Darwinism as Bad Theology

First, the main article from Uncommon Descent:

Further to: If atheism is not a religion, in a meaningful sense, why are there atheist chaplains at U.S. colleges now?, Gray had commented at the Guardian, “It has often been observed that Christianity follows changing moral fashions, all the while believing that it stands apart from the world. The same might be said, with more justice, of the prevalent version of atheism.”


To make matters worse, “liberal” values today largely mean “progressive” values, the key difference being that the progressive has little or none of the traditional liberal’s interest in civil liberties or due process. So even supposed liberal values become illiberal. People are fired,charged,bankrupted,or possibly jailed for refusing to honour dismissing progressive pieties.

Darwinism, diminishing as a useful interpretation of change over time in biological life, sees a new life as the creation story of progressive culture. A culture to which it is admirably suited.


But what really interested me is in the comments. First, an amusement…


As the current adage has it “Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.”


Thousands of stamps Seversky, which is your favorite? Obsessing over and reading about every stamp ever printed is a hobby for sure. Being angry at stamps, angry every day, blogging and tweeting about stamps – is an unhealthy hobby.

Atheism is a Religion though, not a hobby. An unhealthy Religion.

But after the appetizer, the meal from bornagain77:

A few related notes as to ‘Atheism is a religion’.

Since science is impossible without God to provide a basis for reason, (CS Lewis, Argument From Reason; Plantinga, Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism), then it is not surprising to learn that Darwinism is reliant on bad theological premises in order to provide its foundation in science:

Moreover, Charles Darwin’s degree was in Theology. Thus, not so surprisingly, his arguments in Origin were primarily Theological in nature, not mathematical or scientific (in fact I’ve heard it said that Darwin hated math):

Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):

1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.

And again, not so surprisingly, the conservative Church of England ‘scientific establishment’ of Darwin’s day reacted against Darwin’s book whilst the liberal, and unscientific, Anglican clergy accepted it:


to this day, bad theology, not science, is integral to Darwinian theory (i.e. God would not have done it that way therefore Darwinism must have,,,):

Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014
Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,,
,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973).
Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes:
“Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,,

Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? – Dilley S. – 2013
This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous article, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky’s theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists–such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould–also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology.

Verse and Music:

Romans 1:21-23
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Jeremy Camp – Jesus Saves

It’s good to see the approaching end of Methodological Naturalism as a credible scientific presupposition. Admittedly, it will last another generation or so as a philosophical support for current liberal thought – but even here, the approaching bankruptcy of the Welfare State will limit its lifespan. When the Master is dead, the False Prophets & Court Intellectuals are out of a job…

Admittedly, Intelligent Design is fundamentally a separate issue from Young Earth Creationism. But IDs coming triumph puts YEC on a better footing.

Christians had better not start slacking off, though – YEC still requires steady work to apply Genesis to all of life. Disproving atheism – a handy tool of the Totalitarian, Power-hungry God-State – will prove the easy part. Effectively disproving Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Old Earth Creationism is where the real work begins. After all, those other belief systems are not nearly as dependent on government power for their propagation and spread (and the censoring of alternative viewpoints) as Atheistic Materialism is.

I recommend that, once Methodological Naturalism is pushed off the boat, Old Earth Creationism be the next to go. It was never anything more than an attempt to evade God’s clear teaching in Genesis (and Christ’s teachings, too!) – and so, explicitly deny God’s ownership of the world, of their lives, and His supremacy over the God-State that the Romans and the Greeks (and today’s Moderns) so deeply adore.

With hard work and discipline, the OEC’s can be driven to drop the Christian masks (which was only ever used as a distasteful but necessary road to gain some power and a comfortable living), and into the kind of religion they have a natural affinity to: “lots of rituals, rich beautiful robes, deep mystical reflections, ancient ceremonies… coupled with zero commandments, no moral strictures, and none of those annoying sexual restrictions.”

(Points to Shinto)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s