The Darwin Myth is a sometimes irritating but highly relevant, interesting book. Relevant and interesting because of statements like the following: “Darwinism is not a synonym for evolution. Darwinism is a particular approach to the evidence for evolution, a reductionistic, materialistic approach that excludes the Divine on principle.”
Irritating because of overly conciliatory statements such as this: “As for me, I shall always prefer a theory of evolution that can explain so great a man as Charles Darwin.”
Given the harsh, disrespectful tone of many involved in the culture wars, including atheists, scientists and Christians, Wiker’s gentlemanly approach towards Darwin the man seems a most welcome alternative. The author succeeds at cutting through the anti-Darwinian rhetoric. He goes to great pains to show that Darwin was kind and fatherly, sacrificing in the little ways for his friends and family. He nursed the kids when they were sick and, once, passed on for publication an anti-Darwinian article an acquaintance had mailed to him.
This seems a most welcome alternative: In Benjamin Wiker’s attempt to make the entire debate more gentlemanly, he has failed to adequately condemn the coldness in Darwin’s heart towards people he considered beneath him, such as the tribes he met on the Falklands Islands and in South America. It is incumbent on Christians to take a harsh view of the thoughts and also the person behind those thoughts, whatever grandfatherly qualities he may have had.
The Descent of Man contains thoughts like the following: “[T]he civilized races of many will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.” Darwin again: “f we do not ‘prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior races from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde.”
Who cares if Darwin was a kindly father? Darwin and his followers knew their thinking would lead to terrible consequences, which it did. Wiker points out that even many of Darwin’s scientific friends feared the outcome of such harsh, racist thinking. They also opposed Darwin’s assertion that natural selection explained everything — that the process whereby animals (and therefore physically weak humans?) poorly suited to their environment would quickly die, unable to pass on their “defective” genes.
One of the many strengths of The Darwin Myth is the carefully constructed portrayal of how Darwin wanted desperately to keep God out of the picture. Rather than starting as a religious thinker who gradually grew out of his superstitious beliefs and came to understand the scientific basis of reality, which is how Darwin and his followers have often portrayed his development, Darwin started out with deep-seated antipathy to religion. His grandfather had written an account of nature based on evolution. Several generations of the Darwins were evolutionists and atheists/agnostics.
In other words, Darwin set out from the beginning to formulate an account of evolution that left God out. This is the real thesis of Wiker, and rather than repeatedly digressing to Darwin’s vocation as a father and friend, The Darwin Myth, an otherwise skillfully written book, could have been harder hitting here. Darwinians believe that their account of evolution — the godless account — is the only scientific account. Wiker takes us in a few steps towards other options. Leaving God out of the theory of evolution is not a scientific but a philosophical and theological matter. Scientists have no right to exclude God automatically from creation.
Brian Welter writes from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
The Darwin Myth
The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin
By Benjamin Wiker
Regnery Publishing, 2009
196 pages, $27.95
To order: regnery.com
(888) 219-4747
Edward Pentin: Monopoly of Darwinism Must End
Comments
Post a Comment
“...he has failed to adequately condemn the coldness in Darwin’s heart towards people he considered beneath him, such as the tribes he met on the Falklands Islands and in South America.”
Interesting position coming from Christianity, which has a long history of mission work and converting other cultures and beliefs to their way of thinking. Isn’t this the ultimate example of considering other people “beneath” themselves? This is nothing but arrogance, claiming Christianity is the ONLY way and all other people that don’t believe so need to be brought in to the flock.
“In other words, Darwin set out from the beginning to formulate an account of evolution that left God out.” So what is wrong with that? Today’s 21st century scientists don’t invoke any gods to solve scientific problems, so why should Darwin, the father of modern biology, be any different? http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/
In response to Mr Eric’s comments whereas Christina missionaries wanted to bring people to a fuller and more spiritual life, Darwin’s view was that such were useless and better off extinct. Whether you think the missionaries did good or not, at least extermination was not what they had in mind.
As the Human Apes point, Darwin was used, or allowed himself to be used by those who put a philosophically based atheism first, and Science second. So intent were they to dethrone God, that they made numerous mistakes, the effects of which we have to this day. The book is an excellent read, and should answer any fair minded questioner on these points.
“f we do not ‘prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior races from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde.” - Darwin
“Love one another.” - God
B/T/W. “evolution” of what? God’s creation - that’s what.
Chucky D got it right to a point. But science that totally excludes even the possibility of a creator is not science - it is a religion - atheism.
Whew! A “review” that claims that a Discovery Institute hack didn’t go far enough in falsely smearing Darwin!
For those who would like a review of Wiker’s screed by someone who actually knows something about the life and work of Darwin, you can go here:
http://ncse.com/rncse/29/review-darwin-myth
“Isn’t this the ultimate example of considering other people “beneath” themselves? This is nothing but arrogance, claiming Christianity is the ONLY way and all other people that don’t believe so need to be brought in to the flock.”
Those who hold the doctrine that there are many equally valid world-views sincerely believe it’s the ONLY way. In their arrogance, they believe Christians are beneath them and need to be converted. They are generally too dull to notice the irony.
Christianity isn’t the only way, Mr. Eric. Catholicism is the only way. How’s that grab you? And to convert the ignorant is what we are commanded to do. It is the most profound act of charity imaginable. Not only is it not arrogant but it is done out of the deepest humility. It is the ultimate expression that nobody is “beneath” us, that all God’s children are worthy of His redemption. That those of us who have been blessed with the one truth of the Holy Catholic Church have an obligation to share it with our brethren. If we love our brothers we must. It is too magnificent a gift not to share.
God, all gods for that matter, are based upon belief systems. Religion is belief-based. Science is evidence-based. There is no evidence that the ultimate cause of the universe is one of the gods of any known belief-based system. That’s how science works. That’s what science does. Get over it.
This is just another book on evolution written by someone who does not understand evolution. The cover picture tells it all!
Leslie wrote: “God, all gods for that matter, are based upon belief systems. Religion is belief-based. Science is evidence-based. There is no evidence that the ultimate cause of the universe is one of the gods of any known belief-based system. That’s how science works. That’s what science does. Get over it.”
I think the central Christian claims are supported by evidence. Even more, I’d say your confidence in evidence is a direct inheritance from the Judeo-Christian world-view. But let’s leave that aside. Let’s pretend I’m an enlightened empiricist. How did I arrive at this philosophy? Why do I believe it to be true? Have I demanded that empiricism itself be justified by evidence? But what possible evidence can demonstrate that all truth must be confirmed by evidence? Lot’s of true things leave no evidence. (Last night I dreamed of swamps. Is that true? Can empiricism answer this?) Science is limited. It can only answer certain sorts of questions. I would argue it can only answer trivial questions relating to How and When. The big questions of Who and Why are the province of philosophy, theology and revelation. Rather than being in a superior position to Christians (who happily live by faith in the goodness of their beautiful God), the empiricist clings to faith in (very fallible) human perception and (very dull) human reasoning. Both live by faith alone, and the Christian faith is by far the brighter.
Allan,
I agree. But I would also assert that science should not be criticized because it is limited to how and when. Nor should religion be faulted because it is limited to who and why. Yes, religion and science do operate in very different relms. Let’s get over it and quit using one to beat up on the other.
Paraphrasing GKC—atheism is most often a defiance rather than a denial. Since Chesterton covered the topics of atheism and Darwinism so thoroughly, and since he says it much better than I, here are some of his thoughts:
“I do not feel any contempt for an atheist, who is often a man limited and constrained by his own logic to a very sad simplification.”
“Progress is Providence without God. That is, it is a theory that everything has always perpetually gone right by accident. It is a sort of atheistic optimism, based on an everlasting coincidence far more miraculous than a miracle.”
“There are arguments for atheism, and they do not depend, and never did depend, upon science. They are arguable enough, as far as they go, upon a general survey of life; only it happens to be a superficial survey of life.”
“Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas… for it is the assertion of a universal negative.”
“It is a mark of the credulity of Victorian rationalism that the rationalist did so easily become a Darwinian. Claiming to have cast off the superstitions of others, it contrives with astonishing rapidity to create superstitions of its own; as is here shown in the very short period that has turned Charles Darwin from an honest man into an unhuman god.”
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.