Absolutely not! With my thanks to the presenter, Dr Conor Cunningham of Nottingham University, I should like to summarise why I think the programme bearing this title (first broadcast on terrestrial TV in the UK on 31 March 2009) was so good... At the outset, Dr Cunningham made it clear that he is an academic theologian and philosopher; but also a Christian and, clearly, a student of history too. However, none of this prevented him from interviewing people that hold widely differing views for the programme and just allowing them to talk (not arguing with them); even when he would clearly not agree with what they were saying... Over and beyond that, however, the programme was a plea for a ceasefire in a totally unnecessary battle between science and religion. Dr Cunningham's case being founded upon the fact that Young Earth Creationism is primarily a 20th Century invention.
Being a geologist, much of this was not new to me, but I was delighted to discover that I am not the first person to have reached the conclusion that such fundamentalist views give people an easy excuse for not dealing with the person and work of Jesus Christ. For example, this was the view of St Augustine a (354-430 AD); and was the conclusion reached by Thomas Aquinas in 1273 AD as well.
Notwithstanding all of the above, I clearly have much to learn (or unlearn) about Intelligent Design (ID), as Dr Cunningham's view is clearly that Evolution is a Fact. However, whereas I accept that ID may be a flawed hypothesis, I still do not accept that Evolution is without flaws itself.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Monday, September 1, 2008
Welcome!
The content of this blog started life as a website, so the posts that follow should be read in the order they appear (i.e. like chapters in a book). Obviously, the advantage of a blog is that it makes it very easy for people to comment on what I've written, which is something I would welcome (although I make no guarantee about the timescale of any response from me).
Who is this God Character Anyway?
“There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.” (Proverbs 16:25)
The late Douglas Adams is probably best remembered for “The Hitch-Hikers Guide To The Galaxy”; the book in which the Babel Fish appeared. The name is a reference to the story recounted in Chapter 11 of Genesis, the first book in the Bible, in which God is said to have confounded mankind's rebellious nature by introducing lots of languages, so as to make communication between tribes and nations much harder.
However, in Adams' comic masterpiece, if you stuck a Babel Fish in your ear, you were instantly enabled to understand anything said to you, in any language, anywhere in the Universe (hence http://babelfish.altavista.com). Here's what the "Hitch-Hikers Guide" has to say about the Babel Fish...
'Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
'The argument goes something like this: “I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
'“But”, says Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by you own arguments, you don’t.”
'“Oh dear”, says God, “I hadn’t thought of that”, and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
'“Oh, that was easy,” says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.’
It seems likely that Adams was not seeking to do God any favours here, but the fact remains that there is some truth in what he says (which is partly what makes it funny). After all, the Bible does say “…without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that he exists…” (Hebrews 11:6).
The late Douglas Adams is probably best remembered for “The Hitch-Hikers Guide To The Galaxy”; the book in which the Babel Fish appeared. The name is a reference to the story recounted in Chapter 11 of Genesis, the first book in the Bible, in which God is said to have confounded mankind's rebellious nature by introducing lots of languages, so as to make communication between tribes and nations much harder.
However, in Adams' comic masterpiece, if you stuck a Babel Fish in your ear, you were instantly enabled to understand anything said to you, in any language, anywhere in the Universe (hence http://babelfish.altavista.com). Here's what the "Hitch-Hikers Guide" has to say about the Babel Fish...
'Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
'The argument goes something like this: “I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
'“But”, says Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by you own arguments, you don’t.”
'“Oh dear”, says God, “I hadn’t thought of that”, and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
'“Oh, that was easy,” says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.’
It seems likely that Adams was not seeking to do God any favours here, but the fact remains that there is some truth in what he says (which is partly what makes it funny). After all, the Bible does say “…without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that he exists…” (Hebrews 11:6).
A Brief History of Science
"One of our greatest discoveries has been that the universe has not existed forever but that it had a definite beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." Stephen Hawking
For at least the last 3000 years, philosophers and scientists have been on a voyage of discovery. At times they have undoubtedly wandered up some blind alleys; but generally they have been exercising their powers of intuitive deduction to better our understanding of the Universe.
However, in the Big Bang Theory, the sensitivity of the initial conditions required to ensure that the Cosmos lasted long enough for the complexity we see around us to develop (in just the right way to bring about useful things like solar systems) is truly mind-boggling. Faced with the remarkable way in which we are indeed suited to our surroundings, a common way for removing the need for a Creator or Designer is to say that, had it been any other way we would not be here to observe it. However, many perhaps more open-minded scientists, such as Paul Davies (1992) and George Smoot (1993), do not accept this argument. They remain honestly bemused by the massive improbability of the Universe being the way it is – able ultimately to support life - purely by chance. Why is it, then, that despite all of this, in many spheres of life and culture, Christianity has continued to be marginalised?
For some Christians the (young) age of the earth is a non-negotiable article of faith, but for most it really is not an issue. Yet, it seems many scientists never give Christianity a second thought because they think it’s unscientific and that all its adherents have got their heads buried in the sand. However, even if someone has reservations or doubts about Darwin’s theories (and those which have followed), that does not mean that they must therefore believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old! As with many things in life; it just isn’t as simple as that.
So much for science and theology; what about philosophy and theology? One of the things that distinguishes humans from animals is our ability to reason. Certainly, within the animal kingdom, there is a great range in the complexity of thought processes of which any individual type of animal is capable. A baboon can be seen to display behaviour that indicates an ability to think and learn (and thereby to interact with its surroundings), which a goldfish clearly does not. Nonetheless, however clever apes, whales, or dolphins may be, it is widely accepted that humans are the only ones capable of pondering the nature and purpose of their own existence.
Philosophy and theology have had a long, healthy, and productive relationship. However, to believe simply that one grew from the other is to fall foul of the central plank of humanist ideology; as many anthropologists believe that “man created god in his own image”. This is not just a very neat summary of their beliefs, however, it is also of course a clever-sounding reversal of Genesis 1:26 – “God created Man in His own image.”
Their argument goes something like this: Early Man found many things in the world about him scary and beyond comprehension. So, in order to rid himself of fear, Man invoked the existence of gods, identifying each with an aspect of nature that worried him, such as thunder and lightning, for example. As Man’s understanding has increased – so the argument goes – the scope or necessity for gods has decreased. This is often referred to as the “god of the gaps” theory. Charles Darwin fell into this trap when he put it on record that the problems he could see with his theory of evolution would be solved by the advancement of science in the years to follow. However, this has not proved to be the case...
Nevertheless this utopian dreamlike view of science and scientists has since lost little of its popularity, despite being entirely intellectually dishonest (in my opinion). Surely, it would be more honest and humble to admit that, although there are some things about which we can be fairly certain, for example that the sun will come up tomorrow, there are other things that we should admit that we may never know (or, at least, never be able to prove scientifically)? However, there are also some things that are just not in the domain of science to be proven or understood: Surely it is outrageous to suggest that the finite - indeed spatially very limited - mind of Man could ever fully encompass, comprehend, and understand a Universe that is infinite? (and if not infinite then, also that which lies beyond it – but that is another question altogether).
For at least the last 3000 years, philosophers and scientists have been on a voyage of discovery. At times they have undoubtedly wandered up some blind alleys; but generally they have been exercising their powers of intuitive deduction to better our understanding of the Universe.
However, in the Big Bang Theory, the sensitivity of the initial conditions required to ensure that the Cosmos lasted long enough for the complexity we see around us to develop (in just the right way to bring about useful things like solar systems) is truly mind-boggling. Faced with the remarkable way in which we are indeed suited to our surroundings, a common way for removing the need for a Creator or Designer is to say that, had it been any other way we would not be here to observe it. However, many perhaps more open-minded scientists, such as Paul Davies (1992) and George Smoot (1993), do not accept this argument. They remain honestly bemused by the massive improbability of the Universe being the way it is – able ultimately to support life - purely by chance. Why is it, then, that despite all of this, in many spheres of life and culture, Christianity has continued to be marginalised?
For some Christians the (young) age of the earth is a non-negotiable article of faith, but for most it really is not an issue. Yet, it seems many scientists never give Christianity a second thought because they think it’s unscientific and that all its adherents have got their heads buried in the sand. However, even if someone has reservations or doubts about Darwin’s theories (and those which have followed), that does not mean that they must therefore believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old! As with many things in life; it just isn’t as simple as that.
So much for science and theology; what about philosophy and theology? One of the things that distinguishes humans from animals is our ability to reason. Certainly, within the animal kingdom, there is a great range in the complexity of thought processes of which any individual type of animal is capable. A baboon can be seen to display behaviour that indicates an ability to think and learn (and thereby to interact with its surroundings), which a goldfish clearly does not. Nonetheless, however clever apes, whales, or dolphins may be, it is widely accepted that humans are the only ones capable of pondering the nature and purpose of their own existence.
Philosophy and theology have had a long, healthy, and productive relationship. However, to believe simply that one grew from the other is to fall foul of the central plank of humanist ideology; as many anthropologists believe that “man created god in his own image”. This is not just a very neat summary of their beliefs, however, it is also of course a clever-sounding reversal of Genesis 1:26 – “God created Man in His own image.”
Their argument goes something like this: Early Man found many things in the world about him scary and beyond comprehension. So, in order to rid himself of fear, Man invoked the existence of gods, identifying each with an aspect of nature that worried him, such as thunder and lightning, for example. As Man’s understanding has increased – so the argument goes – the scope or necessity for gods has decreased. This is often referred to as the “god of the gaps” theory. Charles Darwin fell into this trap when he put it on record that the problems he could see with his theory of evolution would be solved by the advancement of science in the years to follow. However, this has not proved to be the case...
Nevertheless this utopian dreamlike view of science and scientists has since lost little of its popularity, despite being entirely intellectually dishonest (in my opinion). Surely, it would be more honest and humble to admit that, although there are some things about which we can be fairly certain, for example that the sun will come up tomorrow, there are other things that we should admit that we may never know (or, at least, never be able to prove scientifically)? However, there are also some things that are just not in the domain of science to be proven or understood: Surely it is outrageous to suggest that the finite - indeed spatially very limited - mind of Man could ever fully encompass, comprehend, and understand a Universe that is infinite? (and if not infinite then, also that which lies beyond it – but that is another question altogether).
A Brief History of Geology
“Geology is a particularly alluring field for premature attempts at the explanation of imperfectly understood data.” (Dana)
“Geology has to choose between the rashness of using imperfect evidence or the sterility of uncorrelated, unexplained facts.” (Gregory).
In the 18th and 19th Centuries, those who held to the view that science would have all the answers were sadly at odds with a religious establishment that had become suspicious of the motives of all scientists - and considered that, rather than being the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, science was the pursuit of lies and deception. However, ironically, it was hundreds of years earlier, that a Catholic Priest from Poland, named Copernicus, got the ball (or should I say globe) rolling by suggesting that the Earth revolved around the Sun (and not the other way round). Then of course came Galileo, his great Champion. Both men came to be viewed by the Catholic Church of the time as heretics; considered to be peddlers of pernicious and dangerous lies, and were even threatened with excommunication from the Church.
So it was that, in their turn, Hutton (the first to find clear evidence [on the south-east coast of Scotland] that the Earth was indeed very old) and Rutherford (the first to try and calculate a sensible age for it) were, at first, denounced and derided by the established Church of their day. But you don’t have to be a geochemist or a geochronologist to work out that the Earth is very old; it really is a "no-brainer" - there are literally mountains of evidence indicating that the Earth is very old and that all its fossil-bearing rocks could not possibly have been deposited in one go. (For example, consider the size of the Grand Canyon - given the extreme slowness of the erosional processes that have produced it; or the thousands of metres of sediments built-up beneath the Mississippi delta - all deposited on a shallow sea-bed that must, therefore, have been subsiding for a very long time). What is also clear, however, is that over geologic time there have been numerous catastrophic floods of the kind recounted in the Bible (in the Story of Noah and his Ark) - in the Middle East and elsewhere on the globe. However, early, naïve thinking on the age of the earth had, in fact, already been abandoned by most theologians, even before Darwin was even out of nappies.
Yet, if it is amusing to consider that it was only at the very end of the last century that the Catholic Church officially conceded its error in insisting the Sun orbits the Earth, then it is equally sad that many Evangelical Christians today still feel that it is necessary to try and defend the notion that the Earth is not actually very old. This is “sad" because, post-Darwin, so much of what scientists have discovered actually supports belief in the existence of some sort of Creator (with the possible exception of String Theory, which attempts to side-step the issue by invoking 12 dimensions and numerous parallel universes!).
“Geology has to choose between the rashness of using imperfect evidence or the sterility of uncorrelated, unexplained facts.” (Gregory).
In the 18th and 19th Centuries, those who held to the view that science would have all the answers were sadly at odds with a religious establishment that had become suspicious of the motives of all scientists - and considered that, rather than being the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, science was the pursuit of lies and deception. However, ironically, it was hundreds of years earlier, that a Catholic Priest from Poland, named Copernicus, got the ball (or should I say globe) rolling by suggesting that the Earth revolved around the Sun (and not the other way round). Then of course came Galileo, his great Champion. Both men came to be viewed by the Catholic Church of the time as heretics; considered to be peddlers of pernicious and dangerous lies, and were even threatened with excommunication from the Church.
So it was that, in their turn, Hutton (the first to find clear evidence [on the south-east coast of Scotland] that the Earth was indeed very old) and Rutherford (the first to try and calculate a sensible age for it) were, at first, denounced and derided by the established Church of their day. But you don’t have to be a geochemist or a geochronologist to work out that the Earth is very old; it really is a "no-brainer" - there are literally mountains of evidence indicating that the Earth is very old and that all its fossil-bearing rocks could not possibly have been deposited in one go. (For example, consider the size of the Grand Canyon - given the extreme slowness of the erosional processes that have produced it; or the thousands of metres of sediments built-up beneath the Mississippi delta - all deposited on a shallow sea-bed that must, therefore, have been subsiding for a very long time). What is also clear, however, is that over geologic time there have been numerous catastrophic floods of the kind recounted in the Bible (in the Story of Noah and his Ark) - in the Middle East and elsewhere on the globe. However, early, naïve thinking on the age of the earth had, in fact, already been abandoned by most theologians, even before Darwin was even out of nappies.
Yet, if it is amusing to consider that it was only at the very end of the last century that the Catholic Church officially conceded its error in insisting the Sun orbits the Earth, then it is equally sad that many Evangelical Christians today still feel that it is necessary to try and defend the notion that the Earth is not actually very old. This is “sad" because, post-Darwin, so much of what scientists have discovered actually supports belief in the existence of some sort of Creator (with the possible exception of String Theory, which attempts to side-step the issue by invoking 12 dimensions and numerous parallel universes!).
If Age is Not the Issue...
"A great many problems in the debate between theology and geology can be resolved if we reject theistic evolution and biblical neo-catastrophism... by rejecting theistic evolution we reject faulty theology... [and] by rejecting neo-catastrophism we reject faulty science." Davis A Young
Less than 200 years ago, Christians were well-represented and respected in scientific circles, and 50 years ago were well on the way to recovering from the fall-out from the publication of Darwin’s “Origin of Species” and “Descent of Man” nearly 100 years earlier. However, within the last 40 years Young Earth Creationists have jettisoned the notion of a flat earth, but resurrected many of their old unscientific or pseudo-scientific ideas (and invented some new ones), thereby presenting many with a stumbling block on their potential journey to faith.
So it is that many are handed an easy, ready-made, excuse for failing to consider the implications of the facts of the life, words, acts, death, and empty tomb of Jesus; by the strict, and unnecessarily literal, interpretation of some parts of the Bible.
In addition to realising that “age is not the issue”, it is important to appreciate the fact that the Bible is not a scientific or historical textbook. Furthermore, no single part of it should be used in isolation as a means of defending or denouncing any particular world-view, or in defiance of observed reality. The Bible should be rightly considered as a divinely-inspired work, comprised of 66 different books, written over thousands of years, and penned by a variety of different human authors: It is comprised of many different literary styles; allegorical stories, morality tales, poems, songs, letters, diaries, prophecies, as well as the documentary-style texts. Therefore Christians can claim, with considerable justification, that the Bible should be viewed as “a history of revelation and a revelation of history”.
However, the Bible does not set out to define How things are, but rather Why they are: Some things are within the domain of scientific endeavour, and others are not. In amongst the text of every part of the Bible you can find seeds of truth (if you are willing to look and/or able to see). Possibly the most famous example is to be found in the very first sentence of the Bible: “In the beginning God created…” But there are also passages in the Bible that point to the following:
that everything on the surface of the Earth originates from interstellar dust in space - "...for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust." (Psalm 103:14);
that the Earth was at first just covered in water - "...the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters." (Genesis 1:2); and
that the first land emerged from beneath the waves in the form of volcanic islands - "...[God] set the earth on its foundations... [He] covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains, but at [His] rebuke the waters fled..." (Psalm 104:5-7).
In these respects (and many others) it was truly “way ahead of its time”. Therefore, I believe that the statement...“In the beginning God created…” still confronts cosmologists today with the same truth and potency it did when first perceived some 5000 years ago.
Less than 200 years ago, Christians were well-represented and respected in scientific circles, and 50 years ago were well on the way to recovering from the fall-out from the publication of Darwin’s “Origin of Species” and “Descent of Man” nearly 100 years earlier. However, within the last 40 years Young Earth Creationists have jettisoned the notion of a flat earth, but resurrected many of their old unscientific or pseudo-scientific ideas (and invented some new ones), thereby presenting many with a stumbling block on their potential journey to faith.
So it is that many are handed an easy, ready-made, excuse for failing to consider the implications of the facts of the life, words, acts, death, and empty tomb of Jesus; by the strict, and unnecessarily literal, interpretation of some parts of the Bible.
In addition to realising that “age is not the issue”, it is important to appreciate the fact that the Bible is not a scientific or historical textbook. Furthermore, no single part of it should be used in isolation as a means of defending or denouncing any particular world-view, or in defiance of observed reality. The Bible should be rightly considered as a divinely-inspired work, comprised of 66 different books, written over thousands of years, and penned by a variety of different human authors: It is comprised of many different literary styles; allegorical stories, morality tales, poems, songs, letters, diaries, prophecies, as well as the documentary-style texts. Therefore Christians can claim, with considerable justification, that the Bible should be viewed as “a history of revelation and a revelation of history”.
However, the Bible does not set out to define How things are, but rather Why they are: Some things are within the domain of scientific endeavour, and others are not. In amongst the text of every part of the Bible you can find seeds of truth (if you are willing to look and/or able to see). Possibly the most famous example is to be found in the very first sentence of the Bible: “In the beginning God created…” But there are also passages in the Bible that point to the following:
that everything on the surface of the Earth originates from interstellar dust in space - "...for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust." (Psalm 103:14);
that the Earth was at first just covered in water - "...the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters." (Genesis 1:2); and
that the first land emerged from beneath the waves in the form of volcanic islands - "...[God] set the earth on its foundations... [He] covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains, but at [His] rebuke the waters fled..." (Psalm 104:5-7).
In these respects (and many others) it was truly “way ahead of its time”. Therefore, I believe that the statement...“In the beginning God created…” still confronts cosmologists today with the same truth and potency it did when first perceived some 5000 years ago.
What About Charles Darwin?
“He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from the beginning to the end.” (Ecclesiastes 3:11).
So what about that great bugbear of Evangelical Christians – Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution? Darwin made many observations of the natural world around him, but he never actually observed evolution taking place or, by way of experimentation, caused it to happen. Instead, he merely collected a great deal of circumstantial evidence that appeared to indicate a trend towards the increasing complexity of organisms with time. However, the fact that moths or finches can and do change in order to adapt to changes in their environment, or the fact that there are obvious structural similarities in a variety of apparently dissimilar organisms, does not prove that we all evolved, by chance, from some kind of protein-rich, primordial chemical soup, as a result of a bolt of lightning (or whatever).
Furthermore, after publication of Darwin's theories, nearly 100 years elapsed before scientists came up with any physical evidence that advantageous mutations could be inherited (although generally mutations are not normally passed-on (i.e. inherited)). Nevertheless, the transformation of, say, a fish into a frog is something else entirely and, apart form the fact that such an event cannot possibly be observed or repeated, it is very difficult to see how it could biologically or physiologically happen. Furthermore, if evolution must be conceived as an unguided process, as Professor Richard Dawkins conceded in his seminal book “The Blind Watchmaker”, then how can it possibly initiate or propagate any process that could lead to the eventual development of something as superbly fit for purpose as the human eye?
Despite all of this, it seems that if anyone dares to question the orthodox view (that Darwin must have been right) they are automatically branded as a crank, when in fact there are huge problems with explaining the mechanics of how any actual evolutionary process could work. Michael Denton, in his book “Evolution – A Theory in Crisis” (1986), provides just such an analysis: Here we have a well-respected microbiologist who is willing to put his head above the parapet to point out that there are immense difficulties in explaining the mechanics of any evolutionary process, Darwinian or otherwise. That being the case, it is just emotional blackmail on the part of the majority that maintains the status quo. In fact, the assumption that Darwin must have been right because we can’t come up with any sound, “scientific” alternative, is somewhat reminiscent of the Hans Christian Anderson tale of the “Emperor’s New Clothes”.
Darwin’s theory of natural selection (not evolution) starts out from the basic assumption that different species were not the result of separate acts of creation by God. This was the point on which Darwin and many others disagreed with the established Church of their time and, having decided this to be the case, they set about “proving” this to be true, by finding observable “evidence” to back up their theories. Many would say Darwin’s was one of the greatest scientific minds to ever grace the planet. However, zealous supporters - and virulent opponents alike - often seem determined not to let the facts of his life and work get in the way of what they have decided is the significance - or danger - of his observations on the workings of nature. It is therefore crucially important to see Darwin as a product of his time; a turbulent period of widespread social and economic upheaval. Adrian Desmond and James Moore did just that in an excellent biography of Darwin, published by Penguin in 1991.
In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, England was comprised of a highly-structured society with a much smaller population than today. Therefore, far more than it is today, the nation’s wealth was concentrated in the hands of a very wealthy elite. Power was similarly concentrated, with property ownership being the qualification for having the vote. Despite the highly destructive efforts of King Henry VIII, the Church had remained an incredibly powerful landowner and key part of the Establishment. The Church was therefore heavily implicated in the maintenance of the status quo by those who wanted to bring about reforms. Whereas, for those who feared the consequences of the revolutionary changes and civil unrest which seemed to be happening elsewhere in the world, the Church was the last line of defence against anarchy. Therefore, in the mid-nineteenth century evolution was an idea whose time had come: Many atheist and anti-establishment figures in the scientific community pounced on Darwin’s ideas, and they rapidly became accepted as fact.
So what about that great bugbear of Evangelical Christians – Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution? Darwin made many observations of the natural world around him, but he never actually observed evolution taking place or, by way of experimentation, caused it to happen. Instead, he merely collected a great deal of circumstantial evidence that appeared to indicate a trend towards the increasing complexity of organisms with time. However, the fact that moths or finches can and do change in order to adapt to changes in their environment, or the fact that there are obvious structural similarities in a variety of apparently dissimilar organisms, does not prove that we all evolved, by chance, from some kind of protein-rich, primordial chemical soup, as a result of a bolt of lightning (or whatever).
Furthermore, after publication of Darwin's theories, nearly 100 years elapsed before scientists came up with any physical evidence that advantageous mutations could be inherited (although generally mutations are not normally passed-on (i.e. inherited)). Nevertheless, the transformation of, say, a fish into a frog is something else entirely and, apart form the fact that such an event cannot possibly be observed or repeated, it is very difficult to see how it could biologically or physiologically happen. Furthermore, if evolution must be conceived as an unguided process, as Professor Richard Dawkins conceded in his seminal book “The Blind Watchmaker”, then how can it possibly initiate or propagate any process that could lead to the eventual development of something as superbly fit for purpose as the human eye?
Despite all of this, it seems that if anyone dares to question the orthodox view (that Darwin must have been right) they are automatically branded as a crank, when in fact there are huge problems with explaining the mechanics of how any actual evolutionary process could work. Michael Denton, in his book “Evolution – A Theory in Crisis” (1986), provides just such an analysis: Here we have a well-respected microbiologist who is willing to put his head above the parapet to point out that there are immense difficulties in explaining the mechanics of any evolutionary process, Darwinian or otherwise. That being the case, it is just emotional blackmail on the part of the majority that maintains the status quo. In fact, the assumption that Darwin must have been right because we can’t come up with any sound, “scientific” alternative, is somewhat reminiscent of the Hans Christian Anderson tale of the “Emperor’s New Clothes”.
Darwin’s theory of natural selection (not evolution) starts out from the basic assumption that different species were not the result of separate acts of creation by God. This was the point on which Darwin and many others disagreed with the established Church of their time and, having decided this to be the case, they set about “proving” this to be true, by finding observable “evidence” to back up their theories. Many would say Darwin’s was one of the greatest scientific minds to ever grace the planet. However, zealous supporters - and virulent opponents alike - often seem determined not to let the facts of his life and work get in the way of what they have decided is the significance - or danger - of his observations on the workings of nature. It is therefore crucially important to see Darwin as a product of his time; a turbulent period of widespread social and economic upheaval. Adrian Desmond and James Moore did just that in an excellent biography of Darwin, published by Penguin in 1991.
In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, England was comprised of a highly-structured society with a much smaller population than today. Therefore, far more than it is today, the nation’s wealth was concentrated in the hands of a very wealthy elite. Power was similarly concentrated, with property ownership being the qualification for having the vote. Despite the highly destructive efforts of King Henry VIII, the Church had remained an incredibly powerful landowner and key part of the Establishment. The Church was therefore heavily implicated in the maintenance of the status quo by those who wanted to bring about reforms. Whereas, for those who feared the consequences of the revolutionary changes and civil unrest which seemed to be happening elsewhere in the world, the Church was the last line of defence against anarchy. Therefore, in the mid-nineteenth century evolution was an idea whose time had come: Many atheist and anti-establishment figures in the scientific community pounced on Darwin’s ideas, and they rapidly became accepted as fact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
