Is The Origin of Species, the Humanist Bible?
I wonder how many people have read ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle’ by Charles Darwin.
It’s actually a surprisingly easy read, despite its full title being so long-winded. What amazes me is how readable it is for anyone with a basic knowledge of biology, although that was Darwin’s intention. He always had an eye on sales and he wanted his books to be read as widely as possible, so he went to a great deal of effort to make them readable.
For some people, the book is controversial. A few years ago, I worked alongside a fundamentalist Christian, we got on very well and respected each other’s views which didn’t stop us being friends. However, on the one occasion that the name of Charles Darwin was mentioned, he dismissed Darwin with, ‘Wasn’t he the chap who lied about evolution?’ Interestingly, he assured me that he had read the Origin of Species, although I’m not totally convinced about that.
The reason that I’m not convinced that he had read it, is that 95% of the book is descriptive. It’s what Darwin actually observed in the field. His descriptions are rich, detailed and incredibly accurate — you simply can’t dispute what he wrote, because it’s true and the things he saw are all still there to be seen — so you can check.
In the rest of the text, Darwin takes you through his theories, in small logical steps. His reasoning can’t be faulted. In fact thorough, rigorous examination of his work has never cast any doubt on the conclusions that he drew and the things he wrote are repeatable — you can check them. There are a lot of people who don’t like those conclusions but none of their arguments can identify flaws in the things that Darwin wrote.
One old chestnut that used to put up as a ‘killer argument’ to totally disprove the book, was; how can any animal develop an organ as complex as the eye? Although it’s a very complex organ, it’s not actually too difficult to work out the basic evolutionary steps and processes that lead to the development of the eye and Darwin does describe all of this, complete with examples that he observed — he knew it would be a tricky one. I’m not going to go through it now because that’s not what I’m writing about but it’s all there. You just need time, evolutionary time of near countless millions of years.
If, like me you have read about Darwin, it is interesting to learn about his relationship with the established church. There are a lot of myths there too. It was certainly never his intention to destroy long held belief or upset anyone, although he did know that publication would be controversial and that is why he delayed doing so for ten years. He rather hoped that it might be published posthumously. Most of the controversy that followed publication was generated and possibly encouraged by others, such as Thomas Huxley, who really enjoyed a good argument.
Some of those in the establishment in Darwin’s day; the government and the church, knew that alternative explanations to the Biblical description of creation were starting to gain ground. They had a genuine fear that such knowledge would destroy religion; clearly it didn’t then and it hasn’t yet.
One of the reasons for their concerns was that without religion, there would be no basis for a moral code. Without the rules for life as prescribed by the church and its priests, backed by fear of eternal damnation for sinners, law and order, and society in general, would be bound to descend into anarchy. The French Revolution was still fresh in many minds, which showed that such disasters could easily happen here too. That the French nation was able to build itself into a vibrant, powerful country again in a fairly short period, even without established religion or monarchy, may have been lost on those worriers. Since The Origin of Species was published, I don’t think that Britain has descended into anarchy but I could be mistaken.
The point being; religion isn’t the basis of the moral code — people are not ‘good’ because they are afraid of eternal damnation, they are good because they want to be, because almost everyone knows that it’s the best way to live and get on with other people and in society in general. To put it another way; you don’t need God to be good!
So how do Humanists feel about The Origin of Species?
Well, it’s an incredibly important book. If Darwin hadn’t existed and it had not been written by him, the process of evolution would still have been uncovered — there were others in the field working towards those ideas; Darwin simply got there first and did it very well. Humanists celebrate Darwin because he was a great scientist but he isn’t their champion because he destroyed the foundations of religions — largely because he didn’t set out to do that and it didn’t happen.
Few, if any, Humanists are very exercised about religion anyway. Religion is there, it’s important for some people and not important for others. Darwin may have strengthened religion in many ways, by encouraging it to re-evaluate its basis, its purpose and the way it functions within society. Those changes have been positive. The only time that Humanists are bothered about religion is when it tries to impose itself and its narrow rules on large sections of society.
So, is The Origin of Species the Humanist Bible?
No, it doesn’t contain myths and stories, it doesn’t contain rules and codes for living, it doesn’t tell people how to relate to one another and treat each other. It’s just a very good scientific text book that was very relevant in its day, is still a good read and everyone’s starting point for understanding evolution.
If you would like to know more about Humanism:
or:
#HumanistBecause
If you would like to know about the funerals that I take:
