Evolution as a Theological Research Program – Discovery Institute

Photo: Visitors admire the iconic Darwin statue at London's Natural History Museum, by Thomas Fabian, via Flickr.

Evolution is best understood as a theological research program, according to a newarticleby biophysicist Cornelius G. Hunter. This stands the standard historiography and received wisdom concerning the development of modern evolutionary theory on its head. While leaders of the Darwinian bandwagon insist we all must bow to the blind, directionless forces of evolution or be forced to wear theunscientificdunce cap, Hunter demonstrates with telling accuracy, quite the opposite: it is in actuality theologynot sciencethat drives this theory. Of course this research programs principal investigator was Charles Darwin, and the epithet he chose for himself, a Devils chaplain which he shared in aletter on July 13, 1856, to his close friend and confidant Joseph Dalton Hooker is revealing:

What a book a Devils chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low & horridly cruel works of nature!

Expressed with mischievous glee while his 230-page 1844 manuscript draft lay in wait for Alfred Russel Wallaces surprise letter from the tiny island of Ternate, to prompt delivery of his one long argument into the hands of publisher John Murray some three years later, this frank comment confirms Hunters analysis.

Ill return to this in a moment, but first its important to note that Hunter answers claims of Darwinian orthodoxy. They are as follows: Darwins religious viewspreceded(not followed) his transmutation ideas; Darwins theological premises areessential(not peripheral) to his argument; Darwins references to theology attachdirectsignificance to the theory itself he is not practicingreductiotheology, employing it merely for its contrastive heuristic effect the theology and the theory are inextricably intertwined; the epistemic assistance received from theology is central to the theory itself (the scientific evidence marshalled on its behalf is pretty thin); and finally, Darwins theological claims persisted well into the period of the neo-Darwinian synthesis (1930s and 40s) and after. Readers should examine the article itself to see how Hunter establishes each point, all supported with extensive references.

But what of this Devils chaplain? Notice that Darwin is telling Hooker that thedeficienciesof nature its disutilities, inefficiencies, even itscruelties are nothing a benevolent and omniscience god would have done, therefore, his theory based on chance and unguided fortuitous circumstance must be true. He even admits to not writing as a scientist but as a Devils chaplain who sees nature for what it is. Theres not a spot of science in it. But itisshot through with theological significance; it assumes what kind of world god might or might not have created.

Hunter effectively follows up on Darwins private confession by using his public statements many of which come from multiple editions ofOrigin. Hunter observes that Darwins scientific asseverations cameafterhis religious convictions were well formed. We know this because while in Edinburgh when he was just 17 Darwin fell under the spell of Robert Edmond Grant, an acknowledged expert on aquatic invertebrates. Darwin claimed years later in hisAutobiographythat Grants radical ideas a man described by Darwins biographersDesmond and Mooreas a freethinker . . . [who] saw no spiritual power behind natures throne were received without any effect on my mind. But even an otherwise sympathetic biographer likeJanet Brownecalls this far too disingenuous and phlegmatic to accept. The Devils chaplain attended Grants seminary and his evolutionary theory was substantively informed by it. Hunters thesis is well stated and confirmed by the Devils chaplain himself!

This essay does much to set the record straight; it is an excellent distillation of some very complex issues and contains important analyses not available elsewhere. The simplistic and shallow use of Darwinism as synonymous with science is completely wrong. Readers finding this article interesting and provocative should go further. Admitting that many historical details are beyond the scope of this article, Professor Hunter offers much more in hisDarwins God,Darwins Proof, andSciences Blind Spot.

I will end with a brief postscript. I have always sharedNeal Gillespie,Silvan Schweber, andFrank Burch Brownsviews that Darwin was a positivist deeply influenced by Auguste Comte (see myIntelligent Evolution). It might be assumed that the positivists attempt to eschew all metaphysics in favor of a hard verificationism would free Darwin from any association with religion and religious speculation. But this misunderstands Comtean positivism.

PhilosopherHenry Thomashas rightly called Comtes ideas a scientific philosophical religion. Even more to the pointMabel V. Wilsonexplained long ago that Comte never made a separation of his religion from his philosophy, but always regarded the former as an opportunity for the symbolic representation of his ideas. Replace the wordphilosophywith the wordscienceand you have fairly well stated Darwins position. His attributions of an omniscient and all-benevolent god are signposts of their incommensurability with a manifestly imperfect nature. By creating god as a facile abstraction and anthropomorphizing nature as cruel (bothof which are essentially theological constructs) Darwin could play the role of reconciler. Heneeded inan immediate and literal sense what Jonathan Wells has called astraw godto bolster and confirm his science. Once Darwins straw god goes up in flames, so does his science. His theory rests upon ashes.

Excerpt from:

Evolution as a Theological Research Program - Discovery Institute