August 28, 2006
HE'D NOT HAVE BEEN SURPRISED THAT THE HYPOTHESES JUST GOT STRINGIER:
The Unimportance
of Evolution (G. K. Chesterton, March 15, 1930, America)
It is of course immensely interesting to those whose business it is to be interested in it; as the smallest star in the Nebula of Andromeda is intensely interesting to an astronomer; or the minutest shade of variety in duckweed may be of vast importance to a botanist. That sort of really scientific science the Church entirely approves, often munificently patronizes and, for the most part, very wisely lets alone. But it is not essential that the guardian of faith and morals should pronounce upon duckweed.Posted by Orrin Judd at August 28, 2006 12:36 PMIt may seem like a joke to say that Evolution as such is no more serious than the Derby winner. But horse racing is in the same moral world as horse breeding. And horse breeding is a perfect example of the really impartial and scientific study of Evolution.
The whole argument is concerned with whether animal life as such went through a process of adaptation or selection like that of horse breeding; and whether it is possible to have horse breeding without a horse breeder. In our human experience we know it is done by a directive will; and it would seem most reasonable that where it could not be done by a directive human will, it might be done by a directive Divine will. Darwin and others maintained, more or less doubtfully, that it might be done by a sort of prolonged coincidence; a chapter of accidents.
Darwin's theory of how this might have occurred has been largely abandoned by the latest scientific men; and indeed is only still accepted as a piece of Victorian respectability by old-fashioned people like Bishop Barnes. But in any case, it never went very far towards touching the primary problems; and Darwin himself hardly pretended that it did.
The truth is that the enemies of Christianity, the men who started with a prejudice against religion long before they had studied any science, tried to stretch these very thin and stringy theories, or rather hypotheses, of the nineteenth-century biologists, and make them impinge somehow on Christian philosophy; drawing all sorts of philosophical morals from them which the biological suggestions did not really support, even if they had been true.
Darwin's theory of how this might have occurred has been largely abandoned by the latest scientific men
What's he talking about? Lysenkoism was still a few years in the future when he wrote this, so I have no idea what he thought the "latest scientific men" were abandoning Darwin in favor of.
The last paragraph quoted is true, though: the fact that some have used Darwin to bash religion says nothing about the truth of evolution. And contra OJ's headline, evolution is far more established now than it was in 1930.
Posted by: PapayaSF at August 28, 2006 2:50 PMPapaya:
Evolution has much 'smarter' opponents now.
Posted by: jim hamlen at August 28, 2006 4:08 PMDarwinism was only rescued by the Piltdown and peppered moth hoaxes--it had been largely abandoned. The lies bought it a generation. No one believes in it anymore though.
Posted by: oj at August 28, 2006 4:22 PMDarwinism was only rescued by the Piltdown and peppered moth hoaxes--it had been largely abandoned.
What a load of ahistorical baloney. Your source for this? Abandoned for what, creationism? Because as I've tried to tell you, scientific theories are abandoned when better explanations come along, and evolutionary theory hasn't been abandoned because nothing that fits the facts better has come along. I've certainly never been able to see a better theory in all the peanut-gallery jeering around here.
The lies bought it a generation. No one believes in it anymore though.
Other than 99.99% of professional biologists, paleontologists, etc.: basically everyone who has studied the issue without the preconceived notion that evolution=atheism.
Posted by: PapayaSF at August 28, 2006 11:12 PMPapaya:
Have you read Edward Larson's book yet? It's rudimentary enough history that you'd grasp it (though any history of Darwinism tells the same story--it's not a controversial point) and he has a good discussion of how badly discredited Darwin was by the time they started inventing the evidence they couldn't find (though he phrases it differently), though, your insistence that an obviously inaccurate theory must stand until an accurate one replaces it is too anti-scientific for you to be helped. You are speaking of faith, not science.
They don't believe it anymore, they just, like you, have nothing better and can't concede to the wahoos after all this kerfuffle. That's why they keep rewriting definitions and faking evidence. If they thought they were right they'd not cheat.
Posted by: oj at August 28, 2006 11:30 PMPapayaSF, since you are not allowed to be a "professional" unless you belive in Darwin, that's not really a useful point. And I can't think of any scientific theory that has had the problems with hoaxes that Evolution has had. Could you explain why you think that is, as a defender of the theory?
Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at August 29, 2006 1:05 PMThe professionals don't believe in it eiher:
www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/2005/09/that_ones_gonna.html
Posted by: oj at August 29, 2006 1:12 PM