Charles Darwin – Final Product of a Christian Missionary Strategy?
It
has often been noted, that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is
at odds with Christian theology – culminating in the current
“creation – evolution” debate, presupposing that creation and
evolution are contradictions.
I will argue in a series
of blogs that Darwin’s theory of evolution cannot be understood
without the preceding Christian theology of creation, which in itself
is part of a Christian strategy of missionary activity dating back as
early as the time of the Scientific Revolution in the 17th century.
Even a considerable number of the founding fathers of the Royal
Society pursued their scientific activity because of theological
reasons and thus to spread the gospel by scientific inquiry. The
modern shallow alternative between knowledge and believe – which
was created by 19th century materialism – was not at all present at
the time when the Royal Society came into being. It was just the
other way around: Scientific knowledge was regarded to support
believe in the creator.
I want now substantiate my claim that Darwin’s theory of evolution owes its emergence to this kind of theology by portraying the first chairperson of the Royal Society, chairing it from 1660-1662, the Bishop of Chester, John Wilkins (1614-1672).
Wilkins
was as theologian and bishop very much interested in the emergence of
modern science of his time. He belonged to a circle of scholars,
theologians and natural scientists who met to discuss scientific
issues, to perform experiments and to discuss them in
the light of Christian belief. He developed scientific instruments
together with Robert Hooke (1635-1703), one of the famous scientists
of his time, who used extensively the microscope for his research.
Out of this loosely connected circle of intellectuals and scientists
the Royal Society emerged and was founded in 1660. Bishop John
Wilkins became its first chairperson. His most important theological
far reaching goal was to use science as an intellectually convincing
tool to argue on purely rational grounds for the existence of God as
creator. For this purpose he wrote the book “Of the Principles and
Duties of Natural Religion” (first edition 1675). This book
contains a kind of theological framework for the emerging natural
sciences. The idea was that by uncovering the rational structures of
the world by scientific investigation belief in the transcendent
creator would be fostered, because these structures mirror in a
certain way God’s creative power. In this theological book we find
traces of the scientific cooperation with Robert Hooke, for instance
the results of Hooke’s findings with the microscope. In his preface
from 1693 J. Tillotson wrote: “Nothing being more incredible than
that divine Revelation should contradict the clear and unquestionable
dictates of natural light; nor anything more vain, than to fancy that
the grace of God does release man from the laws of nature”1
Thus believing would be the inevitable result of scientific inquiry and vice versa. In this context he formulates the design argument:
„III. Argument from the admirable contrivance of all natural things. From that excellent contrivance which there is in all natural thing: Both with respect to that elegance and beauty which they have in themselves separately considered, and that regular order and subserviency wherein they stand towards one another; together with the exact fitness and propriety, for the several purposes for which are designed. From all which it may be inferred that these are the productions of some Wise Agent“2.
In this text Wilkins uses already Darwin’s key word „fitness“ in the context of a natural theology based on the teleological argument. Also all other controversial notions like “design” and “purpose” are present.
Out of this theological framework a concrete research strategy for the natural world emerged, so that natural science had a theological signature from its very beginning. In the next blog I will portray a number of important scientists who carried out this theological research strategy – until Charles Darwin appeared and changed the whole paradigm. I will start in the next blog with John Ray, theologian and naturalist (1627-1705), founding father of scientific botany in Great Britain.
1 Wilkins, J., 81693, Introduction, p. vi
2 Wilkins, J. 81693, 69
I always thought that the argument from design originated with William Paley, so I had to look this up. It turns out the idea was first formalised by Thomas Aquinas, in the 13th century! I guess this argument had already been around for a long time, when Wilkins wrote his book.
Dear Wolfgang,
I am very excited to see you here at Scilogs.eu! I agree that evolutionary theory had some predecessors which are worth exploring!
From the perspective of my field, the scientific study of religion, I'd like to point out to the explorers of language. Preceding the biologists, they used terms as "evolution" and "genetisch" to point out shared roots and historical diversification of different languages and cultures, even reconstructing shared indogerman (now: indoeuropean) origins of Greek, Indian and other languages and religious systems. Friedrich August von Hayek once put it, that "Any social scientist of the 18th century who needed Darwin to teach him the principles of evolution wasn't worth his salt."
This doesn't diminish the tremendous work and courage of Darwin and Wallace, but helps to understand the history of science. I am eagerly looking forward to your next post, Wolfgang!
Michael
There are a few reasons that Charles Darwin's evolution theory could not be accepted:
a) How could human beings be evolved from apes as apes could not converse in human languages?
b) How could human beings be evolved from apes as apes' languages do not sound alike as compared to human languages?
c) How could human beings be evolved from apes as all the voices of apes sound alike and none could be the same as human beings?
d) Some might argue that human beings speak in English languages nowadays differ from one country to another, such as, United Kingdom, Canadia, America, and Australia to prove that languages could be evolving. However, they fail to understand that the reason why English languages have been formed due to they tend to adopt words from foreign languages. Refer to the origin of English as spelt out in the website as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/...of_the_English_language
This website gives us a clear information that English languages have been formed not because of the evolution of languages but due to they have direct influence from West Germanic.
No matter how languages would have been transformed as a result of the influence of foreign countries, they are stil human languages and none of them would sound like apes.
For instance, if human languages would be evolved from apes' languages, they would do the same to use apes' languages that would be from regions or countries. How could human languages be evolved from apes as none of human beings could speak the same sound as apes? Not only that,all the apes' languages sound alike and none of them sound like human languages.
Let's give you an example. The word, computer, in English has been used in Spanish as, Computadora. In Portuguese, the word, English, has turned up to be computador. When the word, computer, in English has been used in Malay or Indonesian language, it would turn up to be Komputer. Don't we find the similarity among them in writing. They simply borrow words from other countries and modify to be their languages.
Yet apes' languages are entirely different from human beings. None of human beings sound alike as apes, how could human beings be evolved from apes?
No matter how apes' languages differ from one region to another or from one country to another, all the apes sound alike. No matter how human languages differ from one region to another or from one country to another, none of the human languages sound like apes and not even one of their spoken words, sound like apes. How could human beings be evolved from apes?
e) All of the apes have black pupils and none of the apes have green or blue eyes' pupils. Only human beings have green or blue pupils. As none of the apes have green or blue pupils, how could human beings be evolved from apes?
f) If human beings would have been evolved since past, why is it that there seem to be no change in human bodies in the past till now? As there has been no change in human body, how could there be evolution then? Your great grand grand….children will have the same physical bodies as you and there should not be any change in physical bodies even though our technology would have advanced to space.
g) If human beings would be evolving from the time to time, why should there be genes to be inherited in the sense that a person would inherit infirmity , let’s says, cancer or diabetics, to children since their children should always be evolving or improving in health instead of simply inherited with genes?
The answer is very simple. Through evolution! To be more precise: Through gradual evolution step by step which means by gradualism, they sum up in the course of time.
Refer to the website address, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...3/pdf/12952654.pdf, pertaining to the advantages of hair loss. However, there are more reasons that the hair loss among human beings could not bring about the advantages of human beings and this brings the query about why there have to be hair loss among animals and in turn, the query about the reliability of evolution:
a)It is mentioned in this website that humans evolved hairlessness to reduce parasite loads, especially ectoparasites that may carry disease. This might seem to be true at a glance. However, this could not be true on our heads since the hair on our heads could keep on growing and this would lead to ultimate parasite loads if it were uncut for more than 30 years. The total mass of the hair that a person would keep for 30 years would be a number of times heavier than the hair that has grown up in apes’ body. The only thing that causes human beings to differ from apes is the hair among the apes has been distributed over their bodies and yet human beings’ hair is concentrated on their heads. When we compare the hair from human beings and apes, human beings could be parasite loads, whether in length or in mass, when the hair was uncut for more than 30 years. Thus, the hair among human beings could not reduce parasite loads. Instead, it might turn up to be the other way round to increase parasite loads on the condition that human beings did not cut their hair for more than 30 years. Thus, the hair loss among human beings and to cause it to grow continuously over the head might increase parasite loads and causes a disadvantage to human beings if their hair were uncut for more than 30 years. The over-concentration of hair growth on heads would not show any advantage in the long run since it would increase parasite loads.
b)It is mentioned in the website address above that hairlessness is made possible in humans owing to their unique abilities to regulate their environment via fire, shelter and clothing. Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgenic_hair, it shows the distribution of hair among men and women. Despite human beings might put on clothing, yet the hair among human bodies especially those parts that are covered by clothing would not reduce. This gives the implication that our hair might not be able to reduce in spite of our capabilities to regulate environment via fire, shelter and clothing. Or else, men and women should not have hair on those parts that have been covered by clothing.
c)It is also mentioned in this website that hairlessness, then, demands some sort of explanation in evolutionary terms, and especially so as, in humans at least, hairlessness is not without its costs. Humans are more exposed to the sun, may suffer greater heat loss when the ambient temperature is low (Newman 1970; Amaral 1996) and, with the exception of the naked molerats, differ from the other hairless mammals in not having a thick or toughened hide for protection.
d)Many people in this world might have encountered hair loss problem that leads to the ultimate bald heads to annoy them and causes them to have no choice but to seek help from clinic, hair salon and etc. Yet this hair loss problem persists from generation to generation. As hair loss could cause problem among human beings and yet it persists, it places the query about the reliability of evolution. This is due to why there should be hair loss that would result in bald heads among human beings and this could not occur among apes or other animals.
e)Human beings’ hair loss brings about the disadvantage of causing them to turn up to be gray or white at old age and this might be in concern by the old folks. Yet the situation could not change unless dye hair. However, this disadvantage of turning into gray or white hair could not occur among other animals especially apes. Or in other words, there is a disadvantage of hair loss among human beings as a result of gray or white hair in old age and this places the reliability of evolution into question.
f) It is mentioned in this website that Wheeler (1992) acknowledges that naked skin increases the rates of both energy gain and loss during periods of too much or too little heat, respectively. This might mean that naked skin is actually a worse solution when the entire day is taken into account: more heat must be dissipated from daytime exposure and, at night time, more heat is lost (Amaral 1996). 3. There is certainly a disadvantage of hair loss here due to rapid energy gain and loss as a result of hairless condition of our bodies.
Despite of our hair loss, the redundancy of hair in length, such as underneath the armpit and even from the front body onwards up to the legs, remains there without removing away or evolve away, brings a query about the reliability of evolution since what it tends not to be used and yet it still retains instead of vanishing away.
It is also mentioned in the website that humans are not literally hairless, having about the density of hair follicles expected of an ape of our body size (Schwartz & Rosenblum 1981). What distinguishes human body hair is that it is very fine and short, making it, effectively, invisible. we use ‘hairless’ with respect to humans, then, to mean that they lack a dense layer of thick fur. However, this could not be true to the hair that is on our heads that could grow exceedingly and could even cause parasite loads on our head if this has been uncut for 30 or more years. Indeed, the hair on the human beings’ heads is the longest among all animals.
It is also mentioned in this website that hair loss could be meant to promote cooling of the body. However, many men might have exposed half nakedness of their upper bodies and yet could not feel cool on their bodies and seek help from fans or air-conditioning system or breeze or etc. even at the absence of sun especially early in the morning or at night. Some people might even suffer from high fever and need to seek help from doctor despite hairless bodies could cool it down. All these have placed the query whether hairless bodies could really cause their bodies to be in cool.
From the above analyses, there places a query why there should be hair drop and it seems to have adverse effect of evolution and that places the reliability of evolution into question
These are really fascinating arguments. I have never noticed them consciously. Thank you very mauch for bringing them to my attention. They are so sophisticated that I have to think about them in detail.
Best
Wolfgang