Evolution and God

From Evolution and its Relation to Religious Thought (1888, Appleton & Co.) The first paragraph is taken from ppg 257-258. The rest, from ppg 279--285. Joseph Le Conte was a professor of geology and natural history at U of California. His work was cited by Darwinians as evidence that Darwinians have no evil designs against peoples' faith in God (eg, by H.H. Newman, of Scopes trial fame.) You judge.

From what has preceded, the reader will perceive that we regard the law of evolution as thoroughly established. In its most general sense, i. e., as a law of continuity, it is a necessary condition of rational thought. In this sense it is naught else than the universal law of necessary causation applied to forms instead of phenomena. It is not only as certain as - it is far more certain than--the law of gravitation, for it is not a contingent, but a necessary truth like the axioms of geometry. It is only necessary to conceive it clearly, to accept it unhesitatingly. The consensus of scientific and philosophical opinion is already well-nigh, if not wholly complete. If there are still lingering cases of dissent among thinking men, it is only because such do not yet conceive it clearly--they confound it with some special form of explanation of evolution which they, perhaps justly, think not yet fully established. We have sometimes in the preceding pages used the words evolutionist or derivationist; they ought not to be used any longer. The day is past when evolution might be regarded as a school of thought. We might as well talk of gravitationist as of evolutionist.[1]

WE have already said that evolution does not differ essentially from other laws of Nature in its hearing on religious helief. It only reiterates and enforces with additional emphasis what Science, in all its departments, has heen saying all along. The difficulties in the way of certain traditional views have pressed with ever increasing force upon the thoughtful mind ever since the birth of modern science. All along, an issue has been gathering, but put off from time to time by compromise, until now, at last, the issue is forced upon us and compromise is exhausted. The issue (let us look it squarely in th e face) is: Either God is far more closely related with Nature, and operates it in a more direct way than we have recently been accustomed to think, or else (mark the alternative) Nature operates itself and needs no God at all. There is no middle ground tenable.

Let us trace rapidly the growth of this issue. The old idea and the most natural to the religious mind was the direct agency of God in every event and phenomenon of Nature. This view is nobly expressed in the noblest literature in the world--in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures: "He looketh on the earth and it trembleth. He toucheth the hills and they smoke." "He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth his rain on the just and on the unjust." But now comes Science and explains all these phenomena by natural laws and resident forces, and we all accept her explanation. Thus, one by one the phenomena of Nature are explained by the operation of resident forces according to natural laws, until the whole course of Nature, as we now know it, has been, or will be, or conceivably may be, thus explained.

Thus has gradually grown up, without our confessing it, a kind of scientific polytheism--one great Jehovah, perhaps, but with many agents or sub-gods, each independent, efficient, and doing all the real work in his own domain. The names of these, our gods, are gravity, light, heat, electricity, magnetism, chemical affinity, etc., and we are practically saying: " These be your gods, Israel, which brought you out of the land of Egyptian darkness and ignorance. These be the only gods ye need fear, and serve, and studv the ways of."

What, then, is practically the notion which most people seem to have of the relation of Deity to Nature? It is that of a great master-mechanic far away above us and beyond our reach, who once upon a time, long ago, and once for all, worked, created matter, endowed it with necessary properties and powers, constructed at once out of hand this wonderful cosmos with its numberless wheels within wheels, endowed it with forces, put springs in it, wound it up, set it a-going, and then--rested. The thing has continued to go of itself ever since. He might have not only rested but slept, and the thing would have gone of itself. He might not only have slept but died, and still the thing would have continued to go of itself. But, no, I forget. He must not sleep or die, for the work is not absolutely perfect. There are some things too hard even for Him to do in this masterful, god-like way. There are some things which even He can not do except in a 'prentice-like, man-like way. The hand must be introduced from time to time to repair, to rectify, to improve, especially to introduce new parts, such as new organic forms.

Such was the state of the compromise until twenty-five years ago. Nature is sufficient of itself for its course and continuance, but not for origins of at least some new parts. Such was the state of the compromise until Darwin and the theory of evolution. But, now, even this poor privilege of occasional interference is taken away. Now, origins, as well as courses, are reduced to resident forces and natural law. Now, Nature is sufficient of itself, not only for sustentation, but also for creation. Thus, Science has seemed to push Him farther and farther away from us, until now, at last, if this view be true, evolution finishes the matter by pushing Him entirely out of the universe and dispensing with Him altogether. This, of course, is materialism. But this is no new view now brought forward for the first time by evolution. On the contrary, evolution only finishes what science has been doing all along.

See, then, how the issue is forced. Either Nature is sufficient of itself and wants no God at all, or else this whole idea, the history of which we have been tracing, is radically false. "We have here given by science either a demonstration of materialism or else a reductio ad absurdum. Which is it? I do not hesitate a moment to say it is a reductio ad absurdum. And I believe that evolution has conferred an inestimable benefit on philosophy and on religion by forcing this issue and compelling us to take a more rational view.

What, then, is the alternative view? It is the utter rejection with Berkeley and with Swedenborg of the independent existence of matter and the real efficient agency of natural forces. It is the frank return to the old idea of direct divine agency, but in a new, more rational, less anthropomorphic form. It is the bringing together and complete reconciliation of the two apparently antagonistic and mutually excluding views of direct agency and natural law. Such reconciliation we have already seen is the true test of a rational philosophy. It is the belief in a God not far away beyond our reach, who once long ago enacted laws and created forces which continue of themselves to run the machine we call Nature, but a God immanent, a God resident in Nature, at all times and in all places directing every event and determining every phenomena--a God in whom in the most literal sense not only we but all things have their being, in whom all things consist, through whom all things exist, and without whom there would be and could be nothing. According to this view the phenomena of Nature are naught else than objectified modes of divine thought, the forces of Nature naught else than different forms of one omnipresent divine energy or will, the laws of Nature naught else than the regular modes of operation of that divine will, invariable because He is unchangeable. According to this view the law of gravitation is naught else than the mode of operation of the divine energy in sustaining the cosmos--the divine method of sustentation; the law of evolution naught else than the mode of operation of the same divine energy in originating and developing the cosmos--the divine method of creation; and Science is the systematic knowledge of these divine thoughts and ways--a rational system of natural theology. In a word, according to this view, there is no real efficient force but spirit, and no real independent existence but God.

But some will object that this is pure Idealism. Yes, but far different from what usually goes under that name. The ideal philosophy as usually understood regards the external world as having no real objective ex- istence outside of ourselves--as objectified mental states of the observer--as literally such stuff as dreams are made of--as a mere phantasmagoria of trooping shadows having no real existence but in the mind of the dreamer, and each dreamer makes his own world. Not so in the idealism above presented. According to this the external world is the objectified mides, not of tlie mind of the observer, but of the mind of God. According to this, the external world is not a mere unsubstantial fig- ment or dream, but for us a very substantial objective reality surrounding us and conditioning us on every side.

Again, it will be objected that this is pure Pantheism. Again, we answer "yes." Call it so if you like, but far different from what goes under that name, far different from the pantheism which sublimates the personality of the Deity into all-pervading unconscious force, and thereby dissipates all our hopes of personal relation with him. Properly understood, we believe this view completely reconciles the two antagonistic and mutually excluding views of impersonal pantheism and anthropomorphic personalism, and is therefore more rational than either. The discussion of this most important point can only come up after the next chapter, because the argument for the personality of Deity is derived, not from without by the study of Nature, but from within in our own consciousness. We therefore put off its discussion for the present.

But, finally, some will object, "We can not live and work effectively under such a theory unless, indeed, we escape through pantheism." It may, alas! be true that this view brings us too near Him in our sense of spiritual nakedness and shortcoming. It may, indeed, be that we can not live and work in the continual realized presence of the Infinite. It may, indeed, be that we must still wear the veil of a practical materialism on our hearts and minds. It may, indeed, be that in our practical life and scientific work we must still continue to think of natural forces as efficient agents. But, if so, let us at least remember that this attitude of mind must be regarded only as our ordinary work-clothes--necessary work-clothes it may be of our outer lower life--to be put aside when we return home to our inner higher life, religious and philosophical.

[1] this paragraph appears after a lengthy section where Le Conte puts forward proofs and evidences for evolution. Evidence includes fake science about recapitulation, embryology, and 'fish stages' of development.

He does not stop with the statement of fact that we do not know the details of chemical evolution. He proceeds to state that no such history can exist without intervention.

That's because that would be a TRUE observational statement.

Until you can concoct an experiment showing us otherwise, it will remain true.

The claim that natural explanations cannot be found for a phenomenon is a mind killer. Teaching this to children is criminal. It shuts down curiosity and shuts down the desire to learn how things work. No on who does science would recommend telling children that a problem is unsolvable.

The mind killer is the preposterous notion that "natural explanations" are inherently and by definition godless. Children are taught about God in every facet of their lives, imagine all the children confused and turned off to science by boobs demanding God be left at the front door of school or "there's no place for Him in my classroom".

I just addressed Dover, do you have reading and comprehension problems TOO?

I see a pattern developing. A dumbing down fruition of the NEA godless liberal agenda.

I for one have never ever had a problem with a creator.

The more your side has to explain to the people you HAVE no explanation, and that everything “just is”...the more trips to court you’ll have to make.

Your side hasn’t successfully dumbed down and programmed everyone it seems.

the evo/lib side is suppressing the wishes of the majority through the abuse of the judiciary....If the evos are so concerned about teaching only science in science classes, they need to push that on its own merit outside the courtroom

So you're admitting that Creationism/ID is not "only science"? And that you're arguing for something that isn't science to be taught in science classes because the majority wish it?

You misunderstand, not because they do but because they validate their own understanding of origins.
Why wouldn't they if scientists believe it's science?
186 posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2008 4:14:47 PM by tpanther

There's the original assertion. There's nothing there about validation. The fact that some unspecified group of scientists believe it submitted as sufficient to accept that the majority of people should also believe it.

We're talking about origins, not the earth's age.

We're talking about evolution, not origins.

But more to the point allowing children to be taught as their parents see fit about origins.

Are your religious beliefs about the origins of life more important than someone else's religious beliefs about the origins of the Earth?

There's nothing there about validation.

The original question was would they want it taught, as science

Ummm there didn't NEED to be anything there about validation, as it is implied.

Now if there weren't any scientists out there that agreed with our position, you might have a point (about validation).

Your question implied that people somehow would not want ID taught in school if somehow it was taught in science class as science.

I merely pointed out to everyone that Why shouldn't they, when scientists themselves agreed it should be taught as science.

The fact that some unspecified group of scientists believe it submitted as sufficient to accept that the majority of people should also believe it.

NO "fact", indeed I've been very specific about which scientists I'm talking about, and you know it and everyone else knows it.

www.dissentfromdarwin.org

We're talking about evolution, not origins.

That only depends on which evo-cultist I'm talking to, as some address origins while others refuse to.

Are your religious beliefs about the origins of life more important than someone else's religious beliefs about the origins of the Earth?

Do you always demand to label someone's scientific opinions that differ from your own as "religious beliefs", and must you always talk in circles?

The claim that natural explanations cannot be found for a phenomenon is a mind killer.

No more that the *Wet Paint Do Not Touch* sign stifles a child's natural curiosity about the world around them.

For many people, telling them that something can't be done is just the motivation they need to go out and prove that it can.

It never ceases to amaze me, the weak arguments used to try to convince someone that teaching creation will stifle the desire to learn and result in the elimination of all natural curiosity.

It's as bad as the argument the if we say that *Goddidit* everyone just throws their hands up and gives up.

What a fallacy. It's too bad the evo side doesn't think that they can't win an argument without misrepresenting the creationist side or the consequences of teaching creation.

There is no time or place in the history of science where the assumption of divine intervention has been necessary or fruitful.

Wrong. It was the belief in the Divine that brought Newton to the conclusion that the universe was indeed orderly and that patterns could be found through observation.

The claim that natural explanations cannot be found for a phenomenon is a mind killer. Teaching this to children is criminal.

So, you'd add that to criminalizing the teaching of creation in schools?

And after criminalizing all this behavior, evos wonder why people object to their efforts and don't buy the *It's all about just teaching science in science class.*?

People are not nearly as blind to evoatheist tactics, nor as stupid, as you think.

The fact that some unspecified group of scientists believe it submitted as sufficient to accept that the majority of people should also believe it.

You just nailed the evo position on FR perfectly.

After all the drivel we get about how science is NOT done by consensus, we get bombarded with how virtually all scientists agree with the TOE and how *peer review* verifies it.

Any who dissent, commit career and professional suicide. If they don't just outright lose their jobs for expressing a differing opinion or daring to question their superiors, they won't get any work peer reviewed.

That old boys club has the whole system sewn up nice and tight.

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear metmom!

Seems to me that criminalizing the teaching of the simple observation that there is not a natural explanation for certain phenomena is tantamount to the establishment of atheism as the state religion.

It is painfully obvious that for a thing to be "natural" it must exist "in" space/time and there is no natural origin for space/time itself. Ditto for inertia, information, etc.

If any jurisdiction attempts such a thing, I'll stock up on popcorn for when it hits the Supreme Court.

Seems to me that criminalizing the teaching of the simple observation that there is not a natural explanation for certain phenomena is tantamount to the establishment of atheism as the state religion.

Interesting thing is, is that miracles have no natural explanation and yet they happen. No doubt about that. Talk to any medical professionals. They know.

And yet the evoatheist side writes them off as unworthy of study because they deal with the supernatural (or extra-natural) and "science" only deals with the natural, things that can be observed, tested, repeated. So they, in effect, cut off a whole body of experience from investigation simply because they decide that it has no natural explanation.

js1138 post 217 The claim that natural explanations cannot be found for a phenomenon is a mind killer. Teaching this to children is criminal. It shuts down curiosity and shuts down the desire to learn how things work. No on who does science would recommend telling children that a problem is unsolvable.

Hmmmm, do I detect a serious disconnect here in someone's reasoning ?

That only depends on which evo-cultist I'm talking to, as some address origins while others refuse to.

The theory is not the people, and vice versa. If you've got specific individuals you've got a problem with, address that with them. If there's issues with the theory you disagree with, address the theory.

Do you always demand to label someone's scientific opinions that differ from your own as "religious beliefs", and must you always talk in circles?

Are you arguing that creationsim/ID is not based on theology?

NO "fact", indeed I've been very specific about which scientists I'm talking about, and you know it and everyone else knows it.

Can we assume that the majority of people also believe that any hypothesis supported by an equal number of scientists should also be taught as science? How many scientists does it take to validate a hypothesis as having public approval?

we may ask what else happens without His intervention, and the unsettling possibility is, maybe everything.

Sin happens without His intervention. Many consequences of sin happen without His intervention. The rain falls equally on the just and unjust.

Exactly how much He Personally intervenes in vents is a profound question and a great mystery. I think about it alot.

I don’t “believe” in evolution.

If you don't believe it, why are you defending it?

Better yet, if you don't believe it yourself, why do you expect that someone else should?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.