February 12, 1809, Charles Robert Darwin was born in Shrewsbury, England. If family intellectual and religious heritage count for much, and of course it does, then it should not have been difficult to forecast Darwin's future: on his paternal side was the great English freethinking and atheistic Darwin clan, and on his maternal side was the more genteel, but still freethinking, "Anglican" Unitarians, "Anglican" meaning just respectful enough not to be completely ostracized by society (of course, being wealthy landowners did help!). Since there were no established schools for the children of freethinking atheists, Darwin attended the local Unitarian school in the chapel where his family spent Sunday mornings.

The Darwin men were doctors and this was to be Charles' future too. At the appropriate age, off to medical school he went - and he did not like it one bit. There were two significant problems: he couldn't stand the sight of blood and he loved natural history. Natural history was popular in mid-19^th century England, a hobby reserved for aristocratic, educated men with the kind of time on their hands that would allow for reading, field trips, classification and attending meetings. All of which Charles did but he also had passion - he had a passionate zeal to know more, as much as he could possibly know about the natural world. And so despite receiving his degree as a medical doctor, he did not practice medicine. Instead, he looked for a way to practice the loves of his life - biology and geology. To respectfully accomplish this, and still have the illusion that he was working, it was arranged that he would become a country parish priest that required minimal work while allowing him plenty of time for biogeological classification and study.

But he was saved from this fate when in 1832 he got what he'd been looking for - a "field trip" that would not only change his life, but set the agenda for the rest of his life. He boarded the HMS Beagle for a 5 year, 40 thousand mile trip around the world - indeed, it would be a trip that would challenge and change the thinking of humankind forever. Darwin returned from that trip knowing the direction his findings would take him: he'd made discoveries that would lead to his eventual publication of The Origin of Species. But here's what happened: for more than 21 years after his trip he said nothing or very little! Why? Of course he needed to do further study, of course he needed to write, and there were other things that as a scholar and scientist he had to do. But the main reason he didn't rush to publication (21 years!) is fear. He knew what his findings and theory would prompt. In fact, so emotionally confused, distraught and tormented was he during this period, that he called himself "The Devil's Chaplain," as if out of anticipation for the reception he would get.

Why? I mean, what was it that he'd found and was going to say that was going to be so mindblowing and earthshaking? In one respect, there was nothing new about evolution which had been around for a long, long time. Natural history is nothing but evolution - the slow evolving of the planet and life forms. In fact, the word evolution was commonly used and understood as describing a part of science that Darwin was refuting. It was because of this that Darwin, in his book, used the word only once - it's the last word of the last sentence (and I've reprinted it for you in the bulletin, as the "Reflection.").

No, not evolution but natural selection - that was Darwin's topic. And there were two ideas in natural selection that Darwin knew would be dangerous, drawing the wrath of all Christians and the Church of England. First, natural selection is random - it is not planned, there is no design to evolution, in other words God did not predestine the world and life as we know it. And second, Darwin went further than anyone else had dared to go when he wrote that human beings are just part of the mix, simply part of the cosmos - we evolved just like everything else. Actually, one of the reasons why Darwin finally did publish Origin was that another Englishman was about to present a similar book, but he had not gone as far as Darwin. Darwin published in December 1859. The first printing of 1250 copies sold out in a day! In his lifetime, the book went through 6 printings.

Darwin understood the reaction. This was not a surprise, though he dreaded it. He had learned about similar kinds of reactions, we all have. Geography had shown that the world was round, and the church had resisted. Astronomy had convincingly demonstrated that the sun, not the earth, was our solar system's center, and the church had resisted. Geology had proven that the earth was much older than previously thought, and the church had resisted. The tension between scientific discovery and church doctrine was documented and well known.

When The Origin was released, it's reported that a member of one professional science organization said of Darwin's Natural Selection: "Let's hope that it is not true. But if it is, let us hope that it does not become generally known." (Miller, 210) Fat chance. There have always been those, in every age, who just can't and won't accept and integrate the blessings of science. And so, public debate is opened and everyone gets to weigh in on the issue. Sometimes the discussion gets ugly, people get hurt, the semantics, facts, and opinions get twisted. It was no different for Darwin. Here's a story that makes the point:

As well as Topeka, Kansas where last summer the State Board of Education took a page from "Soapy Sam's" textbook. Up until Kansas, anti-evolutionists, known as Creationists, usually lobbied to have Creationism taught instead of evolution, or to have them both taught as science. This approach often resulted in defeat. But in Kansas, Creationists took a new tact. They asked that references to evolution be removed from science textbooks and that knowledge of evolution no longer be required in order to pass state tests. Much to the nation's surprise - Kansas did it!

Maybe we shouldn't have been surprised. Polls indicate that 40% of Americans favor teaching "creation science" instead of evolution in public schools. 68% would like to see creationism taught alongside evolution.(Xn. Century, 8.25.99) This is what biology teacher Roger DeHart had been doing at his high school in Seattle. For 10 years in his class, he'd been teaching a 2 week section on evolution. On the last day, he would talk about the branch of creationism known as "intelligent design." He'd present the arguments in favor of an intelligent architect, then ask his students to write a position paper on evolution or intelligent design - they chose and had to justify their answer. Actually, I thought this sounded pretty clever, reasonable, even interesting. But parents didn't. The threat of a lawsuit stating that "intelligent design" is religious and illegal stopped his stimulating approach and it's back to evolution-as-usual. My point is that both sides of this issue can go to extremes.

So what's the problem here? Really, the challenge hasn't changed that much since 1859. Here's how I see it. For the creationist there is really only one idea that they find truly and completely objectionable - all the others stem from this one dangerous idea of Darwin's: Natural Selection argues that God did not create human beings complete, whole and instantaneously. As they see it, without this claim orthodox western religion and creationism lose their unique and personal relationship with God (as described in Genesis and popularized in renditions like the one we heard by James Weldon Johnson). Evolutionists state that humankind is not at the center of the cosmos, but then we already learned that when the sun and not the earth became the center of our solar system and we discovered that our solar system is probably just one of millions!

This is the defining idea between the two groups and it's what makes creation science an oxymoron. Evolution, as a science, asks questions and pursues answers. This is all that Darwin was doing. Creationism starts with an answer - God's divine creation of humankind - and then seeks ways to justify their answer. That's not science, that's not even good theology, that's not even faith for we have known from the beginning that the handmaiden of faith is doubt.

Actually, I find two really dangerous ideas in Creationism (and all of its branches). First, Creationism promotes theistic dualism - that is, God's out there and we're down here; God created the world, we are in the world. What happens as a result of this dichotomy is that nothing is of value but God, who is so far removed from life to be is virtually irrelevant to living. I mean, why should we care about a God who is so removed from life?

Second, because of this distance and through what I believe is a misreading of the Genesis creation story, humankind has decided to take charge putting itself in the center of all living things. Consequently, is it little wonder that we have created an environmental mess on earth. I think the painful reality might be as one person said: "Humans, obviously, are not essential to the existence of life on Earth. Few of our fellow creatures would miss us if we were to disappear." (Fisher in Johns Hopkins Magazine, 2.00)

Truth is, I don't fully understand why orthodox and fundamentalist people of religion are so threatened by evolution. I don't see how or why it undermines theism or the uniqueness of humankind. Actually, we should take hope in knowing that that there are several points of common agreement:

Back when he was considered a science fiction writer, Kurt Vonnegut, in Cat's Cradle offered up this version of our creation:

It's been said that the difference between religion and science is science asks "What is?" Religion asks, "What is the purpose?" We humans are purpose driven creatures, which is to say, we are meaning driven - we have to have meaning to our lives. And when necessary, which it seems is a great deal of the time, we are meaning-makers. "Everything must have a purpose?" asked God. "Then I leave it to you to think of one for all of this." And we've done a pretty good job of coming up with lots of purposes and meanings - there might be as many meanings to "all of this" as there are people here this morning, meanings that would include versions of creationism and evolution.

Darwin died in 1882. He's the only Unitarian that I know of to be interred in London's Westminster Abbey. We could speculate that he knew what he had unleashed on the world in Origin and subsequent volumes. For example, Karl Marx wrote asking if he could dedicate a new printing of Das Kapital to him. Darwin replied, thanks but no thanks. Marx was just one in a long line of movers and shakers that took Darwinian evolution and applied it to realms outside of natural history, something Darwin had great reservations about.

An American who responded most favorably to Darwin was fellow Unitarian Henry Thoreau. Darwin was his kind of guy! And perhaps it was these words from Walden that best spoke of why Thoreau had so admired Darwin - because Darwin had actually done what Thoreau had just nibbled at. From Walden Pond Thoreau wrote:

Darwin had driven life into a corner - and he had unleashed the secrets of life on an unsuspecting public. And what did he find, what was the true account he published? "There is grandeur in this view of life ... from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

© the Rev. Fredric J. Muir
February 13, 2000

Go back to the Sermons Archive or the UUCA Home Page

Send Mail to the Church.