Darwin, The Final Nail In The Coffin For Newtonian Religion - Thesis Example

Running Head: DARWIN AND NEWTONIAN RELIGION Darwin: The Final Nail in the Coffin for Newtonian Religion Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Abstract 3 Worksheet 3 Background 4 Thesis 5 Outline of Procedures 5 Argument 6 Newtonian Religion and Natural Theology 6 William Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy 7 Darwin’s Mechanism of Random Mutation and Natural Selection 7 Darwin’s Secondary Causes 9 Conclusion 10 Summary 10 References 11 Abstract This paper will provide a logical presentation, analysis and explanation of the reasons why Charles Darwin provided the final nail in the coffin of Newtonian religion through his refutation of the teleological approach of Newton and his followers. The major premise lies in Darwin’s Mechanism of Random Mutation and Natural Selection and his explanation of Secondary Causes, wherein he disproves the notions of Creation and Design. Because Creation and Design—the basis of Newtonian religion—have been proven to be false; then I conclude that Newtonian religion is likewise wrong in its assumption of passive matter needing the Will of God to set it in motion, that gravity is the ultimate proof of the supernatural act of God, and that the design of the solar system warrants a “providential God” (Olson, 2004, pp. 123-124). My argument, which favors Mechanism instead of Creation and Design, will further be supported by the weakness of William Paley’s watchmaker argument (Bendz, 1996). Worksheet Premises 1. Darwin proved that the argument for Inteligent Design is false through his Mechanism of Random Mutation and Natural Selection. 2. Darwin disproved the necessity for the belief in Divine Creation through his introduction of Secondary Causes. 3. If Design and Creation are true, then the idea of Newtonian Religion is true; which it is not. Conclusion (Thesis) 4. The foundations of Newtonian Religion are just wrong; Darwin was the final nail in the coffin for this belief system. Background The publication of Charles Darwin’s writing The Origin of Species in 1859, wherein he proposed his Evolution Theory and evidences that support his findings, sparked the ancient debate between scientists and the religious (ONeil, 1996). Even before Darwin’s controversial publication, Boucher de Perthes has already put forth archaeologocal artifacts that support the Evolution Theory (ONeil, 1996). However, it was dismissed by scientists and the clergy as they go against what has generally been taught and believed—that God was responsible for all Creation (ONeil, 1996). Thus, Darwin had reopened the age-old debate between science and religion—something that was thought to be reconciled once upon a time through the practice of natural theology, wherein Sir Isaac Newton was a proponent and believer. Natural theology is the process of “moving from the observable and created to the unobservable and uncreated” as a way of establishing the existence of God (Hart, 2002). Until now, there is still a standing discussion among atheists and the religious, with the scientists being caught in the middle—as the religious aims to use scientific findings as a proof of the existence of God and the atheists, likewise, using science and logic to disprove the notion of a Deity. Scientists who have a firm belief in God have been torn between these two separate schools of thought. Hence, there is a need to look back and trace where the argument came from in order to come to a conclusion on whether science and religion can coalesce and form a common ground in the form of natural theology. I hope to take a stand on this ancient debate through the exploration of Newtonian religion, as a pioneer of Natural Theology, and the refutation of its belief system through Darwin’s Mechanism of Random Mutation and Natural Selection, his conceptualization of Secondary Causes and the weakness of the watchmaker argument of William Paley, a known natural theologist. However, it must be noted that I am in no way attempting to disprove the notion that a scientist can become a believer and vise versa, as there have been many renowned scientists who are also devout in their belief in a God. Thesis Because the notions of Creation and Design, as purported by Darwin, are false, then it follows that Newtonian Religion—based on its ultimate belief in the creative powers of God through the concept of matter being passive and in the design of the universe as dependent on a the providential and supernatural powers of a Deity, a proof of which is gravity—is also incorrect as its assumptions are proven to be false. Outline of Procedures First off, I will provide an explanation of what Newtonian religion is and the foundation of its beliefs. Next, I will define what natural theology is as it is unavoidable to encounter this term in discussing Newtonian religion. Next, because Newton’s argument comes from a teleological approach, this term will also be clarified. In the next section, I will present William Paley’s watchmaker argument—a known natural theologist—to show its congruence to Newtonian beliefs. Then, I will discuss Darwin’s Mechanism of Random Mutation and Natural Selection Argument as a refutation to the Design principle of Newtonian religion and the concept of natural theology. I will subsequently follow this up by justifying the weakness of Paley’s watchmaker argument as a way of further consolidating my argument against Newtonian religion. Next, I will show how Darwin proved that Creation is unnecessary in his Evolution Theory through his premise of Secondary Causes. I will then explain briefly, yet clearly, how Darwin had proven that Creation and Design are false; hereby strengthening the argument that because Newtonian religion was founded on the notions of Creation and Design, which are false, then Newtonian religion must also be a fallacy. Then I will conclude by summing up all the aforementioned premises in a simple and clear statement that, I hope, will disprove any doubts as to the veracity of the thesis I had proposed and to the succeeding conclusion. Argument Newtonian Religion and Natural Theology Newtonian religion arose as Newton was contacted by Richard Bentley in an effort to abide by the will of Robert Boyle to conduct a series of lectures that will discuss “the truth of Christian Religion in General” (Olson, 2004, p. 122). This prompted Newton to correspond with Bentley, wherein the latter published Newton’s views, together with his own in A Confutation of Atheism from the Origin and Frame of the World (Olson, 2004, p. 122). First, it states that Newton is in agreement with corpuscular philosophers in their assumption that matter is essentially passive as it needs the supernatural powers of God to act as an impetus for motion (Olson, 2004, p. 123). Their second argument on the existence of God is that gravity in itself is proof that God exists in that it must be dependent on “the supernatural and miraculous Influence of Almighty God” (Olson, 2004, p. 123). Lastly, Newton believed that the imperfection of the design of the solar system perpetuates a providential adjustment that can only come from its Creator, who is God (Olson, 2004, p. 124). Newton’s approach is essentially teleological as it proposes that “there is design, purpose, or finality in the world, that effects are in some manner intentional, and that no complete account of the universe is possible without reference to final causes” (Dubray, 1912). Therefore, “there must be an intelligent cause of the world” and here, Newton asserts that it is God (Dubray, 1912). It can be seen here how Newtonian religion used science as a means of proving the existence of God; and these proofs were translated to the concepts of creation and design. Moreover, this treatment of Newtonian science as a way of explaining the unexplained and unobservable (God) manifests Newton’s interest in natural theology (Olson, 2004, p. 122). “The study of Gods word in the Bible, and of his works in nature, were considered to be part of the same truth” (University of Cambridge, 2007). Hence, it can be said that Newtonian religion is a form of natural theology—the essence of which is the use of the observable to explicate the being of an unobservable, which is God (Hart, 2002). However, because Newtonian religion and its basis of natural theology presented many loopholes, it easily dwindled as fast as it emerged. William Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy William Paley’s watchmaker argument—the offspring of natural theology, much like newtonian religion was—is a controversial and much refuted one. For one, it is not an argument but an analogy, and a weak one at that (Bendz, 1996). He started out by stating that if ever he stumbled upon a stone, then he can surmise that it has been there since time immemorial; however, if he saw a watch by the path, then he would not anymore have the same assumption as its complexity differs from that of the stone (Bendz, 1996). Hence, its complex design perpetuated a designer (Bendz, 1996). Furthermore, he states that: Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation (Paley, 1802 cited in Bendz, 1996). This is central to Paley’s argument in that the watch is likened to the world and because the universe is designed so elaborately in that it exceeds computation, then there must be a great Watchmaker/Designer—and that is God (Bendz, 1996). Darwin’s Mechanism of Random Mutation and Natural Selection Charles Darwin unavoidably refuted Newton’s teleological approach to religion as he proposed the mechanistic process of Random Mutation and Natural Selection, wherein he explained the existence of the different forms of life by stating that more complex creatures mutate by chance from very simple ones in that their genetic codes have made way for the suppression of certain traits and the dominance of others and as this mutation occurs over time, the characteristics of that creature that best aids in the survival of its species become more pronounced and common, respectively (Behe, 2008). Darwin’s evolutionary theories have no purpose and design in that everything happens by chance and not intentionally, unlike what Newtonian religion believed that matter, being passive, could not have moved/survived without the providential guidance of God (Bendz, 1996). Thus, it disproves the notion of Design as it explains that the existence of the universe as we know it was brought about by a natural form of selection that happened by chance and that a creature can be an “author to itself” (Hart, 2002). Our best evidence shows that Darwin’s mechanism of random mutation and natural selection does not mimic design. Rather, like a bull in a china shop, random mutation tends to destroy delicate systems which, serendipitously, can occasionally help an organism survive in desperate circumstances (Behe, 2008). Even modern science has attested to this fact as, for example, humans have been found to have developed useful genetic changes, from our battle with Malaria in the past thousands of years, that enable us to more effectively fight the malarial parasite (Behe, 2008). This further strengthens Darwin’s theories that evolution happens by chance and through time as a means for species to battle extinction and not because of an intelligent design. Likewise, Paley’s watchmaker analogy is completely false1 in that a watchmaker has prescience; he designs cogs and springs with the intention and purpose of creating a watch—something that a supernatural being could not have done with nature as it was proven to have evolved by chance (Dawkins, 1986 cited in Bendz, 1996). For Paley’s analogy to become true, the creator of the universe would then have to be a Blind Watchmaker as the world has evolved through the mechanistic process of random mutation and natural selection (Dawkins, 1986 cited in Bendz, 1996). Darwin’s Secondary Causes Having thus refuted the Newtonian principle of Design, I will now show how their notion of Divine Creation is also false. In this excerpt from Darwin’s The Origin of Species, he explained why divine intervention is not necessary in the rationalization of a person’s life and death: To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Cambrian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled (Darwin, 1860 cited in Maurer, 2004). Here, Darwin claims that the production and extinction of all beings can better be explained by secondary causes—rather than an ultimate one in the form of the Divine Creator—through the laws of nature, which includes random mutation and natural selection (Maurer, 2004). Furthermore, he opposes the notion of special creation by a Divine Being and gives importance, rather, to the ability of an individual, for instance, to survive, as he views human beings as “nothing in themselves [when] miraculously created but as somethings that are victorious in the struggle for life” (Maurer, 2004). Hence, through Random Mutation, Natural Selection and Secondary Causes, it cannot be denied that the premises of Creation and Design put forth by Newton and his followers are false. Conclusion Because Newtonian religion is based on the principles of Creation and Design; and it has been proven, through Darwin’s mechanistic random mutation, natural selection and secondary causes, that the concepts of both Creation and Design are false; then it must follow that Newtonian religion is also false. Summary Many arguments had been made against Newtonian religion as it presented numerous loopholes that were easy to refute. Darwin’s Evolution Theory, which states how different creatures came to be through random mutation and natural selection disproves the notion of an intelligent and intentional Design within the universe that is supposedly by the supernatural powers of God. Furthermore, the watchmaker analogy of William Paley was a fallacy as it contradicted itself in its proposition that like a watch designed by a watchmaker, the universe was also designed by God—as it has been proven that the world evolved by chance through random mutation and natural selection, thus, for the analogy to be true, the watchmaker must be blind. To complete the fallacy of newtonian religion, Darwin then proved how Divine Creation is not indispensable to the explanation of the survival and extinction of creatures; in fact, it is not necessary at all as they can be better explained through secondary causes that are exemplified in the various laws of nature—random mutation and natural selection being key components of these laws of nature. Therefore, because Darwin had proved that Intelligent Design and Divine Creation are false; and Newtonian religion was founded on the belief on Intelligent Design and Divine Creation; then it can be concluded that Newtonian religion is likewise false. References Behe, M. (2008). Darwins Mechanism Doesnt Produce Design. Retrieved December 1, 2008 from http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/darwin-s-mechanism-doesn-t-produce-design Bendz, F. (1996). The Watchmaker Argument. Retrieved December 1, 2008 from http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm Dubray, C. (1912). Teleology. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Hart, T. E. (2002). The Natural Theology of Paley. Retrieved December 1, 2008 from http://www.victorianweb.org/religion/paley1.html Maurer, A. (2004). Darwin, Thomists and Secondary Causality. The Review of Metaphysics 57(30): 491+. Olson, R. A. (2004). Science and Religion, 1450-1900. USA: Greenwood Press. O’Neil, D. (2008). Darwin and Natural Selection. Retrieved December 1, 2008 from http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_2.htm University of Cambridge (2007). Darwin and design: historical essay. Retrieved December 1, 2008 from http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/110/104/ Read More