Universal Intelligence (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Friday, October 02, 2009, 16:00 (5530 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George quotes Darwin: "Several eminent naturalists have of late published their belief that a multitude of reputed species in each genus are not real species; but that other species are real, that is, have been independently created. This seems to me to be a strange conclusion to arrive at."-You interpret this as meaning that Darwin "is ridiculing the idea of theistic creation." I think you need to read this paragraph again. The thrust of his argument is that all species descended from "a few aboriginal forms" or just from one. Ironically, you have later quoted this very thesis (also in my edition), but have not linked it to the above! Darwin is attacking those naturalists who believe in the separate creation of each individual species ... as opposed to its evolution from earlier forms ... and yet at the same time acknowledge variations: "Nevertheless they do not pretend that they can define, or even conjecture, which are the created forms of life, and which are those produced by secondary laws. They admit variation as a vera causa in one case, they arbitrarily reject it in another, without assigning any distinction in the two cases. The day will come when this will be given as a curious illustration of the blindness of preconceived opinion." The blindness lies in their inability to see that the principle of variation substantiates his theory that species evolved from common ancestors and were not created independently. In other words, it has everything to do with evolution, and nothing to do with God's role in creation.-Time and again, not just in The Origin, but also in his letters and other writings, he makes it clear that evolution and theism are compatible. Without comparing the first and later editions, I can't comment on your assumption that the many references to creation were made to "appease his religious critics", but to my knowledge Darwin never at any time ridiculed theism. His religious critics were outraged at the idea that man had descended from monkeys (also a misrepresentation), because they thought man was a special creation by God, but Darwin goes out of his way to stress that his theory should not "shock the religious feeling of anyone" (two pages before your quote). In my edition he goes on to quote Kingsley: "it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws." I really can't see how anyone could view such references as a cover for ridicule of theistic creation. Forgive my saying so, but your interpretation of the lines you have quoted might well be seen as "a curious illustration of the blindness of preconceived opinion."