Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859. We've come to imagine him as a godless naturalist and to see the publication of this book as a dramatic moment in history, one that created an instantaneous rift between science and religion. These assumptions fuel some of our most intractable cultural debates.
As it turns out, Darwin was grounded in the distinctly reverent Christian philosophy of Western science up to that point in history, a view of the world encapsulated in a quote of Francis Bacon that he put opposite the title page of The Origin of Species:
Let no man … think or maintain that a man can search too far or be too well-studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works … but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficiency in both.Darwin, as we learn from James Moore, was agonizingly aware of the fixed worldview that his theory of transmutation — the original term for evolution — would unsettle. The people of Darwin's time believed that every condition of plant, animal, and man was static and eternal, brought into being all at once at the beginning of time.
They estimated that to have been 6000 years earlier. But The Origin of Species was not the first classic scientific text to break from such beliefs. It was, rather, the last to fully engage them. Darwin waited two decades before he published. His observations and conclusions were painstakingly belabored. He anticipated religious questions and objections at every turn and responded carefully to them. Darwin's theory of natural selection was borne, James Moore asserts, of "theological humility." This insight alone would place our culture's contentious battles over Darwin on a different footing.
My own suppositions have been radically changed by this program. I'm reminded of the program we created on Albert Einstein. Einstein did not reject the idea of a force or "mind" behind the universe. But he saw that expressed in natural laws that could be discerned and described.
In a similar way, Darwin saw creation as an unfolding reality. Once set in motion, as he saw it, the laws of nature sustained a self-organizing progression driven by the needs and struggles of every aspect of creation itself. The word "reverence" would not be too strong for the attitude with which Darwin approached all he saw in the natural world. There is a great intellectual and spiritual passion and a touching sense of wonder evident in the writings included in "Evolution and Wonder" and on the Speaking of Faith Web site, from his private notebooks and correspondence as well as the Beagle Diary and The Origin of Species.
For me, this view from within Darwin's life and times opens up fascinating new ways to ponder not the rift but the possibilities for exchange between science and theology. He used the biblically evocative analogy of a "tree of life" to illustrate his theory of species sprouting as branches from the same trunk, some flourishing and others withering and falling to nourish the ground in which the whole is sustained. His vision of all of life netted together is profoundly consonant with what we are learning now in environmental sciences as well as genetics.
In describing a creation that organized itself, incorporating chaos and change into survival and progress, Darwin did not challenge the idea of God as the source of all being. But he did reject the idea of a God minutely implicated in every flaw and injustice and catastrophe.
As James Moore puts it, Darwin forced human beings to look at the inherent struggle of natural life head-on, not as we wish it to be, but as it is in all its complexity and brutality and mystery. This is most difficult for human beings, perhaps, in times of great change and turmoil such as ours. Indeed Moore and I trace the fact that the greatest resistance to Darwin's ideas has appeared in other cultural moments of flux and global danger. But Moore tells his students who believe they must choose between belief in a creator and the science of Darwin simply to read The Origin of Species. There is much in Darwin's thought that would ennoble as well as ground a religious view of life and of God. I'll end with that book's final lines, which are rich with wonder:
(F)rom the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
I Recommend Reading:
The Hand of Darwin
Our exploration of Darwin has many layers. On our Web site you'll find a captivating narrated tour through Darwin's private correspondence — his sketches as well as his notebooks and letters — by one of the scholars who knows it best, David Kohn.


Comments: 32
Incidentally, Darwin was an agnostic but never anti-God.
Nicely written, simple and direct. Hey, maybe those little fish symbols with the DARWIN inside them are closer to the truth then either the Creationists or the Darwinist think.
Your article is a gem. Thank you!
Our human attention, in these troubled days which need not be so troubled, can and will be benefitted by reflections you have given us here to to ponder about. The human hope that the wedding of an ever improving evolutionary theory and science and WORLD religions will lead us into a new age where we will learn to 'see' and 'understand' ever more fully, the magnificance of both EXISTENTIAL WONDER and the gifts, when analyzing closely, from the need to take new and far 'sharper' looks at ther notion of 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN' as a PROCESS.
That potential 'linkage' will start to establish a new, far more UNIVERSAL, human morality that may, just MAY, show us the glories to be derived from both a sustainable PEACE and a grander meaning of the notion of PROGRESS for ALL humans,. that will make Religious Ecumenism intelligible, and thus far more meaningfully operative.
Who knows? We may find ourselves pondering the issue of the deepest ideas associated with the idea of 'OUR FAMILY' of human beings on our small but glorious PLANET!
Dick
Congrats! You are featured on gather's homepage!
Thank you Krista for the article as well.
comments were also...thanks!
> little religion" does for people, who wants it.
Yes ... there's the Sandy I know. I don't know what you have
against religion, or me for that matter .... and you don't seem
to ever be able to articulate it except to wait for something I
might say that can be attacked and then me as a negative
example. There is a problem with that Sandy old gal, I am just
respectful of religion when it is not abused. I do not attend
religious services or support religion except in a general way
that respects someone's belief and desire to live in this world
how they want to as long as they are respectful of other people.
When I attack those relgions that are not respectful of other
people, such as radical Islam .. surprise, surprise, there's Sandy
again taking nasty shots at me.
And that's Sandy.
Being spiritual is not the same as being religious. A great many scientists are spiritual people; like Fred Allen Wolf, the quantum physics man who says that you can't separate your spiritual life from the rest of your life.
"The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming."
Freeman Dyson
I say "to me" because I didn't know Darwin. I have not read even half of what he wrote. I have heard so many different stories, lots of them lies, and other people's ideas of what Darwin was or should have been.
What stands was his theory evolution by natural selection ... an almost Buddhist idea ... a recursive description of how the universe works and how life changes becoming more complex. With all the much more loudness and force that we can give things these days I hope that the real man who was Darwin is not forgotten or scribbled over to serve other people's desires.
Darwin needn't have been a believer of any sort to feel genuine wonder at the beauty, scope, and variety of nature. While I continue to hold my mind open, waiting for a shred of verifiable evidence of God, I also continue, at face value, reject the existence of God as highly improbable. This does not stop me, like Carl Sagan before me, from having a heart filled with wonder and deep appreciation for the natural universe and the tiny speck we call Earth, the only known habitable planet.
Believer or no, inspired or no, what Darwin did need in order to influence human life as he did, is to be educated in the ways of scientific research. He put all his findings through the test of the scientific method, to verify that he was observing correctly and coming to the best conclusions he could, given only the data from his research, not lofty or smoky suppositions about the nature of the kindly creator. No leap of faith was taken in creating "The Origin of the Species". But great pains were taken to adhere to good research practice.
Further, science needn't reconcile with religion, nor vice versa. Science needs verifiable data, religion needs faith and belief under necessary absence of proof. Darwin may have been at peace or conflicted within, if he was at all religious, or if he wasn't. But despite all the wonder a soul can feel, and in spite of any reluctance Darwin may have felt to damage the religious and their institutions through exposure of unchanged beliefs to conflicting new evidence, his human unperfectness is far outshined by the timelessness of his science. Darwin's acheivement, and that of Einstein and others, is not that we came to know him as a typical, conflicted human of his period. It is the way he turned the world on its head through research. Viva science!
> Believer or no, inspired or no, what Darwin did need in
> order to influence human life as he did, is to be educated
> in the ways of scientific research. He put all his findings
> through the test of the scientific method, to verify that
> he was observing correctly and coming to the best
> conclusions he could, given only the data from his
> research, not lofty or smoky suppositions about the
> nature of the kindly creator. No leap of faith was taken in
> creating "The Origin of the Species". But great pains
> were taken to adhere to good research practice.
This is a great point. Not only does learning science, logic,
rationality and critical thinking help in doing science and
perceiving the universe objectively, it also assists people in
looking at the human world in terms of democracy and
justice ... after all ... our legal system is mostly about
applying a set of axioms about people and justice logically
and with reason to allow people to live with each other.
I think it is also fair to mention that Einstiein did not do a
lot of research. He read and did thought experiments to
build his view of physics.
Somehow many people these days attack religion because
they see it as forcing people into using faith and obedience
to control and abuse people. I do not call this religion, and I
know there are many people who do not view religion this
way. All religion is not the Catholic Inquisition. These human
pathologies are not specific to religion which is why in many
cases I will defend religion and spirituality even though I am
not a part of any religion.
I do see this country as a Christian nation, in the same sense
as I see it as a Western nation government by reason, if not
science. Surely it does not say that anywhere in any of our
fouding documents, but there is no denying the European heritage
of science and rationality led by desent to the primary shaping and
geometry of the American mind.
rationality led by desent to the primary shaping and geometry
of the American mind as Christianity did to shape the Ameican
heart. This is what I mean by a Christian nation, though I am
no longer what I would call a Christian, or a Cartesian .... I
feel we can honor the past without going crazy. Recall that
people can corrupt anything, and Darwins (cousin??) Galton
tried to put forth the pseudo-science of social Darwinism and
eugenics.
European heritage of science? Well, if you are only are considering its re-emergence after its oppression by Christianity for centuries...
Giving Europeans the credit for science is to ignore all that existed and was know beforehand AND all that was destroyed and lost during the rise and reign of the Catholic papacy. A rather relevant point to this particular discussion, I think.
The roots of science originated in ancient Egypt and Babylonia where mathematics and astronomy originated. It was brought to Iona, Greece by men such as Thales of Miletus, Anaximander, Democritus and Leucippus who were basically the first scientists as they began using the experimental method to explore and explain the world around them. The most elemental concepts of science emerged in Abdera--the atom, a concept developed by Democritus and Leucippus....
Its no accident that the cradle of the scientific method was the Ionian city of Adbera. It was known for its tolerance of ideas and religion.
The persistent and inane attempt to marry god to science will no doubt continue. But in my opinion it says far more about the people who attempt this futile exercise than it does about either god or science.
"The chief characteristic of the religion of science is that it works."-- Isaac Asimov