An Exchange On Darwinism

Hi Dr. Blanchard,

I enjoyed your piece on Darwinism and conservatism. It was a noble attempt at bringing two opposing sides together and I agree with much of what you said. I don't quite agree with your assessment of the religious right.

We are not opposed to Darwin, merely because we think that by explaining life, you explain it away.  That is, of course, part of the reason. I, for one, hate to have things explained. It was hard for me to eat after learning how the digestive system worked and I balk at the idea of stars "just" being balls of gas.

Yet, if Darwin's only crime was explaining something we'd prefer not to have explained, I don't think we'd have a reasonable objection.

Perhaps a more legitimate objection, then, is that he looks at human beings in an ugly way.  My generation has been brought up to believe that it is a good idea to treat other human beings with respect. Those of us who are Christians believe that God gives men souls and that men have inalienable rights, given to them by this God.  Darwin does not believe such a thing. He believes that some men are superior to others.

Consider this passage from The Descent of Man:

Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

 

Now, I have not yet read through the whole volume, so it may be that I have taken this quote out of context. Perhaps Darwin really is a champion of human rights. But if he is not, I think we have a legitimate objection to following his line of thinking. I'll have to read the entire book to figure it out.

 

Dearest Miranda:

I have read a lot of criticisms of Darwin from the religious right.  Almost all of them, I think, are partially motivated by the view that Darwinism is inconsistent with Biblical Creation.  I think this is not true, or to be more precise, that Darwinian theory is no more inconsistent with Genesis than geology, or physics and chemistry.  But many thoughtful and pious folks believe that Darwinism has to be defeated if Creation is to be saved.  It does seem to me that the bottom line here is that Creation needs to be miraculous, and that explanation undermines miracles.  It is the first half of that statement that I disagree with.  I am not in any way opposed to the story in Genesis. 

The second most common criticism is that Darwinism undermines human dignity.  You make such an argument yourself:

Perhaps a more legitimate objection, then, is that he looks at human beings in an ugly way.

My generation has been brought up to believe that it is a good idea to treatother human beings with respect. Those of us who are Christians believe that God gives men souls and that men have inalienable rights, given to them by this God.

Darwin does not believe such a thing. He believes that some men are superior to others.

To back up your argument, you offer a quote from the man himself.  It would be tempting to point out that almost any great thinker or philosopher or prophet with any considerable body of writing occasionally says something embarrassing.  Aristotle and Plato certain did, as did most Christian theologians.  But that would be too easy.

Charles Darwin was, for better and for worse, a Victorian Englishman.  He shared many of the prejudices of his fellows, about primitive peoples and my Irish ancestors (but I repeat myself).  On the other hand, he was a lifelong and vociferous opponent of slavery.  That counts for a lot. 

Unfortunately Darwin has a point.  In modern societies people are protected and allowed to mate who would not have survived in less civilized periods.  That does pose problems which medical technology has to deal with.  The proper response to Darwin’s quote is to point out that we aren’t breeding people like we breed animals, and protecting the weak makes for a better society.  Darwin should have seen that, but at this point in his writing he didn’t. 

But a recent book argues that Darwin’s theory was motivated in part by his anti-slavery sentiment.  “Scientific racists” in his time were arguing for separate acts of creation for the different races.  Thus one race was as distinct from another as men are from Apes.  Darwin wanted to show that this was no so.  We all share common ancestors, no matter what our race, creed, or color. 

I don’t think there is any good in opposing Darwinian Evolution as the model for biology, until some alternative comes along.  The trick is to show that Darwinism supports human dignity, that it does not look at human beings "in an ugly way." 

I think it does.  This is largely because I think that Darwinism is best understood in light of Aristotle, and the Philosopher certainly believed that human beings have souls.  But Aristotle thought that all living beings have souls.  Plants have nutritive souls (nourishment and flourishing); animals have that, and something else: the ability to perceive at a distance and move from place to place.  Human beings have logos as well: the ability to speak and distinguish between what something is and what it appears to be, what looks good and what is good.  I think that is a pretty good start for a defense of human dignity, and I think it is supported by Darwinian biology.  If I am right, we win!

I will have to take some time to check out your last question.  Meanwhile I am attaching the conference paper I am working on.  It speaks to these issues. 

Yours,

KB.

 

Comments

[Douglas Wiken]

Are humans more or less wonderful if designed by thousands of years of testing and rebuilding via Darwin's ideas or because some "intelligent designer" tossed out an idea for testing in the world made in seven days?

Would any kind of an intelligent designer of worlds and universe have ever allowed blogs where even the least of us can exhale pixel hot air?

[KB]

Doug:

I think human beings would be pretty wonderful under either scenario, but I am not sure this is an "either/or" choice. It has occurred to many a ponderer that the Creator could have created the world six thousand years ago with dinosaur bones and all.

I am not sure exactly who you have in mind when you craft the expression "pixel hot air." But I am pretty sure than the Intelligent Designer anticipated your blog, and takes pleasure in it.

KB