Evolution and Recent History: Darwin, Evolution and His Critics-Part 6

Darwin had the “notorious habit of jumping to conclusions without adequate evidence” and “of stubbornly maintaining his theories regardless of the valid arguments and evidence that could be brought against them.”^[1]

Historian Jacques Barzun, Provost and Dean of the Graduate Faculties at Columbia University, further observes that the common view of Darwin as an intellectual and a lover of truth needs qualification:

The phrase “Newton of biology” now appears as a very loose description indeed. Darwin was not a thinker and he did not originate the ideas that he used. He vacillated, added, retracted, and confused his own traces. As soon as he crossed the dividing line between the realm of events and the realm of theory, he became “metaphysical” in the bad sense. His power of drawing out the implications of his theories was at no time very remarkable, but when it came to the moral order it disappeared altogether, as that penetrating Evolutionist, Nietsche, observed with some disdain.^[2]

Darwin himself appeared to have serious doubts about how distinctive his theory of evolution was; in at least 45 instances between 1869 and the final edition of the Origin, Darwin deleted the word “my” before the word “theory.” As noted earlier, Darwin hardly invented the idea of evolution; he merely systematized a certain amount of data allegedly in favor of it.^[3] Regardless:

To the end of his life, the old warfare continued in Darwin’s mind. Try as he would, he could not escape from God. Gradually his emotional life atrophied under the strain of the battle. Religious feeling disappeared and with it much else beside. Shakespeare was “intolerably dull.” He no longer took pleasure in pictures, in poetry, or even in music. The beauty of nature no longer thrilled him. The world became cold and dead. As we have already seen, even his reasoning powers became distorted when he dwelt upon subjects even remotely concerned with his conflict. Finally the time came for Charles Darwin to die with the conflict still unresolved.^[4]

In the end, Darwin had simply got a taste of his own medicine. He had deprived the universe of meaning and paid the price. As Leslie Paul observes in The Annihilation of Man (New York: Harcourt-Brace, 1945, p. 154), “The final result of the application of the theory of The Origin of Species to the whole material universe is to deprive it completely of meaning.” Cambridge scholar John Burrow observes in his introduction to The Origin of Species: “Nature, according to Darwin, was a product of blind chance and a blind struggle, and man a lonely, intelligent mutation, scrambling with the brutes for his sustenance. To some the sense of loss was irrevo­cable; it was as if an umbilical cord had been cut, and men found themselves part of ‘a cold passionless universe.’”^[5] What Darwin had wrought for modern man is, in the eyes of many, hardly worth the meager scientific validation it has encountered.

Darwin’s Origin is today much less convincing. As an illustration, we may cite the es‑teemed entomologist, W. R. Thompson, who penned the introduction to the Origin of Species for the “Every Man Library” No. 811 edition (1956). Thompson reveals not only severe problems with Darwin’s basic thesis, especially descent by natural selection, he also shows how the manner in which Darwin argued appeared to give his theory more credibility than it deserved.

But in a manner of this kind a great deal depends on the manner in which the arguments are presented. Darwin considered that the doctrine of the origin of living things by descent with modification, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory unless the causes at work were correctly identified, so his theory of modification by natural selection was, for him, of absolute major importance. Since he had at the time the Origin was published no body of experimental evidence to support his theory, he fell back on speculative arguments. The argumentation used by evolutionists, said de Quatrefages, makes the discussion of their ideas extremely difficult. Personal convictions, simple possibilities, are presented as if they were proofs, or at least valid arguments in favor of the theory. As an example, de Quatrefages cites Darwin’s explanation of the manner in which the tit mouse might become transformed into the nutcracker, by the accumulation of small changes in structure and instinct owing to the effect of natural selection; and then proceeded to show that it is just as easy to transform the nutcracker into the tit mouse. The demonstration can be modified without difficulty to fit any conceivable case. It is without scientific value, since it cannot be verified; but since the imagination has free rein, it is easy to convey the impression that a concrete example of real transmutation has been given. This is the more appealing because of the extreme fundamental simplicity of the Darwinian explanation. The reader may be completely ignorant of biological processes yet he feels that he really understands and in a sense dominates the machinery by which the marvelous variety of living forms has been produced.

This was certainly a major reason for the success of the Origin. Another is the elusive character of the Darwinian argument…. The plausibility of the argument eliminates the need for proof and its very nature gives it a kind of immunity to disproof. Darwin did not show in the Origin that species had originated by natural selection; he merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others. But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince.^[6]

It is worthy to note that Dr. Thompson penned the above words over 40 years ago. In subsequent years, recent developments and discoveries throughout the sciences have made belief in evolution more and more difficult. So much so that some scientists have now abandoned the theory while others, although continuing to exercise faith that evolution is true, concede that convincing evidence for it may never be forthcoming.

In the end, Darwin also continued to exercise faith in evolution because he had little choice. He found the theory an emotional necessity and had convinced himself as to its plausibility, despite innumerable problems.

Darwin may have succeeded in convincing himself about evolution, but as we will see in our next article, it was another story entirely for the scientific community.

(to be continued)

Notes

1. ↑ W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited (NY: Philosophical Library, 1989), Vol. 2, p. 129, citing Canon, “The Basis of Darwin’s Achievement: A Revaluation”, 5 Victorian Studies 109 (1961).
2. ↑ Jacques Brazun, Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage (Garden City, NY, Doubleday, Anchor Books, 1958), pp. 84-85.
3. ↑ Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1969), pp. 38-138.
4. ↑ Robert E. D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After (Chicago: Moody Press, 1967), p. 93.
5. ↑ Charles Darwin (ed. J. W. Burrow), The Origin of Species (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1974), p. 43.
6. ↑ W. R. Thompson, “Introduction,” The Origin of Species (Everyone’s Library, No. 811, 1956. Published separately by EPM, Britain with additional comments by Frank Cousins), pp. 8-9.

Read Part 7