Creationists and evolutionists both see Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution as the linchpin of all attempts to prove or disprove the existence of God. Darwin’s Pious Idea by Conor Cunningham turns this debate on its head. The subtitle says it all: “Why the ultra-Darwinists and creationists both get it wrong.”
Activist atheists and fundamentalist believers vehemently try to persuade others to adopt their way of thinking. Cunningham argues that both are wasting their time.
Darwin’s theory of evolution, he writes, “is frequently construed, by both its supporters and its opponents, as an attack on the idea of God and an attempted exposé of the frivolity of the piety of religious believers. On this account, both atheists and religious people alike tend to sing from the same hymn sheet: Darwinian evolution threatens to annihilate religion at its very root.”
Cunningham’s thesis is that the notion that “evolution threatens to annihilate religion at its very root” is a mistaken one, which means that both atheistic supporters and religious opponents of evolution are wrong. The question is not either the Darwinian model of evolution is true and therefore God does not exist or Darwinian evolution is false and therefore God does exist. The Darwinian model of evolution appears to be scientifically supportable, and God exists.
The Catholic Church, through at least three of its recent Popes (Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI), has already stated this numerous times. The classical Darwinian model of evolution, as described by Darwin himself in his writings, does not say anything contrary to religious faith, nor does the Church adhere to a literalist interpretation of the biblical creation stories.
What Cunningham calls “ultra-Darwinism,” promoted by atheist polemicists like Richard Dawkins, is hostile to religion because it states categorically that God cannot possibly exist. Cunningham convincingly argues that ultra-Darwinism is also hostile to science because it is, at its core, unscientific: It attempts to say much more than Darwin ever intended and much more than its scientific validity allows.
Perhaps Cunningham’s most intriguing and provocative argument, though, is that fundamentalist creationism itself is not authentically Christian. It is “a lapse into intellectual barbarism, a complete desertion of the Christian tradition.” Cunningham is not a Catholic, so his view of the Christian tradition may differ slightly from Catholic teaching; but on the subject of evolution and creationism, he appears to be sound.
In the early chapters of the book, Cunningham provides a helpful summary of what Darwin actually posited, how his theory has been distorted over the years, and how the debate within the Darwinian camp has developed (“evolved,” if you will) into what Cunningham refers to as “denominations” of Darwinism. Later chapters explore psychological and social phenomena related to Darwinism (including eugenics) and explode the myth of “science versus religion.”
Despite the author’s frequent lapses into inscrutable phrases, which he often fails to translate into everyday English (“individualist ontology,” “nominalist epistemology” and “essentialist assumptions of classical and neoclassical biology”), the book is readable, enlightening and seasoned with humor.
Register correspondent Clare Walker writes from Westmont, Illinois.
DARWIN’S PIOUS IDEA
Why the Ultra-Darwinists and Creationists Both Get It Wrong
By Conor Cunningham
Eerdmans, 2010
580 pages, $35
To order: eerdmans.com
(800) 253-7521
Edward Pentin: Pope Benedict XVI's Visit to Lebanon - Full Texts
Comments
Post a Comment
“What Cunningham calls “ultra-Darwinism,” promoted by atheist polemicists like Richard Dawkins, is hostile to religion because it states categorically that God cannot possibly exist.”
Then this is a poorly researched book, since Dawkins has never made that claim and has clearly stated the opposite:
“We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can’t disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can’t disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable.”
“The Darwinian model of evolution appears to be [absolutely] scientifically supportable [inasmuch as it is supported by multiple branches of science such as geology, paleontology and biology;] but [while it’s possible that some sort of] God exists [there’s no evidence to support its existence and no good reason to believe in any gods at all. As we learn more about nature we realize that invoking gods is unnecessary and useless anyway, as they’ve never truly explained anything].”
Fixed that for you.
As high school pupils we very easily fouth back teacher claims that Darwin theory makes God not existing. We countadicted that approach just saying that there is needed much more creative power to create small table which will grow to big one and different one, then to make sevceral tables different kind and different size.
General atheistic claim that God does not exist we counter with simple statement that they are not consistent and use two different approaches to same situation.
When they found the archeological item (tool, tumb, jewlery or other), it is obvious to them that these items were planned by someone, were wished by someone, someone was capable to make it.
When they obserwe growing child they deny obviois fact that that growth was planned (planning is possible to someone with reason- i.e. person ), that it was wished by someone ( wish can someone with will i.e. person),someone made it to happen ( someone powerfuzl), growth is beautiful and good (good and beautiful things are done by someone who has goodness and love). We say that person who has reason, will, so powerful to make a child body grow, so good to make it beautiful and good, we call God. No answer. When we come with unrefutable argument generally opponents are silent. Then we add that a fact has not only be known, but also recognised or accepted. Recognistion and acceptance is act of will.
So atheism is act of will, not reason.
So Dawkins thinks the God’s existence is, however remotely, possible?
Excuse me… please.
Pope (Blessed) John Paul II did not acquiesce the Theory of Evolution.
The fact is that he challenged the ‘theory’ of evolution as being ‘theories’ and thus they are set one against another. The Media at large including the Catholic Media accepted a distortion of his statement, “evolution is more than a theory, it is theories ….” A clip of his statement was printed worldwide dropping the “it is theories” (with explanation) and was confirmed by an “official” at the Vatican, but they did not read the actual documents so the errors have become embedded in the evolution debate as a confirmation, which it is not.
The Catholic bottom line of all these debates about evolution and the Big Bang is simple; NOTHING CAN COME FROM NOTHING; and, SOMETHING CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING.
Once that is established in the Media and education, (as it is already in science) then science can study the results of creation known as the cosmos and can come to true relative scientific conclusions. However, even if the smartest people in the world begin with a false premise, their theories and conclusions MUST always be flawed. If someone drops ‘fiction’ from the label ‘science-fiction’, it does not in reality result in making that something ‘science.’
The world today rushes to conclusions because time is limited and there is so very much to know. We have difficulty with the virtues of patience, humility and truth, even though it is truth that will make us free. How many emails have we sent around to family and friends without checking their factuality only to regret it when we find later that it was a hoax?
“Theory” is defined,
1. A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: “Darwin’s theory of evolution”.
2. A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
Look up ‘cosmos.’
+ Art Martin
God is the reality + pride is the illusion.
@Brian Westley - this is dishonest on Dawkins’ part and a bit naive on your part. If God might exist, then you wouldn’t talk about “The God Delusion” and you certainly wouldn’t use the phrase as a title for a book. For Dawkins, the inability to “disprove God” is no obstacle to actively attacking the idea of God’s existence. It doesn’t deter him from denigrating those who believe in any God in terms that are extremely desultory, cf from wikipedia: “Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense.” “Religion is the most inflammatory enemy-labeling device in history.” To me that’s pretty “ultra.”
This “poor research” only took me 15 minutes to do to without resorting to creationist sources at all. Perhaps the book is better researched than your off-handed critique.
And also remember - Dawkins’ worn-out retreaded arguments for atheism are by no means demonstrated, augmented, or even better informed by the discoveries and inventions of mankind in the last two hundred years. This is because today’s “scientific” atheism - like its precursors over millennia - purposely avoids the philosophical subdiscipline of metaphysics which must be resolved before you engage in any physical science.
Dawkins stated that time was necessary for God to have created the universe and since time started when the universe began God doesn’t exist. Where he is wrong is in that very statement. God is outside time. It was His mercy that gave us time. We have time to repent, to grow, to learn. When He created the universe He created time. He did all this for us.
What people insist on arguing in order to prove God does not exits always lacks love. God is perfect love. That’s why they miss the mark. Openness of mind and heart are needed to be free to hear Him. Thank God for time.
The basis of the book is Darwin’s horror of slavery. That’s all well and good. But it would have helped had Darwin been upset about the wage slavery of industrial Britain, on which his dividends depended. When seeing working children coming out of a coal mine, William Wilberforce commented “They look happy enough”.
Hi Brian… and you can prove, er, scientifically, that God is very very improbable?—by what means? I truly doubt it but it probably makes you feel better saying it. But that is most likely the product of your personal problems and inadequacies than reality.
I apologize in advance for being snippy but when a person who is presumably adult says such childish and shallow things, it is difficult not being somewhat insulting. One loses patience as one grows old and I must consider myself old, now.
@WebPoppy8—It’s dishonest for you to describe Dawkins as dishonest. He is merely stating the obvious, that you cannot completely rule anything out if it involves unknown supernatural beings, whether a god or the flying spaghetti monster.
@Keith—You can’t seem to read. That’s a quote from Dawkins, not my assertion. However, given the thousands of gods humans have posited over the centuries, and the lack of evidence for them, I don’t see any reason to believe any of them actually exist.
Thank you Arthur. One of our RCIA teachers with a doctorate in theology told me that John Paul II said evolution was a reality. I now have some help. If you could show me the source document I would be most appreciative because I will be challenging him this year again. I am trying to clean up the teachings that are being put forth in the RCIA program at this parish.
Oops, it was Stephen Hawking not Dawkins in my comment above.
Whilst theologians continue to spend great effort in dissecting and debating Darwin’s works and those who publicly support it, science has moved on with over 150 years of research. Research, not only vindicating Darwin’s work, but expanding it into life sciences that would be unimaginable to a 19th century scientist. The fruits of their science benefiting humanity in ways that, quite frankly, make religion’s doctrines look more and more far fetched by the day.
It is telling that only theologians and creationists are stuck, attempting to ‘disprove’ or ‘accommodate’ the man at the source of the big idea, rather than attempting to show where their deities fit into modern, demonstrable science. They can’t explain where the supernatural fits into observable processes, nor define exactly what it does if it could, nor come up with a viable, natural alternative to natural selection. They know they can’t, so why not pick an argument with or misrepresent a dead man instead?
Bolt the door if you wish, but of the vast, ever-growing body of evidence showing that there are naturalistic explanations for the diversity of life on earth, bolted long ago.
Please, with jam on it, will some one give one example - just one - of a species that has evolved from another. While you are at it, would you please define a species?
@ Gabriel
Not difficult using your own computer. Google Scholar lists 456,000 scientific articles on speciation alone. Read this for an introduction with named examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
A dictionary definition of species:
1 (abbr.: sp., spp.) Biology: a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens.
2 2 Christian Church: the visible form of each of the elements of consecrated bread and wine in the Eucharist.
You’re more a fan of #2 I guess.
Mr. Hawking would do well to stick to his last, like a good shoemaker, and work on explaining quantum mechanics [“If you think you understand it, you don’t” R. Feynman] or explaining gravity [not how it works, but what it is]. Evidently he has grown tired of these problems in physics and has moved into the more difficult field of theology. His inability to understand logic is astonishing.
On Dawkins, the simplest thing to do is to read David Stove or Mary Midgeley. Both punctured his pompousness many years ago. Of Miss Midgeley, Dawkins complained that she was a meanie.
@Gabriel, is a google search too much effort for you?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Dear Cheryl Bratton,
I am happy that you asked and am glad that you are interested in defending the truth.
The document is entitled TRUTH CANNOT CONTRADICT TRUTH
Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996)
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm
Other links can be found under this title.
This is an extremely important argument. Pray first for guidance and defense.
It is usually difficult to distinguish the sons of God from the sons of the serpent. We all look alike. (Gen. 3:15)
The object is to convince without destroying them. If you attack, they will defend their error all the more. Offer the truth; don’t shove it. Remember that truth is a two edged sword. It heals and sets free but it also cuts deep.
Also, Pope JP2 states: “In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.”
This is another verse that is often twisted to say what it does not mean. They overlook the condition, “that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.” Right away, they LOSE SIGHT of these INDISPUTABLE POINTS.
What I was referring to is, “And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.”
I have found that reducing the whole Evolution / Big Bang argument to its foundation prohibits the argument from being constructed in the first place. SOMETHING CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING. Even a singularity MUST have a first cause. Once this scientific fact is in place then science can properly study the cosmos without trying to use pseudo-science to disprove the existence of God. Those people who try to disprove the existence of God do a grave disservice to science and to their own scientist reputation. It also proves that they have an evil agenda not compatible with science.
+ Art
God is the reality; pride is the illusion.
“SOMETHING CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING. Even a singularity MUST have a first cause.”
But not a god? Completely arbitrary.
Good Morning, Cheryl Bratton.
The proof of the existence of God may continue once you have established that SOMETHING CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING.
.
Creation proves that there is a Creator.
.
The most overlooked proof of the existence of God is JESUS. Jesus is God Incarnate. Jesus proved that He is God by the miracles He worked. Moreover, He gave the power to work miracles to others and we have been working miracles ever since then.
.
A miracle is an exception to the Laws of Nature that only the Creator or those Laws can accomplish. (Also, See the Declaration of Independence to prove atheism has no place in America.)
.
+ Art
God is the reality; pride is the illusion.
Arthur, Thank you, thank you, thank you. I will take your advice and am grateful for it. Cheryl
Reportedly, there was a recent study done, although I do not have it, by a group of psychologists and psychiatrists regarding Man and the belief in God.
Their report concluded that mankind everywhere throughout history in every part of the world has believed in a supernatural being or beings to whom they prayed. The group of scientists concluded that a belief in a supreme being is innate to the makeup of man so much so that someone who does not believe in a divinity could be considered as suffering from psychoneurosis.
.
psy·cho·neu·ro·sis definition
: NEUROSIS
especially : a neurosis based on emotional conflict in which an impulse that has been blocked seeks expression in a disguised response or symptom compare ACTUAL NEUROSIS
Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary, © 2007 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
.
Perhaps someone else has heard of this study and can enlighten us more on the subject. I will try to find the report.
+ Art
God is the reality; pride is the illusion.
“SOMETHING CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING.”
Not as far as we know, so no scientific theory makes that assertion; rather, what we say about the origin of the universe is that we don’t know where the original singularity came from, if anywhere; for all we *know*, it may have always been there. in any case, science currently has no explanation, but isn’t going to fall back on “goddit.”
“However, even if the smartest people in the world begin with a false premise, their theories and conclusions MUST always be flawed.”
Not necessarily, but it certainly isn’t the best place to start. Fortunately, you can stop worrying about this, since as I said before, no scientific theory begins with the premise you describe.
“Even a singularity MUST have a first cause.”
So what? Do you think that somehow provides support for the belief in a god? If everything must have a cause, then what about a god? Doesn’t it have to have a cause?
(And I’m sure you’re too sophisticated to use special pleading, as in “Well, god has no cause because god is the uncaused cause.” Obviously, if a speculative god can be uncaused surely so can a singularity. Or neither can be.)
“Creation proves that there is a Creator.”
Only if Existence proves there is an Existor – which is my way of pointing out that just because you use a particular word “Creation” to describe something doesn’t mean anything at all about reality.
Hey! Does Reality imply a Realtor? This is fun – but pointless as far as demonstrating anything.
“The most overlooked proof of the existence of God is JESUS.”
Sorry, since there’s no evidence for the existence of Jesus, I’m afraid it isn’t proof at all.
“See the Declaration of Independence to prove atheism has no place in America.”
See the Constitution and the bill of rights to show that religion is not the basis for the United States.
“Reportedly, there was a recent study done, although I do not have it, by a group of psychologists and psychiatrists regarding Man and the belief in God.”
I think I heard something about that study. As I recall, their conclusion was that a belief in the supernatural or gods was a sign of childishness and immaturity, a holdover from a more primitive stage of our development.
Perhaps someone will find it and see which is us is correct.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.