Shuan,
You recently stated, "That two persons (Darwin and Wallace), working
independently in different parts of (the) world, came up (with) the
same theory, significantly boosts the conclusion that the theory of
evolution follows from the evidence, rather than is an a priori
conclusion." Here is Darwin's reasoning from the evidence (as quoted
by Michael from a statement dated 1844):
"...it becomes highly improbable that they (the myriads of organisms)
have been separately created by individual acts of the will of a
Creator."
At that time Wallace was certainly agnostic, if not atheist. His
'Archimedian experience' occurred at Ternate (Halmahera, Indonesia)
during a 'sharp attack of intermittent fever'. He wrote, at the time:
"Now, the new idea or principle which Darwin had arrived at twenty
years before, and which occurred to me at this time, answers all these
questions and solves all these difficulties, and it is because it does
so, and also because it is in itself self-evident and absolutely
certain, that it has been accepted by the whole scientific world as
affording a true solution of the great problem of the origin of the
species."
So we see that what Darwin deemed to be 'highly improbable' had
become, for Wallace, 'self-evident and absolutely certain'. Clearly
both were jubilant in believing that their logic had led them to the
one inevitable conclusion! However, for the Christian to be taken in
by that form of reasoning is (or should be) unthinkable. In Isaiah
55:8,9 we read, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my
ways your ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the
earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your
thoughts." Might God have created all the 'kinds' separately? Of
course He might! So your claimed 'double indemnity' must carry
little conviction.
Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913) has been described as 'one of the
forgotten fathers of modern science'; he was a avid and meticulous
researcher in many fields, and prolific writer. Indeed, following his death it
was suggested that he should be buried in Westminster Abbey, beside
Charles Darwin, but his wife and family (expressing his own wishes)
declined. However, as with Isaac Newton, there is what many would
consider to be a 'darker side' to Wallace, and it is appropriate that
it is aired here. I speak of his interest in the occult. From the age
of 43 - some 7 years after the publication of 'The Origin...' - he was
a spiritualist, and remained so until his death.
Here are two extracts from his papers in defence of miracles and of the
reality of the supernatural:
"It is time that the 'derisive and unexamining incredulity' which has
hitherto existed should give way to a less dogmatic and more
philosophical spirit, or history will again have to record the melancholy
spectacle of men, who should have known better, assuming to limit the
discovery of new powers and agencies in the universe, and deciding,
without investigation, whether other men's observations are true or false."
[see http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/S174.htm]
"That the public at large should thus deal with new and unpopular
inquiries is not to be wondered at; but that philosophers and men of
science should act in the same unscientific and unphilosophical spirit is
truly extraordinary." [see http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/S191.htm]
Further, his two papers "Spiritualism and Science"
[http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/S219.htm] and "Are the Phenomena of
Spiritualism in Harmony with Science"
[http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/S379.htm] make interesting reading.
The Bible tells us all we really need to know about the supernatural. On
the other hand, Wallace - whose inquiring mind clearly knew no bounds -
preferred the experiential approach of the seance and other occult
practices. He marvelled at the fact that so many of his fellows insisted
on regarding certain naturally occurring phenomena as 'out of bounds'
for the respectable scientist - an instance of what we would now refer
to as 'cognitive dissonance'.
How are we, as Christians, to interpret the phenomenon of CD in this
context? It seems to me to be positive evidence for the reality of the
supernatural - and, in particular, for the being and sovereignty of God.
For Wallace - a front-line scientist and reliable witness - the
supernatural was fact. However, it seems clear that that realisation did
not lead to the proper and logical conclusion!
Sincerely,
Vernon
Shuan Rose wrote:
> Its worth pointing out once again that Darwin was an orthodox Anglican who
> intended to go into the ministry when he went on the Beagle and later began
> convinced about evolution.
> Moreover, another person, Alfred Russell Wallace, independently came to same
> conclusion as Darwin re evolution by natural selection. They coauthored
> together the paper that fist advanced the theory of evolution by natural
> selection. For more info, see
>
> http://www.inform.umd.edu/PBIO/darwin/darwindex.html
>
> That two persons, working independently in different parts of world, came up
> the same theory, significantly boosts the conclusion that the theory of
> evolution follows from the evidence, rather than is an a priori conclusion.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Roberts [mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk]
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 12:10 PM
> To: Walter Hicks; Shuan Rose
> Cc: vernon.jenkins@virgin.net; Asa
> Subject: Re: A matter of trust?
>
> This is too simplistic. What Acanthostega showed was that legs preceeded
> walking on land. I t provides link in a sequence from marine/pond fish to a
> terestial amphibian. Of course the fossil record does not show one species
> merging into another and more than the archeological dig on a battlefield
> will show one soldier killing another. What it does show are a variety of
> sequences of minor changes over time so that one must postulate either an
> external force returning at frequent intervals to do the annual model revamp
> or there is common descent. This is what Darwin wrote in 1844;
>
> "I must premise that, according to the view ordinarily received, the myriads
> of organisms, which have during past and present times peopled this world,
> have been created by so many distinct acts of creation. . That all the
> organisms of this world have been produced on a scheme is certain from their
> general affinities; and if this scheme can be shown to be the same with that
> which would result from allied organic beings descending from common stocks,
> it becomes highly improbable that they have been separately created by
> individual acts of the will of a Creator. For as well might it be said that,
> although the planets move in courses conformably to the law of gravity, yet
> we ought to attribute the course of each planet to the individual act of the
> will of the Creator. "
>
> What is interesting is to read his notebooks of 1836 to 1838 and see how he
> gradually became totally convinced that evolution had occurred. It was not
> by assuming evolution in the first place.
> Again I think many have successfully cast doubt on evolution implying it is
> an a priori decision. Historically evolution came slowly and the ideas of
> Lamarck , E Darwin and Chambers (Vestiges) were not accepted because of the
> lack of evidence.
>
> Michael
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 25 2002 - 18:41:03 EDT