Evolutionary Bicentennial
HARLES DARWIN is 200 this year and his great work, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, turns 150.
To mark the occasion, BBC Radio 4 has done a totally awesome series called On the Origin of Darwin.
I listened to the 4 Hour series yesterday and today. It’s brilliant. Among the illuminating moments: 1) comparing Victorian Cambridge (and the domination by Anglican Clergy) to Iran; 2) Darwin’s family as dedicated liberals – anti slavery, etc; 3) Darwin seeing himself as firing a volley in a Victorian theological discussion – did God create by laws or willy-nilly?
It was this last one which most intrigued me: according to the presenters, the question of God’s creative process was a hot topic du jure. Did God create the universe with laws – laws he used to bring us to where we are? Or did God ignore the laws that he, himself, created and just randomly do things? Darwin saw offering proof that God used laws to bring things to be as an act of devotion on his part to the God he was coming to serve (as a Church of England priest).
The BBC show, Beyond Belief also did an episode on “Darwinism and Religion” (5 January) where they managed to find a Christian, a Jew and a Muslim who all support recent science. They they talk about why Americans are so backward in this area.
The rest of the story is equally as engaging. He didn’t set out to be anti-church or even anti-God. But he got pushed there by the vociferous reaction to his writings. And those that did the pushing were this new breed of scriptural literalist – that asserted, contrary to the teachings of historic Christianity – that every word in the text must be literally true.
The “Beyond Belief” episode points out that this a relatively new position within the Christian tradition. Fundamentalism is not a product of antiquity, but rather of modernity. If I read the fathers correctly, even the uneducated masses of the Faithful were quite clear on the mythological content of the scripture: not untrue, but rather pointing to Truth, that is, Jesus. This is why St Basil the Great could write on the Six Days of Creation not as literal, but scientific!
Saint Basil wrote an early and influential series of homilies around 370 AD which figure as the earliest extant Hexameron. Basil originally performed the work as a series of sermons, and later collected them into a written work which was influential amongst early church leaders. Through Hexaemeron, we get many clues about the scientific knowledge of 4th century AD (Spheric Earth, Atmosphere, Stars and Suns, a primitive form of the theory of Evolution) and we can understand that science and religion was harmonically blended in the early church.
What I find interesting about this portion of Darwin’s journey is a distinct parallel with those who journey too close to American-style fundamentalism (in whatever denomination it is found) and wake up and start to think again. Beyond Belief interviewed a Navy officer whose Evangelical community has barred him from full membership in their church b/c of his scientific support for evolutionary ideas.
The horror.
As I’ve often noted in these pages, the (Slavic) Liturgy of the Orthodox Church seems to teach Creationism too – but only if you apply the same fundamentalism to the liturgy itself, instead of seeing it with the same mythological/typological vision that needs to be applied to scripture itself. When the liturgy is speaking of Adam it means it in the first person: I am Adam. I am Eve. Darwin is no threat to this understanding of God’s Creative Process. Encouraged by other converts, when I applied that same, literalist reading to liturgy (and to everything else about Orthodoxy) naturally it all collapsed under it’s own weight; under the weight of something that was never intended to be there (my own, fundamentalist ego).
The description of natural selection and evolutionary divergence between species ranks up there, as a theoretical advance, with the conception of zero in math and of the relatively new idea of universal human equality; it is as seminal to science as the doctrine of the incarnation is to Christianity. Yet, as the four-part series discusses, it also opens the door to a simply violent and bestial idea of humanity.
So: where does it lead us now?
More importantly, I think, what is it about Americans that make us so hung up on literalism that we bring it into all fields of our endeavours, even through what we usually mean by “literalism” is, most often, simply a solipsistic reading of selected words (ignoring all others to the contrary).
Tags: darwin, evolution, religion, science | Category: other geekery
Discussion: You came too late to this party
Share:
Darwin's brilliant and simple Natural Selection idea showed that Mr. God didn't have anything to do with the diversity of life. Darwin made the god invention unnecessary. It's fair to say Darwin killed God, and I say good riddance.
100% agreement with you first sentence, Bob. (hail Bob).
Your second sentence seems to assume the earlier ideas needed God. Not so: a seemingly spontaneous creation does not posit the need for a creator. Witness the Big Bang theory. To get to Creation means Creator you need to do a different sort of philosophical math. That's why ideas of divine guidance or so-called “theistic evolution” are present in the early church and in (eg) CS Lewis. In fact, it is a prime doctrine of all monotheistc faiths that God does not need creation. It would be odd for them to hang God's reality on a specific understanding of the physical universe.
Your third sentencevwould come as a great surprise to Darwin. That was one of the points in the series. Although it is evident that the BBC Presenter wants to pick a Science/Religion fight, his guests (all science and history folks) are having none of it. Give a listen: it's a good series!
Sent from my iPod
"when I applied that same, literalist reading to liturgy (and to everything else about Orthodoxy) naturally it all collapsed under it’s own weight; under the weight of something that was never intended to be there (my own, fundamentalist ego)."
I did very much the same during my life as a convert to the Orthodox Church, as I"m sure many evangelicals/Fundamentalists who convert to Orthodoxy are still doing (note, they're still evangelicals/Fundamentalists, I don't care how much oil blessed by an Orthodox Bishop is applied to their person!). I think it's this American impatience with ambiguity – not to mention this desire to have a return on our investment. You know, the old argument of "if God didn't literally create the world in 6 days or if Jesus "really" didn't rise from the dead, then Christianity is a waste of time and we might as well eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we..,"well, you know the rest of the story.
I'll admit, as a returning Anglican like yourself, I still feel the pull of fundamentalism even though my Orthodox days are behind me. I'm coming more and more to identify this pull with the narcissism and consumerism of our culture, of which I take part. Orthodoxy is not the problem (although Orthodoxy also has it's problems, like everything else this side of eternity), I…we are the problem. How do we solve it? There I go again, trying to get an adequate return on my investment.. When will we ever undestand that life is full of mysteries we'll never solve and that doing the right thing is its own reward, even though it's a mystery whether we'll be rewarded for it or not?
James –
I wrestle with my own inner demons (Daemons?) of literalism as well. I like your connexion here: "I think it's this American impatience with ambiguity – not to mention this desire to have a return on our investment." It's the same thing that makes us so prone to file a lawsuit: we *want* to have a 100% legalistic guarantee on anything. Its our sense of entitlement – the right to return something I broke a year after the warranty expired saying "my things shouldn't break, damnit".
As a returning Anglican (I like that) or an Apostate (I want that on a shirt, really) Orthodox, I've come to realise that Jesus sets us free from the law – and we keep grabbing for more of the same. In a sense, I'm more Orthodox or Patristic, at least, now that I'm Anglican again.
I've gotten into more than one argument by suggesting there's a reason Chanuka/Christmas/Yule/Winter Solstice and Easter/Passover/Birth of Buddha/Vernal Equinox all happened at the same time. It does not diminish from the event itself (its significance or celebration thereof) to correlate it with and observe it on some other significant (e.g. celestial) event. Americans have no trouble doing this with Washington's birthday, but don't suggest the same of Christ.
I mean, Jesus, literally!
Several Church Fathers made the same suggestion. American fundie prots don't like them (saints) either. You're in good company. Although refrain from random acts of literary Blasphemy on the blog. Thanks!
PS: Are you the same Fudomyo0 who does the cool LOLcats?
Everyone is also politely reminded of the rules on this blog: if you don't use a real name/blog address – and I don't know who you are, I may ban you.
Sent from my iPod
to the point of your post, many years ago, I was watching "Cosmos" (Carl Sagan, "billions and billions…") and the topic was the creation of the universe. It went through the simple hydrogen atom, which, through fusion (e.g. our sun) becomes helium, then progressively heavier elements, through carbon and beyond.
Then there were these complex carbon-based molecules, amino acids, and one of them, what we now call deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), learned how to make exact duplicates of itself, by unzipping down the middle and reassembling both halves.
Then on from complex molecular chains to single cells, multi-cellular organisms, through evolution to where we are today. The (hypo)thesis was that this self-replicating carbon molecule was the origin of "Life." But wheretofore did this spontaneous "creation" come?
"And God molded man from clay, and breathed the breath of life into him."
Taken as allegory and metaphor, the Bible's creation stories make perfect sense in the physical, scientific world.
Too bad that what opens so many eyes, closes so many others.
Taken as allegory and metaphor, the Bible's creation stories make perfect sense in the physical, scientific world. Too bad that what opens so many eyes, closes so many others.
Yes – and it is certain the Church Fathers saw it that way as well: not as a News Report but rather as an Understanding of what happened. After your comment was posted I put "Cosmos" on my Netflix list. I'm looking forward to seeing it – should be here tonight.
apologies, for blaspheming, and thinking OpenID actually works (I have two, neither seemed to cooperate here)