A World without Darwin?

[JohnR7]

I hear a lot of talk about Darwin and his theory of Evolution. So I am wondering. Just how different would our world be today, if Darwin had never written a book and if he had never proposed a theory of Evolution?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Wallace would not be forgotten about.


Also, we couldn't explain much about the biological word, and whole industries wouldn't exist. Kind of how astronomy would be different if we didn't have the theory of gravity.

 

[troodon]

Not too much different from a scientific stand point. I recall my bio teacher sophmore year, and my science teachers in 7th and 8th grade, telling my class how there was some other guy (I have forgotten his name) who independantly came up with evolution. According to them (yes I know they could be lieing because bio teachers are evil) this guy helped convince Darwin to make his theory public since he had personal doubts about publishing his findings. I hope all that's accurate.

EDIT: Ah yes, Wallace was his name. Many thanks Rufus.

 

[Orihalcon]

somebody sensible would probably have tried to explain the biological diversity through gradual change over time, or the concept of natural selection.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Darwin didn't invent evolution, he formulated the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, a theory based on such common sense and observation, if he hadn't proposed the theory, someone else would have. If not for social and/or religious pressure, I'm sure someone else would have done it long before The Origin of Species.

400 years before Darwin, Leonardo Da Vinci wrote in one of his notebooks, "Man does not differ from the animals except in what is accidental." Sounds like the seed of the idea, doesn't it?

 

[Chris H]

Much worse, actually John. What's wrong with being a christian who believes that God created the world and also believing that science can ferret out the history of that world?

Chris

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Without the man Darwin?

Not much different, Wallace and others were working on the same idea at about the same time. Darwins biggest advantage was probably his writing skill at being able to formulate the theory of evolution into an understandable form.

Without the theory of evolution? Say if some group was able to supress the idea? The boi-med industry would not exist. Biology would basicaly colapse. Desease breakthroughs that we take for granted like flu shots and immunisations would be almost nonexistant. Genetic therapy and the like would be gone along with any hope of curing 80% of diseases... On and on...

Honestly what about evolution scares you so much John? Are you afraid God couldn't love you if it is true?

 

[joelazcr]

Without evolutionary thinking, many people would still have
their tonsils, appendix, and wisdom teeth, which were removed while still healthy.

 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by JohnR7
I hear a lot of talk about Darwin and his theory of Evolution. So I am wondering. Just how different would our world be today, if Darwin had never written a book and if he had never proposed a theory of Evolution?

Everyone is concentrating on how science would be different.  And they are correctly pointing out that someone else would have come up with the theory of evolution by natural selection (since Wallace actually did).  But what John is getting at is what the world would be like if there were no theory of evolution at all.  Instead of looking at science, let's look at how religion would be very different without the theory of evolution.

Christianity was in trouble on 2 fronts in the 19th century:

1.  The bad and sadistic designs in nature were posing serious hazards to the idea of a god that created each species separately.  The characteristics of this special creator god and the Christian version of God were in direct opposition. The creator god was sadistic, stupid, and suffered from senility.  Not characteristics that Christianity can tolerate.

2.  Deism was making significant difficulties for Christianity. The mechanistic clockwork universe of Newton, Galileo, Kepler, and others pushed god back to just winding up the whole mechanism and watching it work.  There was no need of the theistic type of god Christianity needed; one who would intervene in human history and even become human.  Why bother, when the outcome was foreordained at the moment the clockwork was set in motion?

Evolution by natural selection rescued Chritianity from both problems and accounts for the very quick acceptance of evolution by Christian theologians (a fact conveniently overlooked by today's creationists).  Here are a few examples:

"The scientific evidence in favour of evolution, as a theory is infinitely more Christian than the theory of 'special creation'.  For it implies the immanence of God in nature, and the omnipresence of His creative power.  Those who oppose the doctrine of evolution in defence of a 'continued intervention' of God, seem to have failed to notice that a theory of occasional intervention implies as its correlative a theory of ordinary absence."  AL Moore, Science and Faith, 1889, pg 184.

"The one absolutely impossible conception of God, in the present day, is that which represents him as an occasional visitor.  Science has pushed the deist's God further and further away, and at the moment when it seemed as if He would be thrust out all together, Darwinism appeared, and, under the disguise of a foe, did the work of a friend.  ... Either God is everywhere present in nature, or He is nowhere."  AL Moore, Lex Mundi, 12th edition, 1891, pg 73.

"The last few years have witnessed the gradual acceptance by Christians of the great scientific generalisation of our age, which is briefly if somewhat vaguely described as the Theory of Evolution. ... It is an advance in our theological thinking; a definite increase of insight; a fresher and fuller appreciation of those 'many ways' in which 'God fulfills Himself'.  JR Ilingsworth, Lex Mundi, 12th edition,

 

[Jerry Smith]

Great post, lucaspa

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by lucaspa
2.  Deism was making significant difficulties for Christianity. The mechanistic clockwork universe of Newton, Galileo, Kepler, and others pushed god back to just winding up the whole mechanism and watching it work.  There was no need of the theistic type of god Christianity needed; one who would intervene in human history and even become human.  Why bother, when the outcome was foreordained at the moment the clockwork was set in motion?

Evolution by natural selection rescued Chritianity from both problems...

I'm not sure I see how evolution helps Christians on that second point.

First of all, your portrayal of Deism is unnecessarily narrow. While the people you mentioned likely did have a "clock-winder" view of Deity, there are other Deists who were quite comfortable with an interventionist Deity (Thomas Jefferson comes to mind).

Second, while evolutionary theory may allow for the occasional intervention by a Deity, it by no means requires it. In addition, the TOE provides absolutely no reason whatsover to favor a Christian Deity over a Deist, Muslim, or Pagan one.

I also fundamentally disagree that Christianity has, in fact, been "rescued" from Deism. The most liberal Christian denominations today pay very little attention to traditional dogma and are effectively Deist in their worldview.

 

[Morat]

I also fundamentally disagree that Christianity has, in fact, been "rescued" from Deism. The most liberal Christian denominations today pay very little attention to traditional dogma and are effectively Deist in their worldview.

I second that, having been a member of such a church as a child.

 

[Jerry Smith]

For what it's worth, I'm going to go with lucaspa on this one. As many differences as remain unsettled between us on whether disbelief constitutes positive faith, I think he is right that evolution does, in principle at least, lead Christianity away from the concept of an "occassionally present/engaged" God, and toward the "constantly present/engaged God", in a mystical sort of way.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Nathan Poe
400 years before Darwin, Leonardo Da Vinci wrote in one of his notebooks, "Man does not differ from the animals except in what is accidental." Sounds like the seed of the idea, doesn't it?

Actually, I hear that the teaching most likly goes back to Plato.

 

[caley]

Ancient Egyptians believed in evolution (they didn't call it that). In fact, both theories (creation and evolution) have been around in some form as long as humankind has. So evolution would still be around, and would still quite possibly be the most prominent scientific theory.

(Myself, I remain agnostic to the whole creation/evolution debate. I believe in creation I guess, but whether God just zapped the world into existence or used evolution to create does not matter much to me.)

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie I'm not sure I see how evolution helps Christians on that second point.

Look at the quote from Moore. 

First of all, your portrayal of Deism is unnecessarily narrow. While the people you mentioned likely did have a "clock-winder" view of Deity, there are other Deists who were quite comfortable with an interventionist Deity (Thomas Jefferson comes to mind).

Jefferson was more than a century earlier.  the increasing data was for a clockwinder, there being fewer and fewer places a deity could intervene.  Newton thought that deity could intervene from time to time to make sure the planets were in orbit even though gravity did most of the work. By the mid-19th century such twiddling was seen as beneath Yahweh. 

Second, while evolutionary theory may allow for the occasional intervention by a Deity, it by no means requires it.

You don't know that.  Now we are back to the methodological materialism limitation in science.  Deity may be required for any and every  material process to work.  That is the point of Darwin was making by putting this in the Fontispiece of Origin 

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once."  Butler:  Analogy of Revealed Religion.

In addition, the TOE provides absolutely no reason whatsover to favor a Christian Deity over a Deist, Muslim, or Pagan one.

If you've noticed, neither does scientific creationism or Intelligent Design.  Either of them could accomodate a deity other than Yahweh.  In science, what is important is what a theory forbids, and TOE does not forbid the Christian deity.  LFOD, I'm not trying to convince you that TOE makes being Christian compelling.  I'm only pointing out to John how different the Christian theological world would be without TOE.

I also fundamentally disagree that Christianity has, in fact, been "rescued" from Deism. The most liberal Christian denominations today pay very little attention to traditional dogma and are effectively Deist in their worldview.

That may be, but I wasn't talking about today. I was talking about 19th century. Without Darwin and TOE deism would have won then and you wouldn't even be worrying about it now; it would have been decided.

Miller points out that quantum mechanics now rescues Christianity from deism. It's just that the denominations (if you are accurately portraying them) haven't realized it yet.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
I'm not sure I see how evolution helps Christians on that second point.

Should I interpret your silence on the first part that you agree evolution helped Christianity out of a very bad spot in regard to designs in nature?

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Great post, lucaspa

Thank you.  As you pointed out, disagreement over some statements does not mean disagreement over all. Each statement gets evaluated independently.

It's something creationists don't think about much.  They are so fixated that evolution is atheism and trying to destroy Christianity that they never look at the history to see how Christians reacted to evolution.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by lucaspa
Jefferson was more than a century earlier.  the increasing data was for a clockwinder, there being fewer and fewer places a deity could intervene.  Newton thought that deity could intervene from time to time to make sure the planets were in orbit even though gravity did most of the work. By the mid-19th century such twiddling was seen as beneath Yahweh. 

a) You got that backwards. Jefferson was a century after Newton. Regardless, are you insisting that Deists come in only one flavor, namely the clockwork kind?

b) If twiddling with gravity is beneath Yahweh, why is twiddling with genomes any more grand? Twiddling is twiddling.

Second, while evolutionary theory may allow for the occasional intervention by a Deity, it by no means requires it.

You don't know that.  Now we are back to the methodological materialism limitation in science.  Deity may be required for any and every  material process to work.

Evolution does not require Deistic intervention any more than chemistry does. Does chemistry help save Christianity from Deism? Hardly.

In addition, the TOE provides absolutely no reason whatsover to favor a Christian Deity over a Deist, Muslim, or Pagan one.

If you've noticed, neither does scientific creationism or Intelligent Design.  Either of them could accomodate a deity other than Yahweh.

But there is no such thing as "scientific creationism." All creationism is religious (and predominately Christian) in origin, no matter how vociferously its supporters claim otherwise. Show me one creationist who thinks the Hindu creation myth is just as well supported as the Christian one.

LFOD, I'm not trying to convince you that TOE makes being Christian compelling.  I'm only pointing out to John how different the Christian theological world would be without TOE.

I know that, I just think you're partly wrong. Evolution neither supports nor refutes the worldview of either the Deist or the Christian.

I also fundamentally disagree that Christianity has, in fact, been "rescued" from Deism. The most liberal Christian denominations today pay very little attention to traditional dogma and are effectively Deist in their worldview.

That may be, but I wasn't talking about today. I was talking about 19th century. Without Darwin and TOE deism would have won then and you wouldn't even be worrying about it now; it would have been decided.

You haven't made a compelling case that evolution either helps or hinders either. (Except possibly by helping Christians address the "argument from bad design") Given that, why should I believe that the TOE had any significant role to play in making one more dominant over the other.

Miller points out that quantum mechanics now rescues Christianity from deism.

Only if you equate "deism" with "clockwork universe". As I've stated, I don't think that's valid.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by lucaspa
Should I interpret your silence on the first part that you agree evolution helped Christianity out of a very bad spot in regard to designs in nature?

Yes.