The End

I have quoted this line before, but still love it. I quote it again having now read everything leading up to it. I [finally] finished reading Origin of Species - a long, difficult read (with a bit of an abuse of punctuation and the run-on sentence - I counted in one line no fewer than 13 commas!), but well worth it.

I have wanted for a long time to have a better understanding of evolutionary theory, and reading the beginning - Darwin's theory of Natural Selection - gave me a much better understanding of it than I even expected. So many of the "it couldn't be that way because of __________" arguments against evolution are answered here, in this book, written 150 years ago - that so few opponents ever pick up! Would people still question the holes in the fossil record if they had read Darwin's answer to that problem, already written for us to see? Would people understand the significance of similarity in embryos, or homologous bone structure if they read Darwin's writing on it? When you get into it, it is truly fascinating.

My brother-in-law James (who finished Origin far ahead of me!) quoted parts of the last chapter that are well worth reading, even if you don't have time for the whole book. As James says, there isn't much of a summary you can give that would do this work justice. I am astounded at just how much Darwin understood, even without our modern understanding of genetics. I am also amazed by just how much Darwin knew about creation and the lengths he went to to learn even more (digging through bird poop on multiple occasions and more!).

Beyond that, reading the Origin of Species makes one wonder how our society today has re-interpreted "Darwinism" to be godless. Darwin himself refers more than just once to the "Creator" in his writing. Details of his life indicate he struggled with his own religious beliefs as he was told by the church that they did not align with his theory. His writing echoes his struggle - containing a quote from "a celebrated author and divine" who saw religion and evolution as compatible. I wonder how many Christians and non-Christians alike are turned off from science (the study of Creation!), Christianity, or both as a result of being unable to harmonize God's word given in Scripture and in Nature?

Darwin looked to the future, to the young naturalists of his day, hoping they might be able to move beyond the "it's always been this way" attitude of the older generation and accept his theory. I hope something similar for the church today: that our young people might see evolution as the beautiful development of God's creation - all part of his plan - rather than as something to continue using as a wedge between the Church and the world - "for thus only can the load of prejudice by which this subject is overwhelmed be removed" - and no longer be a stumbling block for so many.

Variation Under Nature

  "... as varieties, in order to become in any degree permanent, necessarily have to struggle with the other inhabitants of the country, the species which are already dominant will be the most likely to yield offspring, which, though in some slight degree modified, still inherit those advantages that enabled their parents to become dominant over their compatriots."

~ C.D.
Natural selection in a nutshell

Grandeur

Darwin's Creation

I'm not sure how I missed hearing about this, but was asked about the new movie on Charles Darwin just yesterday, and had to look it up. Creation: the true story of Charles Darwin is based on the biography "Annie's Box" written by one of Darwin's great-great-grandchildren. I have not yet seen it, but the trailers and video clips show the film's purpose - portraying the struggle Darwin faced of reconciling his theory with his (and his wife's) faith. It certainly looks interesting, and likely shows a face of Darwin that far too many Christians have never seen nor considered. He was raised in a household of faith and considered a life as a priest before becoming the naturalist we all know him as. Given the positions held by the church at that time (and by many today), he saw his theory as writing God out of the story, like so many still do.

It seems a great irony to me that now, 150 years later, so many Christians who reject his science outright nevertheless embrace his theology wholeheartedly.

Origin of Skepticism?

I have just learned from a Facebook friend about a new "celebration" happening this year on the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species. Kirk Cameron, actor turned ultra-conservative evangelical, and a friend have gotten together and written a new introduction to Darwin's famous book. Their plan is to hand out the book on college campuses this fall. What makes this newsworthy is the introduction's content (and, more importantly, its intent). Cameron, who is quite clearly a creationist (read: anti-evolutionist in this case!), and his friend have rounded up all the dirt they could find on Darwin and Evolution and their "seedier" associations, and gotten them published as the 50-page intro to Origin. They include such things as Hitler's "undeniable connection" to evolution, Darwin's "racism" and "disdain for women", and assorted misleading ideas like the"hoaxes" of evolutionary theory and the "lack of intermediate fossils". One woman has put out her own rebuttal of Cameron's video introducing his new scheme. It's a bit ... crass, shall we say, for my tastes, yet she makes most of the points I had thought of watching his video. Mr. Cameron, THIS is how you look to non-believers. This is how you look to BELIEVERS who share your faith in Christ, but don't believe there is a contradiction between the processes of evolution and the awesome power of our God - who is powerful enough to have created them.

First off, Cameron attempts to link Darwin and evolution to such horrible things as Hitler, racism, etc. What if we were to do this for the Bible and Christianity? Yikes. Crusades, murders, torture, racism, oppression of women, the Holocaust. I don't think we want to go down this road! Ms. ZOMGitsCriss proposes writing an introduction to the Bible (it's public domain, too, you know!) detailing all it's associations. I rather think we would not like how it would make Christ look. Yet, we believe.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/kirk-camerons-origin-of-s_n_294349.html

Cameron also mentions in his video a number of scientists who believe God created the universe. That's all well and good - but most of them are dead. At least give us some living ones! Also, what about all the CHRISTIANS who believe God created evolution in order to create the universe? There are plenty of us out there, but we get no mention.

I have to wonder if Cameron thought at all about the ramifications of his approach. In effect, he is telling people that Darwin and his theory are evil and incompatible with Christianity. I'm sure that's what he was going for, but again, it's not true. They are quite compatible. Like I said, there are lots of us who believe God created the process of evolution to create the earth and its inhabitants. What this says to many non-Christians is that you can EITHER believe evolution (and there is a lot of evidence for it, including in the fossil record), OR you can be a Christian. Not both. This strategy he has come up with, using Origin to tell people how "it's a lie", is telling people who likely already believe evolution that they have to leave it if they want to follow Christ. That's a lie! It is chasing people AWAY from Christ, not leading them to him! This approach does far more harm than good, all the while making Christians look foolish. Darwin himself started life in the Church. He even considered going into the priesthood. But the church chased him away - they told him his evolution was incompatible with their Church, and he believed them, and died an agnostic. The church is the reason Darwin died as a non-Christian! I wish these guys would think about how they are portraying the faith, and the effects it might have on those who read this "new and improved introduction".

I know many Christians think the earth has to be young for Genesis to be "true". But many of us do not - the parables didn't have to be "literal" to speak "truth". There is more than one option here. One person's views rarely express the ultimate truth, yet Cameron (and a great many others) make them out to be, chasing people away from Christ as a result. This kills me. I wonder, if we were not so elitist, not so rejecting of science and logic, how many more believers there might be?

A better introduction for the Origin would focus on the response of Darwin's church. If they had accepted his ideas, how might the world have been different?

What is our goal?

The so-called Great Commission gives us, as Christians, our "homework", shall we say, from God.

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

A couple of recent events stick out in my mind, reminding me how utterly unimportant to fulfilling the Great Commission the "creation-evolution debate" is. Really, does it matter, ultimately, how God created the earth? Will it impact your faith? Your salvation? What if God seeded earth with creatures from some other planet - would it change a thing?

I rather think not.

On the other hand, consider the results of arguing the point.

This past year was the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, and the 150th anniversary of his publication of the Origin of Species. As a biology teacher, naturally I had to do SOMETHING to commemorate it. I started reading a few short bios of Darwin's life. (Yes, this is relevant, bear with me!)  I knew before I started that Darwin started his life in the Church. However, I learned a bit more about him that was somewhat surprising - and very sad. Darwin initially intended, at the urging of his father, to enter the priesthood. That was before his travels on the Beagle. We all know the story - naturalist on the HMS Beagle, visited the Galapagos and saw the finches (and a whole lot more, but they're the ones who got famous), proposed the idea of Natural Selection, and became the black sheep of the Church.

The thing that hit me about Darwin's story, though, was that he started as a Christian! In the end, he gave up his faith, because he found too much evidence for natural selection. Not just that though - the Church told him that his ideas and the Bible were incompatible. It was not natural selection, evolution, studying nature that drove him from God, but the Church itself.

Around the same time this year, some friends shared with me about their granddaughter and her friend (I'll call them Alice and Bill, just to make this easier). Alice is a Christian; Bill is an atheist. Alice and Bill made a deal - he'd come visit her church if she came to an atheist's meeting with him. The meeting Alice ended up going to was a birthday party - the 200th birthday of one Charles Darwin.

Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ; atheists grasp on to Darwin, as the man who made God unnecessary for the creation (beginning, I suppose) of life. What if Christians didn't so forcefully reject Darwin, natural selection and evolution? Six days, ok, fine - but why the big deal about it?

The Christian church (the vocal part of it, anyway) has turned the HOW of creation into dogma, rather that the minor footnote it should be in our walks of faith. The result? We are driving people AWAY from the Church, and the Christ we are called to make disciples for. Is it really that important?

I'm fairly confident that if we asked Jesus whether it was more important to make disciples or to make 6-day-creationists.... the creationists are not the winning answer. It is time to drop the small stuff and come back to the main point - glorifying our God and Creator through spreading his message. The important one.