The Tragic Legacy of Darwin, Part 3

Charles Darwin, age 51, Author Maull&Polyblank (PD)
Charles Darwin, author of On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man, described himself as agnostic, stating:
“For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities [1A].”
In his Origin of Species, Darwin allowed for the possibility of a First Cause. In his Descent of Man, by comparison, Darwin repeatedly grouped religion with superstition/fetishism, writing:
“Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake [emphasis added][1B].”
Later, in the same book, he added:
“I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument for His existence. But this is a rash argument, as we should thus be compelled to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant spirits…. [1C]”
Originally, however, Darwin planned to become a clergyman. He had rejected Christianity by the time his Origin of Species was published [1D]. He had, also, by then lost his beloved daughter, a death which may have contributed to his loss of faith [2].
This bias is not widely known by the public.
Dissent from Darwinism
Though Darwinism has become scientific orthodoxy, there is growing scientific dissent from the theory of evolution [3]. Over 1000 scientists have publicly signed onto this dissent [4][5].
The respected Oxford mathematician and Christian apologist, John Lennox, in his own book God’s Undertaker – Has Science Buried God? details some of the scientific shortcomings of the theory of evolution.
Lennox concludes:
“The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it…It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other; and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence [6].”
Ultimate Tragedy
What may be the ultimate tragedy is that countless millions have been deceived by Darwin’s theory of evolution into believing they are nothing more than brainier chimpanzees.
Denying the existence of a Creator denies us the possibility of a relationship with Him.
—
[1A through 1D] Wikipedia, “Religious views of Charles Darwin”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin.
[2] The Guardian, “Darwin’s complex loss of faith” by Nick Spencer, 9/17/09, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/sep/17/darwin-evolution-religion.
[3] Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, https://dissentfromdarwin.org.
[4] Real Clear Education, “1000 Scientists Sign ‘Dissent from Darwinism'” by Britanny Slaughter, 2/14/19, https://www.realcleareducation.com/2019/02/14/1000_scientists_sign_039dissent_from_darwinism039_46821.html.
[5] The Guardian, “Why everything you’ve been told about evolution is wrong” by Oliver Burkeman, 3/19/10, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong.
[6] John Lennox, God’s Undertaken – Has Science Buried God?, Oxford: Lion Books (2007, 2009).
READERS CAN FIND MY VIEWS ON ABUSE AND ABUSE-RELATED ISSUES AT ANNA WALDHERR A Voice Reclaimed, Surviving Child Abuse https://avoicereclaimed.com
Very interesting! Also, yes, very sad that so many have been deceived because of his theory and his book. My friend from England wrote a book responding to this theory, his book is called “The God solution” and can be found on Amazon. God bless 😊
Thank you for passing on the information. 🙂
Dear Anna,
I would like to add that the real tragedy is that those who indeed believe or conclude that “they are nothing more than brainier chimpanzees” have grossly misunderstood, misrepresented and/or rejected (the theory of) evolution, regardless of whether or not they have been “[d]enying the existence of a Creator [and] the possibility of a relationship with Him”. It is all too often and too easy for many biased, misguided and/or misinformed folks to conflate the issues and also cherry-pick data or evidence to force some arguments or conclusions.
Yours sincerely,
SoundEagle
Dear Anna,
Evolution has long advanced far beyond what On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man encompass. Moreover, be careful about the enormously numerous ways in which (mis)readings and (mis)interpretations of these two books (or indeed any book or source for that matter) can take place.
In my post entitled “Misquotation Pandemic and Disinformation Polemic: Mind Pollution by Viral Falsity“, the section called “Authentication : Quotation and Information Checklist“, provides a composite 20-point Checklist for verifying the validity and reliability of any information, sources and references.
Yours sincerely,
SoundEagle
Thank you for your input, SoundEagle.
Dear Anna,
Thank you for your acknowledgement. Unfortunately, I do not have the time and energy to unpack a lot of the issues and problems. In any case, I am forking out time now to deal with just one as follows.
The article entitled “Why everything you’ve been told about evolution is wrong” by Oliver Burkeman is highly problematic in many ways. First of all, the title of the article is sensationalist, alarmist and misleading, not to mention that if one actually reads the whole article, one can see that he himself has conceded that Jerry Fodor [and his co-author] are unfortunately so mistaken that “[i]t would be jaw-droppingly surprising, to say the least, were Fodor to be right.”
Be careful of using or quoting any source because it has a very appealing or even devastatingly earth-shattering title. And be even more careful about using or quoting any source that cheery-picks words, sentences, paragraphs and/or data to fit certain ideology or putative claim.
In addition, neither Oliver Burkeman nor both the authors of the book are trained as ecologists or evolutionary scientists. As a result, their understandings and claims are prone to various errors, inaccuracies and/or oversights, as can be summarized as follows on Wikipedia about the said book (and for that matter, these issues are also applicable to the other five references cited as endnotes in your post):
Happy mid-June to you!
My dear SoundEagle —
I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you put into commenting on these posts at such length. Darwinism is clearly a topic on which you feel strongly. Though I regard you highly and have read your comments w/ care, this remains a subject on which we differ. Let me try and explain why.
Science in all its forms – geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics and the rest – is a legitimate area of human inquiry. While I have a BS in biology, I do not claim to be an expert in all these specialties. Nor am I so arrogant as to dismiss them out of hand.
To conclude that “a miracle occurred” when man cannot for the moment explain how a particular process or event took place is to abandon reason. The abandonment of reason is not something I advocate. Nor does faith require it.
We were given intelligence by God so that we might exercise that gift to His glory. In fact, scientific inquiry often points us directly at God, as numerous scientists of the past would attest – Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Newton, and Mendel among them.
But reason has its limitations. We err. We stumble. There may be mysteries beyond our comprehension — particularly since a spiritual aspect of our experience exists, alongside the physical.
God could as easily have brought the universe into existence over uncounted millenia as He could in seven 24-hour days (or, for that matter, an instant). Frankly, I was not there. Neither, w/ all due respect, were you.
Can we and should we probe the physical processes God put in place? Certainly. As far as I have been able to ascertain, however, there are serious flaws in the theory of evolution. I am not satisfied w/ it as an explanation.
Those flaws relate, among other things, to the development of life from non-life; the coding of information; and the timeline necessary for development of the complexity of life by random chance alone. The evidence on which you rely is, in my opinion, far from conclusive. You are, of course, at liberty to disagree.
In any case, I have touched on those flaws only in passing, my primary focus being the application of evolution to political theory and race. That application has not been the aberration you suggest.
Darwin’s views regarding the inequality of the various races were not a side thought. They are the logical conclusion of the theory of evolution when applied in the absence of a belief in God, and are embraced wholeheartedly by socialists/communists and eugenics supporters to this day.
Creation is the point at which science and religion/philosophy converge. Science attempts to answer the question “How?”. Religion/philosophy attempts to answer the question “Why?”.
Science cannot substitute for religion, any more than religion can substitute for science. To the extent the theory of evolution has for some become a religion (or replaced religion), it has strayed outside its proper realm.
Materialism has failed. History demonstrates that.
Your friend,
A.
Dear Anna,
Thank you for your detailed reply. Again, I would like to apologize right away as I do not have the time to unpack the many problematic issues contained in many of your statements. Though, I would attempt to summarize for you here.
Your statement “We were given intelligence by God so that we might exercise that gift to His glory. In fact, scientific inquiry often points us directly at God, as numerous scientists of the past would attest – Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Newton, and Mendel among them.” is neither borne out by science nor by religion via any concrete proof or evidence, especially regarding intelligence being given by God. Furthermore, Galileo suffered terribly at the hands of the Church as a result of his scientific observations and findings. Even Darwin had had a great deal of attacks, pressures and derisions from the religious and conservatives. It is not until quite recently that Christianity, and in particular, the Catholic Church, has had to acknowledge the validity, veracity and reliability of (the theory of) evolution, just as it has acknowledged and apologized for its deplorable treatment of Galileo, who represents just one of the most prominent examples of those who have been wronged and persecuted by religions.
Your statement “But reason has its limitations. We err. We stumble. There may be mysteries beyond our comprehension — particularly since a spiritual aspect of our experience exists, alongside the physical.” is also highly problematic on many fronts. There are many factors and reasons as to why we err and stumble, including but not limited to those contributed by religions. As for “[t]here may be mysteries beyond our comprehension”, that goes without saying, and is no better than uttering “God works in mysterious ways”, for they are just two of the platitudinous ways of saying that one doesn’t know what one is dealing with, effectively a euphemism for ignorance, or even a sanctimonious or self-satisfied way of proclaiming humility without any benefit of knowledge, insight and wisdom.
As for your statement “God could as easily have brought the universe into existence over uncounted millenia as He could in seven 24-hour days (or, for that matter, an instant). Frankly, I was not there. Neither, w/ all due respect, were you.”, do you really know that for a fact that God could do this, or even wanted to do this whether or not He could, would or should?
Now, the statement “Can we and should we probe the physical processes God put in place? Certainly. As far as I have been able to ascertain, however, there are serious flaws in the theory of evolution. I am not satisfied w/ it as an explanation.” easily let any reasonable person who is well-versed in science in general and evolutionary sciences in particular to conclude that the “serious flaws” are not so much in the theory of evolution as in the person by the name of Anna Waldherr, who has been seriously flawed in her rather piecemeal, problematic and/or erroneous knowledge, assumptions and conclusions about the theory.
Regarding your statements “Those flaws relate, among other things, to the development of life from non-life; the coding of information; and the timeline necessary for development of the complexity of life by random chance alone. The evidence on which you rely is, in my opinion, far from conclusive. You are, of course, at liberty to disagree.”, I would strongly suggest that it is highly prudent for you to steer clear of what you have been doing and intend to do more, lest you want to continue to add to the burgeoning volumes and problems of Infodemic and Misinformation, both of which are discussed in great detail in my post entitled “Misquotation Pandemic and Disinformation Polemic: Mind Pollution by Viral Falsity“.
Regarding your two short paragraphs “In any case, I have touched on those flaws only in passing, my primary focus being the application of evolution to political theory and race. That application has not been the aberration you suggest.” and “Darwin’s views regarding the inequality of the various races were not a side thought. They are the logical conclusion of the theory of evolution when applied in the absence of a belief in God, and are embraced wholeheartedly by socialists/communists and eugenics supporters to this day.”, my advice to you is that your research and what you have been presented so far are far too narrowly based on certain perspectives and assumptions, and since impartiality, multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and consilience are and have been well beyond your knowledge, understanding, research purview and analytical approach, what you produce will continue to be flawed and problematic, and a significant portions will not withstand intellectual scrutiny and evidential verification well, not to mention that the misuse and/or perversion of religious ideas, rituals, practices, beliefs, dogmas and/or doctrines have also led to countless discriminations, segregations, warfare, conflicts, tragic atrocities and crimes against humanity, the examples of which have been numerous, worldwide and ongoing for thousands of years. Both science and religion can be and have been misused in many ways.
As for your last three paragraphs lumped together here as follows: “Creation is the point at which science and religion/philosophy converge. Science attempts to answer the question “How?”. Religion/philosophy attempts to answer the question “Why?”; Science cannot substitute for religion, any more than religion can substitute for science. To the extent the theory of evolution has for some become a religion (or replaced religion), it has strayed outside its proper realm. Materialism has failed. History demonstrates that.” I would like to inform you that your simplifications, conflations, mischaracterizations and misrepresentations are as astounding as your having made a series of highly problematic sweeping statements, whose standard, quality, problems and assertions, like those of your three-part expositions on “The Tragic Legacy of Darwin”, are not likely to be admissible or acceptable even as an undergraduate research project, regardless of what your specific persuasions are regarding science, religion and philosophy.
Please be informed that I am unlikely to comment any further should there be further parts to the series, or indeed any other series pertaining to Darwin, evolution, or even science in general, or for that matter, any subjects under the sky or in heaven, if and when any of them are being broached in such problematic manners, whether or not you are aware of them.
All said, I am certain that you have always meant well and possessed a very kind spirit.
I do not require a reply to this comment.
Mid-June has arrived!
Yours sincerely,
SoundEagle
I can only hope that you are satisfied to have vented your spleen, SoundEagle. Since you are convinced that I am either ignorant, misguided, intellectually dishonest, or worse, I see no point in further discussion. I wish you well.
A.
Thanks again for your post on this important subject, Anna. I’m planning to share the info with my grandchildren (and others), it’s nice and concise – I’m sure they’ll appreciate it! John Lennox is by far my favourite Christian apologist. Firm but gracious and Christ-like in every way. Greetings across the ocean.
I love John Lennox. His scientific credentials are impeccable, and his logic powerful.
Anna,
What a sad and evil legacy Darwin left in his wake, a legacy still used to justify the most inhumane deeds by those who consider themselves the global “elites” and to justify an atheism that is as irrational as it is deceptive, leading to amorality and self-destruction. This post is such a healthy reminder of the history behind what we’re told to take for granted, namely evolution.
pax,
dora
P.S. Are you familiar with The Story of the Cosmos (2019), a collection of essays written by Christian scientists? It’s intriguing how many new discoveries every day are proving the improbability of life occurring merely by chance.
No, but I will definitely check it out. Thank you for the information, Dora.
The last act in this tragedy is standing before one’s creator and sentence handed down.
Well sad, Gary.
Anna, Darwin’s legacy is dealt with in The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self by Carl R. Trueman. I don’t have time to read it myself but it comes with high reviews. I suspect you would enjoy it.
How foolish not to believe in God when we have all around us a creation staring us in the face and speaking of Him.
I love John Lennox. He demolished atheist Richard Dawkins in a debate.
So sad the legacy he inflicted others with…very good read, thank you for posting.
Thank you, Jen. ❤
For someone who denies the existence of God, does not worship God or believe in him or that He is Creator, it is not surprising that he held so many messed up views.
Thank you, Petrina.