Posted on 12/10/2008 4:44:02 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode
Design and Darwinism
From Design and Darwinism (1880), abridged, edited.
James Carmichael
A careful study of this argument from Design, as to a working, active God, is well worth the time and attention of the young, thoughtful minds of the day.
In spite, however, of all this, there seems to be a vague notion abroad, that, within the last few years, there have been some grand discoveries in the Science of Nature, as well as in other sciences, which, only for the effects of prejudice, would overthrow the very basis of Religion itself.
This vague notion would be dispelled tomorrow, if sensible men would only keep before them, the difference between a supposition and a fact. There have been no scientific discoveries made within the last few years subversive of religion -- not one; but several presumptions, and suppositions, and speculations have been made public within the last few years, that if they could only be lifted out of the cloud-land of assumption and solidified into hard facts -- if, in a word, they could be proved, would certainly be subversive of religion, as generally received. There is unquestionably an assault made on the doctrine of Design, by a series of hypothetical assumptions, which, sometimes speaking in the dogmatic language of ascertained fact, has boldly endeavoured to elevate the working of Disguised Accident into the position so long held by Divine Design.
And this is essentially true of what is popularly called Darwinism. There is a popular and wide-spread idea, that Mr. Darwin has made some wonderful scientific discoveries that it is impossible to contradict, and that these discoveries are steadily undermining all old notions, as to God's work in connection with Design and Creation. Now, a careful study of Mr. Darwin's work, on the "Origin of Species," will prove to the student that Mr. Darwin never has claimed to be a discoverer. His great work, he tells us, is the result of speculation on that mystery of mysteries, the origin of the species. He tells us that it is composed of some "general conclusions," drawn from speculations, and illustrated with "a few facts," and that he "is well aware" that scarcely a single fact is discussed in the volume, against which other facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which he has arrived. Throughout the whole book he never resigns the hypothetical idea, except where, in the ardour of describing his illustrative facts, he here, and there; seems to take for granted the reality of his hypothesis. But, as a rule, the deductions from his illustrations are put hypothetically. Thus, the female selection of beautiful male birds, he tells us; "might" produce a marked eflfect during thousands of generations, and a structure even as perfect as an eagle's eye "might" have been formed through the power of Natural Selection.
Mr. Darwin's hypothesis looks charming to the eye of the careless reader, and not a few who are more careful, study it with an under-current feeling, that, although it is novel, it is not wholly irreconcileable with the Divine record. But a more careful study, a due weighing of Mr. Darwin's own words, soon dissipates this desirable idea.
Now there seems at first sight, nothing inconsistent with the general story of Creation, as recorded in Genesis, in this hypothesis; provided, that the author would admit, that the law of Natural Selection was a law ordained by God, and directed by Him in its general working. Mr. Darwin cannot consistently say, that as a scientific man, he does not care to deal with the supernatural aspect of this question; for he does deal with it, very boldly; throughout the whole of his work on species. It is then perfectly fair to ask, does Mr. Darwin, when he speaks of the law of Natural Selection, intend his readers to understand, that he is speak ing of a law of God? A law instituted, controlled and guided by that same Creator, that, he tells us, breathed life into the original parental forms of all plant and animal being? Let Mr. Darwin himself answer in his own words.
In his work on the Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, he takes for granted, that no sensible person would believe, that God ordained the variations of the crop and tail feathers of the pigeon, or the variations of the frame, and mental qualities of the dog. "But," he says, "if we give up the principle in one case, no shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief, that variations, which have been the groundwork through Natural Selection of the most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were intentionally and specially guided."
Again, speaking against the idea that the detail of structure was made for the good of its possessor, he says: "Some believe that many structures have been created for the sake of beauty, to delight men or the Creator, or for the sake of mere variety, such doctrines, if true, would he absolutely fatal to my theory."
Again. "Some authors maintain that organic beings have been formed in many ways for the sake of mere variety, almost like toys in a shop, but such a view is incredible."
Again. "Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe, than that the more complex organs and instincts have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous with human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor."
Again. "How inexplicable on the theory of Creation, is the occasional appearance of stripes on the shoulders and legs of the horse genus and their hybrids."
Again. "It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as 'the plan of creation' 'unity of design,' etc."
Again. "But do they (certain naturalists) believe that at innumerable periods in the earth's history, certain elemental atoms have been commanded suddenly to flash into living tissues ? Do they believe that at each supposed act of creation, one individual or many were produced?"
Again. "Under a scientific point of view, but little advantage is gained by believing, that new forms are suddenly developed in an inexplicable manner from old and widely different forms, over the old belief in the creation of species from the dust of the earth."
Again. "Species are produced by slowly acting and still existing causes, and not by miraculous acts of creation."
Now what conclusions have we a fair right to arrive at, from these quotations?
1. That the widespread variations of animal and plant life, man included, are not the result of intention or guidance. They exist without intention or foresight, and are consequently accidental.
2. That if it could be proved, that beauty, had been designedly called into being, it would destroy the theory of Natural Selection.
3. That the highest organs, and instincts; have not been perfected by a mind, superior to the human mind, but by repeated variations.
4. That the use of such expressions "plan of creation," "unity of design," are marks of ignorance.
5. That living tissues, or individuals were not called into being by creative acts.
6. That species are not the result of miraculous acts of creation.
Now it is easy for some advocates of Darwinism to say that the law of Natural Selection, as defined by Mr. Darwin, is in some sense, a God ordained law, and directed by Him in its general working; but it is impossible to prove it, in the face of these assertions.
If God had called into active power, the law of selection, then that law would have been part of His "design," and a marked instrument in the "plan of creation." But Mr. Darwin tells us, that the use of the words "plan of creation" or "unity of design" are marks of ignorance. In other words, there is no "plan of creation," there is no "unity of design" in the Darwinian hypothesis. The favourable point in the variation selected, is never a designed point. It is favourable simply through chance, or luck, or fortune, or accident, and it is selected by the hypothetical law, because a lucky chance has made it what it is.
Thus the Darwinian hypothesis, as elaborated by Mr. Darwin, is a bold, earnest, yet surely a conscientious blow, aimed with closed hand, at the generally received view of divine design in creation. "Design" and "Natural Selection" are antagonistic principles that, according to Mr. Darwin, cannot be reconciled. If Natural Selection, as defined by Mr. Darwin, proves triumphant, it can only be so on the ruins of Divine Design.
And that this is the view of Mr. Darwin's leading disciples, is very apparent from their written words, words that express conclusions that the writer has never seen contradicted by Mr. Darwin.
Mr. Huxley in his "Lay Sermons," writes as follows: "When I first read Mr. Darwin's, book, that which struck me most forcibly was, that Teleology (Design), as commonly understood, had received its death blow at Mr. Darwin's hands. For the teleological argument runs thus: 'An organ is fitted to perform a function or purpose, therefore it was specially constructed to perform that function.' This is precisely what Darwin denies with regard to plants and animals. If we apprehend the spirit of the Origin of Species rightly, then nothing can be more entirely and absolutely opposed to Design in Nature than the Darwinian hypothesis."
Mr. Haeckel in his latest work entitled "The Evolution of Man," states: "The gist of Darwin's theory is the simple idea : that the struggle for existence in Nature, evolves new species without design, just as the will of man produces new varieties in cultivation with design."
Now if Mr. Darwin believed, that the law of Natural Selection was in any sense, directed and guided by God, and part of a divine plan; surely for the sake of his many readers, he ought to have answered these unmistakable criticisms, and asserted, or proved their injustice. But even in the latest edition of the work, thus reviewed by Mr. Huxley, the reader can find no denial of the truth of the criticism.
Neither can he find a denial of the awful words of Carl Voght "that Darwin's theory has turned the Creator out of doors; as it does not leave the slightest room for the agency of such a Being;" or Buchner's; that it is an "atheistic theory" based on "accidental operations" or Haeckel's "that the service rendered to science by Darwin is, that he has been successful in teaching the mechanical (as opposed to designed) production of vegetable and animal organisms." The writer has before him the latest American edition of the sixth corrected English edition of "The Origin of Species" and Mr. Darwin remains silent through its pages, under, what to the ears of many must sound, these awful imputations. In the preface, he gives a table of thirty additions and corrections, and a short history of foreign editions, but not one word as to the fact, that his sentiments and expressions have been unfairly dealt with, by Huxley, Voght, or Buchner. Indeed, he speaks of Prof. Huxley, as "one of the highest authorities" and his consulting friend, and in his preface to "The Descent of Man," he speaks in like laudatory strains of Voght and Buchner.
Design. Mr. Darwin honestly admits, "that there is scarcely a single point that I have made, on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived." His foremost difficulty however, is unquestionably Design, which meets him everywhere.
Natural Selection, for instance, cannot reasonably account for Neuter Insects, powerless to propagate their kind, and consequently unable to transmit acquired modifications of structure or instinct to their progeny. And yet. Neuter Ants bear on them the marks of elaborate design, are divided into well defined castes, and are invaluable as builders of the nest, providers of food, nurses and soldiers, because fitted and formed to carrv out these functions. Of course Mr. Darwin endeavours to open the mystery by his magical key of Natural Selection, but he freely confesses, "it will indeed be thought that I have an overweening confidence in the principle of natural selection, when I do not admit that such wonderful and well-established facts at once annihilate the theory."
The same may be said on the subject of the structure of the Eye. "To suppose," he says, "that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances, etc., could have been formed by Natural Selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." He then enters into his speculation, which takes this shape: -- He supposes that "a nerve once became sensitive to light; that over this grew a thick layer of transparent tissues, with spaces filled with fluid, and that this layer kept continually changing in density, thickness, distance and form." He further supposes that Natural Selection, which he practically makes a sentient being, intently watched and carefully preserved, each variation, and that this watching and preservation went on for millions of years, until at long last a perfect eye was formed.
Now, admitting this process, the question at once arises, were these tissues, and spaces, and layers put together to give perfect sight or not? Mr. Darwin distinctly teaches "No," and Mr. Huxley, in commenting on the process of nerve development, states that "it works on the principle that the eye was not made to see."
"Sight," says John Stuart Mill, "being a fact, not previous but subsequent to the putting together of the organic structure of the eye, demands that the antecedent idea of it, and not sight itself, must be the efficient cause. But this at once marks the origin as proceeding from an intelligent will."
It is little wonder, in the face of such natural antagonism to Mr. Darwin's "nerve theory," that he should have written these manly words : "To arrive at a just conclusion regarding the formation of the eye, with all its marvellous, yet not absolutely perfect characters, it is indispensible that the reason should conquer the imagination; but I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprized at others hesitating to extend the principle of Natural Selection to so startling a length."
How far Mr. Darwin himself has submitted his imagination to reason, in his nerve theory, is worth thinking over.
Now it is mainly because of this deadly conflict between Divine Design and undesigned Natural Selection, or Accident, that Darwinism remains today what it was at the beginning, an hypothesis. It is weak, and likely to remain weak, because it denies all design in nature, and through denying Design, makes the Being that Mr. Darwin allows created the first speck of living jelly [1], a God not worthy of the name.
Note
[1] In earlier editions of Origin, Darwin said the first speck of living jelly 'was placed'. But Darwin took that away too. In the last edition of Origin Darwin changed 'was placed' to 'appeared'.
Natural Theology Series
Natural Theology, Design, Teleology, and Metaphysics
Selections scavenged from the oblivion of old and forgotten books.
Condensed, arranged, and edited by ECO. Freepmail me if you
want on or off the Natural Theology Series ping list.
01 Argyll - Man as the Representative of the Supernatural
02 Gerard - The Voices of Babel
03 Shebbeare - The Plain Man's Argument from Design
04 Joyce - What is Naturalism?
Thanks for the ping!
read later
Natural Selection is as valid in creationism as it is in evolutionism...but the concept has been co-opted by naturalists, claiming that Intelligent Design ignores it. Nothing could be further from the truth.
To me, the statement is so obvious I would call it an "observation" rather than a "hypothesis." After all, the inherited traits of many offspring are the direct result of the parents' intelligent choice of mate.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear LiteKeeper!
hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahaha.
Darwin + genetics: 1
Justly forgotten creationist: 0.
"Of course Mr. Darwin endeavours to open the mystery by his magical key of Natural Selection, but he freely confesses, "it will indeed be thought that I have an overweening confidence in the principle of natural selection, when I do not admit that such wonderful and well-established facts at once annihilate the theory."
Hey look, you've found the first recorded instance of dishonest creationist quote-mining.
“Darwin + genetics: 1
Justly forgotten creationist: 0.” [excerpt]
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.