What did Darwin really believe?

A practice sermon written to shadow the sermon series at my church on BIG questions. Sept09

Evolution has become quite the buzz word in the Scientific community these last 150 years since the publication of Charles Darwen's Origin of Species. As Darwin predicted It has quite literally changed the way the culture views all areas of science from geology and cosmology right through to Biology and advertising and the media. It has had such a huge impact on our culture and yet the average person's knowledge of the topic is hazy at best. I have spoken to hundreds of students who hold firmly to the process of evolution often quoting me evidence from Biology lesson at school or even university lectures claiming to prove the theory of Evolution everything from the missing link to Ernst Haeckel's embryonic drawings. The truth is after 150 years of scientific research the case for the evolutionary process is worse off than it was in Darwin's day. As science discovers more of the minute and expanse of God's creation it finds yet more complexity to be explained away.

Let me pause for a moment to clarify some terms before we continue.

When I talk about the theory of evolution I am not denying the existence of adaptation and natural selection. That is the genetic variations present in animal populations that make it more likely for one organism to survive in certain habitats, reproduce and become the majority in a population over many generation.

This is God's Grace at work in the animal kingdom to deal with an ever changing world damaged by sin.

When I talk about the theory of evolution I talk of the hypothesis that one species can over time change into another. As the Oxford Dictionary puts it.

“The origination of living things by development from earlier forms, not by special creation”

Scientist today have are still hunting for a process by which this could realistically have occured, Dawin's theories today are almost completely rejected.

So what of our title. We hold up Charles Darwin and the publication of his book the “Origin of Species” as the event that started the ball rolling. Is that really the case? For certain it has to be admitted that Charles Darwin had a huge influence. But what did he say different than his predecessors that caused his particular theory to be so influential?

I think it will be beneficial to have a quick look back into history to discover what influenced Charles Darwin's theory.

For this we must start in the most unlikely of places. The Hindu scriptures.

Hindu teachings speak of a god, Brahmin who is the ultimate life force of the Universe to such an extent that he is the universe. Brahmin is the universe and the universe is Brahmin. And during a process of millions of years the universe was birthed. The Hindu model of the universe is a cyclic one of continual birth, death and rebirth. It is taught that life comes from non-life and that all life including plants has an internal conciousness, a life force, being part of the universe part of their god, Brahmin.

Out of this teaching of all life containing this life force, this part of God, within a cyclic universe comes the teaching of reincarnation. Reincarnation is the continual cycle of death and life producing progression from the lowest life forms all the way through to humankind. This is where we see the caste system the untouchables at the bottom and the white Brahmins at the top. The final stage in this system of reincarnation is enlightenment a stage where one joins together with the ultimate life force, the universe, Brahmin. Basically you become one with god. The way life progresses up this ladder of reincarnation is through shear will and power of mind in the struggle of life. The Hindu yogu cycle is 4.32 billion years. Does this not sound familiar.

Moving on now to Greek philosophy and to one Greek in particular, Pythagoras, who lived 582-506BC and is most famous for his triangles. However he was also a philosopher who travel widely and absorbed the teachings of Egyptians, Assyrians and the Hindu Brahmins. He brought the teachings of reincarnation back to Greece and incorporated it into Greek philosophy. From Pythagoras the school of Alexandrian was founded and later still the Gnostic school. The Brahmins of India were well known for their astronomy and geometry and it is thought Pythagoras learnt his famous formula from the them.

The link between Hindu teaching and Greek Philosophy was so evident that even the French and German philosophers were being heavily influenced by the Brahmins teachings. Philosophers such as Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Freud and Jung draw form Arthur Schopenhauver (c. 1788-1860) who lived his life by the Hindu philosophies and whose book so inspired Adolf Hitler he took the Hindu Swastika as his own when he came to power.

On the 2nd March 1780 a lecture was given before the Royal academy of Edinburgh by a mathematician of the University of Edinburgh Professor John Playfair entitled “Remarks on the Astronomy of the Brahmins”

Plato was also a dedicated reincarnationalist and studied beside Pythagoras. Aristotle a disciple of Plato borrowed greatly from Pythagorean theories and adding some of his own wrote in his book “Generation of Animals” our first clear view of the roots of modern Evolution.

“Nature, gradually, step by step, developed from inanimate substances to living creatures.”

Darwin quotes Aristotle in the preface of his sixth edition of “origin of species” highlighting the Aristotle influence in his work.

The enlightenment period in Edinburgh was so influenced by a revival of Greek philosophies it caused the town to acquire the name “Athens of the North.”

Among the leading intellectuals of the day Hume and Smith was another man by the name James Burnett or as he was also called Lord Monboddo. In 1768 he first suggested the evolutionary connection between humans and monkeys.

“The Oran Outan... that is the animal betwixt a monkey and a man”

Erasmus Darwin, Charles' Grandfather, studied medicine at Edinburgh University and was a Freemason in the same lodge as Burnett. Burnett is known to have drawn influences form Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle and Erasmus drew from Burnett. Erasmus' poetic writings show clear signs of the evolutionary concept from first cause right through to mankind.

The idea of the origin of plants and animals from non living matter by gradual operation of natural causes over long periods of time had long been in the making. What therefore did Darwin add to this theory to catapult it into a mainstream belief system?

Darwin differed from his predecessors on 3 points.

1.

His predecessors postulate first cause of life by natural causes. Darwin starts with the assumption of life already. He never hypothesises a natural process for the first cause instead he attributes that to God and suggests instead that all life had a common ancestor.
2.

His predecessors suggested an advancement of species more in line with the Hindu thinking of internal conciousness and the willing of oneself on in the struggle for advancement. Darwin suggests instead natural selection as the machine to drive his theory. Survival of the fittest, through the laws of nature.
3.

His predecessors suggest that new species would appear suddenly. Darwin suggests a process of small changes over long periods of time changing one species gradually into another.

What Darwin postulated therefore was that except for the first cause God is completely removed from this world, distant and unconcerned. Perhaps this thinking came out of grief over the death of his daughter, trying to connect her death with the living and active God of the Bible. Far easier to see God as distant and not involved in his Creation.

So Darwen's theory provides the following principles.

Whether vegetable or animal like gives birth to like but in the birthing process variation occurs having either a positive affect on the species, negative or non at all (this we now know more as mutations in genetic code – basically copying errors). Competition for food and space within the species and its habitat gives rise to a struggle for survival. In this struggle only the fittest survive and those with positive variations would have the edge on the population, advancing the species.

This whole process negates the need for intelligence and requires no meaning or purpose but just an ever present struggle in a dog eat dog world.

Where does that leave us as the Church. How should we react to this theory. How can we match up this Hindu and naturalistic world view to the God of the Bible. How can a teaching of unintelligent matter following a set of natural laws without design or direction produce intelligence fit with the Biblical account. The answer is it doesn't!

This reincarnation circle of life and death has no founding in the Bible. Death is not something God imposes in his creation as a mechanism to advance species but the result of our sin and rebellion.

When we decided to rebel against the creator and sustainer of spiritual and physical life what else can we expect but spiritual and physical death - separation? Instead of that being the end, the last chapter God gives Grace. He continues to sustain our lives even in our rebellion to the praise of His Glory leaving us not without Hope. God the Father sent Jesus the Son into this world to complete the justice for our rebellion. To take the full measure of God the Father's wrath in our place. With Justice satisfied there is no longer a separation between us and God. What does that mean for us? It means Good News. It means that despite our rebellion against God and the incurring separation all that can be reversed by accepting what Jesus did on the cross in our place. We can experience what the Bible calls eternal life, that is a knowledge of God worked out through relationship. No longer is there a separation that we caused through out rebellion, through out sin.