The answer to their question of how a deity governed the universe increasingly became in the manner of scientific laws, not by meddling. The works of the scientists immediately preceding Darwin (and Darwin himself) operated under the assumption that the laws of nature were logically fixed. The question of the universe’s governance was not who keeps things operating, but how. This questioned natural theology’s assumptions of a world marked by peace, harmony, and order, instead of the struggle and competition for which Darwin had ascribed to it.
When it comes to the relationship between “religion” and “science,” there is no discord but the author encourages a separation between the disciplines of what the contributor refers to as “religion” and “ quasi-science,” or ”modern science in the garb of science.”Ī second issue in the midst of the debates around Darwin concerned the theology of “Providence” in the governing of the universe. For instance, an 1863 article in the British Quarterly Review commented on the “Epilogue of Affairs.” The author of this unsigned article sees that the issue behind Darwin’s publication centred on the relationship between revelation and the origin of humanity, instead of the connection between science and religion. The concerns for the separation of religion and science became less of an issue as time progressed. However writers of the nineteenth century had made the rift wider and it would not be an incorrect assertion to claim that Darwin’s publications made the rift irreparable. Since science and religion had been “reconciled” in the minds of some, the scientific community deemed it foolish to create a rift between the disciplines on account of “another theory,” given the persecutions of some scientists in the name of religion. Once science had made strong assertions that threatened an impact on metaphysics and religion, the scientific advance would usually concede to religion as the authority. Were Ellegård’s conclusions true for nonconformists in England? Though he surveyed a broad range of literature, Ellegård neglected to consult some periodicals that probably reflected the views of the average Evangelical church attendee. However, Ellegård points to the “theory’s patent contradiction of the biblical creation story which attracted the most attention when the theory’s religious consequences were discussed.” Though the uneducated majority tended to see that the issue at hand was one concerning the evolution of humanity from apes, the higher-educated and intellectual levels tended to view Darwin’s theories as an assault on traditional Christian doctrines (especially creation, the uniqueness of the soul/spirit of humanity, and “providence”). His study led him to conclude that the commitments of each social/faith community can be discerned in relation to the objective considerations presented by Darwin. How did evangelical Christian communities in England receive Darwin’s theories at the time? In his meticulously researched work, Darwin and the General Reader (1990), Alvar Ellegård examined over one hundred English periodicals in an effort to ascertain how English society received Darwin, as reflected through these periodicals. Could it be that they were led to dissociate themselves even further from something that they had never truly believed in the first place? The classic doctrines of Christianity were no longer secure behind the doors of an intellectual fortress, guarded by both science and religion the unquestionable became susceptible to scientific enquiries, and the prescribed, time-honored answers seemed bleak and insufficient. Had Darwin’s theory actually produced a crisis of faith? John Hedley Brooke has asserted that after the publication of Darwin’s theories, people in nineteenth –century England found it harder to maintain faith in what they had once held to be dear. Unlike his predecessors, Darwin’s theory seemed to have a greater impact, not least because his thesis wasn’t simply intelligent speculation but was a fully developed theory supported by a larger body of evidence. The scientific and religious communities of Darwin’s day had already been subjected to theories similar to Darwin’s natural selection (including those of his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Thomas Malthus, Charles Lyell, and Robert Chambers). The publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1859 might aptly be described as a “revolution of evolution,” as it was an integral part of a larger debate.
0 kommentar(er)
