It's widely believed that Charles Darwin lost his faith when he discovered evolution. And many contemporary atheists proclaim themselves followers of Darwin in this sense. Michael Shermer, for instance, writes that he abandoned Christianity when he learned about evolution; finally he could see how there could be design--or the appearance of design--without a designer. Richard Dawkins writes that it was Darwin who finally made it possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist."
In reality Darwin's atheism had little to do with his discovery of evolution. First of all Darwin was never a very devout Christian. He was raised as a nominal Anglican. It says something about Anglicanism in Britain that a lukewarm Christian like Darwin actually considered becoming a clergyman. What turned Darwin against Christianity, however, was two things.
First, several of his children either died or has chronic illnesses. This was probably heriditary, as Darwin himself suffered for most of his life from one ailment or the other. When Darwin's daughter Annie died at a young age, however, Darwin was inconsolable. Usually a man of the stiff upper lip, Darwin could not stop himself from weeping even in public. Darwin blamed God for Annie's untimely death. This was several years before Darwin published his Origin of Species.
After Annie's death, Darwin began to reflect morbidly on mortality, and during his process he recalled that his own famous grandfather Erasmus Darwin, as well as several other family members and friends, were unbelievers. Since Darwin saw them as good and respectable people, he angrily fulminated against the doctrine of eternal damnation, asking what kind of a God would consign good people to hell just because they refused to accept Christianity? The thought of all these people in hell filled Darwin with such revulsion that he completely jettisoned Christianity.
At the same time Darwin recognized that his theory of evolution was quite compatible with Christianity. When the American biologist Asa Gray wrote Darwin to say that his theory of evolution demonstrated how God created species, Darwin congratulated Gray for being the first one to see the point. In England, the preacher-poet Charles Kingsley argued for the compatibility with evolution and Christianity, and Darwin encouraged his efforts.
True, evolution is inconsistent with the six-day account of creation, but since the earliest days of Christianity, Christian writers like Augustine have had no problem with interpreting the first book of Genesis allegorically. After all the Hebrew word can mean "day" but it can also mean "period" or "epoch." Only a small segment of Christians--mostly fundamentalists--are uncompromisingly wedded to the six-day account.
Evolution, however, says nothing about who or what created the universe. Evolution doesn't even say anything about how life got started. Evolution merely describes how one life form gave rise to another. Somewhat comically writers like Dawkins and Daniel Dennett argue that evolution is a kind of master key that unlocks the universe. It isn't hard to see that atheism is getting in the way of clear reasoning here. If you doubt this, go to Youtube and watch again my debate with Daniel Dennett. Unfortunately I cannot also direct you to my debate with Dawkins, since Timorous Richard doesn't want to get into the arena with me.
Darwin lost his faith over the "problem of evil," an issue that has been coming up in my recent debates, and one that I intend to address in future blog postings. It's time to set at rest, however, the old myth that evolution is a scientific refutation of theism in general or Christianity in particular. Darwin himself knew it was not so, even if his dimmer acolytes haven't figured that out yet.
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 86)
16. Thanks, not-pboyfloyd , for posting something about Darwin that D'Souza should have thought further ahead about before going on one of his many attacks against Dawkins, someone Dinesh obviously is in envy of.
Not only is D'Souza trying to revise history, of Darwin, I pointed out in #12 that Dinesh is willfully lying about Darwin. What else can people like him do when they can't support their biggest pet lie with any reasonable evidence? - "god"
LindaL at 3:59AM on May 5th 2008
17. LindaL.. are you up all night?
Soon brian will come on and tell you that you're not supposed to argue with Christians... they cry or something.
not-pboyfloyd at 4:11AM on May 5th 2008
18. You say....
"Evolution doesn't even say anything about how life got started."
This is wrong. Modern evolutionists have a perfectly rational explanation engaging with and consistent with the evidence. It relies on a concept called the 'ecological stable system' which explains how replicators must evolve from the simplest compounds found throughout the known universe. Richard Dawkins discusses it in "the selfish Gene"
John Sutton at 5:59AM on May 5th 2008
19. Dammit, DD, please take some time off, drink more wine, go "research" a red-light district or two (again) or whatever it takes to help you come up with some new material. Plainly speaking, you have become stale. Your freshman fallacious logic is consistantly boring enough, and while I have enjoyed watching your false parade-like stance as a believer, you are not fooling anyone who really understands the rules of logic or has a lick of common sense. You don't give a crap about this whole god/no-god issue.
whoops at 6:03AM on May 5th 2008
20. Why is D'uh constantly trying to find some one-inch plot of ground he can stand on so that the water of scientific reason won't wash over his pointy little head? Anyone who spends this much time trying to persuade other people of something that is so obviously fictional, must have a LOT of doubts themself, even if they would never admit such thoughts. The bottom line is that it's pretty hard to cling to superstitions from the Neolithic era here in the 21st century. The only thing that has remained constant is that about 90% of the population wants to believe in fiction so desperately that they don't even TRY to look for truth.
Titanium Chef at 6:08AM on May 5th 2008
21. "First, several of his children either died or has chronic illnesses."
Has chronic illnesses? Sorry, just had to bring that up since basic grammar issues like this really bother me.
Other than that, I must say that this is one of your extremely rare good articles. You are absolutely write that Darwin did not lose his faith due to evolution and about the effect that the death of his daughter had on him. For any that may try to argue that point, it is backed up by historical evidence so there is no point in trying to refute it. Also, your point about him believing in the compatibility of Christianity is also completely true and is in of itself true as well. There is nothing that points to Christianity not working with the theory of evolution. However, that assumes that you don't take the Bible literally, which many sadly do. I look forward to seeing how your future blog postings turn out, however I doubt I will see something of this quality for awhile.
James at 7:42AM on May 5th 2008
22. Dinesh, thanks for the history lesson on Darwin's degeneration into atheism. Yours is the best blog on the web!
The facts about how Darwin agreed that his theory merely explains how God did these things is a major revelation at this point in the cultural debate, and it deserves to be in the updated paperback version of WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT CHRISTIANITY.
BTW: Dinesh, I was very happy to attend your two talks at this past weekend's Unshakable Faith conference in Cincinnati. Even though the famous (among Christians) Norman Geisler was also there, your appearance was the main draw for me to register and attend, and I was not disappointed. Great Job, Dinesh!
BTW2: I sometimes read through other comments by other people, but I am unhappy when they use profanity, which cheapens the level of intelligent discourse. I would be quite happy if we could delete anybody who cusses, and even ban those who insist upon cussing. It makes the blog less family friendly.
Rev 3:16 at 8:48AM on May 5th 2008
23. Rev 3:16: Your type would like to be able to ban people from discourse. That way you don't have to have your views challenged. You can use the guise of profanity, but we all know the real reason.
Ryan Anderson at 8:52AM on May 5th 2008
24. "Since Darwin saw them as good and respectable people, he angrily fulminated against the doctrine of eternal damnation, asking what kind of a God would consign good people to hell just because they refused to accept Christianity? The thought of all these people in hell filled Darwin with such revulsion that he completely jettisoned Christianity."
I always wonder why it doesn't revulse everyone else... ?
Mokele Mbembe at 8:57AM on May 5th 2008
25. You can give your life whatever meaning you want. Pick whatever it is that is important to you. Decide what you think you can do to help human beings, as a species, move forward, and then go do it in whatever way that you think is appropriate. It is your life and it lasts about 30,000 days -- make the most of it.
The fact is that you, and only you, give your unique human life its own, personal meaning. You can choose to do absolutely anything you like. Each life is unique to the human being who designs it, and the way you define your life's meaning is up to you. This is how it always has been, and how it always will be.
Having said that, there one caveat that you should keep in mind: You can do whatever you want with your life, as long as you stay within the boundaries of what your fellow human beings will allow. For example, if you decide that the goal of your life is to murder as many people as possible, then the rest of us will do our best to stop you. The reason for that is simple -- your goal terminates the existence of other human beings, and that is not fair to them. As in any game, there are rules that make it possible for the other players to play. The game of life has rules as well, established by your fellow human beings to keep things fair.
These are not "my" words ...but thought useful...
Pati at 9:14AM on May 5th 2008
26. A major factor in Darwin's loss of faith was the apparent inherent cruelty of nature "red in tooth and claw" in the words of Tennyson. A world, allegedly fashioned by a Creator, in which the big fish eat the little fish and in which the strong nearly invariably prevail over the weak, seemed to him incompatible with the God of love preached by Christianity.
emelpe at 9:17AM on May 5th 2008
27. "
Did He smile his work to see?
Did He who made the lamb make thee (the tiger)?
"
Mokele Mbembe at 9:31AM on May 5th 2008
28. mankind's knowledge is in it infancy when it comes to understanding the creation of the universe and its many complexities. for the so called scientist to claim to know anything more about the 10 to 11 dimensional or infinite dimensional universe than an native running around the jungle is as rediculous as a flea climbing up an elephants butt with intention of rape.
LARRY. L at 10:07AM on May 5th 2008
29. Seriously--does Dinesh do ANYTHING but lie? Darwin wasn't an atheist (he still somewhat believed in god), and only the worst lias claim he was. In fact, the only good part about this article is that Dinesh didn't throw in the lie that Darwin recanted on his deathbed!
Why must you lie, Dinesh? Why must you lie? Remember: bearing false witness IS a sin! Darwin went to the seminary, and he wasn't an atheist. Please stop lying, Dinesh. For your own sake: stop lying.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 10:09AM on May 5th 2008
30. Other than that, I must say that this is one of your extremely rare good articles. You are absolutely write that Darwin did not lose his faith due to evolution and about the effect that the death of his daughter had on him.
-James
-------------------
Hey, when you're write, you're write.
Dinesh! A question for you to ponder. No need to answer. Not that you would.
How does it feel to get all of your compliments from the people that can't spell to save their asses?
Godless Heathen Brian at 10:11AM on May 5th 2008