Darwinism Intelligent Design Philosophy Religion Science

The religious dimensions of Darwinian evolution theory

Spread the love

Here’s a new study by Cornelius Hunter:

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution interacted with non-empirical factors including a range of theological concerns. The influence of these theological concerns is typically modeled as secondary to that of empirical evidence. In both Darwin’s thought and later development of the theory of evolution, theological concerns have been viewed as serving in a range of possible roles. However, the theological concerns have consistently been viewed as, ultimately, subservient to empirical science. In the end, science has the final say regarding the content and evaluation of the theory. Here, this paper demonstrates the failure of this model. Theological concerns do have primacy over the science. They motivate the development of evolutionary theory, and they control the interpretation of the empirical evidence and justification of the theory. It is more accurate to view evolution as a theological research program. V

“Evolution as a Theological Research Program,” School of Natural and Applied Sciences, William Jessup University, Rocklin, CA 95765, USA, Academic Editor: Jeffery D. Long, Religions 2021, 12(9), 694; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12090694 Received: 13 July 2021 / Revised: 20 August 2021 / Accepted: 23 August 2021 / Published: 30 August 2021 The paper is open access.

What about this? Darwinism was the way an imperial British culture justified its rule over the “lesser breeds without the law?” That really was how they did see it all. And Darwinism was perfect for the purpose.

6 Replies to “The religious dimensions of Darwinian evolution theory

  1. 1
    Nonlin.org says:

    But “imperial British culture” is not same as religion.

    The religious aspect of Darwin’s thoughts is elsewhere. Namely in his obsession with W Paley’s argument.

  2. 2
    Truth Will Set You Free says:

    Darwin’s theory promotes prejudice and racism of all varieties. Modern atheists often say they support biological Darwinism but not “social” Darwinism, as if that somehow distances them from the ugly truth of Darwin’s prejudice and racism.

    If Darwin’s “survival-of-the-fittest” is true in biology, why isn’t it true in society, which is, after all, just a natural extension of biology (according to atheists)?

  3. 3
    chuckdarwin says:

    The study by Cornelius Hunter referred to generically concludes that Darwin and subsequent biologists and paleontologists framed some of their writings in evolutionary theory in opposition to special creation. That, Hunter claims “proves” that “evolution is a theological research program,” i.e. that theology primarily drives research in evolutionary biology. The reader of the “study” is left with the (mistaken) impression that all scientists have done since Darwin first articulated the principle of natural selection is to try to rebut creationism. A quick review of any top drawer journal in evolutionary biology will belie that assertion.
    What Hunter fails to appreciate is that the development of evolutionary theory, particularly in the US, has been handicapped in ways that no other science has, beginning with tremendous legal hurdles early in the 20th century were the teaching of evolution was legally banned in many states. Since evolution hit mainstream science, biologists have had to spend inordinate and wasteful amounts of time defending it in legal and political forums. How many legal challenges have there been to the teaching of Einstein’s theories in the public schools?
    Unfortunately, despite its overwhelming acceptance in the scientific community, evolution is still on the defensive. The Discovery Institute has seen to that. So, in an unfortunately ironic sense one could say that evolution is a “theological research program” but not as envisaged by Hunter.

  4. 4
    Silver Asiatic says:

    CD

    Unfortunately, despite its overwhelming acceptance in the scientific community, evolution is still on the defensive. The Discovery Institute has seen to that.

    It doesn’t seem that way to me, but I’d be delighted if that was really the case – and if so, my congratulations and thanks for the DI for that effort.

  5. 5
    jerry says:

    the development of evolutionary theory, particularly in the US, has been handicapped in ways that no other science has

    Why don’t you define evolution?

    It would be a start for the basis of anything you say about it. Until you do, it is just a vague undefined concept.

    Aside: A challenge: ID invokes better science than that promoted by any college on the planet. Prove me wrong.

  6. 6
    zweston says:

    @Chuckydarwin, are you seriously saying that the discovery institute is the oppressor of darwinism? HAHAHA! How much funding do you think Discovery Institute has vs. all the darwinist operations?…hmm? Is this critical origins theory?

    Could it be that Darwinism is so challenged (even though out of the opposite corner of the mouth it is said to be so widely accepted) because it is all based on conjecture and inferences but not out of concrete repeatable science?

Leave a Reply