Things that we are not supposed to know about the Father of Evolution!
When the name Darwin is mentioned, we automatically associate his name with evolution and atheism. The most devout follower of Darwinism is in no doubt that Charles Darwin, through scientific experiment, revealed a fundamental truth about life on earth, namely that, all life was the result of random, undirected accidents and mutations and that, as such, mankind had been living a delusion about a creator for millenniums. Those that accepted Darwin’s findings breathed a sigh of relief that they need no longer worry about a fictitious God and his restrictive moral standards. They could have kicked themselves (and their ancestors) for having wasted so many years kneeling in churches, loving their neighbours and talking to the sky, or a cross or a statue. At last, thanks to this champion of science and reason, they were free!
Is that how their master, the Great Darwin felt? Apparently not. Here was a man of intelligence and passion, a man plagued by illness and bereavement, and a man who was driven to find truth. But why was Charles Darwin looking for “the truth”? What was it that made him so uncomfortable in the presence of God that he felt the need to question God’s very existence?
History, especially Darwin’s personal history, reveals something that most people would find surprising, even astonishing. There are things about Darwin that many evolutionists would not like the general public to know.
The decisions and achievements of Charles Darwin have more to do with religion than one would at first suspect. In the accomplishments of this iconic man there is an irony so profound that it seems absurd. It was a combination of peer pressure and the doctrines of the established church which drove Darwin down the path of philosophy and natural selection. Allow me to reflect on some of the key points in Charles Darwin’s life.
Many might be surprised to know that Charles Darwin was not the first intellectual to propose that mankind was descended from previous, inferior life forms. Centuries before, many philosophers and scientists published their ideas about the origins of life. Charles Darwin’s own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, wrote a number of articles which supported the theory of biological evolution. His writings were on a list of literature then banned by the catholic church. Charles Darwin’s father was a churchgoer. In public he was a very religious man but, in private, he had many doubts. One of the reasons for his doubts and his disbelief was the idea of hellfire, the teaching that God tortures people for eternity in fire for things that they have done wrong. Darwin was heavily influenced by his father and it was not long before he too had begun to question such teachings. Throughout Darwin’s life he faced illness and tragedy, losing his beloved daughter when she was very young. The church never gave him reasons for her suffering, they never comforted him with the Biblical promise of the physical resurrection on earth. Instead, they presented him with a wishy-washy story about God selecting children to be with him in heaven, and those that had done wrong being burned in hellfire. Darwin was let down by the churches when he faced his darkest moments of deep despair and pain. The great irony is that the churches were wrong. They were not conveying to the masses what was really written in the Bible. Hellfire is not a biblical teaching (for more on this, please see my article “Heaven, Hell or the earth?), and the Bible definitely does not say that God takes children to be with him in heaven!
Inevitably, once alienated from the church and, supposedly from God too, Darwin brought the full might of science to bear down on the catholic (and protestant) throat.
However, many may be surprised to learn that Charles Darwin did not present his theory on the origin of species as a scientific fact but, on the contrary, humbly acknowledged it's many flaws and inconsistencies. In it's introduction Darwin wrote “This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction.” Darwin was honest in his evaluation of his theory when comparing it to the existing fossil evidence of his time. He wrote “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory,” and that “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” Finally, he concluded “If numerous species ... have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.” Yet, that is exactly what has been confirmed in the fossil record since Darwin's death.
When considering the human eye Darwin wrote “To suppose that the eye ... could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” And on natural instincts of living things, Darwin admitted that they “Are so wonderful that their development will probably appear to the reader a difficulty sufficient to overthrow my whole theory.”
When R.Wallace, the ‘co-discoverer of evolution,’ wrote to Darwin, “Natural selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of the ape, whereas he possesses one very little inferior to that of an average member of our learned society.” Darwin, upset by this admission, replied: “I hope you have not murdered completely your own and my child.”
Despite Darwin's own doubts and admissions, his “Origin of The Species” was seen as a hammer blow to the churches. Once Darwin’s work gained widespread acceptance throughout the scientific establishment, what was the church’s reaction? After an initial period of public fury, they caved in, they recanted their once powerful and obstinate position of authority in science. They accepted the theory of evolution as the mechanism that God had used to create man. In short, they compromised and sold God down the river to preserve their own positions of prominence. Darwin must have been surprised (and possibly a little disappointed), by this victory.
Yet, in the years that have followed the churches surrender, what has been the result of this murder of God?
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was a philosopher who had a profound effect on politics and the shaping of the twentieth century. He was heavily influenced by Darwin’s theory of natural selection. In his book “Philosophy—An Outline- History “, he wrote “The strong, brave, domineering, proud, fit best the society that is to be.” This was an idea that was carried forward by others, most notably a young German chancellor in the 1930’s named “Hitler.“ The book “Milestones of History“ noted that during the next century, “Darwinian ideas formed an integral part of Hitler’s doctrine of racial superiority.” How ironic that a theory that was born from repulsion of religious doctrine and from the suffering of Darwin’s loved ones, was a catalyst for the greatest act of savagery and suffering in history, namely the 2nd world war and the holocaust! How ironic that the religions that were meant to preserve the message of truth and peace found in the Bible, actually forced an individual, by their unbiblical doctrines and hypocritical practices, to conceive of an idea which rejected the teachings of the Bible and led to these monstrous acts. If Darwin could have foreseen the consequences of his brainchild would he have pursued it, I wonder? On his deathbed, it is reported that Darwin regretted the social effects of his own theory and he saw a “Bleak future” for the human race.
Today, it is one of the best kept secrets of the evolution camp that Darwin still believed in a creator up until the day he died. Charles Darwin ended his most fundamental scientific work “The Origin of Species” (1872, 6th edition) with the words: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”
He also wrote “Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.”
In 1879, three years before the end of his life, Darwin wrote that he had “Never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.” In actual fact, Darwin had a deep respect for the Bible and read much of it in his last years.
Ironically, Charles Darwin was buried in Westminster Abbey with a full religious service held. Darwin never killed God, he killed the power of the churches that claim to represent God, churches which, throughout history have hypocritically and, in a very un-Christ like way, slaughtered, burned and imprisoned those that spoke out against them. Those churches (and other religions in the world) have poisoned people against God by their unscriptural doctrines, their unholy political alliances and their profiteering.
But what of the man, Charles Darwin, and his idea? Can God and Darwinism co-exist? Darwinism has not disproved the existence of God, one only has to look around the world to see that the majority of mankind still believe in God. Darwin's theory, eloquent and persuasive though it has proven to be, is still a theory and one which is under considerable attack by many scientists today. Furthermore, with new knowledge about the complexities of cells and the universal forces, many scientists are currently expressing awe for what they are discovering and are re-evaluating their views on evolution and creation. No wonder such historical geniuses such as Einstein, Pasteur and Newton all believed in a creator. (For more on this please see my article “The Enigma of Origins.”)
A famous old saying goes "What a man sows, he reaps." Posterity may ask one day, What did Darwin's ideas, sewn in his own lifetime, cause mankind to reap for the future?
Perhaps only God knows the answer.