Creation, Evolution, and “The New Cosmic Philosophy”: William Todd Martin's Critique of Herbert Spencer (original) (raw)
Related papers
Robert Wright proposes reuniting scientists and theologians on the common ground of evolutionary theory, hoping for agreement that humans are hardwired with innate moral sensibilities. His naturalistic proposal is discussed, enhanced by offerings from complexity science, and significantly extended via self-regulatory dynamics that are perceivable through the human emotional system. 2 A Grander Evolution for a Grander Spiritual Bargain: A naturalistic theologian responds to Robert Wright As the new decade dawns, a cursory reflection of the last reveals a lot of God talk. Particularly portentous along these lines is Robert Wright's Evolution of God, the latest iteration of his long-running theme -the message that humans are hardwired to be moral creatures. In the New York Times editorial: A Grand Bargain over Evolution, he condensed his moral message and threw down a gauntlet of sorts. In this piece he brings good news -offering evolutionary theory as neutral intellectual territory for mediating the longstanding "war" between science and religion. He speaks of an "unseen order" that exists "out there," that if decoded holds the key to life's deepest secrets -whether they be laws of nature or God's supernatural design plan. Wright's hope in brokering peace turns on his conviction that this hidden order -no matter who is right about its source -includes an ethical design that yields our innate "moral sense."
A Critical Analysis of Herbert Spencer’s Theory of Evolution (English version
Hossain, D.M. and Mustari, S. (2012), A Critical Analysis of Herbert Spencer’s Theory of Evolution, Postmodern Openings, Vol. 3, No. 2, June, pp. 55-66 (Romania), 2012
This article focuses on Herbert Spencer's theory of evolution of society. At first, the article provides with a thorough portrayal of Spencer's Theory of Evolution. After that, the shortcomings of this theory are highlighted basing on the available literature. Thus, this article does not make any unique contribution to the literature of its kind. It is simply a general reading on the missing links of Spencer's theory of evolution.
John B. Cobb Jr., ed. , Back to Darwin: A Richer Account of Evolution Reviewed by
Philosophy in Review, 2009
Often fascinating, often frustrating, this is a hefty-and unfortunately unindexed-anthology on evolution and religion, distinguished by its emphasis on process thought, the philosophical-cum-theological approach to metaphysics based on the writings of Whitehead. As Cobb, himself a pioneer of process theology, explains, the purpose of the book (and of the conference on which it was based) is 'to introduce a Whiteheadian voice into the present discussion of evolution and religion' and to indicate 'the way in which a theistic evolutionary theory can be coherently developed from a Whiteheadian point of view' (17-18). Not all of the contributors are invested, or even particularly interested, in process thought, but the volume is editorially shaped in such a way as to present 'one long argument' (to borrow Darwin's phrase) for the importance of process thought for understanding evolution, scientifically as well as theologically. Cobb challenges what he takes to be three dubious claims: that contemporary evolutionary theory is scientifically adequate, that the metaphysics presupposed in contemporary scientific practice is philosophically adequate, and that both of these are theologically adequate for 'a revised formulation of theology' (311)-that is, a formulation along the Whiteheadian lines he favors. In so doing, he is seeking to integrate science and theology in a way that may require revisions not only to theology but also to science; he is thus rejecting, in the familiar typology offered by Ian Barbour, the alternative positions on which science and theology are regarded as in conflict, as independent, and as in dialogue. On none of these points, too, are all the contributors in agreement with Cobb, as he acknowledges, but it is fair to judge the volume's success in terms of the success of his ambitious project. In reacting against contemporary evolutionary theory, Cobb's argument finds a foil in what he calls neo-Darwinism, here represented in person by Francisco Ayala. A student of Dobzhansky and a formidable scientist in his own right, Ayala is also a former Dominican priest with a doctoral degree in theology; he favors the independence position in Barbour's typology. His main contribution to this collection is 'From Paley to Darwin: Design to Natural Selection', but he also furnishes four subsidiary essays on various subjects. In all, about a generous seventh of the book is Ayala's, although anyone wanting to understand his views will probably be better served by reading his Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion (2007). He devotes a few salient pages to the term 'neo-Darwinism', observing that it 'has little currency among evolutionary biologists' and seems to be 'mostly confined to the writings of philosophers and theologians' (53). As if to prove him right, neo-Darwinism turns out to be the philosophical and theological bogey of the volume. David Ray Griffin, for example, identi
The Descent Of Darwin-A Theological Understanding Of Charles Darwin
Playing the game of bridge while using the rules of chess obviously posits a logical impossibility. The two games fundamentally differ from each other. Such a scenario seems ludicrous even to contemplate; however, since the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859, Christians subscribing to the doctrine of the inerrancy of Holy Scripture have played such a game in trying to comprehend the biblical account of creation (theology = bridge) in the light of Darwin's theory of natural selection and speciation (science = chess). Christian theologians, scientists, and lay people who have played the game are the losers. The reason for their loss: the rules of the game for doing theology are not complementary with the rules of scientific inquiry. Yet, in the sincere attempt to engage and respond to the challenges posed by the theory of evolution by natural selection, Christians have repeatedly in the last 145 years tried to play "bridge" using the rules of "chess." William Dembski of Baylor University, one of the staunchest advocates of this approach, has reinstated a very old argument along these lines known as Intelligent Design; in Darwin's day William Paley's Natural Theology, published in 1802, offers much of the same argument with his famous line that a "watch must have had a maker."' The premise of the arguments is that somehow science helps to understand theology. In Unapologetic Apologetics, Dembski writes: The basic concepts with which science has operated these last several hundred years are no longer adequate, certainly not in an information age, certainly not in an age where design is empirically detectable. Science faces a crisis of basic concepts. The way out of Larry Witham, By Design (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003), 41. Witham extensively traces the "Design movement" throughout the 20th century, giving further historical background when necessary. 1 this crisis is to expand science to include design. To reinstate design within science is to liberate science, freeing it from restrictions that were always and now have become intolerable.' Dembski's assertion likely falls on deaf ears within most of today's scientific community because, as John Greene convincingly demonstrates in his intriguing analysis entitled The Death of Adam, the conviction that the world has a concerned, intimate designer has increasingly waned since the time of Descartes. Greene portrays the Reverend John Ray as the first modern creationist to counter the then new Cartesian worldview, which he characterizes as a theistic, atomic hypothesis which eventually leads to a mechanical and then mutable world. Greene writes: Ray's main concern was with the second heresy, namely, the atomic hypothesis of Democritus and Epicurus, according to which the universe and all of its productions had resulted from chance collisions of atoms moving at random in empty space. In its ancient, atheistic form this doctrine had been amply refuted many times, said Ray, but of late a theistic version of the same hypothesis had been advanced by Descartes and his followers on the Continent. These writers explicitly rejected the idea that mankind could understand the final causes, or purposes, for which things had been made and undertook `to solve all the Phoenomena of Nature, and to give an account of the Production and Efformation of the Universe, and all the corporeal Beings therein, both celestial and terrestrial, as well animate as inanimate, not excluding Animals themselves, by a slight Hypothesis of matter so and so divided and mov'd.'3 The latter portion of this quotation comes from the 1690 publication of Ray's work itself, The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation. Greene claims that throughout Ray seeks to reaffirm the Christian doctrine of the creation. Comparing Dembski's work with Ray's nearly 400 years earlier leads to the conclusion that little has changed substantively in the argument; obviously Dembski advances the argument for design using modem scientific data, but the theme remains the same. An important element that has lured the Christian church into playing the wrong game
The contemporary creation-evolution debate has become so polarized (over the issue of either Genesis or evolutionary science) as to obscure the more nuanced questions that have arisen in the historical and theological reception of Darwinism. Edinburgh's New College has been the academic home to some prominent scientists and theologians who have grappled with these questions since the early days of evolutionary science in the first half of the nineteenth century. Most obviously, this activity was focused on the decision to create a Chair in Natural Science in 1845, which would be occupied by a recognized scientist. The Chair became "extinct" in the 1930s, but in between times, its holders made important theological assessments of evolution along the way. This article outlines the contributions made by the individuals who occupied this Chair, as well as more recent figures in the evolution of science and theology at New College.
2011. 320 pages. $34.95. Darwinism and the Divine: Evolutionary Thought and Natural Theology, by Alister E. McGrath, is an expanded version of the author's 2009 Hulsean Lectures at the University of Cambridge marking the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species.