How evolutionary theory's other discoverer could heal the Darwin divide

Washington Post ^ | 02/24/2011 | David Klinghoffer

[SeekAndFind]

The seemingly ineradicable opinion divide on evolution calls to mind Mark Twain's quip that everyone talks about the weather, mostly to complain, but nobody does anything about it. Pro-Darwinian educators were frustrated this week to find that most public high school biology instructors in their teaching do not wholeheartedly endorse evolution. The teachers reflect a stubborn division across American culture. For the past three decades, Americans have been locked into a basically unchanging split of views on the subject, with only about 16 percent believing in Darwin's theory of unguided evolution.

Charles Darwin would have turned 200 in 2009. Will we still be having the same argument when he turns 300? Not, perhaps, if we take a lesson from evolutionary theory's founder. Or rather its other founder -- Darwin's less famous co-discoverer, Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913). The Welsh-born naturalist and adventurer could hold the key to dissolving much of the fractious furor over evolution.

Religious preferences or worldview commitments drive much of that debate. Putting Biblical literalists to one side, Darwin's materialism is the main philosophical objection to evolutionary theory. In its Darwinian version, evolution denies the possibility of discovering evidence that a supreme being guided life's history with a purpose in mind. The same is not true of Alfred Russel Wallace's understanding.

Darwin and Wallace went public with their theory of natural selection in 1858. Wallace spooked Darwin into doing so earlier than he wished when Wallace, the younger and less privileged and well connected of the two scientists, sent his senior colleague a letter from the Indonesian island of Ternate. In a swoon of malarial fever, Wallace had penned a brief outline of the evolutionary idea that Darwin had assumed would be his own exclusive claim on scientific immortality. Darwin received the missive, and panicked.

[DManA]

Here we find why the Post wants to push this guy:

as a committed socialist, agitated for political freedom and equality.

[allmendream]

(the theory of) “evolution denies the possibility of discovering evidence that a supreme being guided life's history with a purpose in mind”

The theory of universal gravitation of mass denies the possibility of discovering evidence that a supreme being guided our planets formation and rotation and revolution with a purpose in mind.

The Germ theory of disease denies the possibility of discovering evidence that a supreme being guides the contracting and development of disease with a purpose in mind.

The theory of plate tech-tonics denies the possibility of discovering evidence that a supreme being guides the movement of land masses around the Earth.

The Bible denies the possibility of discovering absolute evidence that a supreme being guides life and history with a purpose in mind. God wants us to have faith.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for the EVIDENCE of things UNSEEN.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Darwin advanced a bunch of theories. Some are obvious and true, and some are debatable. Don’t be tricked into lumping together what is true and uncontroversial, with what is questionable.

A big example is natural selection. It is the end result of all contests, be they finding a mate or boxing. Someone will win and someone will lose. The winner will be the one with an advantage over the loser, whatever that advantage is, an asset of the winner, or a deficit of the loser. It happens continually around us. It is obvious.

Compare that to a *different* theory that all advanced forms of life are descended from more primitive forms of life. That is a very debatable theory.

[Jean2]

My opinion on this is the same as Michael Savage’s. I don’t believe that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive.

[mjp]

Wallace perceived that the world must be permeated by life and intelligence not perceptible directly to our senses but whose existence may be inferred from the biological phenomena that it shapes -- human consciousness above all

When one examines the entire message if the Bible, this doctrine severely undermines the Christian understanding of God and man's place in His universe. Evolution is an inefficient, often ineffective, and cruel way to carry out one's purposes of one is a super intelligence.

Also, if this doctrine is true, then the story of the Garden of Eden and original sin must be viewed as nothing more than allegory, a view that undermines the significance of Christ's sinless life and sacrificial death on the cross.

[allmendream]

Darwin's theory was all about natural selection of genetic variation leading to an adaptive response.

This theory explains human differences between populations, antibiotic resistance, adaptation to environmental conditions, and speciation (”within a kind” at a minimum).

Darwin postulated that his theory also explained the universal common ancestry of all life - the common descent of species through extrapolation. (Nothing about “advanced” or “primitive” necessary.)

Just as Newton's theory explained why things fall, and why the Earth orbits the Sun; it was an extrapolation of his theory that it also explains how our own Planet and Sun formed.

One can easily reject the idea that our Planet and Sun formed via gravity over many millions of years in favor of supernatural means - without dismissing Newton's theory and its applicability or demonizing him and disparaging his name.

For whatever reason it seems more difficult for some to reject the idea that species arose via evolution over many millions of years in favor of supernatural means - without ALSO dismissing Darwin's theory and its obvious applicability or demonizing him and disparaging his name.

[Matchett-PI]

"..if this doctrine is true, then the story of the Garden of Eden and original sin must be viewed as nothing more than allegory, a view that undermines the significance of Christ's sinless life and sacrificial death on the cross"

There is more than one theory of evolution.

You may get up to speed by BEGINNING here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2676523/posts?page=26#26

[mtg]

Beyond the "self-acting agency" of undirected evolution, he argued, there must be some "creative power," a "directive mind," and an "ultimate purpose." Wallace was not speaking about God.

I wonder what "creative power", "directive mind" to whom Wallace was referring, if not God. Are we just an experiment of some advanced intelligence? Supposedly, evolution is not self-acting, nor a product of God, yet it somehow has a directed force behind from some kind of a creator. Wallace seems to be a "man for all reasons".

[ottbmare]

A socialist in mid-nineteenth-century England is a very, very different thing from a socialist today. Back then it meant that all men really are created equal, that women should be permitted to vote, or that talented people should be allowed to work and rise out of the social class in which they were born. This was horrifying to many. Today we take these ideas for granted.

[DManA]

That is what it meant to be a liberal back then. A classical liberal believed, believes those things.

Socialist? Now that I think about it were the tenants of socialism even though of 150 years ago?

[DManA]

The article says he wasn’t a Christian. Probably he was a theist.

[WOBBLY BOB]

Is he of the “God invented evolution, man invented religion”
school of thought ?

[Jean2]

I am not sure; but I remember him saying that they were not mutually exclusive.

[BroJoeK]

mjp: "When one examines the entire message if the Bible, this doctrine severely undermines the Christian understanding of God and man's place in His universe."

Not according to teachings of the Catholic and most "mainline" Protestant churches.
They teach theistic evolutionism, meaning God designed and directs evolution.

mjp: "Evolution is an inefficient, often ineffective, and cruel way to carry out one's purposes of one is a super intelligence."

So, I take it that you claim such super-intelligence of your own that you brilliantly measure & pass judgment on even GOD's IQ?
But, but please tell us, how can you possibly fit all your infinite IQ inside such a pea-sized brain?

mjp: "Also, if this doctrine is true, then the story of the Garden of Eden and original sin must be viewed as nothing more than allegory, a view that undermines the significance of Christ's sinless life and sacrificial death on the cross."

The scientific theory of evolution affects nothing regarding biblical stories.
That's because those stories are neither allegory nor myth, in the sense of say, a Disney fantasy cartoon.
Rather, biblical stories are genuine history, as it was understood by the people who witnessed, learned of and wrote them down.

So no modern scientific theory can change their history.
The question then is: do we accept their history as our history?

If we do, then we can call ourselves Jews or Christians.
If not, then we belong to some other faith.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Wallace seems to be a "man for all reasons".

He was a new-ager. Into ghosts, spirits, seances, table-rapping etc. Just the sort of fellow we need. So when we get the evolution package, will it come in two flavours? Grim Darwinian dog-eat-dog materialistic atheism, or Blavatsky-like 19th century spiritism?