‘Darwin’s Struggle: The Evolution of the Origin of Species’ – BBC Four

I’ve just got round to viewing a recording of this BBC documentary, which  was broadcast on 28th September.

It covers much of the same ground as the recent film ‘Creation’, although giving less attention to biographical details and more (in true BBC style) to the presentation of gorgeous images that supplement Darwin’s account of the ’struggle for survival’ in the world of nature.

We are not surprised to be told, at some length, of a parallel struggle – the struggle between science and religion.  Although the documentary is broadly accurate in its treatment of Darwin’s beliefs (such as they were), and not unsympathetic towards the feelings of his believing wife Emma, it adopts uncritically the myth that Darwin’s ideas inevitably challenged Christian orthodoxy, and allows us to think that all the criticisms of his theory were on religious grounds.  Adam Sedgwick

The facts are, (a) that Darwin’s theory was welcomed by a significant proportion of Christian leaders (Temple, Kingsley, Drummond, and Warfield, for example), and (b) criticised as much on scientific grounds as religious grounds (lacking time [the earth was too young], empirical evidence [the fossil record was too indequate], and a plausible mechanism [Mendel's genetic theory of inheritance being lost and forgotten for several decades]).

But a juicy ‘conflict thesis’ makes for a better story, and therefore better television.  And so, once again, any evidence of convergence between science and faith must be conveniently ignored.

At least we were spared the fabled Huxley/Wilberforce story.

Did Darwin Kill God? – a Sermon

Here is a Powerpoint presentation used as the basis for a sermon preached in the light of the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, the 150 anniversary of the publication of his Origin of Species, and the recent release of the film ‘Creation’ which documents some of the events in Darwin’s life leading up to the publication of that book.

Psalm 104 was read during the service.

Adam and Eve and Evolution

What options are available for relating the biblical account of Adam and Eve and the scientific account of the evolution of the human race?

Denis Alexander presents five possibilities:-

1.  The ahistorical view

According to this view, there is no relationship between the biological and biblical accounts.  The story of Adam and Eve functions simply as myth or parable setting forth the role and importance of God’s purposes for humankind.  According to this view, it is impossible to identify the first humans to have spiritual awareness; the story just tells us about who we are and what it means to be created in God’s image.

This model loses contact with any kind of historical narrative, and leaves completely open the question of how and when humans began to know God.  This approach also has the effect of evacuating the Fall of any historical content.

What About Genesis?

This is the title of a chapter in Denis Alexander’s book Creation or Evolution: Do We Have To Choose?  What follows is based on Alexander’s discussion.

Two preliminary points.  The final authority of Scripture in all matters of faith and conduct is fundamental.  Although modern science can shed light on the interpretation of the Bible, the relationship between the Bible and science is not such that we should relying on science to determine the meaning of the biblical text, or vice-versa.

Genesis is a book about ‘families’, as indicated by the repeated phrase ‘elleh toledot – ‘these are the generations’.  The primeval history of Gen 1-11 introduces us to the God who will call Abraham and establish his covenant with his people.

Explanation, Explanation, Explanation

Levels of Explanation

There are varous kinds of explanations, corresponding roughly to the questions ‘What?’, ‘How?’ and ‘Why?’

• We might ask, ‘What is a kettle?’  This requires an interpretive explanation, clarifiying what the word ‘kettle’ means.
• We might ask, ‘How is a kettle made up?‘  This requires a descriptive interpretation, identifying the various components of a kettle.
• We might ask, ‘Why is the kettle boiling?‘  This requires a reason-giving explanation, but a number of these could be given.  We might reply, ’Because energy is transferred, raising the temperature of the water’; ‘Because I want a cup of tea’.

Different types of explanation are not mutually exclusive.  Consider the statement, ‘People used to believe that God created the world; but now we know it was a Big Bang.’  The two are not logical alternatives.

Scientific explanations are not the only, nor necessarily the most appropriate, explanations.  Knowledge of the structure and function of the heart is useful in medicine, but less useful in starting a friendship.  Science and religion offer different types of explanations.

Once again: the legendary Wilberforce-Huxley encounter

For a good story to be passed on from father to son, from teacher to pupil, from book to reader, it isn’t always necessary for it to be true, it’s sometimes enough simply for it to be a good story that some people would like to be true.

The Natural History Museum (NHM) presents scant regard for historical accuracy in its account of Samuel Wilberforce and his famous debate with T.H. Huxley in Oxford on June 30th 1860.

Problem no. 1: prejudice and bias.  The writer of the NHM article is very keen to keep telling us that Wilberforce was nicknamed ‘Soapy Sam’ by his critics.

His legendary slipperiness in arguments inspired his critics to nickname him ‘soapy Sam’.

No less than four times is Wilberforce’s ruputed ’slipperiness’ mentioned.  I thought there were rules about prejudice and bias, but not, it seems, at the NHM.

God’s ‘Two Books’

The habit of referring to God’s ‘two books’ – the book of Scripture and the ‘book’ of nature – goes back at least to Francis Bacon (1561-1626).  Michael Faraday (1791-1867) spoke in the same terms, as did Galileo (1564-1642).  Charles Darwin quoted Bacon in the preface to his Origin of Species:-

To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God’s work, or in the book of God’s word; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress of proficence in both.

And Frederick Temple (later Archibishop of Canterbury) spoke the following words in a sermon preached in 1860 (on the day after the semi-mythical encounter between T.H. Huxley and Samuel Wilberforce):-

The student of science…if he be a religious man, he believes that both books, the book of Nature and the book of Revelation, come alike from God, and that he has not more right to refuse to accept what he finds in the one than what he finds in the other.  The two books are indeed on totally different subjects; the one may be called a treatise on physics and mathematics, the other a treatise on theology and morals.  But they are both by the same Author.

Darwin and a Godless Universe

If any one theory can be said to have converted the Western world to atheism, it is Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.  The noted American sceptic Robert Ingersoll (1833-99) declared:-

This century will be called Darwin’s century.  He was one of the greatest men who ever touched the globe.  He has explained more of the phenomena of life that all of the religious teachers.  Write the name of Charles Darwin on the one hand and the name of every theologian who ever lived on the other, and from that name has come more light to the world than from all of those.  His doctrine of evolution, his doctrine of the survival of the fittest, his doctrine of the origin of species, has removed in every thinking mind the last vestige of orthodox Christianity.

But it is not at all clear that Darwinism does necessarily lead to atheism.  It is possible to conceive of a ‘God’ so remote from the affairs of this world that Darwin’s theory would have no bearing on his (or its) existence.  Aristotle and Plato may have believed in the existence of such a God.

‘The Troubled Waters of Evolution’

The title of this post is borrowed from that of a book by the late Henry M. Morris.  He, and other (mainly North American) apologists have argued for a literal reading of the early chapters of Genesis as a scientific account of origins, and for this to be taught in schools alongside, or even in place of, evolutionary theory.

It is certainly true that Darwinism has deeply affected many aspects of life, not only in science but also in philosophy, literature and politics.

Naturalists such as Buffon, Cuvier and Lamarck wrestled with the problem of the origin and development of living things, particularly in the light of the fossil record.  Most accepted as an axiom the fixity of species, although this was less on biblical and more on Aristotelian grounds.  The idea of transformism of species was regarded with deep suspicion.

Some Thoughts on ‘Intelligent Design’

Although the teleological argument, or ‘argument from design’, for the existence of a Creator has a long history, going back at least as far as William Paley, the ‘Intelligent Design’ (ID) movement is of much more recent development.

In contrast to young-earth creationism, which is willing to privilege the (supposed) teachings of the Bible in questions of origin over against the (supposed) teachings of modern science, ID proponents accept the conventional scientific view on the age and origin of the cosmos, and on evolutionary processes generally, but postulate that direct divine intervention is required not only at the beginning of the process but at particular points during it as well.

Proponents of ID include Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Philip Johnson.  They focus on the notion of ‘irredicible complexity’.  The argument is that evolutionary processes on their own cannot explain complex, multi-component organs such as the eye, or organelles such as the bacterial flagellum.  Each of these structures consists (just as a mouse-trap does) of a number of components which, on their own would serve no purpose and therefore could not have appeared by evolutionary development.  They cannot be explained apart from reference to a superintending intelligence.

Craig, Strobel, Wilson, Denison, and Hitchens debate God’s Existence

You’ve got to hand it to Christopher Hitchens.  Such is his self-confidence, and perhaps his disdain for the ‘opposition’, that he is prepared to take on all-comers when it comes to debating religion.  Oh, and it must help his book to sell as well.

In March of this year Hitchens took on not one, not two, not even three, but FOUR Christian apologists at the same time.  Of course, he comes out fighting, and if he was feeling a little bruised by the end he is too wily a campaigner to let it show.

Actually, I found this debate one of the more interesting that I have come across.  Hitchens seemed reasonably sober, and at times was almost charming.  The Christians were unfailingly courteous towards him, and he seemed genuinely touched by that.  (Even evangelicals have manners.  Sometimes.)  There were some nice touches of humour on both sides (like when someone referred to Hitchens being thrown into a den of lambs.  Hitchens had a quip of his own in reply to that).

Is the Old Testament Ethical?

This is the title of a recent interview with Dr Peter Williams, Warden of Tyndale House.  With the criticisms of Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion, ch. 7) particularly in mind, Williams gives a cogent series of responses to some of the more difficult and pressing worries that we (whether we are believers or not) may have about the morality of some of the things we find in the Old Testament.

Of course, Williams cannot offer, in the limited time afforded by an interview, a comprehensive set of answers.  And, in any case, if would be foolish of anyone to suppose that it is even possible to provide a neat set of knock-down arguments.  But I have to say that the lines of explanation offered in this interview are most helpful.  Williams constantly emphasises the contexts of the passages in question, and invites us to ask what the passages really say, not what we think they say either at a cursory glance or (worse still) at second- or third-hand.

To take one example:-