It should put paid to the idea that Darwinism isn't anti-religious!
I like this bit:
"Yet Darwinism remains one of the most successful scientific theories ever
promulgated. There is hardly an element of humanity-not capitalism, not
gender relations, certainly not biology-that can be fully understood without
its help."
I wonder how one would test a scientific theory which explains everything
from capitalism, to gender relations, through to biology?
Steve
===================================================
[...]
iconoclast of the century
charles darwin (1809-1882)
CHARLES DARWIN DIDN'T WANT TO MURDER GOD, AS HE
ONCE PUT it. But he did. He didn't want to defy his fellow Cantabrigians,
his gentlemanly Victorian society, his devout wife. But he did. He Waited
20 years to publish his theory of natural selection, butfittingly, after another
scientist threatened to be first-he did.
Before Darwin, most people accepted some version of biblical creation.
Humans were seen as the apotheosis of godly architecture. But on his
voyage on H.M.S. Beagle, Darwin saw that species on different islands had
developed differently. Humans could thus be an accident of natural
selection, not a direct product of God. "The subject haunted me," Darwin
would write later In fact, worries about how much his theory would shake
society exacerbated the strange illnesses he suffered. It's also worth noting
that Darwin's life wasn't Darwinian: he achieved his wealth through
inheritance, not competition, and some might say his sickly children
suffered because they were inbred.
Darwin's theories still provoke opposition. One hundred and forty years
after The Origin of Species, backers of creationism have made a comeback
in states like Kansas, pushing evolution out of the schoolroom. Yet
Darwinism remains one of the most successful scientific theories ever
promulgated. There is hardly an element of humanity-not capitalism, not
gender relations, certainly not biology-that can be fully understood without
its help.
[...]
136 TIME, DECEMBER 31,1999
===================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Contemporary religious thinkers often approach the Argument from
Design with a grim determination that their churches shall not again be
made to look foolish. Recalling what happened when churchmen opposed
first Galileo and then Darwin, they insist that religion must be based not on
science but on faith. Philosophy, they announce, has demonstrated that
Design Arguments lack all force. I hope to have shown that philosophy has
demonstrated no such thing. Our universe, which these religious thinkers
believe to be created by God, does look, greatly though this may dismay
them, very much as if created by God." (Leslie J., "Universes", [1989],
Routledge: London, 1996, reprint, p22)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------