Ron Cowie: "Theistic Evolution" (2021) - 008

TODO

← back ← Index		forward →

<audio controls> <source src="File:008.mp3" type="audio/mpeg"> </audio>

+/- Note:

Please comment and engage in respectful discussion below. By all means link elsewhere in the wiki.
This page, with comments, is included in the printer-friendly page R Cowie "Theistic Evolution" 2021 responses.
If you do not have an account to edit the wiki, or need help to do so, send us an email. The address is under "Help needed!" on the Main Page.

---

from Ken Gilmore —

• Cowie’s statement that ”Darwin had no time for these ideas – he thought God had to be excluded”, apart from betraying the usual creationist obsession with Darwin as the high-priest of evolution also misunderstands Darwin’s position on the subject.
• Historian of science Ted Davis in his article “The Evolution of Darwin’s Religious Faith” quotes Darwin’s 1844 essay:

• I must here premise that, according to the view ordinarily received, the myriads of organisms, which have during past and present times peopled this world, have been created by so many distinct acts of creation. It is impossible to reason concerning the will of the Creator, and therefore, according to this view, we can see no cause why or why not the individual organism should have been created on any fixed scheme. That all the organisms of this world have been produced on a scheme is certain from their general affinities; and if this scheme can be shown to be the same with that which would result from allied organic beings descending from common stocks, it becomes highly improbable that they have been separately created by individual acts of the will of a Creator.
• “For as well might it be said that, although the planets move in courses conformably to the law of gravity, yet we ought to attribute the course of each planet to the individual act of the will of the Creator. It is in every case more conformable with what we know of the government of this earth, that the Creator should have imposed only general laws. As long as no method was known by which races [biological types] could become exquisitely adapted to various ends, whilst the existence of species was thought to be proved by the sterility of their offspring, it was allowable to attribute each organism to an individual act of creation. But in the two former chapters it has (I think) been shown that the production, under existing conditions, of exquisitely adapted species, is at least possible.” (Emphasis by Davis)

• Darwin (an agnostic) argued strongly against special creation, but argued for the ‘origin of species’ via a general law.
• The historian of science Ted Davis puts it well:

Contrary to what is often said, Darwin’s theory wasn’t atheistic, and it didn’t destroy natural theology. It was all about creation by natural laws—essentially the same view that BioLogos calls Evolutionary Creation—and left the door open for others to formulate newer, even more powerful, arguments from design.

— Ted Davis ”The Evolution of Darwin’s Religious Faith” BioLogos Nov 3 2016
https://biologos.org/articles/the-evolution-of-darwins-religious-faith/

---

from Bruce —
Re the confused questions surrounding Darwin's religious beliefs throughout his life, and what he actually wrote about them:

1. What Ted Davis describes in the passage quoted above as the "view that BioLogos calls Evolutionary Creation" is clearly not atheism, and not "agnostic" either.
2. For evidence that Darwin believed that life originated miraculously, see at Beliefs re the Origin of Life#Darwin — "We must under present knowledge assume the creation of one or of a few forms in the same manner as philosophers assume the existence of a power of attraction without any explanation."
3. The sequence of events in 1859-1860 including Darwin's correspondence with Lyell about ultimate origins, the publication of On the Origin of Species (not "the origin of life", as sometimes imagined, misleadingly), and the second edition with the explicit mention of "the Creator", is outlined in this wiki at Beliefs re the Origin of Life#Darwin; and the entire last paragraph of On the Origin of Species is at Entangled Bank. A modern reader might misunderstand this paragraph, by making too much of the change to an explicit mention of "the Creator", or by dismissing it as a response to religious objections, especially if s/he forgets that the book is about how species originate, not how life originated. Another way to misunderstand it is not to read it at all, and listen to what others say about it.

• See also Origin of Species, 6th Edition ending — ". . . the laws impressed on matter by the Creator. . . "

Re "a theory of natural selection": of course this would not make sense if in involved miracles! That would be a theory of miraculous selection! Duh, frankly.

---

from Jonathan —
Well of course not! To do so would be absurd.

PS. Does anyone check these slides for Ron? Does Ron have no friends?