Darwin's Corner

There are two points that need to be made in any discussion about the contrast and/or conflicts between Darwinian theory and Theism.

They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Alister McGrath points to the arguments of theologians like Benjamin Warfield and even strong proponents of Darwinism like Thomas Huxley to illustrate this point. It is simply not true the Darwinism necessarily leads to atheism.

Arguing against a strict Darwinian view is not an argument made out of emotion, in opposition to the established facts of Science. Darwin’s theory—as an absolute framework for understanding the Universe—is not a “proven” one. Some very reputable scientists today argue there is strong evidence undermining much of Darwin’s theory, the Cambrian Explosion and problems with Darwin’s “tree of life” model are two important examples. It is simply not the case that the ignorant, hillbilly religious folk hold to the archaic view of a Creator God, and the modern well educated people know better because of the obvious facts. There are people of equally high credentials on each side of the argument. Alister McGrath and John Polkinghorne are two striking examples. Each one holds some of the highest academic credentials in both Science and Religion, and both are devout believers in God.


Now to my main point. The kind of strict Darwinism that sees all of life as the product of a random, purposeless mixture of chemicals always implodes when it is taken to its logical conclusion. No one—not even Darwin himself—can really believe this all the way. Darwin expressed an inner desire for there to be an Intelligence behind the Universe, and was troubled over the fact that his theory seemed to oppose it. He says in a letter to his friend, W. Graham, in 1881 that he experienced a “horrid doubt” about his inner conviction that the Universe is not the result of chance, because he considers this idea of an Intelligence behind the Universe in his own mind, and he doesn’t think his own mind can be trusted because it is ultimately the same as the mind of a monkey (just more developed) and thus is really no more trustworthy than the mind of a monkey: “Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions ins such a mind?”

Philosophically speaking, Darwin painted himself into a corner with this comment. The word “horrid” means to cause horror or dread. If we are only highly developed monkeys, why would the thought that the Universe occurred by chance evoke horror and dread? Why would monkeys—even really intelligent ones—care if there is an Intelligence behind the Universe or not. I’ve always thought monkeys would be rather indifferent to the issue.

So, Darwin’s theory leads him to an existential absurdity. The very fact that he has such a strong desire for there to be an Intelligence responsible for the Universe is evidence that that Intelligence exists; if there were no ultimate Creator/Intelligence responsible for the Universe why would so many people—like Darwin himself—have such a desire for there to be one? As Lewis says, “If the world had no meaning, I would never know it had no meaning.” Darwin thought he had proven there is no difference, except for the degree of development, between man and animals, then confessed to feeling an emotion that it makes no sense for an animal to feel. He is like a man standing on a wooden box explaining his very logical theory about how it is impossible for wooden boxes to exist.

The Materialists/Darwinists propose a purposeless universe and then passionately derive a sense of purpose from studying it. About such people, Lewis also says something to the effect of, “They proclaim a philosophy that denies humanity, yet all the while remain human.”

If all this seems more important to you than Brittany Spears’ struggles with motherhood and the new Play Station 3 coming out next month, then please read the following:

Miracles, by C.S. Lewis
Dawkins' God, by Alister McGrath
The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel

MM