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.

Is it reasonable to teach kids things without parental consent, like "gay day"...and isn't that socializing instead of teaching?

I don't think so. There was no "gay day" when I was in school, none of my local schools have such a thing, and I think it's reasonable to expect that they shouldn't be starting one without notifying the parents first. And yes, I consider that "socializing" (more like social engineering, actually) and not "teaching".

Do you think parents have a valid complaint if they send their kids to school and find out they were taught that according to current estimates the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and the school didn't explicitly tell them in advance they were going to teach that? Is that "socializing" or is it "teaching"?

Believe all what things?

Believe all the things that scientists believe.

You point to a group of scientists that believe in ID/creationism, and say it's reasonable to assume the majority of people believe it because this group of scientists do.

If it's reasonable to assume that the majority of people believe what one particular group of scientists believe, it's no less reasonable to assume they also believe what another group believes. You only evidence is that some group of scientists believes it.

By the time you're done, the majority of people will be assumed to simultaneously believe any number of conflicting and mutually exclusive theories, because you can point to one group of scientists or another who believes any of them.

As long as they make it clear that current estimates are exactly that, current estimates.

Which misses the entire point.

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

But more to the point allowing children to be taught as their parents see fit about origins.Just as the lawsuit about stickers on text books indicated is not the case.

The assertion that a Designer is required for the unspecified chemical processes leading to life. Since the history is unknown, it is somewhat presumptuous of him to claim that he knows what is required.

I am reminded of Bill Clinton claiming that he worked as hard as he could to figure out how to government spending, but it just couldn’t be done.

The fact that this chemist, paper qualifications though he has, is unable to determine the steps by which life arose, is hardly sufficient grounds for claiming it can’t be done.

He jumps from his own ignorance to a claim that all chemists everywhere will be forever ignorant. That is simply not how science works nor how scientists think. It is religious apologetics.

You point to a group of scientists that believe in ID/creationism, and say it's reasonable to assume the majority of people believe it because this group of scientists do.

You misunderstand, not because they do but because they validate their own understanding of origins.I don't think one needs a scientific degree to understand that evolution, or whatever the latest theory of the day happens to be concerning origins, falls pitifully short in explaining origins. The fact that many scientists from all parts of the country, with many backgrounds agree with them simply gives them a much stronger position.

You're really reaching here. There may be a group of scientists convinced the Jacksonville Jaguars will win the super bowl simply because they're still mathmatically alive for the playoffs, but I wouldn't agree with them.

Kind of like the strawman that we'll somehow be a theocracy or we'll somehow have to teach half a dozen different creation theories.

Nope.

By the time I'M done children will be taught science as scientists and their parents see fit, and not so much by people who have various hang-ups and complexes about God or idiotic politically or ideologically correct ideas about science.

I am reminded of Bill Clinton claiming that he worked as hard as he could to figure out how to government spending, but it just couldn’t be done.

The fact that this chemist, paper qualifications though he has, is unable to determine the steps by which life arose, is hardly sufficient grounds for claiming it can’t be done.

He jumps from his own ignorance to a claim that all chemists everywhere will be forever ignorant. That is simply not how science works nor how scientists think. It is religious apologetics.

So how does a single thing you said indicate he injected religion into science? Merely because he disagrees with your presumption that NO intelligence is at play behind chemicals just forming up to form complex tasks or structures which lead to life all by themselves?

Are you even for real?

If this is all you have to stand on, I would argue that it is YOU injecting anti-religion and faith into science. A faith in the unseen & unexplained that somehow leads you to the conclusion that there’s no designer.

Try REALLY hard to break the chains of your cult and projections and see if you can understand that you can’t have it both ways.

If you think Dover was the final chapter you've got another thing [sic] coming.

Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)
The Supreme Court found that Arkanas' law prohibiting the teaching of evolution was unconstitutional because the motivation was based on a literal reading of Genesis, not science.
McClean v. Arkansas (1981)
A federal judge found that Arkanas' "blanced treatment" law mandating equal treatment of creation science with evolution was unconstitutional.
Segraves v. California (1981)
A California judge ruled that teaching evolution in public school science classes does not infringe upon the rights of any students or parents to the free exercise of their religion, even if they sincerely believe that evolution is contrary to their religious beliefs.
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court invalidated Louisiana's "Creationism Act" because it violated the Establishment Clause.
Webster v. New Lenox (1990)
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that school boards have the right to prohibit teaching creationism because such lessons would constitute religious advocacy and, hence, such restrictions do not constitute an infringement on a teacher's free speech rights.
Peloza v. Capistrano (1994)
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that a teacher does not have a right to teach creationism in a biology class, that "evolutionism" is not a religion or world view, and that the government can restrict the speech of employees while they are on the job.
Freiler v. Tangipahoa (1999)
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that a disclaimer to be read before teaching about evolution ultimately had the effect of furthering religious interests and was therefore unconstitutional.
LeVake v. Independent School District (2001)
A federal district court finds that a school may remove a teacher from teaching a biology class when that teacher, a creationist, cannot adequately teach evolution.

Doesn't look very good for teaching your religion in science classes, eh?

So how does a single thing you said indicate he injected religion into science?

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.

There is no time or place in the history of science where the assumption of divine intervention has been necessary or fruitful. Newton speculated that divine intervention was required to keep planetary orbits stable, and newton was wrong.

The coy reference to an unspecified Designer is bogus. If life cannot occur through unassisted chemical evolution, than supernatural intervention is indicated. You know this and everyone in the ID movement knows this.

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.

Teaching children that a scientific problem can’t be solved would be a criminal act. Any teacher who tells children that because a problem hasn’t been solved, it can’t be solved, should be fired.

Spoken just like the evo-cultists on the movie "Expelled"!

I didn't see where he said a scientific problem couldn't be solved, where did you see that?

He merely pointed out the shortcomings of suggestions by your cult.

Demanding a problem only be solved by looking at it one way as defined by cultists dumbs kids down.

8 instances with the most recent being 2001?

LOL

I’ll hand it to you though, it does show the pattern MRB was talking about...

WAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!!!!

I don’t want to hear about GOD....

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Maybe it’s time to do another check...look up Kansas and Louisiana.

And things are only getting started good here in Georgia.

8 instances with the most recent being 2001?

Did you forget Dover already?

Dover took a lot of the wind out of the sails of ID, and now we're seeing creationists evolving their efforts to "critical thinking" and "weaknesses" -- but those will be shown to be religion in disguise as well.

Creationism -- the religious belief that dare not speak its name.

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.