Darwin, Darwinism, and Uncertainty by Charles M. Woolf

Abstract

NEWMAN STUDIES JOURNAL 96 book reViews Darwin, Darwinism, and Uncertainty. By Charles M.Woolf. Chino Valley,AZ: One World Press,2012.Pages viii +168.Paper:ISBN–13:978–1–938043–02–4.$11.95. This book is a brief introduction to a larger philosophical and theological issue surrounding Darwinian theory—the role of chance in evolution and how this bears on a theistic view of the human person. The first portion of the book (94 pages) is a summary of Darwin’s biography,discussing his scientific achievements from his early work aboard the HMS Beagle to his final work on earthworms and orchids. Effort is made to relate this work to his changing views on science and religion and to some of the controversy surrounding his views on theism and naturalism. For those aware of the voluminous literature on these matters, there is little to note here. The author has taken account of the recent masterful biography by Janet Browne,1 but has not attempted to delve more deeply into the Darwin revealed by the massive Darwin Correspondence project.2 As a result, reliance is placed on the now badly obsolete Life and Letters, edited by Francis Darwin in 1887.3 The biographical sketch forms the backdrop to the two succeeding sections of the book, with Part II giving a brief sketch of scientific theories of the origins of the universe,running from the Big Bang,through the early“RNAWorld,”the origins of life, and the subsequent development of living beings up to the mass extinctions of the Cambrian and Cretaceous periods. The third portion of the book—“A Probabilistic Model for the Origin of Life Forms on Earth”—is the intended culmination of the argument.The author here plays on a theme made familiar by Richard Dawkins in his The Blind Watchmaker4 — human beings are the product of “the blind action and non-directionality of natural selection” (153). This is assumed to create considerable problems for all theistic religions, especially the Abrahamic traditions. John Henry Newman himself had seen the weakness of this way of posing questions even before Darwin, writing in his lecture“Christianity and Physical Science”in 1858 that “PhysicalTheology...is pretty much what it was two thousand years ago. . . .; it has been taken out of its place, has been put too prominently forward, and thereby has almost been used as an instrument against Christianity. . . .”5 In an overly brief concluding discussion, the author develops a probabilistic model of creation which “allows Darwinism to be made compatible with various different religions throughout the world whose 1 E. Janet Browne, Charles Darwin, Volume I, Voyaging (London: Jonathan Cape, 1995),Volume II, The Power of Place (London: Jonathan Cape, 2002). 2 Available at: http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/. 3 The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 3 volumes, edited by his son, Francis Darwin (London: John Murray, 1887), available at: http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/published/1887_Letters_F1452/ 1887_Letters_F1452.1.html. 4 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker:Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York:W.W. Norton, 1986). 5 JHN,Idea of a University,450–451,available at:www.newmanreader.org/works/idea/article7.html. I am indebted to the excellent article by Ryan Vilbig,“John Henry Newman’s View of the ‘Darwin Theory’,” (Newman Studies Journal 8 (2011); 52–61) for leading me to this quotation and other comments by Newman on Darwin cited in this article. 97 doctrines and practices are not driven by creation myths and the primitive science of ancient times” (159, italics in original). There is little in this book to recommend to the readership of this journal. Like so many commentators whose perspective has been formed from a combination of Darwinian polemics against the flat-footed natural theology of Victorian England and an unreflective elevation of the concept of “chance” in relation to evolution, the whole issue of “creation” as understood in the central Judeo-Christian tradition is misconceived.“Evolution” and “creation” are presented as opposing explanations at the same level, and we simply replay a tedious story of oppositions that runs back to the conflicts of Stoics and Epicureans in Antiquity.6 Newman with rare perception, had...