Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Further to the two-platoon strategy: Should Darwin be banned from science classrooms?

arroba Email

Evolution News and ViewsFor talking about God? “No one should be talking about God in a science classroom“. Agreed.

As discussed here, Darwin does.

See this article.

Which is why this new article in the British Journal for the History of Science (BJHS) is so significant. The author, Steve Dilley, is an Arizona State University-trained philosopher of science who studies the relationship between science, theology, and philosophy. His analysis, “Charles Darwin’s use of theology in the Origin of Species,” BJHS 2011, argues that Darwin used theology throughout his 1859 masterwork to argue for the truth of his theory of descent with modification by natural causes. Darwin’s theology was not merely negative, entertaining the assumptions of his creationist opponents as hypotheses simply to contradict those assumptions with evidence.

– Charles Darwin, “Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species,” Evolution News & Views, May 6, 2011


The British Journal for the History of Science

Charles Darwin’s use of theology in the Origin of Species

Stephen Dilley


This essay examines Darwin’s positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin’s theological language about God’s accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin’s mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin’s positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin’s overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin’s science.

I don't get this - is "News" suggesting that evolutionary biology can't be taught, because a literary analysis of Darwin's work finds some theological language in his work? Will the Discovery Institute similarly argue that Newton's laws of motion shouldn't be taught? Heinrich
Did anyone here take a science class? I don't recall ever taking a science class in school, but that was a long time ago. I remember a biology class. I probably took a chemistry class. But a science class? So maybe it's time we created a science class, but we should probably call it by another name. I'm going to suggest calling it Entropy class, since no one knows what that is. Or Epistemics. It's a sad fact that our schools are about the recitation of so-called facts. They no longer teach how we come to have knowledge about things. What's more important, knowing the facts, or knowing how to reach them? Mung

Leave a Reply