Creationists and atheists are both guilty of distorting Darwin and his theories
Dear Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi,
Better late than never. There are, sadly, many Christians who still feel that Darwin needs to be knocked down a few pegs and attacked whenever possible. In fact, the very mention of Darwin causes swords to be drawn and I think it’s fair to say that convincing either believers or critics of Darwin that they are wrong and should change their mind is nigh on impossible. However, for the Vatican to embrace Darwin so openly gives me hope that idiotic creationists can finally be put in their place and pushed out of the mainstream.
As head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, you said that while the Church had been hostile to Darwin’s theory in the past, the idea of evolution could be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, added that 4th century theologian St Augustine had “never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish” and forms of life had been transformed “slowly over time”. Aquinas made similar observations in the Middle Ages. I have no reason to doubt this, although it clearly lacks some of the evidence-based details that Darwin explored over many decades. Ahead of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, the Vatican is also set to play down the idea of Intelligent Design. The conference will discuss Intelligent Design to an extent, but only as a “cultural phenomenon”. I am absolutely thrilled to hear that Intelligent Design, one of the biggest pseudo-scientific frauds in recent years, is being elbowed out by such an influential Christian body. I could devote an entire letter to the ridiculous notion of Intelligent Design – the idea that some things in the natural world are so complex that they must have had a ‘Designer’ i.e. we don’t like Darwin’s idea of natural selection so we’re forcibly inserting God into the natural world. You also pointed out that Darwin’s theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, pointing to comments more than 50 years ago when Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans.
There are still some people who juxtapose Darwin and religion, as if they are somehow at war with each other. This nonsense has been peddled for years, mostly by creationists who believe that the world literally appeared in seven days as described in the Bible. Unfortunately, Christianity as a whole gets tarnished by these morons when Christianity has never and probably will never be incompatible with Darwin’s theories. It’s not just the creationists who are distorting the debate, though. Some atheists use Darwin to attack religion and demand that creationists acknowledge that God does not exist on the basis of his evidence. This is also nonsense. Darwin himself was a deeply religious man and his theories troubled him greatly (not least because his wife was deeply religious). While fossil records and natural selection flatly contradict the creationist view that the world was created in seven days, Darwin merely showed how species appear, develop, change and adapt to their surroundings over time. Even as an atheist, I accept that ‘First Cause’ – the notion that even if we trace evolution and indeed the universe right back to the beginning, there still must have been something or someone that caused ‘the beginning’ – is a powerful argument and Darwin’s theories have never ruled out this possibility. This is why Christianity is perfectly compatible with Darwin and his work. Darwin explained what happened after life first appeared on earth, but no-one in the history of mankind has yet figured out where life came from in the first place.
I am genuinely pleased to see you start to work with Darwin’s theories rather than against them. Not only has the Vatican reached out a hand to evolution, the Church of England has also joined the party. The CoE website even has a section devoted to Darwin, in which his religious beliefs, dilemmas and relationship with the Church are explored. No-one can convince me that creationism is even worth discussing, let alone believing in it, but I admit that atheists sometimes cross the line. Bearing in mind that I’ve spent a considerable amount of time on this blog venting my anger at religious groups who force their beliefs on other people, I think it’s time that atheists and any other non-believers accept that we have no right to force our beliefs on other people either.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
An interesting letter LFAT and one that has got me thinking. In a way you are correct in saying that atheists hav ‘belief’ ie. a belief that live came from primordial soup or from pan-spermia. But the fundamental difference is that if and when evidence uncovers that one of these ideas is false then rational atheists will move one and not dogmatically adhere to flawed theories, as the religious types do.
As for Darwin – he stopped attending church with his family when his ideas of natural selection were at odds with the babbling of the vicar. It seems he could no longer see himself as a religious man.
I’m not sure if you read the New Scientist but there was an interesting article about how and why so many people are religious and it is suggested that to have supernatural beliefs is almost innate whereas to be an atheist takes effort to overcome this innate desire for there to be something more. So maybe we should pity the poor religious types who haven’t been able to shift that innate desire to have someone to blame for all life’s wrongs!
Even as an atheist, I accept that ‘First Cause’ – the notion that even if we trace evolution and indeed the universe right back to the beginning, there still must have been something or someone that caused ‘the beginning’ – is a powerful argument and Darwin’s theories have never ruled out this possibility.
No actual actor is required. Modern big bang theory postulates that what we perceive as the start of the universe happened when two or more multi-dimensional branes colided. And do go getting hung up on time, either – as Einstein observed, all times exist simultaneously but because we are only three dimensional we perceive time as linear, one ‘frame’ at a time….
The news that the Vatican has acknowledged Darwin’s theories and accepted his ideas is good news. Unfortunately Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi then proceeded to try and take credit for evolution, citing St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. I’m not certain I can get behind that one.
It’s excellent that the Vatican are beginning to against the modern anti-science backlash of the past decade or so, but it highlights their arrogance that in doing so they feel they must downplay the genius of Darwin.
Candid, I have often pondered an evolutionary explanation for religious beliefs and I think there is some fertile ground there. Obviously religious beliefs can appear dogmatic but atheists can appear just as dogmatic when discussing Darwin.
Shaun, I have no idea what you’re talking about when you mention multi-dimensional planes as I’m not up to speed on science in this area, suffice to say that to my knowledge Darwin didn’t discuss these issues!
Shaun, I have no idea what you’re talking about when you mention multi-dimensional planes
There is the classic tale of an mathematician and an engineer leaving a class on 13-dimensional topology. The engineer despairs, saying that he can’t see how he might ever even begin to understand 13-dimensional space. The mathematician, helpfully, explains that it is quite easy. All you have to do is imagine the problem in n-dimensional space, and then set n=13.
Hope that helps, LFAT
)
“All you have to do is imagine the problem in n-dimensional space, and then set n=13″
I may have mentioned before that any excuse to link to xkcd is a good one.
I thought the most you would get out of athiests is that there is no god – suggesting what isn’t is not the same as suggesting what is!
“Even as an atheist, I accept that ‘First Cause’ – the notion that even if we trace evolution and indeed the universe right back to the beginning, there still must have been something or someone that caused ‘the beginning’ – is a powerful argument and Darwin’s theories have never ruled out this possibility.”
Why do you think there was a begining? Whilst you might resonably think there is a boundary to the universe, in terms of time (big bang) and space (in as much as space is expanding so it must be finite), that does not itself support a beginning. After all, that there was a big bang means there must have been something to bang!
I think belief is a very personal thing, but I must say that your statement is not entirely consistent with an athiest label.
Alistair, I didn’t say I believed the First Cause argument – I just think it needs some careful thought before try to blow it to pieces.
Fortunately, what I believe or what anyone else believes has no bearing or influence on what the truth happens to be. We understand in various approximations of whatever the truth is and as we perceive and understand little by little this approximation of the truth becomes a little nearer, or conversely the complexity of the situation grows and appears at a greater distance although paradoxically this is still nearer the truth. The search for what is true or real is one of the great challenges of life and I love life for it. At the moment Darwin has the best approximation but if a deity comes forward with a better one I will be the first to give it a fair trial, but at this point in time Darwin seems to have had a more substantial presence than a deity, leaving aside belief.
Peter, I’m sure a lot of people would agree that Darwin provides the most convincing explanation of life on earth from all the options currently on the table. My concern is that atheists get carried away with berating those with religious beliefs instead of praising what Darwin has achieved and leaving it at that.
That’s the thing about science – it puts forward the best theory it can until that’s discredited and replaced with a more accurate one. The difference with absolutist religions is quite pronounced because nothing will ever disprove for them what they believe in; their answer is a simple one: God did it. The problem is where they wish to use their faith to contend things about the physical world that can be tested by science and proven to be false. Like the 6 Days of Genesis.
In short, science wins because it’s entire methodology is based on proving it’s theories wrong to regine them. This has delivered heat and light in our homes, IT, all sorts. Religion refuses to test itself and is, as a rule, very very reluctant to be proven wrong despite making some pretty remarkable claims about the nature of reality. Thus far this hasn’t delivered any ‘products’ per se.
I take a fairly consumerist view on which camp has the better grip on reality.
Interestingly it seems that while evolution is a great branch of science, the notion of a ‘tree of life’ has been seriously revised with the discovery that genes can be traded between members of species without sex – by ingestion or infection, for instance, making our evolutionary biological history even more complex that previously thought. This is another example of science revising itself to provide a more accurate description of reality.
I may have mentioned before that any excuse to link to xkcd is a good one.
Absolutely. All internet-using science pedants, especially, love xkcd. Even if some are naughty.
(but yes, Purity is a special favourite)
I have never seen any conflict LFAT . This post has the sort of sanity and balance that I admire in the best sort of Conservative .