darwin and america’s soul united statesians’ responses to darwin and darwinism, 1860-2009
Post on 15-Jan-2016
224 views
TRANSCRIPT
Darwin and America’s Soul
United Statesians’ Responses to Darwin and Darwinism, 1860-2009
Responses to Darwin in the U. S.
• Muted at first due to “late unpleasantness”
• Acceptance—theistic and naturalistic
• Rejection—theistic and naturalistic (Louis Agassiz, 1807-1873) continued to affirm polygenesis) Agassiz
Theistic Acceptance in the U. S.
• Francis Ellingwood Abbot (1836-1903) – “Scientific Theisism”—evolution is God’s method for creation.
• Asa Gray (1810-1888) – Darwiniana (1876) – evolution is the naturalistic understanding of God’s working out of divine purpose.
• John Augustus Zahm (1851-1921) – Evolution and Dogma (1896) – Evolution is God’s mechanism for creation.
• Kenneth Raymond Miller (1948- ) – Finding Darwin’s God (2000) - Evolution does not contradict religious faith.
Father John Augustus Zahn
Professor Kenneth Miller
Scientist may accept Darwin, but real “Americans” seem ambivalent.
• February 2009 BBC/Harris poll in the U. S.• 45% say humans were created directly by God;
only 29% say humans evolved from other earlier species.
• 53% say that humans, plants, and animals evolved.• 79%, however, say plants and animals evolved.• 40% favor teaching Darwinism and Creationism,
but only 17% say teach Creationism only.
Unambivalent Americans: 4 Waves of Rejection
• Victorian (1870s)
• Fundamentalist (1910-1920s)
• Reactionists (1960s-1980s)
• Contemporary Conservative Culture Warriors (1990s-)
[For many Americans] . . . The theory of evolution was moresymptomatic of a deep unease within our society over thenature of modern science. For them, evolution is far morethan a mistaken scientific theory. It is the cutting edge of adangerous and destructive materialism that threatens theheart and soul of our civilization and culture, and it mustbe stopped at all costs.” K. Miller, Only a Theory, x.
Darwin’s theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis, but every world in the Bible from beginning to end. It contradicts the idea that we are here because a creator brought out our existence for a purpose. . . . When I am preaching from the Bible . . . I don’t start with Genesis. I start with John 1:12. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right and the materialist scientists are deluding themselves.”
--Phillip E. Johnson (1999)
What is the question now placed before society? The questionis this: Is man an ape or an angel? I . . . Am on the side of the angels.” ---Benjamin Disraeli (1864)
Non novum sub solum est!!!
Ethos of Rejection
• Victorian—industrialization, urbanization, higher criticism of the scriptures.
• Fundamentalist—international crisis, Bolshevism, “new morality” and Freud, Einstein, plus continuation of the factors above.
• Reactionists—Civil Rights movement, Cold War, Vietnam War, Sexual Revolution, Feminism, Roe v. Wade.
• Conservative Culture Warriors—anti-Government, anti-Gay, anti-Globalization, anti-Muslim.
Mythos of Rejection--Victorian
• Charles Hodge (1797-1879) – What is Darwinism (1874) “What is Darwinism ? It is Atheism.” p. 183.
• “The conclusion of the whole matter is, that the denial of design in nature is virtually the denial of God. Mr. Darwin's theory does deny all design in nature, therefore, his theory is virtually atheistical; his theory, not he himself. He believes in a Creator. But when that Creator, millions on millions of ages ago, did something, — called matter and a. living germ into existence, --- and then abandoned the universe to itself to be controlled by chance and necessity, without any purpose on his part as to the result, or any intervention or guidance, then He is virtually consigned, so far as we are concerned, to non-existence.” (177-78)
Fundamentalist—1910s-1920s
• The Fundamentals (1910-1915)
• Tennessee v. Scopes (July 1925)
• H. L. Mencken views in the Baltimore Sun
• An important technicality—Scopes v. Tennessee (1927)
Darrow has lost this case. It was lost long before he came to Dayton. But it seems to me that he has nevertheless performed a great public service by fighting it to a finish and in a perfectly serious way. Let no one mistake it for comedy, farcical though it may be in all its details. It serves notice on the country that Neanderthal man is organizing in these forlorn backwaters of the land, led by a fanatic, rid of sense and devoid of conscience. Tennessee, challenging him too timorously and too late, now sees its courts converted into camp meetings and its Bill of Rights made a mock of by its sworn officers of the law. There are other States that had better look to their arsenals before the Hun is at their gates.--H. L. Mencken, July 19, 1925
We are not able to see how the prohibition of teaching the theory that man has descended from a lower order of animals gives preference to any religious establishment or mode of worship. So far as we know, there is no religious establishment or organized body that has in its creed or confession of faith any article denying or affirming such a theory. — Scopes v. State 289 S.W. 363, 367 (Tenn. 1927)
On the Books
• 1923—Oklahoma and Florida
• 1925—Tennessee
• 1926—Mississippi
• 1928--Arkansas
Reactionists (1960s-1970s)
• Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)
• It’s only a “theory”—1973 (Tennessee); 1976 (Kentucky); 1981 (Arkansas); 1981 (Louisiana)
• Mel (1915-2004) and Norma (1923-2007) Gabler
• Creation Science and Equal Time
• Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)
We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. . . . Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction. –William J. Brennan in Edwards
Contemporary Conservative Culture Warriors
• A page from “postmodernism”• Intelligent Design• Discovery Institute• “Wedge Strategy”—Phillip E. Johnson—
“teach the controversy”• State Science Standards• Warning Stickers• Of Pandas and People• Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005)
“I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed. [...] And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done — and he's not getting it” –William Dembski
Intelligent Design is theology, not science!
“The conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from Christ.” –William Dembski
“We don't need science to tell us that the universe and life are designed, any more than that we need science to tell us that they had a beginning.... Through his personal revelation... God has told us that he designed life.” –Michael Behe
Nature of ScienceScience is a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Throughout history people from many cultures have used the methods of science to contribute to scientific knowledge and technological innovations, making science a worldwide enterprise. Scientists test explanations against the natural world, logically integrating observations and tested hypotheses with accepted explanations to gradually build more reliable and accurate understandings of nature. Scientific explanations must be testable and repeatable, and findings must be confirmed through additional observation and experimentation. As it is practiced in the late 20th and early 21st century, science is restricted to explaining only the natural world, using only natural cause. This is because science currently has no tools to test explanations using non-natural (such as supernatural) causes. (Kansas k-12 Science Standard)