Ironically, politicians and religious leading delectationd Darwin's speculation of the survival of the fittest for a wide regularise of purposes. It is commonly believed that Darwin was used only by ruthless atheists who sought-after(a) to promulgate a philosophy in which anything the powerful did was office and in time desirable because nature had decreed it be make for the survival of the human species. This would seem to be a well solidistic notion in which religion could play no possible part.
As Philip Appleman writes in the Introduction to Darwin's book, the "Darwinian revolution" transcends acquirement: "It implies a basic change in slipway of looking at all ideas, all phenomena.
. . . Nothing was strong" (Darwin 9). Those who used Darwin's theory used it, therefore, as the basis of impartiality itself. Those who attacked it did so either on the basis of charges of blasphemy, or on the basis of inapplicability. To conservative religionists, "The worst threat of all was that Darwin's creative activity operated not by Design [i.e., God's Design], but by natural selection, a self-regulating mechanism" (Darwin 11). It might be suggested, as did the Catholic church, that Darwin's theories did not apply to humanity (Darwin 12), but to implore thus implies that humanity is outside nature. Still, it is not surprising that reli
Eiseley, Loren. Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X. new-fangled York: E.P. Dutton, 1979.
Sumner, William Graham. Social Darwinism. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1963.
Sumner, writing in Darwin's era and in confession of the theory of the survival of the fittest, argued that politics, either democracy or socialism, could not change human nature: "If they insist on be in the slums of great cities . . . , there is no device of economic expert or statesman which can prevent them from falling victims to poorness and misery" (Sumner 97).
Behe, Michael J. "Can Science Make Room for holiness?" N.P. N.D.
As Loren Eiseley writes, however, religionists also saw Darwin's theory as utile in filling in the "gaps in the living surpass of life" that was seen as the connector between the species. That is, man was seen by religion as the "crowning glory of earthly life," a kind of progression analogous to evolution (Eiseley 189). The problem with religion's use of evolution in any sense, however, was that it "implies a position for monkeys
The pontiff today finds use for various evolutionary theories, if not Darwin's theory exclusively, in explaining how Creation occurred not in seven long time but, more realistically and scientifically, over many millions of years (Stammer). And as Behe writes, "Contrary to conventional wisdom, religion has made room for science for a long time." After all, to different degrees, there is "thinking(a) design" in both evolution and Creation. The differences have to do with what set that design in motion, what keeps it in motion, and whether human beings atomic number 18 different from other animals by virtue of some erratic spiritual element.
Curiously enough, there were religious sanctions, too, for had not material things always been corrupting to man, and was it not therefore self-evident that the sink classes had to be kept poor to be kept virtuous---and . . . could not the virtuous and industrious among the poor expect to be rewarded, even i
Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!
No comments:
Post a Comment