 |
| Page II of the 6th edition of Origin of the Species |
This parallels the confusion around the 18th century intellectuals who championed a godless mechanistic universe with justification taken from the clockwork world of Newton's laws. It stands in contrast to the statement "He of all people was no Newtonian," as the Newton biographer, James Gleick, declared.
Similarly, Darwin was no atheist, and seems to have preferred to call himself an agnostic. The different versions of "Origin of Species" are framed in statements that picture Darwin as upholding the idea of a Creator as the primary cause.
The two books
In the very beginning, on page II, of the Origin of Species, and in all editions from 1859 until the 6. and final edition from 1876, Darwin recommends the reading of both the book of God's word, the Bible, as well as nature, the book of God's work, with this quote from Francis Bacon (1561-1626) (see image also):
To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both."
Bacon: "Advancement of Learning".
The idea of the two complementarity books, one for finding purpose and the other for the details of creation, goes back all the way to Tertullian (c. 155 - c. 220).
Natural laws
As the image shows, page II also includes a quote from the one who first coined the word scientist, William Whewell (1794-1866), on the operation of natural laws vs divine intervention:
But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this—we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws."
W. Whewell: Bridgewater Treatise
Darwin saw himself as one who gave a natural law explanation for the origin of species in contrast to special divine intervention, but still he upheld the view that nature needed a primary cause.
Primary and secondary causes
On the second last page, in all editions from 1859 to 1876, Darwin expresses a view of natural laws as a secondary cause. This may be an unfamiliar term for many today, but at the time of Darwin many more understood this terminology with roots in medieval thinking from William de Conches and Thomas Aquinas. The primary cause of everything is the Creator, without whom nothing would exist, and then nature operates according to regular patterns, secondary causes:
To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.
The origin of life
The very last sentence of Origin of Species goes beyond the topic of the book, i.e. biological evolution, and hypothesizes about the origin of life:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
The text in red, "by the Creator", was added in the 2. Edition in 1860 and remained there in all later editions.
Objections
Some dismiss the reference to a Creator by saying it is meant to calm angry clerics. A letter Darwin wrote in 1869 is frequently quoted, saying that
I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion and used Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant ‘appeared by some wholly unknown process’—It is mere rubbish thinking, at present, of origin of life; one might as well think of origin of matter.
I think this lack of trust in Darwin's integrity has little credibility. Why didn't he then change the phrase in the 5. and 6. Editions?
Another argument is that "breathed by the Creator" supposedly contradicts a statement found in a letter from 1871 where Darwin speculated that life could have emerged from "some warm little pond". This argument also misses the mark as there isn't necessarily any contradiction between the two. An explanation for the origin of life which separates between the who and the how like this is perfectly coherent:
... having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one ... in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etc., present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo more complex changes.”
We can only speculate as to what Darwin really may have meant on these matters. The purpose of this blog post has been to demonstrate, using his own statements, that he wasn't necessarily the contradictory person of little integrity as some like to portray him.
Sources:
- Darwin online, On the Origin of Species
- Kutschera, U. (2009). Darwin’s philosophical imperative and the furor theologicus. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2, 688-694.
