Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

If you are a Darwinist, can you be a Christian if people just say so … ?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A friend mentioned that a certain Christian Darwinist Web log removed a post in which he intimated that Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) was only doubtfully a Christian. We are advised by the mod that Dobzhansky, who was certainly a loyal foot soldier for Darwin, was also a “firmly committed Christian.”

Indeed? Those who might be expected to know report,

Dobzhansky was a religious man, although he apparently rejected fundamental beliefs of traditional religion, such as the existence of a personal God and of life beyond physical death. His religiosity was grounded on the conviction that there is meaning in the universe. He saw that meaning in the fact that evolution has produced the stupendous diversity of the living world and has progressed from primitive forms of life to mankind. Dobzhansky held that, in man, biological evolution has transcended itself into the realm of self-awareness and culture. He believed that somehow mankind would eventually evolve into higher levels of harmony and creativity. He was a metaphysical optimist.” (Ayala, F.J. & Fitch, W.M., Genetics and the origin of species: An introduction,” _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA_, Vol. 94, July 1997, pp.7691-7697, p.7693.

Okay, so he was probably kind to kids, kittens, and katydids (as his fond survivors doubtless recall), but was not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

Yes, much is made of his “Orthodox”-ness”, presumably because those icons so greatly embellish the story. It says a lot about Christian Darwinism that he is regarded as an excellent example.

As I explained to my friend,

if you ask me whether someone is a Christian, I say, “Let him recite the
Apostle’s Creed and affirm that he believes it and renounces contrary doctrines.”

In the Creed, you will hardly hear about “somehow mankind would eventually evolve into higher levels of harmony and creativity,” nor can any such doctrine be twisted out of either Christianity or history in general.

So either the Darwinists who think they know what Dobzhansky believed are wrong or the Christian Darwinists are trying to put us on again. Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets.

The trouble is, it’s all on the Internet now …

It bothers me that some people reassure school kids that there is no conflict between Christianity and Darwinism (oh, and by the way, evolution explains why you kids and your parents believe the God illusion).

My friend is better off posting some place where facts matter. And Christian Darwinists would be better off without the Information Age.

(Note: There are slightly different versions of the Creed, but none offer the “somehow evolve” option.)

Comments
Neil Rickert @ 7 More disquieting still is Professor D. M. S. Watson's defense. "Evolution itself," he wrote, "is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or... can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice. Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God? ~ CS Lewis True, there are religious scientists and Darwinian churchgoers. But this does not mean that faith and science are compatible, except in the trivial sense that both attitudes can be simultaneously embraced by a single human mind. (It is like saying that marriage and adultery are compatible because some married people are adulterers.) ~ Jerry Coynebevets
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
... and about the ludicrous notion that Darwinism (the assertion that the biological history of earth is totally unplanned) is compatible with Christianity. Furthermore, Lewis *rejected* the notion that "evolution" was random/unplanned.Ilion
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
Neil Rickert: "If Christianity is incompatible with evolution, should we conclude that C.S. Lewis was not a Christian?" Did you even *try* to attend to the point under discussion? No one is talking about "evolution" -- whatever you think that term means -- but rather about the assertion that "evolution" is random and unplanned.Ilion
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
If Christianity is incompatible with evolution, should we conclude that C.S. Lewis was not a Christian?Neil Rickert
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
(Note: There are slightly different versions of the Creed, but none offer the “somehow evolve” option.) And certainly no version of the Apostles' Creed can be reconciled with rejection of "the existence of a personal God and of life beyond physical death": "I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth... I believe in ... the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting."lars
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Evolution can/could include 1. Direct direction via supernatural agency, e.g., (possibly) the first cell, the Cambrian explosion, man 2. Algorithmic mutation, which pushes things in certain directions to achieve the twin goals of robust life and breathtaking variation 3. Random mutation, i.e., "copying errors" Darwinists lump everything into the bottom category. And "error" is a misnomer because darwinian evolution has no purpose or goal, so there is no "right" way for things to be in the first place. A strict darwinist cannot say that cancerous cells are wrong or bad. That's why everybody's a theist when they go to the doctor.RkBall
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
---nullasalus: "For the record, I recall Stephen Barr openly says he believes God knew how evolution would end up. But if Jerry Coyne and Michael Ruse are right, that’s sufficient to make Barr (and anyone who agrees with him) no longer a Darwinist." Jerry and Michael would seem to be right. Darwinism requires a purposeless, mindless process that did not have man in mind. If it did have man in mind, it wouldn't be Darwinism. Stephen Barr's comments with respect to God's foreknowledge do not really address the issue. What matters is whether or not God intended and designed the outcome that He knows will occur. Foreknowledge is not enough. God knows if the stock market is going to crash. That doesn't mean that he caused it to happen. A Christian must believe that God designed the evolutionary process with apriori intent, which rules out Darwinism in principle. The Darwinist scheme is the alternative to apriori intent. This gets us back to the philosophy of the Christian Darwinist, which is that God designed the process except that he didn't.StephenB
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
Good post, and good response concerning Asa Gray. However, this discussion begs the questions with which I struggle all the time - and have been struggling with for 30 years of adult life: (1) What are the minimal "requirements" to be called a "Christian," and (2) Who decides what the requirements are, and if they are met by a particular individual? Typically, posters here seem to discount the true "Christian" character of anyone who accepts Darwinism, even in modified form (e.g., theistic evolution). Posters also seem to judge correct beliefs as more important than actual life practices, i.e., it matters more what a person believes than whether she/he is "following" Jesus in a more daily, tangible way than her/his critic(s). Who decides who is a "Christian"? And on what basis? Seems to me that if God didn't want diversity of opinions among professing believers, it wouldn't exist.lovingfamilyman
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
Actually, there's another "Christian Darwinist" question I've been wondering about. Asa Gray is often cited as a premiere example of a person who could be both a Christian and a Darwinist. (Darwin himself refers to Asa Gray in his famous letter about how it seems clear to him a man could be 'both an ardent theist' and an evolutionist.) The problem is, Asa Gray and Charles Darwin had an ongoing and even semi-public dispute. Gray believed variations were "led along beneficial lines". My understanding of his meaning is this: Gray's view of evolution was that there was no 'random variation' in the truest sense of the word, because God (being omniscient and omnipotent) would determine the variation. (He certainly didn't believe that all variation was variation that provided 'better reproductive fitness' or such.) I mean, clearly He would if He were omniscient and omnipotent, right? But Darwin struggled against that fiercely, going so far as to tell Gray that if God were directing the variation that natural selection would be superfluous as a real explanation. I'll point out, though it goes largely unmentioned in their dispute, that God would also determine all the selection (and thus all selection would be artificial selection - not natural.) Now, that's my reading of Gray. But here's the problem: If that's right, then Darwin was either A) saying that a theist 'could be an evolutionist', but he did not mean a Darwinist, B) that the 'ardent theist' would have to be a theist who didn't believe God was omniscient or omnipotent, C) that Darwinism is entirely compatible with an omniscient, omnipotent God, and Darwin himself gave up on the 'unguided' or 'blind' part of his own theory, or D) Darwin was confused, or actively deceptive, about his own theory. I think what I just mentioned, though, is the million dollar question for anyone who says they are an "orthodox Christian" and a Darwinist: Do they believe in an omniscient, omnipotent God? Do they therefore believe that God knew the evolutionary outcomes of His own creation? For the record, I recall Stephen Barr openly says he believes God knew how evolution would end up. But if Jerry Coyne and Michael Ruse are right, that's sufficient to make Barr (and anyone who agrees with him) no longer a Darwinist.nullasalus
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
Third Day - Creed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oybROi7Ehgbornagain77
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply