Have a little charity, man. Chesterton is writing these words almost exactly a century ago. The mechanisms of evolutionary change back then weren’t well understood even by the leading advocates of evolution. This isn’t “willful ignorance”. It’s some understandable incredulity from a man with no scientific background when confronted by a class of scientists using a fairly new (and incomplete) theory as justification for pushing eugenics programs and other radical (and anti-Christian) social change.
Chesterton did not object in principle to the idea of gradual change or common descent. In one of the articles Eric linked, he says “What is the real truth, what really happened in the variations of creatures, must have been something which has not yet suggested itself to the imagination
of man. I for one should be very much surprised if that truth, when discovered, did not contain at least a large element of evolution.” Chesterton was primarily concerned with what outspoken atheists (scientists and otherwise) were using evolution for in his time. If you’re unfamiliar, go read up on the eugenics movements of the early 20th century… the movements that birthed Nazi ideas of racial purity… the American and British scientists who wrote the “research” that the German “scientists” who engineered the Holocaust cited in their work. He wrote an entire book on it, Eugenics and Other Evils. His issue was never with claims of common descent per se. And far from thinking that evolution was irrelevant, he saw more than anyone in his time what would happen when atheistic, anti-teleological scientism became ascendant. In fact, Ronald Numbers makes a pretty good case that the excesses of the eugenists in the early 20th century is one of the big factors that provoked the backlash against evolution in the US that essentially became YECism.
Yep. That is pretty much what I said. Read my post to the end.
When you google flying mammals, you find that many animals that climbed trees followed the same path to evolve from jumping to gliding.
Squirrels jumping farther and farther from tree to tree evolving into flying squirrels.
Mice jumping farther and farther from tree to tree evolving into flying mice.
Lemurs jumping farther and farther from tree to tree evolving into flying lemurs.
Possums (or phalangers) jumping farther and farther from tree to tree evolving into flying phalangers.
Foxes jumping farther and farther from tree to tree evolving into flying foxes. (yes foxes climb trees)
Hmmm… maybe if we hadn’t left the trees to become the long distance running hunters, there might be flying people too. LOL
I am just pointing out GKC is not in the Biologos camp. I see a lot of attempt to tie Christian support of evolution to the Biologos mission, when on closer examination there is no such support. That is what I see happening here with GKC.
Hm. I’m not really seeing that, at least in this thread. Can you point to examples?
Putting GKC into any modern “camp” seems utterly anachronistic to me. He was a journalist, with no scientific background, living a century ago. Origins discussions in 2020 are very, very different than in 1920. Evolution appears in his writings (that I’ve seen) pretty much exclusively when he’s challenging the metaphysical program of atheists in his time. I think many of those challenges remain valid for atheists in our time. Beyond that, I think we should just let G. K. Chesterton be G. K. Chesterton.
If I were to speculate about how GKC would react to modern origins camps… Well, I think he’d reject modern YECism as naive and narrow. He wasn’t a YECist in his time, I doubt he’d be one now. I think he’d be broadly sympathetic to the approach of Biologos. I think he’d be broadly sympathetic to the approach of Christian IDers. I think he might regard the Discovery Institute itself with some degree of suspicion, given its lack of an explicitly Christian identity, ties to individuals with metaphysical commitments of which he would definitely disapprove, and the political aspects of its agenda (GKC, for example, opposed state-run education altogether and would think attempts to get ID taught in public schools wrongheaded). That said, GKC was a huge-hearted soul and I suspect would welcome any cobelligerents against caustic scientism.
Honestly, I think GKC would expend little attention on Christian origins camps, and spend most of his time in front of packed houses addressing the chairs left unoccupied by the craven devotees of atheistic scientism too intimidated to debate him.
on the other hand, I think that they’d be talking a different language, as he wasn’t scientific–and I think that the naturalistic atheists have been good for Christianity in many ways. They have forced us to examine our assertions. They’ve improved my belief system, I think, for example.
Do you have any more examples of G K Chesterton’s kindness? I’d like to review them. We can learn from that! Thanks.
Even the most intelligent people are susceptible to the Dunning-Kruger curve. I have met some very intelligent people that gave voice to some really stupid ideas. Newton was a genius, but he was also an alchemist.
You see a lot of things that don’t exist. I think it’s called “projection” …
Anachronism seems to be your specialty. The only flavor of evolution available in Chesterton’s day was … wait for it … Darwinian evolution. For once, your favorite term actually fit the subject. Then, via magic time machine, Chesterton is somehow opposed to “modern mainstream evolutionary theory,” which didn’t exist in the early 20th century.
Why don’t you let GKC speak for himself? Try reading what Ron said again, this time very slowly.
As for myself, it is immaterial to me what Chesterton thought about evolution. My own opinion would be unaffected whether he was for it or against it. He was a man of his time, as are we all.
And where in this thread do you see anyone trying to twist Chesterton into an evolutionary creationist? We can’t even have a conversation without you trying to turn it into some kind of EC vs. ID debate. Very tiresome, and very little relevance to GKC.
That point is in response to @Ron_anon claiming GKC is in line with the Biologos perspective on evolution. I’m highly skeptical, due to the excerpts I posted, and my general impression from reading a whole lot of his work.
I get the ID debate is tiresome, but it is a very fundamental debate that pops up all throughout the Western tradition all the way back to the Presocratics. GKC, being classically trained, would be aware of all this, so stands to reason it features significantly in his own thinking. But, I’ll leave it there, and stop derailing the thread. The cardinal sin of online debates is to become tiresome, and I am quite culpable.
Citation needed. I’ve said nothing of the sort. You’re the only individual on this thread who is trying to put GKC into a “camp”. Inserting GKC into modern scientific discussions of origins is silly, as I’ve already tried to say (more politely).
This is the quote I had in mind. You seem to be saying Biologos shouldn’t be concerned about what GKC says regarding evolution, since he isn’t talking about the science. As if the phrasing of GKC’s comments about evolution might lead one to believe GKC is not in favor of the scientific theory of evolution, which could offend Biologos’ sensibilities.
So, not quite
but also not out of line with the Biologos perspective on evolution.
I maintain, on the contrary, GKC’s writings are very out of line with the Biologos perspective on evolution. Maybe not even the particulars (although I believe my quotes make this clear), but at the very least the attitude of Biologos not to disturb the scientific status quo on the evolution question, and to try and persuade the general Christian population to toe the status quo. Very non Chestertonian.
On the other hand, I can easily imagine GKC enjoying how the Discovery Institute rocks the boat
My point was not about intelligence, although you would certainly infer that from my using ‘dimwit’. People can be intelligent and still be very silly.
Why would anyone be offended if GKC denied evolution? The man was writing 100 years ago.
Which is what? That God used evolution to create the various species, including humanity? That’s hardly controversial, except among science-deniers and atheists. It seems to me that GKC was simply opposed to materialism and to social theories that misapplied Darwin. BioLogos doesn’t endorse materialism, since everyone here is a believer. I sincerely doubt GKC would have a problem with BL, but unfortunately he’s been dead 85 years and can’t answer the question. @Ron_anon can correct me if he has another take on things.
Nope. All I was doing was contextualizing his comments. GKC isn’t pronouncing on science. GKC isn’t rejecting evolution. He cares about what the evolutionist in question is saying about God and the nature of man. According to its position page, Biologos holds that the Triune God created all things, including all humans in His own image. For Chesterton, that’s the only important aspect of the issue. (It’s also far more than the Discovery Institute affirms. And, as I said above, I suspect Chesterton would view the mission of getting ID into state schools to be wrongheaded.)
