Darwin's Tomb

An important figure in the development of the flawed paradigm of positivistic materialism was Charles Darwin.

Charles Darwin had a big question: How do organisms develop? As he wandered amid the strange turtles and lizards in the Galapagos Islands of Ecuador, he was struck by their amazing variety. How did they change and adapt? And yet, he was no atheist. Scientists want natural explanations for phenomena. Darwin’s ideas would become the basis for a powerful attack n theism, but this was not his original intention. In fact, he was a pious man who had studied theology, but wanted to find a more naturalistic explanation for what he called the “Origin of the Species.”

Darwin was obsessed with the idea of change, transmutation, and adaptation. He later called his idea “Evolution,” and decided that the mechanism for the transmutation of species had to do with what he called “natural selection.” Nature selected the members of a species who were more expert at survival and their genetic material would continue to reproduce. Reproduction, natural selection, and survival would drive the process of evolution over generations as older life forms died out, making way for new variations and mutations. Over millions of years of geological time, certain species would become extinct; others would thrive. This idea became the seed for the Darwinian revolution, a new paradigm shift which changed the way biologists thought about and analyzed life forms. By removing supernatural influence from their discussion, they were freed from the old Biblical taboos. Science unchained could advance on the path to truth. According to Darwin’s view species are transformed when their members adapt to their environment gradually. Successful members of the species reproduce and their gene pools survive. Over time the unsuccessful members of the species disappear. This transformation within species leads to further transformations. Completely new species evolve over millions of years. While Darwin was ignorant of heredity, botanists would substantiate the idea that evolutionary changes at the genetic level drive changes within species. Competition for survival, “The law of the jungle” or “Survival of the fittest” was the mechanism driving natural selection. Variation was driven by chance, genetic superiority, and survival of the fittest.

Darwin’s views began to gel in the form of a new paradigm which stands juxtaposed in opposition to the Bible stories of creation. They were seized upon by those who had felt oppressed by church doctrines and taboos which prohibited them from properly studying natural phenomenon. And yet, while Darwinism is considered to be the point of departure for modern science, his arguments are tautological.

Natural selection decides which genes continue the species. The survival of the fittest determines who is selected. Selection favors the fittest. Who are the fittest? Those who survive. This is quite obviously a circular argument, of the kind despised by scientists who abhor philosophy. St. Anselm formulated the “ontological” argument that states that God exists because we cannot imagine a world without God. Even if we imagine a world without God, we must still posit the existence of God in order to imagine a world without Him. Therefore he must exist. The ontological argument is no longer considered as a kind of strong “proof” for God’s existence. It is considered as a useful rationale for faith. In the same way, Darwin’s circular argument is a useful rationale for faith in the idea of rational solutions. We believe that there is probably a good natural explanation for everything; there is no need for a supernatural explanation. We use Darwin’s natural selection as a kind of jumping off point. But this is by no means “science.” It is simply a good rationale for proceeding along scientific lines. Darwin, of course, was no fool and understood many of the problems with his argument. But he felt it pointed the way to better natural explanations; in the end, he felt natural explanations were better than supernatural ones. This attitude later became enshrined in positivism, the philosophical engine responsible for many of our materialistic points of view today. Darwin’s attempts at naturalistic solutions did not take “consciousness” into consideration as a problem. He had his doubts about God and the soul, but in the end, he went to Church.

When Hollywood Silent Film star W.C. Fields, a known atheist, was found reading the Bible  when hospitalized for his alcoholism, a friend asked, “Bill, what are you doing?”

“Insurance,” replied the old vaudeville star. “I'm looking for loopholes.”

Darwin’s piety was his insurance. While he spawned an idea that would be seized on as the strongest opposition to theism, and while he had his doubts, he was nominally religious. As a respected member of England's upper class,  Darwin's insurance policy included burial in the holiest place in all of England.  I know this because I visited his tomb. Charles Darwin is buried in Westminster Abbey. Visitors to that noble cathedral can walk over his head on their way to the altar.

When I entered the church as a young brahmachari in 1982, I wore a hat to cover my shaved head. An altar boy dressed in velvet red bade me remove my hat and directed me to walk around, lest I profane the tomb of Charles Robert Darwin with my steps.  I was careful to respect his remains, but I still find his arguments lacking. He was, after all, a man.  John Milton, in “Paradise Lost”tried to justify the ways of God to men. If Milton may have failed, he has the consolation of lying close to Darwin. Both men are buried close together in Westminster, along with their imperfect arguments

If Miltons arguments for puritanical Christianity often fail, so do those of Darwin which are circular: To say that "I am fit because I survive and that I survive because I am fit" tells us nothing. It is a simple shadow dance in meaningless logic. A=B=A.  See this link: Darwin's folly.

Take the case of altruism.  Recent studies have shown that humans are almost innately altruistic. The theologians of Darwinism conclude that altruism is an important genetic characteristic. We have been selected to survive among all the animals for our altruism, they argue. But if tomorrow this view is refuted and it is found that we aren’t really altruistic at all, there is no problem for evolutionary biologists. They will simply conclude that altruism is not an important characteristic for survival. Since survival of the fittest means “the law of the jungle,” lack of altruism will be construed as essential for survival. So explanations of so-called natural selection are useless tautologies. They may help in constructing rationales for further study, but in and of themselves they lack science and are no better than the “ontological argument” of Saint Anselm.

St. Anselm

Saint Anselm's Ontological Argument