a system of profligacy unparalleled... infanticide a consequence of that system
- bloody wars, where the conquerors spared neither women nor children - that all these have been abolished; and that dishonesty,
intemperance, and licentiousness have been greatly reduced by the introduction of Christianity."
Viewing Darwin's remarks from another country 170 years later, it is glaringly apparent that the
Golden Yardstick by which he measures is that of his own clime and time - the English country church, the sincere
& unaffected style of English praying, the Victorian concern with the native Tahitians' "licentiousness,"
even his willingness to evaluate a sermon in a language he does not know in terms of how it sounds to his English ears.
It is a truism among Anglicans that Darwin was a good Anglican who was somewhat bemused by all the fuss
his theories caused. Like most truisms, though fundamentally false, there's some truth in it.
The BBC furnishes a good study of the, er, evolution of Darwin's thought in the context of religious
beliefs of his time, and the beliefs his parents raised him with.
Also good, and more complete, is the Wikipedia article on Darwin's views on religion:
From that source, here's another Darwin quote:
"I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious
selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of
real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence
it came from and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I
am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again
I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to me to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of
man's intellect; but man can do his duty."
Again the humble appeal to humility. As for duty, Darwin dutifully remained on the governing
committee of his parish, even after the death of his daughter left him unable to attend services in good conscience - until
the advent of a reform-minded vicar. Even then, he did not entirely stop contributing to the good works of the parish.
After all, as Darwin had been at some pains to prove in his second book, belief in God & good
morals has survival value.
+++
Don Hockaday, Re. Survival of the Unfittest: Lysenkoism
I think we have all agreed to disagree on specifics in the discussion of mainstream science vs. religious
ideology, and this post is not meant to rekindle it. I just thought I would provide an informational post on an important
historical figure who seems to be ignored in history courses: Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (1898-1976). I asked two people with
M.S.degrees in biology if they know who he was, and neither did.
Lysenko held back the Soviet economy to a level
the free world was able to deal with the Soviet threat. I consider him a significant factor in the eventual collapse of the
Soviet Union because it took them too long to overcome the damage he did. His influence lasted into the early 1960s.
Evolution
history lesson first -- Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) was, and still is, very well respected by the scientific community.
He made important contributions to biology. Before Charles Darwin was born, Lamarck began publishing works explaining
his views on evolution. The basic theory is described as 'inheritance of acquired characteristics.' The usual
example is giraffes' necks became longer over generations because giraffes stretched their necks to reach higher and higher
leaves. Darwin (who didn't reject Lamarck completely) argued giraffes have long necks because those with longer necks were
more likely to survive and reproduce. There was disagreement in the scientific community throughout the end of the 19th century
on the relative merits of the theories. Darwin's theory was accepted by the scientific community in the early 20th century
primarily because of the rediscovery of Mendel's genetics laws in 1900 followed by much genetic research, including Russian.
However,
Lamarck's theory was not discarded in the Soviet Union. 'Lamarckism' was seen to support Marxist ideology under Stalin. The
workers' struggles made socialists and socialism stronger. This was the situation, although benign, before Lysenko rose to
prominence as a champion of modified Lamarckism. Among other important posts, he became the director of the National Academy
of Genetics even though he rejected genetics outright as a bourgeois pseudo-science. He was not at all a scientist. One of
his quotes is:
"In order to obtain a certain result, You must want to obtain precisely that result; if you want to
obtain a certain result, you will obtain it .... I need only such people as will obtain the results I need."
Only
studies were published, and only scientists rewarded, if they agreed with Lysenko. This eventually grew to serious, outright
repression of the others. The larger problem was that Lysenko's programs drove Soviet agriculture and, combined with
the problems of communal farming, sent Soviet agriculture on the road to ruin -- pulling the economy down with it. His practices
were exported to Communist China's agriculture program which resulted in 30 million people starving to death in the Chinese
famine of 1958-1961.
Government influence of science and scientists to fit political ideology came to be known as 'Lysenkoism.'
I just thought you might want to file this for possible future reference just in case it might come up some time.
...
Don -
Right. As our only President once put it, "I believe sound science, and not politics, must prevail."
Re. "mainstream science vs. religious ideology"
While attempting to say something sane about displays of the Ten Commandments on state property, Justice David H.
Souter wrote, "The divisiveness of religion in current public life is inescapable."
In researching Darwin's views on religion, I ran across a Creation Science presentation of Darwin as a manipulative
hypocrite with a hidden agenda:
This article is intellectually irresponsible. It shows neither biographical understanding of Darwin nor historical
understanding of his times. Historical and biographical data are merely used as props in an attack on a fellow, fallible
mortal who once walked this hard path of human life just as do we. The author's failure to go even one mile
with his subject is a failure to follow Jesus Christ as most Christians understand Him.
The Jesus Christ whose Lordship the anonymous writer wishes to establish over science is a petty tyrant lusting
to win a minor debate. His followers - once they descend from the heady ozone of being holier than everyone else
and recover from the adrenaline rush provided by waiting for this tyrant to arrive in person and send everyone who
disagrees with his darlings to blazes - are likely to reflect on their experience somewhat like the country-western singer
who said he'd learned two things in Lubbock: "1) Jesus loves you, and you're going to hell; 2) sex is a filthy, nasty, evil
act, and you should save it for someone you love."
One conclusion Mix and I arrived at via phone conversation about our Coffee Shop debates, is that we have been
talking, at best, *to* one another, at worst *at* one another, and far too little *with* one another. I liked his
suggestion that in school the controversy should be taught. I am hoping to discover the nature of that controversy,
many miles from from the Tulsa Zoo and far beyond the city limits of Lubbock.
+++
Footnote to History - 7/7/05: We're approaching the 80th. Anniversary (July 21) of the Scopes
Trial in Dayton, Tennessee.
"The case's unofficial name: the 'monkey trial.' The lead players: Clarence
Darrow and William Jennings Bryan. The issue: the teaching of evolution and creation in the classroom -- an issue still under
debate today."
+++
P.S. (7/8/05) The Tulsa City Board finally scrapped the Zoo Creation Exhibit idea.
+++
|
