Full Issue PDF - American Scientific Affiliation

76 Pages·2009·2.04 MB·English

PERSPECTIVES on Science
P
E
R
S
P
E
C and Christian Faith
T
IV
E
S
O
N
S
C
IE
N
C
E
A
N JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC AFFILIATION
D
C
H
R
IS
T
IA
N
F In this issue …
A
IT
H
Charles Darwin on Religion
Prophet of Science—Part One: Arthur Holly Compton on
Science, Freedom, Religion, and Morality
V
O
L
U Campus Carbon Neutrality as an Interdisciplinary
M
E Pedagogical Tool
6
1
,
N
U Flood Geology and the Grand Canyon: A Critique
M
B
E
R
2 The Historical Reconstruction of Geohistorical
Reconstruction
“The fear of the Lord
is the beginning of Wisdom.”
Psalm 111:10
J
U
N
E
2
0
0
9
VOLUME 61, NUMBER 2 JUNE 2009
(USISSN0892-2675) (CPM#40927506)
PerspectivesonScienceandChristianFaith Manuscript Guidelines
©2009bytheAmericanScientificAffiliation
ThepagesofPerspectivesonScienceandChristianFaith(PSCF)areopen
Editor tooriginal,unpublishedcontributionsthatinteractwithscienceandChristian
faithinamannerconsistentwithscientificandtheologicalintegrity.Published
ARIELEEGWATER(CalvinCollege)
papersdonotreflectanyofficialpositionoftheAmericanScientificAffiliation.
1726KnollcrestCir.SE,GrandRapids,MI49546
[email protected] 1.Submit all manuscripts to: Arie Leegwater, Editor, Calvin College,
DeVriesHall,1726KnollcrestCircleSE,GrandRapids,MI49546-4403.
ManagingEditor E-mail:[email protected]
LYNBERG(AmericanScientificAffiliation) 10daysoftheirreceipt.
POBox668,Ipswich,MA01938-0668 2.Authorsmustsubmitanelectroniccopyofthemanuscriptformattedin
[email protected] Wordasanemailattachment.Typically2–3anonymousreviewerscritique
eachmanuscriptsubmittedforpublication.
BookReviewEditors
3.Useendnotes forall references.Each notemust haveauniquenumber.
REBECCAFLIETSTRA(PointLomaNazareneUniv.) FollowTheChicagoManualofStyle(14thed.,sections15.1to15.426).
3900LomalandDr.,SanDiego,CA92106
[email protected] 4.WhilefiguresanddiagramsmaybeembeddedwithintheWordtextfileofthe
manuscript,authorsarerequiredtoalsosendthemasindividualelectronic
JAMESC.PETERSON(McMasterUniversityDivinity files (JPEGorTIFFformat).Figurecaptions should beprovided as alist
CollegeandFacultyofHealthSciences) attheendofthemanuscripttext.Authorsareencouragedalsotosubmit
1280MainSt.West,Hamilton,ONL8S4K1Canada asampleofgraphicartthatcanbeusedtoillustratetheirmanuscript.
[email protected]
ARTICLESaremajortreatmentsofaparticularsubjectrelatingsciencetoa
ARIELEEGWATER(CalvinCollege) Christianposition.Suchpapersshouldbeatleast2,000wordsbutnotmore
1726KnollcrestCir.SE,GrandRapids,MI49546 than6,000wordsinlength,excludingendnotes.Anabstractof50–150words
[email protected]
isrequired.Publicationforsuchpapersnormallytakes9–12monthsfromthe
timeofacceptance.
EditorialBoard
CHARLESC.ADAMS,DordtCollege COMMUNICATIONSarebrieftreatmentsofawiderangeofsubjectsofinterest
HESSELBOUMAIII,CalvinCollege to PSCF readers. Communications mustnotbelongerthan2700 words,
WALTERL.BRADLEY,BaylorUniversity excludingendnotes.Communicationsarenormallypublished6–9monthsfrom
WARRENS.BROWN,FullerGraduateSchoolof thetimeofacceptance.
Psychology
JEANNEBUNDENS,EasternUniversity NEWS&VIEWSareshortcommentariesoncurrentscientificdiscoveriesor
HARRYCOOK,TheKing’sUniversityCollege,Canada events,oropinionpiecesonscienceandfaithissues.Lengthsrangefrom200
JANELM.CURRY,CalvinCollege to 1,500 words. Submissions are typically published 3–6 months from the
EDWARDB.DAVIS,MessiahCollege
timeofacceptance.
KARLV.EVANS,Lakewood,CO
LOUISEM.FREEMAN,MaryBaldwinCollege BOOK REVIEWS serve to alert the readership to new books that appear
OWENGINGERICH,Harvard-SmithsonianCenterfor
significantorusefulandengagethesebooksincriticalinteraction.Guidelines
Astrophysics
for book reviewers can be obtained from the incoming book review editors.
JOHNW.HAAS,JR.,GordonCollege
Noterespectivesubjectareas:
WALTERR.HEARN,Berkeley,California
D.GARETHJONES,UniversityofOtago,NewZealand (cid:2) RebeccaFlietstra([email protected]):anthropology,biology,environ-
CALVINJONGSMA,DordtCollege ment, neuroscience, origins, and social sciences.
CHRISTOPHERB.KAISER,WesternTheological (cid:2) JamesC.Peterson([email protected]):apologetics,biblicalstudies,
Seminary bioethics, ethics, genetics, medical education, philosophy, and theology.
GORDONR.LEWTHWAITE,CaliforniaState (cid:2) Arie Leegwater ([email protected]): cosmology, engineering, history of
University,Northridge
science, mathematics, non-bio technologies, and physical sciences.
H.NEWTONMALONY,FullerTheologicalSeminary
The viewpoints expressed in the books reviewed, and in the reviews
SARAMILES,EasternUniversity
themselves,arethoseoftheauthorsandreviewersrespectively,anddonot
KEITHB.MILLER,KansasStateUniversity
reflectanofficialpositionoftheASA.
STANLEYW.MOORE,PepperdineUniversity
GEORGEL.MURPHY,TrinityLutheranSeminary,
Columbus,OH LETTERStotheEditorconcerning PSCFcontentmaybepublished unless
ROBERTC.NEWMAN,BiblicalTheologicalSeminary marked not for publication. Letters submitted for publication must not be
JACKC.SWEARENGEN,SantaRosa,CA longer than 700 words and will be subject to editorial review. Letters are
WALTERR.THORSON,Calgary,Alberta,Canada tobesubmittedaselectroniccopies.Lettersacceptedforpublicationwillbe
PETERVIBERT,WadingRiverCongregationalChurch publishedwithin6months.
DAVISA.YOUNG,CalvinCollege
ADVERTISING is accepted in PSCF, subject to editorial approval. Please
ESTHER MARTIN,ManuscriptEditor address inquiries for rates or further information to the Managing Editor.
The ASA cannot take responsibility for any orders placed with advertisers
PerspectivesonScienceandChristianFaith
inPSCF.
(ISSN0892-2675)ispublishedquarterlyfor$40
per yearbythe American Scientific Affiliation, AUTHORIZATION TO PHOTOCOPY MATERIAL for internal, personal, or
55 Market Street, Ipswich, MA 01938-0668. educationalclassroomuse,ortheinternalorpersonaluseofspecificclients,
Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; is granted by ASA, ISSN: 0892-2675, provided that the appropriate fee is
[email protected];www.asa3.org paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive,
Periodicals postage paid at Ipswich, MA and Danvers, MA 01923 USA forconventional use, orcheck CCConline at the
at additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: followingaddress:www.copyright.com/.NoregistrationwithCCCisneeded:
Send address changes to: Perspectives on simplyidentifythearticlebeingcopied,thenumberofcopies,andthejournal
Science and Christian Faith, The American title (Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith). For those who wish to
ScientificAffiliation,POBox668,Ipswich,MA request permission for other kinds of copying or reprinting, kindly write to
01938-0668. theManagingEditor.
Editorial
On Tipping Points and
Christian Scholarship
Arie Leegwater
T
he use of the phrase “tipping Klein demonstrated how, in a close Tipping point
point” has become common- analysis of the development of quan-
place. A termintroducedin epi- tum theories, one can detect different describes
demiologyisnowbeingusedbyclimate scientific styles which enhance our
a critical point
scientists, sometimes with apocalyptic understanding and assessment of the
warnings.Tippingpointdescribesacrit- contributions of a particular thinker.
in an evolving
ical point in an evolving situation that As a historian of science, Klein became
leadstoanewandirreversibledevelop- a leading expert on the origins of the
situation that
ment. In short, it is considered to be quantum theory and for ten years
a turning point. When we look back at served as senior editor of the Einstein
leads to a new
the trajectory of our own lives we can Papers Project. Klein was nominated
undoubtedly identify some intellectual to the National Academy of Sciences and irreversible
tippingpoints. in 1977, the only historian of science to
hold that honor. development …
As I compose this editorial during
early April, I look back to March with Klein had known and intensively Christian
acertainacheinmyheart.Iexperienced studied many of the leading lights of
scholarship
thepassingoftwomentors,twoprofes- thenewphysics.Hisresearchdealtwith
sors who functioned as tipping points the interrelated developments of quan- has a bite to it.
in my own academic development. tum mechanics and statistical thermo-
It rests on
The first was a cantankerous philoso- dynamics, and usually concentrated on
pher, a founder of the field of philoso- the work of individual physicists, such well-grounded
phy of biology, Marjorie Glicksman as the development of Ludwig Boltz-
beliefs,
Grene (b.1910), lately of Virginia Tech; mann’s statistical ideas, Josiah Willard
the second, an able physicist turned Gibb’s early work in thermodynamics, but also
historian of science, Martin J. Klein Paul Ehrenfest’s contributions to the
requires
(b.1924)ofYaleUniversity.Theyshaped quantum theory, the origins of Erwin
my thinking in a variety of ways. Schrödinger’s wavemechanics, andthe engagement
life and work of Niels Bohr and Albert
Grene doggedly insisted that philos- with others
Einstein. If there is a way of describing
ophy mattered in the generation of sci-
Klein’s work in the history of physics in interpreting
entific knowledge, and that thinkers
one can do no better than appeal to
like Michael Polanyi, J. J. Gibson, and and
one of his favorite Herbert Butterfield
Merleau-Ponty offered insights that
quotes. Butterfield, the English histo- understanding
legitimately challenged the reigning
rian, wrote,
paradigms of reflection in the sciences. the common
The value of history lies in the
She continually stressed the embodied
richnessofitsrecoveryofthecon- world in which
natureandhistoricityofhumanbeings:
crete life of the past. It is a story
it was Descartes’ disembodied “cogito” we live.
thatcannotbetoldindrylines,and
that drew her ire.
Volume61,Number2,June2009 65
Editorial
On Tipping Points and Christian Scholarship
itsmeaningcannotbeconveyedinaspeciesof Which things and events? In principle, all things.
geometry.Thereisnotanessenceofhistorythat Andwhatofscience’srelationtofaith?Forsymme-
can be got by evaporating the human and the try there is no place, nor one for a static hierarchy.
personal factors, the incidental or momentary We can, I think, speak of a certain priority.
orlocalthings,andthecircumstantialelements,
The knowledge of faith—its certainty—appears
as though at the bottom of the well there was
at first glance to be mysterious. But that is just as
something absolute, some truth independent
trueofourknowledgeofjusticeandlove.Faithcan
of time and circumstance … The thing which
be expressed in words, in propositions. We confess
is unhistorical is to imagine that we can get
infaiththatourworldiscreated.Butthataparticu-
the essence apart from the accidents.
lar constellation of clouds will arrive tomorrow
When Klein’s colleagues presented him with
togiveusrainisinformation,amoreorlesscorrect
a festschrift entitled No Truth Except in the Details,
and accurate assessment and description of the
theycapturedhisapproachtothehistoryofscience.
world. Science thrives on information, but that the
Schrödinger once described his wave mechanical
worldhasbeenlovinglypreparedforus,byaword
theory as “being stimulated by de Broglie’s thesis
ofGod,asaplacetobelivedin,isacceptedbyfaith.
and by short but infinitely far-seeing remarks by
Thatiscertainlyadifferentlanguage,alanguageof
Einstein.” Klein is the only person I know who
which one never gets enough. (cid:2)
could take these short far-seeing remarks and turn
them into a finely tuned forty-three page paper Arie Leegwater, Editor
on “Einstein and the Wave-Particle Duality,” [email protected]
The Natural Philosopher 3 (1964).
And yet, for all my appreciation for the insights
andscholarshipofKleinandGrene,wedifferedon
In This
fundamental matters. Neither was a Christian
believer nor did they desire to become one. For
Klein, a variety of ideological influences could not Issue
be constitutive of science. For Grene, religion was
anonstarter.WhatIconstantlyfacedwasanagging
question: what might one legitimately learn from
There is a certain symmetry to this issue of PSCF.
them? And still more fundamentally: how do we
Adseriatimithastwohistoryarticles,acreationcare
asChristianscontinuetohaveadistinctivevoicein
article,andfinallytwoarticlesdevotedtogeological
scholarship, faithfully working out of a tradition,
subjects.
without becoming insular, satisfied in our own
isolation? In this year of Darwin celebrations, John H.
Brooke introduces us to the topic “Charles Darwin
It is easy to accede to the idea that Christian
on Religion.” Edward (Ted) Davis follows with
scholarship is best characterized as a value-added
Part 1 of a three-part series on Arthur Compton,
interpretationofamoreorlesscommonsetoffacts
prophetofscience.ThreeCalvinCollegecolleagues
or realities, at best, one of many interpretive slants
describe an institutional carbon neutrality project
on an issue. But, in reality, Christian scholarship
written with pedagogical intent. Carol Hill and
has a bite to it. It rests on well-grounded beliefs,
Steve Moshier provide a comparative analysis of
but also requires engagement with others in inter-
flood geology and Grand Canyon geology, and
preting and understanding the common world in
finally Davis Young gives us an essay book review
which we live. Christian believers will have to dis-
ofthelatestmonumentalbookbyMartinRudwick,
cover, to learn, to never stop learning what science
the world’s premier historian of geology.
andtechnologyareabout.Welearnwithothersand
fromothers.Sciencethrivesonananalysisofthings Bookreviewsandlettersprovideadditionalfood
andeventswhichweencounterascreationalgivens. for thought. (cid:2)
66 PerspectivesonScienceandChristianFaith
Article
Charles Darwin on
Religion
John Hedley Brooke
John Hedley Brooke
What did Darwin have to say about religion? What were his religious, or Darwin’s
anti-religious,beliefs?Didhebelievethathistheoryofevolutionbynaturalselection
religious
was incompatible with belief in a Creator? Was it his revolutionary science that
turned him into an agnostic? These questions have a special urgency in 2009, sympathies …
the year that marks the bicentenary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary
changed
of his most celebrated book, On the Origin of Species (1859). It is important
to answer them in a balanced way because Darwin’s authority and example are
over time …
continuallyinvokedtojustifymetaphysicalandtheologicalclaimsthatgofarbeyond
the details of his evolutionary biology and that of his scientific successors. [H]is trajectory
D was from the
arwin’sgreatgifttosciencewas As the nineteenth-century Anglican
Christian
to show how an explanation theologian Aubrey Moore put it, under
could be given for what had the guise of a foe Darwin had done the orthodoxy of
been described as the mystery of mys- workofafriend,liberatingChristianity
his Cambridge
teries,thesuccessiveappearanceofnew fromafalseimageofthedeityinwhich
species discernible in the fossil record. Godwasonlypresentintheworldwhen years to a non-
If new species could emerge from pre- intervening like a deus ex machina.
biblical deism
existing species by a process of natural
selection, it was no longer necessary to
Darwin and the at the time
suppose there had been what Darwin
Insufficiency of
called independentacts of creation. the Origin
Sound Bites
For atheists and scientific material- was published
There is no simple answer to questions
ists, the plausibility of Darwin’s theory
about Darwin’s religious sympathies. to a more
wasaparticularlywelcomegiftbecause
Thisispartlybecausetheychangedover
it could be used to dispel the notion thoroughly
time.Toafirstapproximation,histrajec-
of divine intervention in nature and to
tory was from the Christian orthodoxy
challenge the long-cherished belief that agnostic
ofhisCambridgeyearstoanon-biblical
each species had been separately and
deism at the time the Origin was pub- position in
meticulously designed by its Creator.
lished to a more thoroughly agnostic
Not surprisingly, there was much ap- later life.
position in later life. This makes a neat
prehension and some downright hos-
tility among religious believers, which John Hedley Brooke held the Andreas Idreos Chair of Science and
in ultra-conservative religious circles Religion and Directorship of the Ian Ramsey Centre at Oxford University
from1999to2006.HeisanEmeritusFellowofHarrisManchesterCollege
still continues today. Darwin’s theory
Oxford,HonoraryProfessoroftheHistoryofScienceatLancasterUniversity,
has certainly proved divisive within
and, in 2007, was appointed “Distinguished Fellow” at the Institute of
Christendom; but a long tradition of Advanced Study, University of Durham. He is currently President of the
assimilation and accommodation sug- International Society for Science and Religion. His books include Science
gests that some at least of Darwin’s andReligion:SomeHistoricalPerspectives(Cambridge,1991)and(with
insights have been received as a gift by Geoffrey Cantor) Reconstructing Nature: The Engagement of Science
and Religion (Edinburgh, 1998).
religious thinkers as well as scientists.
Volume61,Number2,June2009 67
Article
Charles Darwin on Religion
and ironic story, given Darwin’s initial training to wished to retain public sympathy. He was also
become an Anglican priest and given the clerical keenlyawarethathisviews,particularlyontheevo-
attacks on his theory that he had to endure. But it lutionofthemoralsense,wouldbedistressingtohis
means that what was credible for him at certain wife Emma. The upshot is that there are degrees of
times in his life was not at others. For example, ambiguity in Darwin’s remarks about religion that
the sensitivity with which in the early 1830s he can make them difficult to interpret. To suggest,
responded to the sublime beauty of the Brazilian however, that his references to a Creator in the
rain forest, and which he said had been associated Origin of Species concealed a private atheism and
with his belief in God, faded in old age. In 1859, at weresimplycontrivedtoplacatehisaudiencewould
the age of fifty, he could still believe that the laws be an extreme interpretation. As he confided to the
governing the evolution and diversification of life Harvard botanist Asa Gray in a letter of May 1860:
had their origin in a Creator.
Ihadnointentiontowriteatheistically…Ican
see no reason, why a man, or other animal,
A second reason why Darwin is difficult to pin
may not have been aboriginally produced by
down concerns the fluctuation of belief. In private
other laws; & that all these laws may have
correspondence he admitted that his beliefs often
been expressly designed by an omniscient
fluctuated, even within his most agnostic phases.
Creator, who foresaw every future event &
There were times when, in his own words, he sup-
consequence. But the more I think the more
posed he deserved to be called a theist. At other
bewildered I become.1
times the strength of his belief in an ultimate
Creator waned. He did, however, insist that he
had never been an atheist in the sense of denying Darwin’s Inheritance of a
the existence of God—a point sometimes over- Christian Natural Theology
looked by his fundamentalist critics and his
The gradual process whereby Darwin abandoned
atheistic champions.
Christianity was certainly complete by the time he
The attempt to capture in sound bites such a composed the Origin of Species in the late 1850s.
subtle, honest and imaginative thinker as Darwin Some of the seeds of doubt were sown during his
is bound to fail. He frequently confessed his con- voyageonHMSBeagle,whenhewitnessedadegree
viction that this wonderful universe could not be ofviolenceandinstabilityinnaturethatjarredwith
theproductofchance.But,typically,hewouldadd thestable,“happyworld”ofWilliamPaley’sNatural
anuance.Hecouldnotthinktheuniversetheprod- Theology(1802).Darwinhadbeencaptivatedbythis
uct of chance alone, but nor could he look at its book with its detailed descriptions of the adapta-
manylifeformsandseeinthemevidenceofdesign. tions to be found in plants and animals. For Paley
Hewascaughtinaconundrumandinself-effacing they testified to the wisdom and power of their
modewouldsayhewasinahopelessmuddle.Just Creator,whohadlavishedcareoneventhelowliest
as it was necessary to believe both in determinism creature. For his lifelong fascination with the study
and free will, despite the problem of reconciling of adaptation, Darwin remained indebted to Paley,
them,helookedforawayofembracingbothchance usinghimasasoundingboardtotesthisnaturalistic
and design. During the early 1860s he toyed with theory of how such adaptations could have been
the formula that the great diversity of living things accomplishedthroughtheperfectingactionofnatu-
was the result of “designed laws” with the details ral selection working onrandomvariations.
left to chance.
In South America Darwin saw the devastating
A further complication concerns the privacy of effects of an earthquake; he observed nature red in
religiousbelief.Darwinoncereproachedallwould- tooth and claw on a grandiose scale; he registered
be interrogators by saying that he could not see the staggering numbers of species that had become
why his beliefs should be of interest to anyone but extinct; and he witnessed the terrible struggle for
himself. The complication here is that his writings existencefacedbythenativesoftheTierradelFuego.
didcontainremarkscalculatedtocauseleastoffence. Suchexperiences,whencombinedwithphilosophi-
He knew there were things he should say and not cal reflection, eventually made it difficult for him
say, particularly concerning the human mind, if he to discern in nature the workings of a beneficent
68 PerspectivesonScienceandChristianFaith
JohnHedleyBrooke
deity. He was particularly struck by the fact that petitivestruggleforexistenceaccentuatedtheprob-
neithertheFuegiansnortheaboriginesofAustralia lem of suffering. Darwin himself considered that
appeared to have an innate sense of God. This the presence of so much pain and suffering in the
caused him to question one of the most basic world was one of the most powerful arguments
assumptions of his day, namely that humans could against belief in a beneficent deity—and yet it was
be sharply differentiated from animals by their to be expected on his theory of natural selection.
possession of that religious sense. And in one other crucial respect Darwin’s science
did contribute to his eventual agnosticism. It even
It is commonly supposed that Darwin’s science
provided a justification for it. If the human mind
was responsible for his rejection of Christianity.
isitselftheproductofevolutionaryprocesses,canit
Alesscommon,subtlerviewisthattherejectionof
be trusted to reach definitive conclusions on meta-
Christianity was a precondition of his innovative
physical and theological matters? On the big ques-
science. Both interpretations, however, trade on
tionsofmeaning,purposeandtheexistenceofGod,
the same assumption—that of an inherent conflict
Darwin finally became unsure whether he should
betweenscienceandreligion. Thereality was more
trust even his own convictions.
complex.Therewerefeaturesofanemergingscien-
tific naturalism that did contribute to new forms
of scepticism on religious matters and Darwin’s Moral and Existential Issues
writings reveal them. The main reasons for his WhenDarwinwrotethathecouldnotseehowany-
rejection of Christianity, however, lay elsewhere. one could wish Christianity to be true, he was not
While his science did play a role in disposing him thinkingaboutasupposedincompatibilitywithsci-
against an intervening deity, the loss of his earlier ence.Theissuewasrathercoherencewithacivilised
Christian beliefs had more to do with issues com- morality. He was thinking about the doctrine of
montoallhumanitythanwithconclusionsentailed eternal damnation for the unregenerate as it was
by his theory of natural selection. The claim that it commonly preached at the time. Freethinkers out-
was his renunciation of Christianity that made his side the Christian fold—and these included his
science possible suffers the inconvenience that his grandfather Erasmus Darwin, his father and his
theory began taking shape in 1837 and 1838 before brother Erasmus—were destined for eternal per-
he abandoned belief in divine providence. dition if this doctrine were true. For Charles it was
thedoctrinethatwas “damnable,” notthey.
The Relevance of Darwin’s
There were philosophical as well as ethical con-
Science to His Rejection of
siderations. Darwin was well aware that to posit
Christianity a first cause for the universe invited a rebellious
Darwin’ssciencedidhaveabearingonhisthoughts questionconcerningthecauseofthatcause.Incom-
aboutreligioninseveralrespects.Ashiswife,Emma, mon with the sceptical eighteenth-century philoso-
had perceived before their marriage, a sceptical pher David Hume, Darwin also attached weight to
mentality cultivated in the rigorous examination of the consideration that false religions, notoriously,
evidence could corrode beliefs that were inconclu- often spread quickly. He did not find the miracle
sively attested. The great strides made by Darwin’s stories in the New Testament gospels sufficiently
fellow naturalists in astronomy and the Earth sci- compelling to authenticate the Bible as a divine
encesencouragedinhimtheviewthat“themorewe revelation and his general antipathy to claims for
knowofthefixedlawsofnaturethemoreincredible revelationwasoftenaccompaniedbyremarksabout
domiraclesbecome.”2Thefactthatthevariationson the ignorance of the biblical writers.
whichnaturalselectionworkedappearedrandomly,
For some scholars, notably Darwin’s biographer
and could not be immediately correlated with a
James Moore, the death of Darwin’s favourite
prospective use, predisposed him against the view
daughter Annie, early in 1851, marked the real
proposed by Asa Gray that novel variations were
watershed in Darwin’s engagement with Chris-
micro-managed by thedeity.
tianity. One cannot read the letters that passed
As many religious commentators would recog- between Charles and Emma at this desolate time,
nise, an emphasis on natural selection and a com- without shedding tears with them. Why should so
Volume61,Number2,June2009 69
Article
Charles Darwin on Religion
innocentachildsuffer?Whatpatterncouldpossibly all. It was inappropriate to argue for design from
be discerned in such human tragedies? Annie’s the minutiae of organic structures, but progressive
death was the most heart-rending example, and trendsinacreativeevolutionaryprocesscouldform
the one closesttohome, of a more general problem thebasis of a revised natural theology.
Darwinexperiencedinseekingtorationalisepartic-
Darwin’s references to “laws impressed on mat-
ularevents.AftertheOriginofSpecieswaspublished
terbytheCreator”featuredevenmoreprominently
he entered into a revealing correspondence with
in the second edition of the Origin than in the first,
AsaGrayinwhichthequestionofdesigninnature
andheappearsgenuinelytohavebelievedthatthis
was explored in depth. For Gray, natural selection
way of looking at the question of design ought to
wasnotinconsistentwithaChristiannaturaltheol-
mean that his views on the mutability of species
ogy; Darwin was more sceptical. He asked Gray
would be exempt from theological criticism. In the
whetherhebelievedthatifamanstoodunderatree
second edition he could see “no good reason why
and was struck by lightning there was design in
the views given in this volume should shock the
such an event. In pressing Gray for an answer,
religious feelings of anyone.”5
Darwin acknowledged that many did believe it;
but he could not. By the early 1860s Darwin was
Thefactthattheydid,andthefactthathistheory
sure that the accidents of life (and by extension the
was often attacked for its theological implications
countless contingencies in evolutionary processes)
rather than judged on the quality of its science,
should not be ascribed to the immediate control of
meantthatduringthe1860sDarwinbecameincrea-
a divine agent.
singly irritated by those who had a religious axe
togrind.Hisfrustrationisoftenvisibleinhiscorre-
This did not mean, however, that an ultimate
spondence, as in a letter written to Joseph Hooker
Creator and designer of the universe was deleted
inSeptember1868:“Iamnotsurewhetheritwould
from his philosophy of nature. He did not believe
not be wisest for scientific men quite to ignore the
that the universe was self-explanatory and in the
whole subject of religion.”6 Not that he was able
late 1850s and early 1860s was still willing to
to do so himself. When he addressed the subject
describe the laws of nature as ordained by the
of human evolution in The Descent of Man (1871),
Creatorinsuchawaythatthehighestgoodwecan
he hypothesised about the origins of religion and
conceive—namely the production of the higher
the developmentof the moral sense. He speculated
animals—wouldbebroughtabout.Inhislargebook
that in primitive human societies a propensity to
on natural selection, of which the Origin was a
ascribenaturalphenomenatoinvisiblespiritsmight
summary, he explicitly defined what he meant by
notbesodifferentfromthebehaviourofhisbarking
“nature” in order to make this clear: “By nature,
dog, which, Darwin surmised, had imagined an
I mean the laws ordained by God to govern the
invisible intruder responsible for the movement of
Universe.”4ThisisnotDarwintheatheistofpopular
an open parasol swayed by the breeze.
caricature.
Themoralsensehaddevelopedasaconsequence
Darwin’s Deism of a basic human desire to enjoy the approval of
It is often said that Darwin’s science excluded all others.Selfishactsrisking,orleadingto,thelossof
senseofpurposeinnature.Thisisnotstrictlycorrect that approbation would induce feelings of anxiety
becausethedeisticphilosophyofnaturewithwhich andunease,preconditionsoftheemergenceofcon-
he was comfortable still allowed what his popu- science. Despite this prescient extension of natural-
larizerThomasHenryHuxleydescribedasa“higher istic explanation, Darwin did not consider that he
teleology.” It was possible to see the creation of was promoting the relativity of moral values. The
the higher animals, and humans in particular with goldenrulethatweshouldtreatothersaswewould
theircapacityforappreciatinggoodnessandbeauty, wish themto treatus constituted the highestmoral
as implicit in the way the universe was first set up. principle. Darwin’s aim was not to impugn it but
It was for this reason that Huxley could say that simplytoexplainhowithadcomeabout.Hisexpla-
Darwin’s theory had no more to do with theism nation gave an important role to religious beliefs
than the first book of Euclid—meaning nothing at in reinforcing moral precepts.
70 PerspectivesonScienceandChristianFaith
JohnHedleyBrooke
Darwin’s Legacy in the species.8 Gray also believed that Darwin had
Religious Sphere providedanewresourceforaddressingthetheolo-
gians’ problem of suffering. While there was a real
The religious controversies surrounding Darwin’s
sense in which Darwin’s theory put the spotlight
sciencehavebeenwelldocumentedfortheChristian
on pain, struggle, cruelty and waste in the works
churches, rather less fully for other religious tra-
of nature, Gray believed that if they were precon-
ditions. Attention has been paid, correctly, to the
ditions of the possibility of a creative process that
problemsthatwereposedforthosewhostillwished
eventuated in humanity, their presence could be
to read the Genesis creation narratives literally or
better understood.
who recognised that the principle of natural selec-
tionrequired, attheveryleast,arevisionofnatural This line of argument, in which Darwin’s theory
theology. For Christianity a distinction has to be becamearesourcefortheconstructionoftheodicies
drawn between the understandings to be found still finds expression today among evolutionary
within popular religion and those of a Christian biologists with religious sympathies. To the ques-
intelligentsia,which,evenbeforeDarwinpublished, tion why there were so many displeasing, even
had come to appreciate the many different literary devilish creatures in the world, Darwin himself
genres to be found in the Bible. One of Darwin’s had answered that this was a problem of greater
legacies was to reinforce recognition that attempts magnitudeforthosewhobelievedinthedirectand
to harmonise science with Scripture on the premise separate creation of each species—for the deity
that the Bible had authority on questions of natural would then be immediately responsible for vile
sciencewereinappropriateandcounter-productive. molluscs and the wasps that lay their eggs in the
bodiesofcaterpillars.Butiftheonlyworldinwhich
TherewereotherlegacieswelcomedbyChristian
the evolution of human beings had been possible
commentators. One of Darwin’s earliest converts
wasaworldinwhichtheproductionoftheseother
wastheChristiansocialistCharlesKingsleywhoin
beings was also possible, might there be a sense
hispopularnovelscouldbesaidtohavedonemore
in which the deity could be exonerated?
than almost anyone to transmit evolutionary ideas
to an English-speaking public. Kingsley delighted Darwin’srepeatedappealtolawsofnature,with
Darwin when he concurred that it was their origin in an ultimate Creator, did resonate
as noble a conception of Deity, to believe that with the thinking of the most open-minded reli-
hecreatedprimalformscapableofselfdevelop- gious thinkers. A striking example is Frederick
ment … as to believe that He required a fresh Temple who, as early as 1860, preached a sermon
actofinterventiontosupplythelacunaswhich in Oxford in which he welcomed the expansion of
he himself had made. scientific explanation and chided those who tried
to make theological capital out of phenomena that
Kingsley implied that he found the former the
thesciencescouldnotyetexplain.Thiswasanearly
“loftier thought.”7
recognition of the dangers for religious apologists
Darwin’s most able defender in North America, who pinned their hopes on a god-of-the-gaps,
Asa Gray, also commended the new theory from whose jurisdiction would forever shrink as the sci-
a Christian point of view. In common with Darwin encesadvanced.Templewasaconverttoevolution,
and with the co-founder of the theory of natural finding in Darwin’s theory a welcome unification
selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, Gray valued of nature and a licence to believe that the history
the conclusion that all living things were linked oflifeonEarthhadbeenprogressiveandnotdirec-
together by a single evolutionary story. In contrast tionless.ThefactthatTemplebecameArchbishopof
to the view that the distinctive human races had Canterbury in the 1880s symbolizes the acceptance
been separate creations, which could easily under- of Darwin’s achievement by the English Church.
pin racial prejudice, Gray rejoiced that all human- When Darwin died in April 1882 he was buried in
kind constituted a single species united by a Westminster Abbey, the national newspapers find-
common ancestry. Recent research has shown how ing no religious obstacle.9 The Times declared the
Darwin’s own abhorrence of slavery affected his clash between Huxley and Bishop Wilberforce in
thinking on the origins and unity of the human 1860 a piece of “ancient history”; the Liberal Daily
Volume61,Number2,June2009 71
Article
Charles Darwin on Religion
NewsaddedthatDarwiniandoctrinewasquitecon- a deeper understanding of the processes he sought
sistent “with strong religious faith and hope.” to understand. Two presuppositions characterise
much of his thinking on questions of science and
That reference to the Wilberforce-Huxley debate
religion. One was that it would be sacrilegious to
at the 1860 meeting of the British Association for
suggest that the deity was incapable of achieving
the Advancement of Science is a reminder of the
its creative purposes through natural causes. The
diversityofreligiousreaction.TheBishopofOxford
other, associated with his agnosticism, was an atti-
hadfoundDarwin’stheoryoffensivewithitspostu-
tude of tolerance to those whose intimate beliefs
lation of continuity between humans and their
he did not share. In so far as he had a creed at
animal ancestors. Wilberforce’s contention that a
the end of his life, it was that each man should
graduation from primate to human was incom-
hope and believe what he can. (cid:2)
patiblewithChristianclaimsforhumanuniqueness
overlookedthefactthattosayhumanswerederived
from ape-like ancestors was not to say they were
nothing but apes. To regard his intransigent re- Notes
action as fully typical of the religious response is, 1DarwintoAsaGray,22May1860,inTheCorrespondenceof
however, another common mistake. CharlesDarwin.Vol.8(CambridgeUniversityPress),224.
2TheAutobiographyofCharlesDarwin,ed.NoraBarlow(1958),
86.
A Further Legacy? 3Darwin,Autobiography,87.
4CharlesDarwin’sNaturalSelection,BeingtheSecondPartofHis
Darwin’slegacyisfarfromexhaustedinthesciences.
BigSpeciesBookWrittenfrom1856to1858,ed.R.C.Stauffer
Itisrightlycelebratedin2009.Inthereligioussphere (Cambridge,1975),224.
it has proved more equivocal. The oppositional 5TheOriginofSpeciesbyCharlesDarwin:AVariorumText,ed.
stance of fundamentalist groups and the equally M.Peckham(UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress),748.
6DarwintoHooker,8–10September1868,inTheCorrespon-
aggressive rejoinders from exasperated atheists has
denceofCharlesDarwin.Vol.16,732.
contributedtoapolarizationthatthemembershipof
7KingsleytoDarwin,18November1859,inTheCorrespon-
ISSR deeply regrets. There is another legacy from denceofCharlesDarwin.Vol.7,379–80.
Darwin,which,ifappropriated,couldonlybebene- 8AdrianDesmondandJamesMoore,Darwin’sSacredCause:
Race,SlaveryandtheQuestforHumanOrigins(AllenLane,
ficial in contexts where dogmatism on either side
2009).
prevails. The manner in which Darwin conducted
9Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin (Penguin),
himselfinhisdealingswithfriendsandcriticsalike chapter44.
might still be held up as an example. There was
an attractive humility in the self-deprecating way
Further Reading
in which he declined to dogmatise on intractable
For more on Darwin’s thinking about religion, see the
questions such as the existence of God or the exis-
‘Darwinandreligion’sectionoftheDarwinCorrespon-
tenceof transcendentpurposes in theuniverse. denceProjectwebsite:www.darwinproject.ac.uk
OtherrecentdiscussionsincludeNickSpencer,Darwinand
Darwin also displayed an impressive honesty in God(SPCK2009)andessaysbyJohnHedleyBrookeand
his rhetoric, conceding the difficulties surrounding Robert J. Richards in The Cambridge Companion to the
his theory as well as underlining its strengths. One OriginofSpecies(CambridgeUniversityPress,2009).
of his grievances against the evolutionary biologist
St. George Mivart was that, in a severe critique of
Darwin’s dependence on natural selection, Mivart This article—by Professor John Hedley Brooke—was
dwelled only on the difficulties, disregarding the written at the request of the Executive Committee of
strengths. Mivart was a convert both to evolution- the International Society for Science and Religion.
It is not intended to be a rigorous academic article
ary thought and to Roman Catholicism, making it
but is intended to serve as a balanced introduction
easy for Darwin and Huxley to impute a religious
tothetopic of Darwin’s religious beliefs byoneof the
motivation to his critique. There were other quali-
leadinghistorians of scienceof our time. TheSociety
tiesinDarwinthatareoftenlackingamongcontem-
retains the copyright of the article but gives general
porary antagonists. He knew where to draw the
permission to reproduce it, in whole or in part, pro-
lines on the limitations of his science, recognising
videdthatthisentireparagraphisreproduced.
that the future would bring fresh insights and
72 PerspectivesonScienceandChristianFaith