Darwin and God?

If it wasn't written by Darwin, it's hearsay. Read what the guy wrote (including letters).

Anyway, what's up with the "bad guy" thing?

Early in the 17th century, the Anglican primate of Ireland, Bishop James Ussher, determined (as he alleged) through textual evidence, that the world had been created on Sunday, October 23rd, 4004 BC. He neglected to mention the time of day. For the religiously literal minded, the time scales necessary for the derivation of species suggested by the work of Darwin and Wallace would not have been possible within a time frame of fewer than 6,000 years. Therefore, Darwin was seen as contradicting the Bible itself. Darwin was, as PPD has pointed out, a resolutely dedicated believer in God, and the evidence is to be found in his personal writings. Alfred Russell Wallace, who was a self-made naturalist, who worked very hard in the field, and was in Indonesia in the 1840's and -50's, had written to Charles Darwin proposing exactly the mechanism of natural selection which Darwin had settled upon after the voyage of Beagle. Darwin had suppressed his own work for many years, aware of the storm of controversy which would likely arise. But when he got Wallace's letter, he rushed his work to print. In 1858, Darwin and Wallace jointly presented the theory to the Linnaean Society in London, and Darwin was proven correct about the outcry. But Thomas Huxley, an extremely intelligent man and pugnacious debater, immediately saw the sense in the theory, and went right to work defending the theory, and attacking religious opponents for narrow-mindedness. Huxley, who proudly called himself "Darwin's Bulldog," raised tempers to the fever point.

Later in the 19th century, and Englishman (whose name i always forget) began speaking tours in which he "interpreted" Darwin's theory. One idea he hammered on was "the survival of the fittest." Darwin did indeed advance this idea, but he was speaking of the traits which best fitted a group of individuals to reproduces their genetic make-up. This joker made it seem that the theory proposed that only the fittest individuals survive; which is patently false--survival is the measure of "fitness," and any individual which survives is by definition fit. What matters is reproductive opportunity and viable offspring in the ecosystem in which the species lives. This coincided, however, with the Neitzschean idea of the "ubermensch," or "superman." Neitzsche was speaking of seeing "a new wave" of intellectually superior and philosophically grounded people on the social horizon. But this, too, was misconstrued, and the the atavistic German racists of his day (which included his sister, much to his chagrin) took that particular ball and ran with it. Neitzsche collapsed on the street in Jena one day, and was committed to a mental institution for the remainder of his life. His sister took his notes for the book he was working on at the time, and had it published as The Will to Power. It largely contradicts the political ideas which Neitzche cherished, and was used by the German racists as justification for their contention that the "Aryans" were superior people. In fact, the word Aryan had been invented by linguists to explain the common origins of many European words, something Neitzche, as a philologist (a scholar of words and language) would have automatically understood. They did not propose that any Aryan tribe had ever existed, but the German racists did make that contention. The clown who was spreading the doctrine of the "survival of the fittest" played right into the hand of the racists, who now contended that Darwinian notions of natural selection proved their natural superiority.

In the United States, the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw the rise of christian fundamentalism, hand in hand with renewed white racism. Ironically, while vilifying Darwin and Wallace for their "ungodly" theory, they wholely embraced the notion of white racial superiority, one prominent result of which was the re-establishment of the Ku Klux Klan (the founder, Nathan Beford Forrest, had dissolved the organization in 1870, after it became associated with night riders and lynch mobs) in Georgia just before the First World War. So, on the one hand, fundamentalist condemned the theory as irreligious, and on the other embraced the warped combination of "Darwinism" and Neitzsche's "superman" to suggest proof of their racial superiority. After the first world war, demagogues like Father Coughnlin (sp?) on the radio had no problem with this contradiction--overtly condemning "evolutionism" (it's a theory, not an "ism"), and on the other engaging in crypto-racist diatribes against racial integration. The state of Tennessee had passed legislation prohibiting the teaching of evolution in schools, and John Scopes, a teacher in Tennessee was prosecuted for committing that "crime." Two adolscent boys in Chicago, Leopold and Loeb, murdered a younger boy simply for the thrill of it, and the defense team decided to blame it on a mix of "Darwinism" and the Neitzschean idea of a superman, as perverted by Neitzsche's sister. That woman whole-heartedly embraced first Ernst Rohm's brown shirts, and then when the Nazis rose to power, they quickly saw the value of her perversions of her brother's thinking in pushing their racial superiority program--killing not just Jews, but Slavs and Gypsies as well.

The entire process made many more liberal minded people with a good understanding of both the Darwin/Wallace theory and Neitzsche philosophy back out of any public debate. The great political demagogue, William Jennings Bryan, who truly was a "man of the people," was also, unfortunately, a bible-thumper, and he had made a special point of going to Tennesse to prosecute Scopes. This was good enough for the farmers and factory workers who had always seen him as their special Holy Warrior, fighting the good fight against the "Jew Bankers" and the Eastern intellectuals on their behalf. Only slowly and quietly did the courageous "little men and women" of the educational profession begin to reintroduce the theory of evolution into the schools, it never having died in university curricula.

With the resurgence of religious fundamentalism in America, and the rapid growth of charismatic sects, the fight is on once again. Darwin foresaw the troubles which would arise among rigid religious thinkers, but i doubt he had any notion of the extremes to which his simple statements of the conclusions that both he and Wallace had arrived at from observations would lead people. Darwin, a quite retiring man, and Wallace, a hard-working poor boy from Wales who had dedicated his life to scientific inquiry, have been demonized by a confused and angry group of religious fanatics who, although often in the majority, have often seen themselves as an oppressed minority, fighting a rear-guard action against the Anti-Christ and his minions in the scientific community.

It's enough to turn one's stomach.

wow, and setanta wrote all that in a caffeine high while slugging down a ham sammich.

Id suggest that your instructor do his critical reading a bit closer. Darwin, although a trained minister when he left on the beagle, had always had doubts and an agnostic leaning that became more noticeable in later life as his kids had become ill and a few died.
Darwins favorite book, William Paleys Natural Theology accompanied Charles on the Beagle and his first scientific notes are loaded with God references . Theres where your path should take you first, IMHO. Paley could be considered the first of the Intelligent Design proponents.

You are correct to do a word search, may i add that he(DARWIN) did use the word Creator or the works of the creator, or other such words more in "code" than in reference.
When Darwin was first contacted by Wallace in 1856 and discovered how close Wallace was to a parallel theory he became panicky about how he would be scooped . By the following year wallace published his clinical sounding paper , made out of a lifetimes ground pounding and true scientific observation. The Lynnaean society , due to Darwins insistance published Wallaces paper with a preface that "all this **** will be explained in a more definitive treatise in preparation by Dr darwin" Darwin had really nothing to worry about because Wallace would staand as a better example of applied biogeography than as a true theoretician
Darwin, always the procrastinator, finally got his manuscript done a year later and had little time to care about the religious establishment. As set said, Huxley was almost rabid in his defense of Darwin , whose actual theory went far beyond Wallaces paper.Thats why Darwin took all the hit of the religious establishment and wallace got almost ignored. Wallace also began wavering and pretty much bowed to the establishment, while Lyell, Huxley, and the Haeckel made Darwins theory a good barfight
In fact, Wallace and Darwin split sides after Darwin published his Descent of Man... in 1871. Wallace lacked the cojones to engage the " dr silkies..." of the Creation centered biologists. HAeckels publication of the Natural History of Creation didnt help Darwin, its ontogenetic pathways from "worm to man" were a little too crude for the day (although with enough DNA evidence today, we could subtract common genomes from human genomes until we get to annelids) However, when Haeckels work came out it came out Darwin was, by that time, comfortably , dead)
Darwin does speak of the creator or Ancient Eves in his Descent... but my feeling is, that by now Darwin was so jaded with religion and theism (becauase he had lost 2 sons to disease and another was crippled with illnesses), he only used God references in the sence that Jefferson and franklin did .(you know, "nature and natures god") Darwins "Descent>>>" draft was vetted by his buddies Huxley Lyell,and HAeckel. They suggested even tougher words but Darwin, always the fair wire walker, was able to put out his arguably, most scientific work and when he died (i believe it was 1876) the Archbishop of Canterbury gave the only negative word about darwins great work
"Why couldnt he just keep it to himself"

Well, that aint the way science works your eminence.


As far as your instructor , may he become more enlightened about the true stand of Darwin.He was an agnostic and just a bit of a coward until much later in life
As set said , Darwin has been used and abused to support almost every direction of political theory from Marxism, Nazism, to "Trickle down economics". It truly is a crying shame for what is considered by some, to be the greatest set of ideas of the past millenium.

Wallace,
remember him? in later life, he became a weenie spiritualist and was more into "table spinning'SO when it came to the defense mode of the challenges to evolutionary theory --that the theory applies to the top of the food chain (so sez the USDA), WAllace wasnt there he was a coward. While the IDEA of the joint theory can be nicely shared, The full theory of Evolution by natural selection, in my mind, is solely the property of C R Darwin. In that I am unshakeable. Wallace was a helper and a keen observer, he really took Erasmus Darwins ideas a quantum jump ahead. But Charles Darwin took it to another universe

My copy of the Origin is a book published in Germany in 1958 and is composed of the Origin and In search of adam , both in German. I looked for similar wordage for God (Herrn) and I didnt see it when describing a creator

PS, what was the line that you referenced, that Darwin used the word God in a negative sense. I think Darwins first son died in the mid 1850s so its just before he finished the oRIGIN...

PS, heres the Pastor Fuzz version of Archbishop Ushhers calculations . Hee Hee
http://www.bibleword.org/ussher1.htm

Also, a good journeymans discussion on the History of the North American Creationist movement and their slide into Intelligent Design is given in Jerry bergmans "A Brief History of The Modern american Creation Movement"

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/CMBergman.html

Some sites about Darwin's . . .
You might want to look at some of these sites about Darwin's Belief in God. Looks like whole books have been written about this subject. Check with your librarian - even for an interlibrary loan.

Have you read Irving Stone's "The Origin"? Great book. Very well written.

Good luck! Enjoy your research! :-)

DARWIN'S BELIEF IN GOD

Have you begun your research paper gpf?. Im curious of your findings re: Darwins emerging agnosticism

Noticed three or four books on this subject at the bookstore today. Not curious enough to crack a spine, though, so I've no clue what was in them. Words, I suspect.

Sir Huxley, a major defender of Darwin at the time had this to say about becoming an agnostic: