Posted on 11/25/2008 6:10:27 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode
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.
Joseph Le Conte
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.
note:
[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.
It's irrelevant to the fact that the evo/lib side is suppressing the wishes of the majority through the abuse of the judiciary.
There is no justification for that.
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 and convince people that way.
Forcing it on others just because evos think that they're right and that justifies the actions of litigation, is wrong. If you can't convince people that you're right, oh well, just suck it up and live with it.
If you submit that the majority want it taught as science, how can it be irrelevant?
see post #112.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03/americans_overwhelmingly_suppo.html
Headline: “Americans Overwhelmingly Support Teaching Scientific Challenges to Darwinian Evolution, Zogby Poll Shows” From March 2006.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=719
**********************************************************
Free Republic Poll on Evolution
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1706571/posts?page=63#63
**********************************************************
Creationism makes a comeback in US
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856224/posts
***********************************************************
Teaching creation and evolution in schools
Solid research reveals American beliefs
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/teaching.asp
************************************************************
Survey Finds Support Is Strong For Teaching 2 Origin Theories
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E4D9143BF932A25750C0A9669C8B63
************************************************************
Public Divided on Origins of Life
http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties
************************************************************
Americans Believe in Jesus, Poll Says (creation poll results included)
http://derekgulbranson.com/2005/01/17/americans-believe-in-jesus/
Did I say that?
Why wouldn't they if scientists believe it's science?
Biology, the next thing you know you will be searching a medical site for abiogenesis.
"If you go to PubMed and search “evolution” you will find 231,356 hits. Search “abiogenesis” and you will find 13 hits. Hardly “gumming up the works”. I guess you don't really know as much about what is going on in biological research as you think."
SEE!
Are you seriously trying to convince me that PubMed is an "evolutionary clearing house". I wonder what a search of talkorigins.org would render?
Just to be sure!
Is abiogenesis part of science as you have prescribed or not?
Actually I have promised myself that I would not debate evolution, and my main point was that we did not lose this election because of creationist.
Oh well! I'm going to go to talkorigins and search for losing elections and see how many hits I get.
Do you think the majority of Americans want creationism/ID taught as science?
When you talk about the lwasuits, do you include the ones that involve teaching creationsm or ID in science class?
There are lots of people who call themselves scientists, and collectively they believe a large number of contradictory things.
Is it reasonable to believe that the majority of people must simultaneously believe all these things because you can point to one group of scientists or another who believe some of them?
Abiogenesis is part of science, but it has no more to do with the theory of evolution than theories about matter formation have to do with the theory of gravity.
Here's a newsflash, the same thing applies to the citizenry that decides what is taught to their kids!
BTW...the scientists I was referring to are dept. heads at universities, researchers and they got their training at Princeton, Johns Hopkins, MIT...etc.Why do you think they should have no say, like parents, as to what is or isn't taught in school as science, and only the NEA types, only after going to court, should have all the say?
Is it reasonable to believe that the majority of people must simultaneously believe all these things because you can point to one group of scientists or another who believe some of them?
Believe all what things?
Is it reasonbable to teach people's children not based on what they want taught, not what scientists want taught, but only what godless liberal NEA admin. types DEMAND?
Is it reasonable to expect someone else to teach a roomful of children exactly what their parents would have taught them?
Without these comments, there is an underlying and an implicit reliance on naturalism, the idea that the physical world is entirely self-contained. And that is sort of an unspoken assumption that runs through a lot of the theories on the origin of life, that we only have natural reactions to deal with. And it— it sort of permeates the— the standards.
Many of the changes that have been proposed provide a— a more balanced approach, one that— that doesn't have this underlying philosophy of naturalism. And if— if we're going to teach science in the public schools, we— we need to teach it fairly and— and without philosophical or religious bias. One of the problems is, is that religion is easy to spot. The philosophy of naturalism has been so ingrained in the science recently that it's hard to see.
They'll be all gone in 126 million years.
So, tell me were they once 55 miles tall or are they nowhere as old as you Evo guys need them to be?
Addressing creation/ID in science class is not the same as teaching them AS science.
Any more than rejecting the hardline interpretation of the fossil record is rejecting ALL science.
Are evos ever capable of debating creatinists/IDers without misrepresenting their positions?
Do you really want science classes addressing creationism, which necessarily means teaching kids that no serious geologist since 1830 has been able to find evidence for Noah’s flood, and that the earth is a few billion years older than what is claimed by creationists?
If you really want this confrontation, you may get it, and you will regret it.
In other words...you can’t do it either.
You answered neither of my questions and posed a question that makes no sense at all. Well done!
Is it reasonable to teach kids things without parental consent, like "gay day"...and isn't that socializing instead of teaching?
How do you want them addressed, as ancient religious beliefs that have no evidentiary basis? I doubt you'd be happy with that.
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.