Evolution and Wonder: Understanding Charles Darwin
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.
» Find your station
SOF OnDemand:
» Listen Now (RA)
» Download (mp3)
» Podcast
SOF via E-mail:
» Sign up for the newsletter
In my conversation with biographer James Moore, we reject those debates. We explore the world in which Darwin formulated his ideas. We read from his varied writings. We ask what Darwin himself believed. Did he find in his observations of the natural world a rejection of God and of creation? How might he speak to our present struggles over his legacy?
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 this program and on our 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.
Krista Recommends Viewing:
The Hand of Darwin
We've compiled a digital collection of Darwin's papers that you won't see anywhere else. Our online editor traveled to Cambridge University to bring you photographic images of Darwin's original manuscripts and correspondence. He also discovered a wonderful array of paintings by Darwin from his time aboard the Beagle. These journals reveal a curious, poetic man; Darwin's watercolors reveal a lover of nature who seeks majesty of geological formations and coral reefs in order to better understand our species.


Comments: 5
And THAT defines the uselessness even TRYING to treat this difference as a debate. When you define your position as belief, you end the discussion. There is no possibility that any discourse rooted in logic, evidence or science will sway your opinion... because it's NOT opinion - it's belief. And belief always trumps debate, facts and evidence.
What Darwin "believed" or didn't believe is not relevant to the observations he made, the evidence he found or the explanations of them he made. He did not allow his "beliefs" to sway or refute facts. He DID allow it to delay his publication of what he knew, because he feared the ostracism that might (and in many cases did) result. But he published nonetheless, in spite of his beliefs. Because he knew that wherever his beliefs conflicted with the evidence, he had to go with evidence. And he did!
The theory of natural selection, most simply put, favors organisms that survive and reproduce...how can this not "make sense"? The tree of life analogy is such a brilliant, elegant way to see evolution represented in a diagram; species diverging from simple to complex. How does that not "make sense"? We use this sort of family tree symbolism all the time to trace back our ancestors and genetic codes. Look at the skeletal frameworks of species and come back and tell me you see no similar patterns or ancestry...it only takes a pair of eyes with good vision to see the relationships between and among species. It seems like willful blindness to reject evolution so completely when all evidence points to it, and nothing has replaced it as a better explanation. ("God did it" isn't a sufficient explanation.)
I think the U.S. has done a terrible job instructing our students in biology and the scientific method. The political nature of creationism/literal interpretation of the Bible vs evolution/natural history has created the rift and our nation has suffered because of it. I'm embarrassed by the statistics showing more people in the U.S. believe in a devil, hell, and angels than in evolutionary theory. When polled, 2/3's of Republicans reject Darwin's theory while majorities of Democrats and Independents accept it according to 2007 Gallup poll. This is certainly part of the cultural divide that shows the ideological differences between social conservatives and moderates/liberals. But our Science Education is suffering because of this rift. Science is threatened when it's being "dumbed down".
I think Ashley did not read the article. She just responded, in comment form, to the word, evolution, and the name, Darwin.