From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Fri Nov 07 2003 - 13:32:04 EST
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Collins" <gwcollins@algol.co.uk>
To: <asa@lists.calvin.edu>; <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: Intelligent design controversy in Canada
> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 19:16:24 -0000
> From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
>
> I am afraid to say that Darwin's views were not "> reductionist,
atheistic,
> and chance-oriented. " as you claim. He was never an atheist and hovered
> between some kind of theism and agnosticism. It helps to read his books,
> notebooks and correspondence.
> -----------------
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> My understanding is that Darwin's loss of faith to agnosticism was not
> due to his theory of evolution nor to any of his work as a scientist, but
> rather arose because he lost his favourite daughter to an illness, and
> as a result became bitter and unable to accept that a loving God would
> allow his daughter to die. Is this right?
The death of Annie was shattering and he lost other children. He was luckier
than Archbishop Tait who lost 5 out of 6 daughters in early 1860 and did not
lose his faith nor did many others who suffered the normal victorian thing
of burying several children. This idea was put forward by Jim Moore but he
provides no clear evidence as there is nothoing in his writings to confirm
it. He was undergoing a general loss of faith in orthodox Christianity in
the 1830s culminayting in 38 and 39. by that I mean the divinity of Christ,
the reliability of the Bible etc The other question is just how strong his
faith was as a young man. I see it as fairly nominal.
>
> I have heard it suggested that his reference to the creator at the end of
> Origin was mainly an aside to placate the church (or the academia who
> were rather more tied up with the church then than would be the case
> today, and would be sitting in judgement on his work).
In his early drafts of 1842 and 1844 he refers to the creator prior to the
passage which was later used in the last paragraph of the Oriigin quoted by
Ted which is similar in 42 and 44 with no mention of the already mentioned
creator. "By the creator "was put in the 6th edition. Neither Moore and
Desmond nor Browne explain why in their biographies. As many incliuding
Wilberforce and Sedgwick did not doubt Darwin's faith in God in 1860, Darwin
mwas not dierectly appealing to them. My answer is "I dont Know" and note
that by 1870 many in the churhces had accepted evolution. Darwin reckons he
was a theisit in 1860 and later became more agnostic but was always agnostic
about his agnosticism. He was never an atheist
> And that his reluctance in publishing was not because he was
> unconvinced by his own theory but rather wishing to avoid the kind of
> reception and opposition that Chambers' Vestiges met with.
That is part of it, but a minor one. Darwin was a perfectionist and slow to
put his views forward. He also spent from 1845-53 working on barnacles
producing several volumes of monographs. He sired and buried children. He
was sick a lot of the time from 1840 onwards and any stress made him worse,
as when someone undermined his expalnation of the Parallel roads of Glen
Roy. (The next edition of Ralph Kolp's To be an invalid will argue that his
was largely a physical illness and will cite my work on how he could walk up
to 25 miles in the hills up to 1838 and thereafter only 3 or 4 to support
this.) After 1854 he was writing a massive work which was never published
but precised into the Origin.
Contra Ted I think too much is made about concerns about his wife Emma's
faith
>
> Is this pretty close to the mark? Or way wide of it?
There are loads of answered questions which some wish to make an answer for.
Michael
>
> /Gary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 07 2003 - 13:35:03 EST