ABSTRACT:
Popular belief has led many to assume that Charles Darwin rejected
outright the
notion of intelligent design. As a consequence,
the term ‘Darwinism’ has evolved to mean an atheistic interpretation
of evolution. A review of the historical literature reveals that Darwin’s
conceptualization of design was cast within the categories of William
Paley’s natural theology, featuring static and perfect adaptability.
Once Darwin discovered the mechanism of natural selection and the dynamic
process of biological evolution, he rejected the “old argument
from design in Nature” proposed by Paley. However, he was never
able to ignore the powerful experience of the creation’s revelatory
activity. Darwin’s encounter with the beauty and complexity of
the world affirms a Biblical understanding of intelligent design (Ps
19 and Rom 1) and argues for the reality of a non-verbal revelation
through nature.
| |
Our
world is dominated by feats of engineering and works of art.
We are entirely accustomed to the idea that complex elegance
is an indicator of premeditated, crafted design. This is probably
the most powerful reason for the belief, held by the vast majority
of people that have ever lived, in some kind of supernatural
deity. . . . The complexity of living organisms is matched
by the elegant efficiency of the apparent design. If anyone
doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries
out for an explanation, I give up (Dawkins 1986: xvi, xiii;
my italics). |
In his well-known The
Blind Watchmaker, the inimitable Richard Dawkins
affirms the experiential reality of intelligent design and the logical
implication
that it points to the existence of the Creator. But the purpose of his book
is to argue that this non-verbal revelation in nature is ultimately an illusion.
According to Dawkins, Charles Darwin offered an explanation to dismiss this “most
powerful reason” for believing in God. He contends “it is as if
the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism, and
find it hard to believe” (Dawkins 1986: xv). Consequently, Dawkins confesses, “I
could not imagine being an atheist before 1859, when Darwin’s Origin
of Species was published. . . . Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually
fulfilled atheist” (Dawkins 1986: 6).
However, the question must be asked: Did Darwin really provide a reason for
rejecting the non-verbal Divine revelation inscribed deeply into the fabric
of nature? This essay examines whether Dawkins’ polemic is actually dealing
with the “Darwin of history,” or whether he has fashioned a “Darwin
idol” or “Darwin of unbelief,” in order to justify his own
personal struggle with the revelation graciously offered in the Book of God’s
Works.
Today, the term and notion of intelligent design have gained much notoriety
because of the “Intelligent Design Movement” (Johnson 1991, 1997;
Moreland 1994; Behe 1996; Dembski 1998, 1999; hereafter “ID”).
Significantly, this interpretation of design is historically quite new. It
conflates the notion of intelligent design with Divine interventionistic action
in the origin of life. For example, in Darwin’s Black Box, leading ID
theorist Michael Behe coined the concept of “irreducible complexity,” which
argues that certain molecular structures in cell, like the flagellum, could
only have been created “as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop” (Behe
1996: 39, 227-228). Similarly, the reigning notion of intelligent design during
Darwin’s day was like that of the ID Movement. In Natural Theology, William
Paley presented his famed watchmaker argument claiming that “every indication
of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch,
exists in the works of nature” (Paley 1802: 71). This notion of intelligent
design is both static and conflated with the notion of perfect adaptability.
According to Paley, each and every detail in the world had some specifically
designed purpose. As a result, there was no room for mal-adapted structures
or creatures, in particular evolving ones, in God’s perfectly created
order.
Though the notion
of intelligent design offered by Paley and ID Movement is persuasive, an appeal
to Scripture provides a Biblically based understanding
of design. In this way, an examination of the primary historical literature
will determine whether Darwin rejected the Scriptural notion of design or that
proposed by Paley in the nineteenth century and the ID theorists today.
BIBLICAL VIEW OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN
The classic passages dealing with intelligent design in the Bible are Psalm
19:1-4 and Romans 1:18-23. In Psalm 19:1-4, the psalmist writes:
The
heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim
the work of His hands.
Day after day they
pour forth speech;
night after night
they display knowledge.
There is no speech
or language
where their voice
is not heard.
Their voice goes
out into all the earth,
their words to the
ends of the world.
This passage identifies a number of features regarding the revelation written
into the fabric of nature. First, the creation is active. The repeated use
of active verbs in the psalm underlines this aspect of the physical world.
The heavens “declare,” the skies “proclaim,” both “pour
forth” and “display,” and their voice “goes out.” Second,
this activity flowing from the creation is intelligible. Terms associated with
intelligent communication characterize the revelation in nature–“speech,” “language,” “knowledge,” “voice” and “words.” Third,
the creation’s message is incessant. It is heard constantly “day
after day” and “night after night,” throughout time. Fourth,
this cosmic revelation is universal. Like the non-verbal essence of music, “there
is no voice or language where their voice is not heard,” it travels “into
all the earth,” and to “the ends of the world.” Finally,
the testimony inscribed deeply into the cosmos is Divine or transcendent in
character. It “declares the glory of God” and “proclaims
the work of his hands.” In brief, the creation points to an Intelligent
Being, the Creator of Nature.
Romans 1:18-23 essentially
repeats these five features of natural revelation expressed in Psalm 19, but
it adds a vital spiritual truth not offered by the
psalmist:
| |
The
wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the
godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth
by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is
plain
to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since
the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his
eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen,
being understood from what has been made, so that men are
without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither
glorified
him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became
futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they
claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory
of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man
and birds and animals and reptiles. |
The
creation judges. The clear and intelligible message present in nature
is
such that humanity is accountable and “without excuse” regarding
its profound consequences. Moreover, Romans 1 underlines the epistemological
impact of sin as it relates to intelligent design. In particular,
a lack of gratitude under girds this violation of the Second Commandment
and the fall into idolatry, leading ultimately to intellectual dysfunction.
Nowhere in Psalm 19 or Romans 1 is there any mention of Paley’s
belief that intelligent design is static and associated with the
perfect adaptability
of each and every detail in the world. Similarly, these classic Scripture
passages affirming natural revelation do not conflate design with
divine interventionistic
action in origins, as defended by proponents of the ID Movement. Tersely
stated, the design arguments proposed by William Paley and the ID
theorists are un-Biblical.
HISTORICAL LITERATURE: DARWIN ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Charles Darwin studied at Christ College Cambridge (1828-1831) where his
mind was cast within the scientific categories of the early nineteenth century.
He accepted that the earth was old, though catastrophism still played a part
in geology to understand surface features. He also believed in the immutability
of species, maintaining that God intervened to create life at different points
in geological history (Bowler 1990: 40-52; Desmond and Moore 1991: 84-97).
Darwin boarded HMS Beagle with these notions on 27 December 1831. He also
embarked
with Volume I of Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology (1830). First-hand
field experience in South America soon led Darwin to embrace uniformitarian
geology. However, uniformitarianism did not extend to his biology. Late in
his voyage, he was still an anti-evolutionist and accepted Paley’s notion
of “the fitness which the Author of Nature has now established” (Herbert
1974: 233). Nine months before returning to England, Darwin’s interventionistic
understanding of biological origins remained, as he records, “One hand
has surely worked throughout the universe. A Geologist perhaps would suggest
that the periods of Creation have been distinct & remote the one from the
other; that the Creator rested in his labor” (Barlow 1986: 348). This
progressive creationism was not an unusual understanding of origins since
it was widely held throughout the scientific community at that time.
The last entry of Darwin’s Beagle Diary, on 24 September 1836, displays
clearly his acceptance of intelligent design in nature and its Divine inference.
He writes: “Amongst the scenes which are deeply impressed on my mind,
none exceed in sublimity the [Brazilian] primeval forests . . . [for they]
are temples filled with the varied productions of the God of Nature. No one
can stand unmoved in these solitudes, without feeling that there is more in
man than the mere breath of his body” (Barlow 1986: 388). Many features
of the Biblical understanding of intelligent design are expressed in this passage.
First, the creation is active. The forests of Brazil “deeply impressed” upon
Darwin and “moved” him. Second, this activity in nature is intelligible.
The creation’s “sublimity” powerfully impacted his “mind,” and
gave him a “feeling” or non-verbal message regarding humanity’s
place in the cosmos. Third, this experience of the creation is universal. Darwin
contended that “no one” could stand before nature without being
struck by it. Finally, the message inscribed into the fabric of the world is
Divine or transcendent in character. The creation revealed to Darwin that he
was “more” than a mere physical reality, and ultimately nature
pointed to its teleological foundation, the “God of Nature.”
In the two years immediately following the Beagle voyage, Darwin entered
his first period of intense theological reflection, which he describes as
a time
he “was led to think much about religion” (Barlow 1958: 85). It
was also at this time that he formulated his theory of biological evolution.
To be sure, evolutionary theory has significant religious implications, and
Darwin was certainly aware of it. In the course of formulating his science,
he developed a theology alongside. During this reflective period, Darwin rejected
his nominal Christian faith. He dismissed the Old Testament because of its “manifestly
false history of the world” in the Book of Genesis, and he spurned New
Testament miracles, since “the men at that time were ignorant and credulous
to a degree almost incomprehensible by us” (Barlow 1958: 85-86). In Darwin’s
words, “I came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.
. . . Disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete.
The rate so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even
for a second that my conclusion was correct” (Barlow 1958: 86-87).
Although Darwin
rejected the God of Christianity, he remained a firm believer in both the
reflection of intelligent design in nature and the existence
of the Creator. During this formative two-year period in the late 1830s,
he drafted
a theory on the origin of life that did not require dramatic Divine interventions,
and based his model entirely on providential natural laws.(1) His evolutionary
model included humanity, and it even declared God’s glory, as excerpts
from Darwin’s notebooks reveal:
| |
Astronomers
might formerly have said that God ordered each planet to move
in its particular destiny–In the same manner God orders
each animal with certain form in certain country. But how much
more simple & sublime power [to] let attraction act according
to certain law; such are inevitable consequences; let animals
be created, then by the fixed laws of generation. . . . Man
in his arrogance thinks himself a great work worthy of the
interposition of a deity, more humble & I believe truer
to consider him created from animals (De Beer 1960: 101, 106). |
Those
who argue, make the mistake as does that philosopher who says
the innate
knowledge of creator has been implanted in us (individually
or in race?) by a separate act of God, & not as a necessary integrant
part of his most magnificent laws, which we profane in thinking not
capable to produce every effect of every kind which surrounds us (Gruber
1974: 292). According to Darwin, not recognizing God’s “sublime
power” and
the “inevitable consequences” of “his magnificent
laws” of evolution was to “profane” the Creator.
In sum, Darwinian evolutionary processes, as first conceived, reflect
intelligent design and offer a natural revelation of God.
Darwin had sketched his evolutionary theory in the notebooks of the
late 1830s, but it would take twenty years before he made this view
of origins public,
and a dozen more years after that before Victorian England read that humanity
was also created through evolution. In 1859, On the Origin of Species was published,
and it included seven unapologetic and positive references to the “Creator” (Darwin
1859: 186, 188, 189, 413 twice, 435, 488). Darwin firmly rejected the interventionistic
view of biological origins held by most scientists in his day. Instead
of progressive creation, he argued for a providential understanding of
Divine
action in the
creation of life:
| |
Authors
of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the
view that each species has been independently created. To my
mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed
on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction
of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have
been due to secondary causes like those determining the birth
and death of the individual (C. Darwin 1859: 488). |
Darwin
appeals to the common understanding that Divine creative action
for each individual in womb is providential rather than interventionistic.
That is, human embryology does not envision interruptive Divine acts
to attach a nose, ear, etc. Similarly, in the creation of all life
collectively, Darwin defended that evolution could be seen as a process
ordained by the Creator. According to the Origin of Species, the embryological
and evolutionary laws were providential.
Darwin also implies
the revelatory character of the biological evolution. The famed last sentence
in the Origin of Species states: “There is grandeur
in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed
into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone on cycling
according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms
most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved” (C.
Darwin 1859: 490 [2]). Interestingly, the theology
in this sentence is even more specific in the second edition in 1860 up until
the sixth and last in
1872.
Darwin adds “by the Creator” after the words “originally
breathed.” (Peckham 1959: 759). In the Darwinian vision of 1859, the
evolution of life declared a world with “grandeur,” and the “most
beautiful and most wonderful” living forms proclaimed the work of the
Creator’s hands.
Soon after the publication of the Origin of Species, Darwin entered a second
period of intense theological reflection. The notion of intelligent design
in nature was the central issue, and a violent clash erupted in his mind that
led to much confusion and frustration. On one hand, Darwin continued to be
impacted by nature’s beauty and complexity, leading him to believe in
the existence of a Creator. On the other hand, his conception of intelligent
design was still entrenched in the categories of Paley–each and every
detail in Creation had some specifically designed purpose. Therefore, Darwin
was trapped between his experience of nature as affirmed by the Biblical understanding
of intelligent design and the nineteenth century conception of design which
was conflated with a static and perfectly adapted world.
Darwin’s conflict over intelligent design appears in a series of letters
in 1860 and 1861 with leading botanist Asa Gray at Harvard University. Gray
was the first to popularize biological evolution in America, and being a devout
evangelical Christian, he argued that this scientific theory did not inevitably
undermine faith (A. Gray 1861). As Darwin acknowledged to Gray, “I certainly
agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical” (F.
Darwin 1888, II:311-312). However, intelligent design was more problematic,
and he confesses, “This [issue of design] is always painful to me. I
am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own I cannot
see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design
and beneficence on all sides of us. . . . On the other hand, I cannot anyhow
be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of
man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force” (F.
Darwin 1888, II:311-312). Certainly, “evidence of design and beneficence
on all sides of us” was Paley speaking. And “this wonderful universe” was
the Creator’s non-verbal revelation impacting Darwin and leading him
away from a dysteleological worldview founded only on “brute force.” Thus,
Darwin was trapped in a false dichotomy between his Paleyan conception of design
and his experience of the reality that nature “declares the glory of
God.”
This intellectual-spiritual dynamic is seen in another 1860 letter to Gray.
Darwin’s failure to identify his Paleyan assumptions continued to fuel
a conflict between his conception and experience of intelligent design, producing
more confusion and frustration. He writes, “I grieve to say that I cannot
honestly go as far as you do about Design. I am conscious that I am in an utterly
hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the result
of chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the result of Design.
. . . Again, I say I am, and shall ever remain, in a hopeless muddle” (F.
Darwin 1888, II:353; my italics). Once more, the Paleyan notion of perfect
adaptability informed Darwin’s conception of design. Accordingly, design
was to be found in “each separate thing.” But again, Darwin’s
firsthand experience of nature affirmed the reality of design because he “cannot
think that the world, as we see it, is the result of chance.” His category
set trapped him in a frustrating impasse. Near the end of his correspondence
with Gray on design, the frustration continued, as Darwin writes, “With
respect to design . . . I am in thick mud; the orthodox would say in fetid,
abominable mud; yet I cannot keep out the question. My dear Gray I have written
a deal of nonsense” (F. Darwin 1888, II:382). He could not keep the question
of design out of his mind because as a scientist investigating the physical
world directly he was impacted daily by the creation’s universal and
transcendent revelation. But regrettably, Darwin’s conception of intelligent
design in Paleyan categories led him to misunderstand the non-verbal revelation
graciously inscribed in nature by the Creator.
Through the rest of the 1860s Darwin continued to labor under the yoke of Paley’s
perfect adaptability. Unwittingly, he conflated this view of design in each
and every corner of the universe with biological variation, setting up another
false dichotomy. His writings during this period are characterized by this
categorical error and marked by the use of the word, “each,” in
his understanding of design. In an 1861 letter to Julia Wedgewood, the conflict
between the revelatory power of nature and his Paleyan interpretation of variation
is evident:
| |
The
mind refuses to look at this universe, being what it is without
having been designed; yet, where one would most expect design,
viz. in the structure of a sentient being, the more I think
on the subject, the less I can see proof of design. Asa Gray
and some others look at each variation, or at least at each beneficial variation (which A. Gray would compare with the
rain drops which do not fall on the sea, but on to land to
fertilize it) as having been providentially designed (F. Darwin
1888, I:313-314; my italics). |
Darwin’s
entrapment within Paleyan categories and their conflation to biological
variation is clear in this passage by his misrepresentation
of Gray’s rain drop metaphor. Gray actually wrote, “The
whole animate life of a country depends absolutely upon the vegetation,
the vegetation upon the rain. The moisture is furnished by the ocean,
is raised by the sun’s heat from the ocean’s surface,
and is wafted inland by winds. But what multitudes of rain-drops
fall back
into the ocean–are as much without a final cause as incipient
varieties which come to nothing! Does it follow that the rains which
are bestowed upon the soil with such rule and average regularity
were not designed to support vegetable and animal life?” (J.
Gray 1893:157). In other words, Gray had a “high” and “wide” view
of design and not a “narrow” Paleyan understanding of
it in each and every corner of the world. Darwin’s misrepresentation
of Gray’s rain drop metaphor underlines the consequence of
misconceiving intelligent design. It opens the way for the rejection
of natural revelation.
Further evidence of Darwin’s
conflation of Paleyan design with biological variation appears in writings during
the decade after his
correspondence with
Gray. In Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, he attempts
to offer a methodological argument against design by implying it would undermine
science:
| |
If
we assume that each particular variation was from
the beginning of all time preordained, then that plasticity
of organization, which leads to many injurious deviations of
structure, as well as the redundant power of reproduction which
inevitably leads to a struggle for existence, and, as a consequence,
to the natural selection or survival of fittest, must then
appear to us superfluous laws of nature (C. Darwin 1868, II:
428; my italics). |
In
1870, Darwin’s frustration over the issue of design peaks
in a letter to J. D. Hooker. Still ensnared in his Paleyan interpretation
of biological variation, and continuing to misrepresent Grays’ rain
drop metaphor, he writes:
| |
My
theology is a simple muddle; I cannot look at the universe
as the result of blind chance, yet I can see no evidence of
beneficent design, or indeed of design of any kind, in the
details. As for each variation that has ever occurred
having been preordained for a special end, I can no more believe
in it than that the spot on which each drop of rain falls has
been specially ordained (F. Darwin 1903, I:32; my italics). |
Darwin
was loathe to accept an atheistic universe produced by “blind
chance,” because the revelatory impact of nature upon him was
too powerful. Yet, his design categories were thoroughly Paleyan
since intelligent design was understood to be in each and every variation
in nature. Darwin was forever trapped in a false dichotomy.
During the early 1870s some resolution came to Darwin’s troubled mind
and soul. He finally recognized that Paleyan categories had subconsciously
shaped his scholarship throughout most of his career. In the Descent of Man,
he confesses, “I was not able to annul the influence of my former belief,
then almost universal, that each species had been purposely created; and this
led to my tacit assumption that every detail of structure, excepting rudiments,
was of some special, though unrecognized, service” (C. Darwin 1871: 61;
my italics). As a consequence, Darwin shed his Paleyan categories and then
confidently proclaimed five years later, “The old argument from design
in Nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails,
now that the law of natural selection has been discovered” (Barlow 1958:
87). Paleyan design would no longer be a stumbling block to Darwin. However,
the reality of intelligent design in nature, as understood in Biblical categories,
continued to impact the famed father of evolutionary theory as revealed in
his writings right up until the final year of his life in 1882.
Darwin’s mature theological views appear in his Autobiography, in a section
entitled “Religious Belief.” There he examines and evaluates two
arguments for God’s existence, and the notion of intelligent design is
central to both. In the first, Darwin affirms what he terms is a “religious
sentiment.” He writes:
| |
At
the present day the most usual argument for the existence of
an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction
and feelings which are experienced by most persons. . . . Formerly
I was led by feelings such as those just referred to . . .
to the firm conviction of the existence of God, and of the
immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst
standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, “it
is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings
of wonder, admiration, and devotion which fill and elevate
the mind.” I well remember my conviction that there is
more in man than mere breath of his body (Barlow 1958: 90-91). |
However,
Darwin dismisses this experience as being merely psychological.
He asserts, “But now the grandest scenes would not cause any
such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind. It may be truly said
that I am like a man who has become colour-blind, and the universal
belief by men of the existence of redness make my present loss of perception
of not the least value of evidence” (Barlow 1958: 91). From Darwin’s
perspective, this universal “religious sentiment,” sensed
by “most persons,” is not a reasonable argument for the
existence of “an intelligent God.”
In the Autobiography’s second argument for the existence of God,
Darwin’s
appreciation for intelligent design in nature is more rational and substantive.
He argues:
| |
Another
source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with
the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having
much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty
or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wondrous
universe, including man with his capacity of looking backwards
and far into futurity, as a result of blind chance or necessity.
When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause
having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that
of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist (Barlow 1958: 92-93 [3]). |
The impacting
power of the “wondrous universe” and its
Divine message is clearly seen in this passage. Darwin recognized
the logical implication of nature’s revelation. It is impossible
to believe that the universe is atheistic. Moreover, sensitive Darwin
scholars note the present tense of the verb, “feel,” in
the final sentence of this passage (Brown 1986: 28). That is, in
1876, late in his life, Darwin felt pressed to look for a “First
Cause with an intelligent mind,” and he even argued that it
was fitting to be called a “Theist” when thinking in
this manner.
But like the first intelligent design argument for God’s existence, Darwin
has a rebuttal. He claims that though this belief in design was “strong” at
the time he wrote the Origin of Species, it “has very gradually with
many fluctuations become weaker” (Barlow 1958: 93). More specifically,
Darwin was deeply troubled in accepting this argument, because “the horrid
doubt” arises, as he states, “Can the mind of man, which has, as
I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the
lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?” (Barlow
1958: 93). Consequently, Darwin asserts that this powerful and rational argument
for God’s existence is not trustworthy. One might comment: Is he not
using a mind “evolved from lower forms” to argue this “grand
conclusion”? Yes, Darwin appears to suffer from self-referential incoherence.
The conclusion Darwin
draws in his Autobiography is
that, though intelligent design arguments for the existence of God seem very
persuasive, they ultimately
fall short. His analysis of design contributes significantly to his embracing
of religious agnosticism. In the end, Darwin confesses, “I cannot pretend
to throw light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all
things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic” (Barlow
1958: 94).
Interestingly, Darwin’s
firm agnosticism expressed in the Autobiography appears to weaken during the
final years of his life. In an 1879 letter addressed
to James Fordyce, he writes:
| |
What
my own [religious] views may be is a question of no consequence
to any one but myself. But, as you asked, I may state that
my judgment often fluctuates. . . . In my most extreme fluctuations I
have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence
of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as
I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the
more correct description of my state of mind (F. Darwin 1888,
I: 304; my italics). |
This personal
letter was written two years before Darwin’s death
in 1882, and he is stating quite explicitly that he has “never
been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God.” Therefore,
Darwin throughout his professional career never embraced an atheistic
view of biological evolution. Moreover, it follows from this passage
that if he has “never been an Atheist,” and that over time
he has become “generally, but not always” an agnostic,
then there must be periods here late in his life when he was either
a theist or deist.
The reason for Darwin’s “not always” belief in God is undoubtedly
due to the impact of nature’s intelligent design upon him. Evidence for
this appears during the last year of his life in a conversation with the Duke
of Argyll who recalls:
| |
I
said to Dr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable
works on the ‘Fertilization of Orchids’ and upon ‘The
Earthworms,’ and various other observations he made of
the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature–I
said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that
they were the effect and the expression of mind. I shall never
forget Mr. Darwin’s answer. He looked at me very hard
and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming
force; but at other times,’ and he shook his head vaguely,
adding, ‘it seems to go away” (F. Darwin 1888,
I:316). |
This is
a revealing passage for one who only five years earlier in his
autobiography had claimed to have become “colour-blind” to
the revelatory message in nature and that “the grandest scenes
would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind.”
Darwin’s confession to the Duke of Argyll is a powerful piece of evidence
that argues for the reality of a Biblical understanding of intelligent design.
This passage reflects the five features of natural revelation shared in Psalm
19 and Romans 1. First, the creation is active–it struck Darwin with “overwhelming
force.” Second, the creation’s message is intelligible–it
reflects “the effect and the expression of mind.” Third, natural
revelation is incessant–it impacted Darwin “often.” Fourth,
this cosmic message is universal–it is “impossible to look at” nature’s
beauty and complexity without seeing design. Finally, the testimony inscribed
deeply into the world is Divine or transcendent in character–it points
to the “mind” of a Creator.
In the conversation with the Duke of Argyll, Darwin claimed that reflections
of intelligent design “seem to go away.” But did they? Or, is it
that intelligent design is like Jesus Who stands at the door knocking and awaiting
for us to open it, so that He can enter and sup with us (Rev 3:20)? To be sure,
the knocking sound of natural revelation can be lost in the background of life’s
activities. But in those moments of solitude and reflection it appears the
knocking of intelligent design on the door of Darwin’s soul and mind
never left.
CONCLUSION AND APPLICATION
The historical record reveals that Charles Darwin was impacted deeply by the
intelligent design in nature. He certainly entertained the possibility that
the world was atheistic, but the beauty and complexity of the creation pushed
him away from this conclusion. The experience of design in the cosmos was a
powerful factor which held Darwin from ever embracing atheism. However, it
is regrettable that his conceptualization of intelligent design was steeped
within Paley’s perfect adaptability in each and every corner of the universe.
Thus, Darwin was trapped in a false dichotomy between his experiential reality
and the intellectual categories he inherited from his nineteenth century culture.
The issue of design was “always painful,” and it left him “bewildered” and “in
an utterly hopeless muddle.” The dichotomy led Darwin inevitably to an
irreconcilable conflict between science and religion.
This brief historical review of Darwin’s approach to intelligent design
raises some interesting questions for us today. A pastoral thought came to
mind while reading his struggle with this issue. Were Paley’s design
categories a stumbling block for Darwin in accepting Christianity (2 Cor 6:2-3)?
More specifically, could it be that the nineteenth century Christian understanding
of intelligent design–one saturated in Paleyan static perfectibility–forced
Darwin from fully accepting the Intelligent Designer and pursing a personal
relationship with Him? If this is the case, there is a valuable historical
lesson for our generation. Is it possible that a stumbling block is placed
in front of non-Christian scientists by the Intelligent Design Movement with
its insistence on interventionistic events in the origin of purportedly “irreducibly
complex” biological structures? Is this modern form of anti-evolutionism
a recycling of a Paley-like vision of design, which led to Darwin’s torment
of experiencing design but also seeing the overwhelming evidence for evolution?
Incisively stated, are ID theorists promoting a new false dichotomy?
A pedagogical thought also arose in the writing of this essay. Thanks to advocates
like Richard Dawkins, Postmodern cultural mythology is fuelled by historically
inaccurate proclamations, such as: “Darwin made it possible to be an
intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Regrettably, Dawkins’ “Darwin
of unbelief” is often presented in public schools, leading to a false
dichotomy which emerges as a conflict between religion and evolutionary science.
Since there is no place for the anti-evolutionism of Christian fundamentalism
in publicly funded classrooms, so too should there be no place for atheistic
proselytization à la Dawkins. The time has come to let the historical
record speak and for our children to hear it. With their education at stake,
who can argue against such a proposal?
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Ms. Jennifer Shaw
FOOTNOTES
(1) To
clarify terminology, there are two basic categories of Divine action
. Interventionism
is dramatic supernatural activity. For example,
prior
to the acceptance of Copernicus’ view of astronomy, many believed
that God moved planets off their normal west-to-east courses causing
them to make short east-to-west loops (known as ‘retrograde motion’).
Darwin rejects this type of Divine action during the late 1830s when
he formulated the theory of biological evolution. Providentialism is
God’s subtle activity. An example would be the Creator employing
natural laws to create life. This is the type of Divine activity Darwin
envisioned during this early formative period and it is clearly included
in his famed Origin of Species.
(2) Darwin
at this time failed to recognize his own interventionism in the
origin of the
first form or few forms of life. Interestingly,
his
modern critic, leading ID theorist Michael Behe, seems to reincarnate
of the famed evolutionist’s views on the origin of life. In a
way surprisingly similar to the Origin of Species, Darwin’s Black
Box proposes that the “irreducible structures” of the cell
were put together by “one fell swoop” in a “first
cell” from which all life evolved (Behe1996: 39, 227-228). During
a brief exchange with Behe, I challenged him with regard to the so-called “super
cell” from which all of life evolved (Behe 1999, Lamoureux 1999).
Behe responded:
| |
I
don’t think there had to be a ‘super cell.’ ID
[Theory] is compatible with a lot of different scenarios for
how the information was placed into the system. It could have
been present in the initial conditions of the Big Bang or added
over time somehow. I mentioned the “super cell” in
my book not to endorse it, but simply to show that the issue
of the age of biochemical systems is different from the issue
of how they got here. My official position is agnostic:
I think we don’t have enough information yet to decide
how the design was implemented. We do, however, have enough
evidence in the ID view to decide that explicit design occurred,
and that the random processes envisioned by Darwinism can’t
cut it (Lamoureux 1999: 71-72; my italics). |
The significance of Behe’s views in 1999 cannot be overstated.
In Darwin’s Black Box, he confidently argued for the reality
of irreducible complexity and claimed that natural processes could
not account for it appearance. This 1996 book launched him into the
international spotlight. However, only three years later, he clearly
betrays his original views, embracing an “agnostic” position,
and he even is open to the possibility of a fully evolutionary view
of origins beginning with the Big Bang. For more of my critical commentary
with Behe, see Johnson and Lamoureux 1999: 38-39, 103-8. Also see my
debate with the leader of the ID Movement, Phillip E. Johnson, in this
same book.
(3) Of
course, the question arises as to whether Darwin incorrectly uses
the term ‘theist’ in this passage when in fact he
means ‘deist.’ Some
support that he employs the term properly is found in this section
of the Autobiography when he states, “I did not think much about
the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of
my life” (Barlow 1958: 87). Other than this brief comment, the
historical record indicates that deism best describes Darwin’s
beliefs when he was in a religious mood.
REFERENCES
Barlow, Nora, ed. 1958. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882.
London: Collins.
_____,
ed. 1986. Diary of the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle. Vol. I. Eds. Paul
H. Barrett & R.
B. Freeman. The Works of Charles Darwin. 29 vols. London: William
Pickering.
Behe, Michael
J. 1996. Darwin’s
Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free
Press.
_____. 1999. Design vs. Randomness in Evolution: Where Do the Data
Point? Canadian Catholic Review XVII (3): 63-7.
Bowler, Peter J. 1990. Charles
Darwin: The Man and His Influence.
Cambridge: University Press.
Brown,
Frank Burch. 1986. The Evolution of Darwin’s Theism.
Journal of the History of Biology XIX (1): 1-45.
Darwin, Charles. 1859. On
the Origin of Species. A Facsimile of the First Edition. Intro. Ernst Mayr. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1964.
_____. 1868. The
Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication.
2 vols. London: John Murray, 1888.
_____.
1871. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,
New Edition, Revised & Augmented.
New York: D. Appleton, 1886.
Darwin, Francis, ed. 1888. The
Life and Letters of Charles Darwin.
3 vols. London: John Murray.
_____, ed. 1903. More
Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. 2 vols.
London: John Murray.
Dawkins, Richard. 1986. The
Blind Watchmaker. London: Penguin Books,
1991.
De Beer,
Gavin, ed. 1960. Darwin’s Notebooks on Transmutation
of Species. Bulletin of the British Museum. Natural History II: 23-186.
Dembski, William A. 1998. Mere
Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
_____. 1999. Intelligent
Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology.
Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
Desmond,
Adrian, & Moore,
James R. 1991. Darwin. New York: Warner Books.
Easterbrook, Gregg. 1997. Science and God: A Warming Trend? Science CCLXXVII (5328): 890-3.
Gray, A.
1861. Natural Selection Not Inconsistent with Natural Theology:
A Free Examination of Darwin’s Treatise on the Origin of Species
and of Its American Reviewers. London: Trubner & Co.
Gray, Jane
Loring, ed. 1893. The Letters of Asa Gray. 2 vols. Boston: Houghton,
Mifflin & Co.
Gruber,
Howard E. 1974. Darwin on Man: A Psychological Study of Scientific
Creativity Together
with Darwin’s Early and Unpublished Notebooks,
Ed & transcriber Paul H. Barrett. New York: Dutton & Co.
Herbert,
Sandra. 1974. The Place of Man in the Development of Darwin’s
Theory of Transmutation. Journal of the History of Biology VII (2):
217-258.
Johnson, Phillip E. 1991. Darwin
on Trial. Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press.
_____. 1997. Defeating
Darwinism by Opening Minds. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press.
Johnson, Phillip E., and Lamoureux, Denis O. 1999. Darwinism
Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins. Vancouver: Regent
College Press.
Keynes,
Randall. 2001. Annie’s
Box: Charles Darwin, His Daughter and Human Evolution. London: Fourth
Estate.
Lamoureux, Denis O. 1999. A Box or a Black Hole? A Response to Michael
J. Behe Canadian Catholic Review XVII (3): 67-73.
Larson, Edward J., and Witham, Larry. 1997. Scientists Are Still Keeping
the Faith Nature CCCLXXXVI (6624): 435-6.
Ma, Lybi.
1997. On the Origin of Darwin’s Ills Discover XVIII
(9): 27.
Moore,
James R. 1989. Of Love and Death: Why Darwin ‘Gave Up
Christianity.’ In James R. Moore, ed. History, Humanity and
Evolution.
New York: Cambridge University Press: 195-229.
Moreland, J.P. 1994. The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence
for an Intelligent Designer. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
New
International Version of the Holy Bible. 1978. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Paley, William. 1802. Natural
Theology. Vol IV. Ed. Robert Lynam,
The Works of William Paley. 6 vols. Edinburgh: Baynes and Son, 1825.
Peckham,
Morse, ed. 1959. ‘The Origin of Species’ by
Charles Darwin: A Variorum Text. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Plantinga, Alvin. 2000. Warranted
Christian Belief. New York: Oxford
University Press.