Darwin’s Teachings

of Charles Darwin. One book I mentioned on his life, if you have an interest, is a book entitled Darwin by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, about a 700-page biography. Let me tell you, this is, I intentionally found a book that's not written by a Christian publishing house or by anyone who affirms they are Christian. This is written by that organization called Time Warner, not known

thinking but it's in that book that we saw many of the letters that Darwin's wife wrote to him that are very decidedly Christian in their emphasis and we saw how throughout Darwin's life he was presented the Christian faith in very direct terms. I must confess the overwhelming emotion I had when I finished reading this book was not anger at Darwin's philosophy though we'll discuss its correctness or incorrectness next week it was just overwhelming sadness a man who lived in many ways a very difficult life because of his health problems losses he suffered in his life, and sadness that he died without knowing our Lord. There was no deathbed conversion. Sometimes people say, well, he had a conversion on his deathbed. No, no, not true, not true.

You've got a handout today called Charles Robert Darwin, His Teachings. So last week we looked at his life. Today I want to turn and look at his teachings.

two significant works written by Charles Darwin in his lifetime. These aren't the only two written by him, but the two most significant, and I've given you their full titles here. The first was written in 1859 called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, typically called The Origin of species. The other book in 1871 is called The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. You see in the first book, The Origin of Species, Darwin never dealt with the issue how did man originate, how did human beings originate. He alluded to it briefly that what he said in The Origin of the Species would affect one's analysis of how man originated, but he knew that how man originated was such a touchy subject that when he wrote his first book in 1859, he never directly dealt with that issue of how did man originate.

He left that until 1871 when he wrote The Descent of Man. And it is a fascinating book to read. Actually, I think much more readable than The Origin of Species because it's about us, and it's a little easier for us to understand because he doesn't talk about as many different varieties of plant life and animal life. It's more focused just on humanity. As he said in that book, The Descent of Man, the sole subject of this work is to consider, firstly, whether man, like every other species, is descended from some preexisting form.

Secondly, the manner of this development. and thirdly the value of the differences between the so-called races of men. Both of these books on their first day of publication were sold out. They were best sellers. Darwin in The Descent of Man noted, and this is a quote I have at the top of your handout, that his work would likely be distasteful to many.

As he said, the main conclusion arrived at in this work, man is descended from some lowly organized form will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many. I think that's to put it mildly. I think in the world today, there are really two main views about how we got here. One is the Darwinian view of this process of evolution, and the other is that there was some deity, some power, some intelligent designer that created us. And those two diverging views are the subject of much debate as we know among people today and have been the subject of much debate in our school systems.

In Darwin's day, many naturalists classified the world of animals and plants into three Three different kingdoms. One kingdom was the plant or vegetable kingdom as Darwin called it. Another kingdom was called the animal kingdom and there was a third kingdom. The third kingdom was the human kingdom. Some naturalists viewed human beings as being so distinct, so different from other animals that they put them in a whole separate kingdom. And Charles Darwin is going three kingdoms they're just two there is a plant kingdom and there is an animal kingdom but man is not so different that he should be in some separate third kingdom he ought to be made part of the animal kingdom and that's what his whole book the descent of man will talk about i want to mention two other terms before i turn to the teachings and origin of species and the descent of man And those two terms are these.

One is called macroevolution, M-A-C-R-O. The other is microevolution. And we're going to flesh this out a little more over the next couple of weeks. But macroevolution is the notion that species could change into other species. That one type of animal could develop and become another type of animal.

That's the macroevolution. says that yes there can be changes within a particular species a particular type of animal but micro evolution doesn't say that one species can become another so macro evolution in other words would say a fish could become an amphibian which could become a marsupial which could become a monkey which could become a human being that's macro evolution micro evolution would say well a bird in its circumstances might develop a stronger beak because it's having to peck a lot harder or somehow might develop a little longer beak but let's not go so far as to say that that bird could become something else a dinosaur or a monkey or whatever so you understand the differences between those two terms that's all i'm going to say about those today but next week that'll be a little more important as we begin to analyze Darwin's teachings. So my purpose today is not really to discuss whether Darwin is right or wrong in his teachings. Today my goal is to teach you his teachings and say here's what he taught and then next week and probably the following week we'll talk about was he right in his teachings. So let's go to Darwin's teaching the origin from the first of The Origin of Species.

Darwin asked the question in his book, The Origin of Species, how have different types of animals and plants arisen in this world? And his answer in summary is this, through natural selection or survival of the fittest.

that is the summary of his conclusion in this book called Origin of Species. It's about a 400-page book. Today what I'm teaching you is not what somebody said Darwin said. This is stuff I have read. I've gone and read his books, skimmed a few parts because it gets into so much detail on some aspects.

But these books, I'm giving you what he said himself. So this isn't what somebody else said he said. what he said. Darwin was not the first one to come up with the idea of evolution. Others had come up with the idea that evolution was the explanation for the development of animals and plants on earth. What Darwin did that was unique is he said how evolution worked. Nobody had explained the mechanism how could one animal become another animal or how could one form of species develop into something else higher more complex it was Darwin that came along and said I have the answer the answer is natural selection or survival of the fittest that's how it happened all right now we've got to ask the question what does that mean what is natural what do we mean when we talk about natural selection.

How does natural selection work? Well, natural selection says this. It says that animals, certain types of animals or plant life can go through numerous modifications

that are to the advantage of that plant or animal, making that plant or animal stronger. So let me just read a couple of quotes from what he says in his book and I'll explain this a little further. In the struggle for life he says and you know these plants and animals are always out there fighting for you know there's a limited food supply and somebody's going to survive and somebody's not. And Darwin says in the struggle for life slight variations that give advantage to one individual of a species over others will tend to preserve those individuals and will generally be inherited by their offspring i have called this principle by which each slight variation if useful is preserved by the term natural selection in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. So he's drawing a distinction between domestic breeding of animals where man is doing some selecting versus what happens out in nature without humanity having any input into it.

Do you hear what he's saying? He's saying out there in the struggle for life the biggest or the strongest or the one that's got the slight advantage is going to survive over the weaker. And he says that that plant or animal that is stronger that has this advantage because its beak is longer because its claws are longer because it's got stronger limbs will pass those advantages onto its offspring And so forth. And the offspring can become stronger and pass it on to their offspring. And so he says just as in nature, these slight advantages get passed on to the offspring and they will be stronger and survive whereas the weaker will not.

Here's what he says. He says, each variation in the process of natural selection must give some utilitarian or functional advantage to the animal or plant involved. In other words, the particular variation that makes an animal stronger, better, that will be passed on must give some advantage to that animal or plant in order to be naturally selected. In other words, if it's a difference that an animal or plant has that doesn't give it an advantage, some functional advantage, if the difference doesn't serve some utilitarian purpose, then natural selection won't select that difference. The reason I make this point is that Darwinism has to say that every little change that occurred from one, as one species would develop and then might develop into what we would call another species, every change had to give a functional or utilitarian advantage in order to be passed on.

So that if something was done, if a change occurred that didn't have any functional or utilitarian advantage, yet it was passed on, couldn't explain that. For instance, beauty. If it's just beauty, if it doesn't give some advantage functionally to the specimen, natural selection can't explain why something that's just pretty would be passed on. Do you understand the difference I'm drawing there? So natural selection says there must be an advantage, it must be a functional advantage, and there will be numerous slight variations over time.

natural selection says slight changes. This is little by little. Natural selection can't be explained if we only have a short window of time for the change to occur. Darwin's theory says it has to have occurred over a long period of time because the changes are incremental. Slight advantage in this animal that's passed on to its offspring and another slight advantage that's passed on animals changing as these slight advantages are passed from generation to generation.

Now is this all a matter of chance? How is it that in nature these advantages are being selected or chosen and passed on? Well Darwin says in his book and from our perspective it looks like it's just chance. You know maybe one and survives and pass something on and another does not. Darwin says this.

He says, I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations were due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation. In other words, Darwin says, yeah, sometimes I talk like this as chance, but the reality is we don't know why these slight changes occur He's saying, I just know they do. And that's my explanation for how all these different variations of animals and plants in the world exist. Remember when Darwin took that voyage that we talked about last week?

He went on the HMS Beagle, went all around the world, goes to South America, South Africa, and he sees all of these different animals and plants, and he's saying, how is it that the world is so abundantly filled with so many different types of plants and animals?

this and he being agnostic came to the conclusion that it had to be something other than just an explanation that a god created it all and his explanation was over many many many billions and millions and millions of years these changes have occurred and been passed on in animals so natural selection not only numerous modifications it has to give an advantage It looks like chance, though Darwin says we really don't know why these changes occur. But then fourthly, he does say it takes a lengthy, lengthy process for these changes to happen. In fact, Darwin says in his book, Origin of Species, that 200 million years is not enough time for Earth's existence to explain the development of all the varieties of animals and plants that exist on Earth. debate about how old is the earth? Well one reason that's an argument is because Darwin says in order for my theory to be true, my views to be true, earth has to be really old because it takes a long time for these small, slow, incremental changes to occur. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, that is the central thesis of his whole book Origin And he spends 400 pages looking at various examples and trying to explain that.

But it becomes most, most troubling when he gets to his book, The Descent of Man, and begins to talk about how does this work with humanity. And here's what he says. How does natural selection apply to human beings? The answer is, man developed through the process of natural and sexual selection.

Now I threw in another word there, sexual selection. Darwin will hypothesize in his book The Descent of Man that not only out in nature is nature, through its process of the strongest surviving, passing on these small incremental changes, but he says that there is sexual selection going on. that is that a male bird will find the right female bird and that the strongest male bird will start hooking up with a stronger female bird and through sexual selection where the male and female of certain species connect they then by producing offspring through selecting one another pass on their characteristics to the offspring. And it will be through that process too that advantages will be passed to the next generation. So it's both natural selection and then he says sexual selection that's going on to make these changes happen.

But he concludes man was not the work of a separate act of creation. But like other creatures developed through a process of natural and sexual selection. So how should man be classified among living beings on earth? Darwin's answer is man is part of the animal kingdom and should be classified under the title of primates.

Darwin argues that man is likely from the, quote, anthropomorphous subgroup, that's the group out of which the gorillas and chimpanzees come. man is but one of the several exceptional forms of primates darwin argues though he does admit man has undergone an extraordinary amount of modification chiefly in consequence of the great development of his brain and his erect position chimpanzees gorillas use all four man is up on two And you'll see the pictures in the school textbooks, you know. We're first walking around like gorillas, and then we stand up and suddenly we're human beings.

And nobody has a photograph of that back from the end of the year. That was some artist's conception, and we'll talk about that more next week. Darwin says, if man had not been his own classifier, he would never have thought of founding a separate order for his own reception.

and he also says, it is only our natural prejudice and that arrogance which made our forefathers declare that they were descended from what he calls demigods.

Do you hear what he's saying? The only reason that humanity was ever in a human kingdom separate from the animal kingdom is because we're just arrogant people.

And he wants to rid us of our arrogance. So, from whom or what then is man descended according to Darwin? Darwin says, man is descended from a hairy-tailed quadruped, probably arboreal in its habits and an inhabitant of the old world. So we come from some hairy animal that had a tail, a quadruped, meaning it had basically four feet, probably lived in the trees, that's arboreal, and lived in the old world, meaning probably coming out of Africa.

I've seen some people that look kind of like that.

He says the line of deviation goes like this. This is how man came. If we're going backwards, we're now this. We were once what he calls quadrumana. That means that four-footed ape-like creature.

Before that, we were an ancient marsupial. The marsupials are like the kangaroos that have the pouches for the young. Before that, we were amphibian-like creatures, and before that, we were fish-like creatures. so we went from fish to amphibians to marsupials to some ape type and now we finally are who we are

why did darwin

argue that human beings were descended from these lower animals well darwin said man is constructed in a fashion that is similar to other vertebrate animals and he said look look it's we all know that all mammals are based on the same general type or model all the bones in the skeleton of human beings are similar to the types of bone structures we see in other animals like monkeys He says we have muscles and nerves and blood vessels as human beings, but you know if you look at the monkeys or other animals, they have nerves and muscles and blood vessels and organs that sort of correspond to our organs. Therefore, isn't it obvious that because we have skeletal structures, organs, nerves, tissues similar to chimpanzees, gorillas, that we must have come from them. He says, consequently, we ought frankly to admit their community of descent that we came from them. But one might ask, isn't man much more intelligent and inventive than other animals? Doesn't that show that we are not descended from them?

Well, Darwin does admit that we are more intelligent, but he will argue there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher animals in their mental capacities as he begins chapter three of the descent of man he says quote my object in this chapter is to show that there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties. And he says we may be more developed. We have in the chain of natural selection and evolution, we have gotten more developed. But there's no fundamental difference between us and the other mammals. They just haven't yet developed as far as we have.

what about the view that man was a special act of creation

some have heard that story from somewhere and darren says no man is not a special separate act of creation and he says this he who is not content to look like a savage at the phenomena of nature as disconnected cannot any longer believe that man is the work of a separate act of creation he says if i have erred in giving to natural selection great power which i am far from admitting or in having exaggerated its power which is in itself probable i have at the least as i hope done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations that human beings were created separately from other animals he says man has risen though by slow and interrupted steps from a lowly condition to the highest standard as yet attained by him in knowledge, morals, and religion. The facts given in the earlier chapters appear to declare in the plainest manner that man is descended from some lower form, notwithstanding that connecting links have not hitherto been discovered. You sometimes hear about the missing link. that's what he's talking about right there

well where did man originate geographically Darwin says most likely in Africa though he admits it's foolish to speculate too much he believes that's likely because that's where many of the gorilla and chimpanzee families arose he believes when temporally when in time did man appear He says most likely man, as we know it, humanity first appeared in the Eocene period, which means between 55 and 38 million years ago.

Does the fossil record support the conclusion that man descended from apes? Darwin says not yet. But Darwin says this, and listen, this is important, and we'll pick this up a little more in the next couple of weeks. With respect to the absence of fossil remains serving to connect man with his ape-like progenitors, no one will lay much stress on this fact who reads Sir C. Lyall's discussion where he shows that in all the vertebrate classes, the discovery of fossil remains has been a very slow and fortuitous process.

Nor should it be forgotten that those regions which are the most likely to afford remains connecting man with some extinct ape-like creature have not as yet been searched by geologists. So Darwin admits there's no connecting link in the fossil record between apes and human beings. He frankly acknowledges that. But he says that's not because those links don't exist. He says we just haven't yet explored all those areas yet these links will likely be found.

And sometimes it's just hard to find these fossil remains.

Interestingly, what does Darwin say about the intellectual powers of men and women? This is fascinating.

Darwin concludes that the average mental power of men is above that of women.

I'm surprised that he is so readily embraced by many for some of his views in this regard. I want to just read a couple of quotes here. The chief distinction, Darwin says, this is Darwin, this is Darwin, not David, this is Darwin. The chief distinction, and I think he's wrong, and I think those who in our culture wish to lift women up, sometimes who are Christians, sometimes who are not, ought to ridicule Darwin instead of praising him. the chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man's attaining to a higher preeminence in whatever he takes up than can woman, whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses in hands.

We may also infer from the law of deviation from averages the average mental power in men must be above that of woman. He goes on to say, and sexual selection quote man has ultimately become superior to woman it is indeed fortunate he says that the law of equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals otherwise it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman as the peacock is an ornamental plumage to the peahen. Do you hear what he just said? He says not only is man above woman in intellect and reasoning, and he says it would be even worse, except that when parents have children, boys and girls, they pass along their characteristics to those boys and girls. girls are sort of getting some of the man's

mental qualities. He says if that weren't happening, men would be so superior in endowment to women as the peacock is an ornamental plumage to the peahen. Now how many of you have seen a peacock and a peahen? The peacock is the one that has the beautiful colors and the feathers, just striking. The peahen is plain

color. According to Darwin, what classes or races of human beings are closest to the gorilla?

He argues the Australian or the Negro. Darwin, in fact, argues that over time, he says, the civilized races of humanity will eradicate the savage races of humanity and the distinction between the animals and humanity will widen as those savage races are wiped out but he says basically right now the closest human being on the chain to the animal kingdom the closest link is between either the Australian and Negro and the gorilla. He has spent a whole lot of time in his book arguing whether or not different races of people ought to be classified as different species. In other words, should black people be considered a different species of human being than white people? Now, he concludes after a lot of debate they shouldn't be.

The reason I point this out, Darwin, who is so touted by the educated and by those who favor science and would be those who would often just be furious for anyone to make any comment like women are not equal to men in their intellect, certain races of people are below others. People who would oppose that have just embraced Darwin wholeheartedly. But these were Darwin's views. how will the civilized nations progress

Darwin says that the civilized nations will have continued progress because they won't be exterminating one another like the savage tribes he says folks like us who are civilized we don't need to depend on natural selection as much anymore because we're not going to be killing each other

how many did we kill in world war one and those were the civilized races how many did we kill in world war ii yet we still buy into darwin's thinking darwin did have something to say about the practice of infanticide i don't have this in your handout but let me read this quote and then i will conclude this is interesting i think in light of some current practices in our Our early semi-human progenitors, he says, would not have practiced infanticide or polyandry. Polyandry is where a woman has multiple husbands. For the instincts of the lower animals are never so perverted as to lead them regularly to destroy their own offspring. isn't that interesting

lower animals are never so perverted as to lead them regularly to destroy their own offspring well Darwin's conclusion to his book The Descent of Man ends with these words man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin

So he will say, though man has risen from low rank to a much higher rank in the animal kingdom, he still bears the indelible mark of his lowly origin. Well, is Darwin right? Did human beings come from lowly origin, or did we come from on high? that's the question how you answer it I submit change your fundamental view of life

and it is those opposing views that we see at odds in our own culture are we the act of God's creation in a special way created from on high or are we just of lowly origin having somehow and millions of years attained to where we are through the process of natural selection or survival of the fittest. Darwin, in many ways, was a genius,

hardworking, diligent in his work. I think we probably would have liked him if we met him because he was very self-deprecating in his remarks.

his insights have without a doubt changed the world in which we live so while on the one hand he was I think

brilliant in his ability to analyze and observe

next week we begin to show Darwin was a fool that will be my ultimate conclusion

because he didn't see God. Let's pray.

Lord, this day we acknowledge that sometimes our own sight is limited and we are influenced by many forces in this world. But I pray today that we will recognize you have given us the key. you have shown us how we came to be for that we are grateful and I pray as we continue in this study of the life and teachings of a man who has shaped probably more than anyone else in the last two or three centuries the thinking of our culture today I pray that you will help us to see clearly and be able to articulate our understanding and beliefs as Christians We pray. Amen.