The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Darwin at 200
by Richard McBrien on May. 18, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionThere have been several events in North America and around the world marking this year's 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth. I write this week about his significance -- and that of Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx -- for our understanding of who we humans are and where we fit into the broader contexts of nature, the inner psychological universe, and society at large.
Charles Darwin was a biologist who, in his early years, was a believing Christian, albeit of an apparently literalist type. Thus he accepted the fixity of species and their special creation as depicted in the book of Genesis.
But in 1835, after visiting the Galápagos Archipelago (600 miles off the coast of Ecuador in the Pacific Ocean), doubts began to surface in his mind. He had noticed that very small differences were present in the species inhabiting several of the islands (the archipelago consists of thirteen large islands and six smaller ones).
His doubts were reinforced by his additional observations of flora, fauna, and geological formations at widely separated points of the globe.
All living things, Darwin tentatively concluded in his book, The Origins of the Species (1859), have developed from a few extremely simple forms, through a gradual process of natural selection, which involved the adaptations of living things to their often hostile environments.
At first Darwin encountered opposition even from fellow biologists, but eventually all such criticisms collapsed under the weight of data and arguments presented in his later work, The Descent of Man (1871). The only surviving opposition came from fundamentalist Protestants.
By the time of Darwin's death in 1882, many mainline Christians had come to terms with the concept of evolution, viewing it, as the Catholic church generally has done, as entirely compati-ble with Christian faith. Even the highly conservative pontificate of Pius IX did not place any of Darwin's books on the Index of Forbidden Books, nor did this pope condemn evolution in his Syllabus of Errors (1864).
In the 1920s fundamentalists waged a sustained, public battle against Darwinism, with the most dramatic instance being the famous Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee (1925), which pitted the agnostic defense attorney Clarence Darrow against the former presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan.
A public school teacher, John Scopes, had been indicted for teaching evolution in the classroom. He was found guilty, but was later released on a legal technicality. The law itself was repealed in 1967.
In 1950 Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical letter, Humani generis, which, while insisting that all human beings are literally descended from Adam and Eve, pointed out that any scientific explanation of the origin and development of the human species is acceptable to the Catholic faith so long as it does not exclude God from the creative process.
Whatever one thinks of the scientific teaching on evolution, thanks to Darwin we now recognize that we are bodily creatures, not disembodied spirits, and that we are materially linked with the rest of creation, and especially with other living beings.
The survival-of-the-fittest aspect of Darwin's findings has sometimes been wrongly applied by politically conservative theorists to the detriment of the poor, the sick, and the powerless in society. Government, these "social Darwinists" have insisted, has no responsibility to them.
"Social Darwinism" was encapsulated in one of the lines attributed to Ebenezer Scrooge in Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol: "If they would rather die [than go to the poor house], they had better do it and decrease the surplus population."
Charles Darwin was only one of a trio of major figures who have profoundly influenced our understanding of what it means to be human.
Sigmund Freud helped us to see that not everything that appears on the surface of human activity is what is really the case. There is a vast internal universe of hidden psychological drives that affect our thinking and behavior.
These internal forces do not negate free will (except in cases of severe mental imbalance), but they can influence or impair its normal functioning.
Karl Marx, on the other hand, helped us to see that we are part of a larger societal universe where our thinking and behavior are shaped by relationships and events beyond our own making.
Thus, many who live in a relatively prosperous, all-white environment, without the benefit of a critical education, find it difficult to tolerate, much less appreciate, racial and ethnic differences, or to generate any understanding of, and compassion toward, the poor.
Darwin, Freud, and Marx have frequently been portrayed as enemies of the faith. But there is still much to be learned from them.
This 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth serves as a reminder of that.
© 2009 Richard P. McBrien. All rights reserved. Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.
McBrien's friend Obama is a
McBrien's friend Obama is a strong advocate of social darwinism. He writes, "The survival-of-the-fittest aspect of Darwin's findings has sometimes been wrongly applied by politically conservative theorists to the detriment of the poor, the sick, and the powerless in society. Government, these "social Darwinists" have insisted, has no responsibility to them." Obama and his allies routinely support these ideals when it comes to sick babies, "poor babies," black babies. The eugenics movement continues on with Obama, Hillary and her inspiration, Margaret Sanger, and the rest of the abortion crowd.
Dear
Dear Anonymous,
Congratulations on being the first to post here, but do you have any sources for these absurd, grotesque and false allegations?
humbly awaiting your anonymous word
frere charles
Thank you,Frere Charles, for
Thank you,Frere Charles, for your way of deflating the "hot air balloons" sent up by people to support their negative responses to Fr. McBrien. I always enjoy reading your comments; we do think alike.
"I don't want my daughter
"I don't want my daughter punished with a baby." Eugenics--the baby was "not wanted." He pumps millions of federal dollars, and received millions in donations from Planned Parenthood and their followers, who practice modern day eugenics based on the principles of Margaret Sanger. Why are most abortion clinics located in black and poor neighborhoods. It it because poor babies are expendable, because these women "can't afford it." Sanger's love of abortion was to rid the world of the "problems" of the disables, of minorities, of eliminating "bad genes" in society. Do we know of another 20th century leader who also had a "problem" that used a similar "final solution"?
What nonsense to associate
What nonsense to associate Obama with eugenics. What he means, and what I'm sure you know he means, is that he would like his daughters to feel blessed by pregnancy. He would like them to avoid pregnancy until they reach a point in life where they will see pregnancy as a blessing. I bet you feel the same way about your children.
Abortion clinics are located in poor neighborhoods because the poor are the ones who most often did illegal abortions because of their economic situation. These abortion clinics may be doing more abortions that were known to be done when abortion was illegal, but for the most part they are saving one life out of two as opposed to zero out of two in the good old days.
Now let's see what the
Now let's see what the McBrien haters can do to this column. There is nothing in this column that thinking people will find it reasonable to raise objection. Keep it up Fr. McBrien.
Dr. Freud's teaching has
Dr. Freud's teaching has often been summarized as stating that sanity is the ability to love and to work, unconsciously echoing the Benedictine motto (not original to the Founder's Rule): "Ora et labora"
In recent Internet discussion (ever a precarious enterprise) I was much surprised to discover that apparently in the English speaking Americas sanity is considered the ability to go to war and kill without remorse. I pray this, my impression, is much mistaken.
Speaking of Faith echoes, the economy of Marx has often been noted as reflecting the Apostolic: From each according to their gifts; to each according to their needs. Thus do we learn to live our Faith with conviction and purpose, as Saint James writes, caring for widows and orphans in their distress, and to love, and to work.
Thank you, Rev. Father Richard P. McBrien, for this brilliant and concise summary of the complex thought of these three potent figures.
Lol! Yes, there ought to be
Lol! Yes, there ought to be a warning flashed on each computer when entering internet discussion zones: Warning - not for the faint-of-heart! It does get harrowing at times doesn't it?
father says: "Darwin, Freud,
father says: "Darwin, Freud, and Marx have frequently been portrayed as enemies of the faith. But there is still much to be learned from them."
true enough. no matter how wrong freud and marx were in most of their dealings, they did have a small grain of truth in them.
darwin is not the enemy that so many catholics seem to think he is. nor is science the enemy of faith.
here's what pius xii said about evolution:
"The magisterium of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation, and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically sacred Scripture and of defending the dogmas of faith"
also, jpii's address to the pontifical academy of the sciences on the subject of evolution should be read by all.
also, one of the first to propose the theory of the big bang was, i believe, a catholic priest.
religion has nothing to fear from science.
thanks Pete but I'd rather
thanks Pete
but I'd rather keep on reading the great Jesuit priest, the Rev. Father Teilhard de Chardin
Well Pete the greek, Galileo
Well Pete the greek, Galileo submitted to the church's judgement and he was right and they were wrong! And this isn't the only incidence of the judgement of the church being wrong.
really? did jesus promise
really? did jesus promise that the church and the holy father would be free from committing a political injustice against people?
my point in the above post (which i don't think you really understood) is that science is not the enemy of the church. which is why when jpii said, basically, yes it's ok to study, research, etc. evolution it was really a big non issue.
You mean people who don't
You mean people who don't follow strict Catholic teaching may still have something viable and important to say? How could that be possible when all truth resides in the church? Yes, I am being a bit facetious here. But when the hierarchy tends to stick with the old thoughts for too long that's what happens.
"Thus, many who live in a
"Thus, many who live in a relatively prosperous, all-white environment, without the benefit of a critical education, find it difficult to tolerate, much less appreciate, racial and ethnic differences, or to generate any understanding of, and compassion toward, the poor."
Many - beginning with theology professors at Notre Dame.
Hey Mark, Can you give any
Hey Mark,
Can you give any proof for this statement or did you just pull it out of your hat?
On the other hand, we might take a cautious sniff at our immense struggle now to recover from decades of voodoo Bushanomics and the orgy of our wealthiest few who put us deep in hock to Red China and the rest for their own personal profit . . .
Will the corrupt Vatican Bank which Pope John Paul the Greater drafted reforms for on the evening of his murder bail us out now?
just wondering
yours humbly
frere charles
Dear Father McBrien. I
Dear Father McBrien. I suggest that you check your facts concerning the life of Mr Darwin. There are interesting facts that you may be unware of that may better shed light on him. Suggest you google the Ignatius Press website. There are a number of facinating books that may just change your mind... Happy Easter! Christ is risen! Alleluia! Alleluia!
Ignatius Press is neither an
Ignatius Press is neither an objective nor a scholarly source, and certainly an academic such as the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien has more substantial material to study.
For instance, just look at the highly polemical and unscholarly "Ignatius Critical Editions" series. It is a joke, and writer in residence Joe Pearce should be ashamed, and sued for fraud (one of the "critical Essays" is written by an author from the PIG (Politically Incorrect Guides) series.
But then Joe is no academic.
The Rev. Fr. Richard P. McBrien is.
Certainly anything on Darwin or evolution that Ignatius publishes will also be polemical and not scientific, designed for the survivalist home schooler and other private and reputedly religious institutions, and not the academic community.
Happy Birthday, Charlie! Like
Happy Birthday, Charlie! Like it or not, it is undeniable these three great THINKERS presented by Fr. McBrien and their theories/hypotheses contributed to the intellectual development of the 20th century for better or worse and continue to influence us today - if only by helping to clarify what we no longer think/believe. So don't kill the messenger and get your heads out of the sand.
p.s. McCain lost, Obama won...get over it and move on!
Fr. McBrien's comments at the
Fr. McBrien's comments at the end of the article, "thus, many who live in a relatively prosperous, all-white environment, without the benefit of a critical education, find it difficult to tolerate, much less appreciate, racial and ethnic differences, or to generate any understanding of, and compassion toward, the poor" are absurd. The people of the United States are the most generous people in the world -- we regularly donate 12 times the amount of the French, and 8 times as much as the Germans. "In fact, Americans give more as a percent of GDP than France, Germany, Turkey, New Zealand, Singapore and the Netherlands COMBINED!" (www.nowpublic.com citing a study from the Charities Aid Foundation.) In 2006, the people of the US gave $300 billion dollars to charity, which is about the same amount as the GDP of Greece and Norway.
Moreover, for all their talk of compassion, a 2008 survey demonstrated that liberals, when it comes to giving their OWN money give 30% less than conservatives. They also are far less likely to donate their own time than liberals. Arthur Brooks, author of "Who Really Cares" stated that if liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.
I say this to illustrate the fact that McBrien is wrong in his assertions that Marx offers anything to the debate, other than negative evidence. The United States is, in no way, influenced by Marx, unless one considers the fact that Marx and the nations that follow (or followed) his teachings have given us example of what not to do. And, those very conservatives who are cited as the most generous by liberal columnist Leonard Kristof are the ones so often denigrated by elites like McBrien: Idaho farmers, Alabama factory workers and Kansas insurance agents. People who often are without the benefit of "a critial education" and who often live in an "prosperous, all-white environment". They are also typically the people who are most likely to attend church regularly taking seriously the Lord's command to care for those in need, "the least of My brethren".
Father McBrien would do well to get out of his ivory tower from time to time and actually interact with regular folks. He might find that, despite the fact that they may occasionally lack a "critical education" and live in a "prosperous, all-white environment" who do not sit around day to day and contemplate the contributions of Darwin, Freud and Marx, they are still good, decent people who the Lord and His people, especially the poor and those in need.
Dear Clint, Forgive me please
Dear Clint,
Forgive me please for getting lost in your learned statements here, but I wonder whether you could please show the compassion of extracting me from my confusion. Specifically I have difficulty walking through these two sentences, in apparent contradiction of labels, and I await patiently your compassionate elucidation:
"Moreover, for all their talk of compassion, a 2008 survey demonstrated that liberals, when it comes to giving their OWN money give 30% less than conservatives. They also are far less likely to donate their own time than liberals."
Also, while at it, could you please give your sources, their publishers and the instruments of measurement used? For instance, just from the quote provided here, one might easily point out that in our Election Year of 2008, many surveys were given, but few you have chosen. Which survey was this one, and by whom, and by what sampling and other statistical methodology?
Thanking you very much in advance for your compassionate explication, I remain
your humble servant,
frere charles
Dear Clint, Upon furthering
Dear Clint,
Upon furthering reading of your careful comment, I find that you "say this to illustrate the fact that McBrien is wrong in his assertions that Marx offers anything to the debate, other than negative evidence. The United States is, in no way, influenced by Marx, unless one considers the fact that Marx and the nations that follow (or followed) his teachings have given us example of what not to do."
You do know that in the final years of the usurping Bush administration our government kept secret from us the fact we were already in recession. You are familiar with the absolute failure of the Stock Market and closing of several venerable stock companies while Cramer had paroxysms telling us to buy, buy, buy! You are familiar with the fact our capitalist banking system has failed absolutely, and that people's homes across the nation are in foreclosure and unemployment rampant? You are familiar with the fact our auto industry as well has gone bankrupt? You know our decent and elected present President inherited the dismal results of eight years of all out frat party while Junior Bush maxed out all the credit cards with his buddies?
Maybe we should read once more the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' publications, including " . . .And Economic Justice For All" as we contemplate this "negative evidence."
just wondering,
you humble servant,
frere charles
I don't think even Freud can
I don't think even Freud can explain some of the venom and hatred that spews forth in this response blog week after week. Too bad because it could be a fine dialogue. Perhaps the moderator could delete those who seem to respond in this way repeatedly.
Well, about one third to a
Well, about one third to a half of mine are so deleted; perhaps then I fall under this toxic category, and if so, I beg the forgiveness and compassionate understanding of all readers, and of the moderator, and I resolve to write in future with greater heart and logic despite my past repeated, even habitual, offenses against Charity, in the interest of productive, progressive dialogue, as called for in that historic speech in Notre Dame this Sunday past.
a lonesome hermit
frere charles
Dear Charles, in order for
Dear Charles, in order for all men of good will to have dialogue, they must begin at the beginning.
Respect for the Sanctity of every Human life and Respect for the Sanctity of Marriage and the Family, has been God's intention from the beginning.
"LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE"- The Blessed Trinity, the Relationship of Love that gives us Life from the beginning. (Genesis:26)
Well, since the beginning is
Well, since the beginning is in the distant past, then I suppose there is no point in trying to communicate in a civilized way.
Dear Nancy, Thank you very
Dear Nancy,
Thank you very much for this excellent idea, and kindly permit me to ask you not to restrict our dialogue with such exclusivity.
You invite "all men of good will to have dialogue."
May we also invite the women? Might even I come also to the table, I, who am not always certain what quality of will I might bear, "good will" or otherwise?
Your slogans make excellent themes for open dialogue, to which I believe women, such as yourself, have much to contribute. Does the verse you quote really intend to imply women were NOT created in God's image and likeness but of Adam's spare rib?
humbly yours,
frere charles
Dear Charles, to clarify, ALL
Dear Charles, to clarify, ALL Men of good will refers to Mankind. All THE Men of good will, would refer to just THE Men.
Dear Charles, Sorry for the
Dear Charles,
Sorry for the confusion. I thought it was understood by "all Men" v "all the Men", that I was referring to all Mankind and not just the Men.
Just so you know, "Let Us Make Man In Our Image" is not my slogan and you can rest, assured that the Blessed Trinity created Mankind, not just the Men.
The best information i have
The best information i have found exactly here. Keep going Thank you
A woman here: Surviver of a
A woman here: Surviver of a marriage with a Marxist; survivor of diagnosis as mentally ill by psychiatric industry: and familiar with another result of Darwinism, the New Age followers of Gaia,(spelling) the goddess of the earth.
On Marx: Let's not forget he was a materialist, economic determinist. That means, to translate for what it would mean in personal terms that following the beautitude 'love your neighbor for the love of God' would be dependent on your bank account.
On Freud: The subconscious is the term that is used instead of lost memories, and perhaps how we are affected by the past, built on our 'perceptions' of the present, and shaped by what? may I say our hopes and prayers; but would these be admitted. The philosopher M. Foucault has given, (despite his personal orientations) a more than detailed description of the abuses of power that may be encountered as someone who has been diagnosed. Certainly there is good to be found in 'everything?'; 'all'; but the abuse may result from the belief that this 'dogma' can in fact be considered on par with the 'data' collected in the hard core sciences. The brain, (affected by drugs) is not the mind, is something in today's philosophical world, I have to believe, not know, if you read the literature.
On Darwin: Why I left the church as a teenager. Believed in Darwinism, but it took me years to find the compatability between science and faith. The issue at the moment (with Gaia) is that it leads to the difficulty, that if there is a common 'gene' pool, the result would be that there would be no scientific means to differentiate between the human 'species', and other forms of 'sentient being' (Buddhism here) According to Gaia, they could accept the existence of a God,(god?) but not of a human being, differentiated from the 'animal', etc. as I have read. (Stated as fact, not with respect to possible implications).
On this note, the only differentiation I have found in answer, to make me human, is that of original sin: It may be put 'Only with the human is the race in the individual and the individual in the race.' (Paul Ricoeur) But this is not a scientific statement; but a matter of philosophical definition. It is therefore my defilement,(consciousness of vulnerability? my sin, (non acceptance of external defilement- "It wasn't me it was Satan" and "It wasn't me it was Eve); then under Moses, the law and communal 'guilt' and, finally my acceptance of the guilt and personal responsibility, that would make me human. (Ricoeur again) None of this in Darwinism. There is no 'Creation' in any social or scientific theory. Can we define 'Creation', even? Help me. I'm just a daughter of Eve.
Ah! A way out! Salvation through Christ, Jesus.
The big question then for us for this modern post-modern world is: In what ways is faith compatible with reason. There's much work to be done.
Thanks for reading a 'woman's 'stolen' viewpoint. (grin grin)
Post new comment