Yet foolhardy as ever, here goes: Another little gem from EV that, to my mind, lays out the fundamental “dispute” as between “creationists” and “evolutionists” pretty well.
For openers, Voegelin sees Darwinism as an important demonstration of phenomenalism. A historian of ideas, he confesses to a certain bewilderment over the enormous success of the theory of evolution in the nineteenth century, up to the present time. He writes:
“The evolution of the forms of life, as we observed, was treated thoroughly in the biological theory of the eighteenth century. The creational theory of the species was abandoned; the idea of a chronological succession of living forms from primitive to the most complicated was conceived. The increase of phenomenal knowledge concerning their unfolding was acknowledged, but the insight was also gained that the idea of an evolution of living forms did not bring us one step nearer to an understanding of the mystery of the substance that was evolving through the chain of forms.
“The chain of evolutionary forms as a whole was just as much of an ultimate datum in ontology as previously had been the single species [i.e., man]. No speculative prolongation of the chain into inorganic matter and no raising of the question of whether organic forms originated in inorganic matter could change the problem either. Such speculations simply meant pushing the mystery of the potentiality unfolding morphologically in time a step further back without understanding it any better. In the end we would always be faced by the two fundamental ontological questions of Leibnitz: Why is there something, why not nothing? and: Why is the something as it is? [i.e., the second question refers to the something’s “substance”].
“By the time of Kant the problem of evolution was reduced to its phenomenal proportions. And now, in the nineteenth century, as if nothing had happened, a new phenomenal theory of evolution, operating with the conceptions of the struggle for life, the survival of the fittest, natural selections, etc., had a popular success and became a mass creed for the semieducated.”
But here’s the bottom-line point Voegelin’s making:
“A theory that, assuming that it was empirically tenable, could at best furnish an insight into the mechanics of evolution without touching its substance was accepted as a revelation concerning the nature of life and as compelling a reorientation of our views concerning the nature of man and his position in the cosmos…. The case of biological theory is, furthermore, specifically important because it reveals in great clearness the peculiar problem of phenomenalism. A theory that in itself might contribute to our knowledge of the phenomenal unfolding of a substance is perverted into a philosophy of substance; the causal relationship of phenomena (always assuming the correctness of the theory) is understood as an explanation on the level of the substance of life. [emphasis added]
“…Darwin was a great empirical biologist who marshaled convincingly the materials in support of his theory; the massiveness of empirical data opened a view of a new realm of ordered knowledge. At the same time, neither Darwin nor his followers were the best of theorists, so that the issue between phenomenal and substantial knowledge could remain relatively obscure. We are faced with the problem of the nineteenth century that with the increasing specialization of the sciences, scholars who are impeccable as masters of their field become unable to see the theoretical problems of their special science in relation to the problems of ontology and metaphysics.
“Moreover, the will to creatre a phenomenal reality out of the propositions of a science of phenomena was an independent factor on the occasion of the magnificent unfolding of biology, just as it was with on the occasion of the unfolding of astronomy and physics in the seventeenth century. The evolutionary movement has a distinct anti-Christian, secuclaristic flavor through the assumption that the interpretation of man as the final link in the chain of evolution has a bearing on the understanding of man as a spiritual existence; the will to understand man as having his position in a world-immanent order revealed by a science of phenomena, instead of in a transcendental order revealed by the cognitio fidei, is the dynamic factor in the transformation.
“…the evolutionary movement can be used as the prototype for the problems of phenomenal speculation, obsession, and action. The biological conceptions of the struggle for life, the survival of the fittest, etc., were absorbed into the interpretation of society and politics. Within the order of competitive society the idea of natural selection could fortify the belief that the successful man was the better man, that success is fated in the order of nature, and that the order created by success is a right order because it is willed by nature -- irrespective of the moral and spiritual issues involved.
“In combination with the theory of racial differentiation, the biological conceptions made possible a reinterpretation of history and politics in terms of inferior and superior races, destined to rule or to be ruled – again irrespective of moral and spiritual problems involved. The substance of man and society is overlaid with a coat of biological phenomena that smothers the spiritual and moral awareness and tends to replace the spiritual order of society with an order of biological survival. The phenomenal order of life becomes a phenomenal obsession when it is erected into a rule for action.”
As some quite notable human monsters have done. We mustn’t forget that Hitler’s obsession with evolutionary theory provided him with a justification for the Holocaust.
Well, the above is probably useless. But I thought I’d take a stab at trying to elucidate the substance of the problem that has creationists and evolutionists seemingly forever going at each other’s throats.
Thank you kindly for the bump, PatrickHenry. It’s nice to see you again. All my best, bb.
Hi, BB. Lemme just take a whack at the "Hitler thing." I consider this criticism of evolution to be virtually useless. It's certainly not a disproof of any part of the theory of evolution (nor is Hiroshima a disproof of the atomic theory). Here are some other, more specific reasons:
(1) Hitler was no biologist. He fancied himself an architect more than any kind of scientist, and you don't condemn architecture, do you? His biological theories were laughable.
(2) Hitler was, without doubt, lying scum. If he wanted a pretext for some action of his, he would say anything: his people need "living room;" they lost WWI because Germany was "stabbed in the back;" his national socialism was the wave of the future; the jews were destroying Germany, etc., etc. With all these lies and delusions, why do you take him seriously if he made some remarks about evolution? Ted Bundy may have believed evolution; and Jim Jones was most definitely a creationist. So what?
(3) I've jokingly blamed all horrors of the 20th Century on Thomas Edison. Everything followed his satanic electric light, after all. Hitler used electric lights, etc., etc. So Edison is as much to blame as Darwin, right? Post hoc, propter hoc.
(4) Finally (I could go on and on) why wasn't Darwin himself a mass murderer? Surely, if anyone were "tainted" with Darwinism, it was the man himself.
I'll get to the rest of your post if time permits. Good of you to drop in on our rather insular thread.
I have been saying this for many years. Great minds think alike. :-)
Great post, BB, as usual. Best to you.