Quote:
Originally Posted by desertblues
...In the same story Chesterton, as Basil Grant(?), criticizes Darwinism: ‘ What I complain of is a vague popular philosophy which supposes itself to be scientific when it is really nothing but a sort of new religion and an uncommonly nasty one. When people talked about the fall of man they knew they were talking about a mystery, a thing they didn't understand. Now that they talk about the survival of the fittest they think they do understand it, whereas they have not merely no notion, they have an elaborately false notion of what the words mean. The Darwinian movement has made no difference to mankind, except that, instead of talking unphilosophically about philosophy, they now talk unscientifically about science.'...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookpossum
Thanks for that link, desertblues, and for your interesting post.
I was intrigued that you mentioned the part in the last story containing the criticism of Darwinism, as that had jarred with me - I think because I was surprised that Basil Grant would say that. And I suppose that's because I don't agree with what is being said!
|
Consider that
On the Origin of Species was published in 1859—a mere 15 years before Chesterton's birth. While the scientific community was relatively quick to accept its arguments, a large segment of the public was much slower to come to terms with it. Even today, those without a firm understanding of biology have their reservations about it. I feel in many ways this man of towering intellect and boundless creativity was nonetheless also in many ways a bit of a reactionary who may have seen Darwin as a danger both to faith and morals. That he saw so many things with a clarity most people lack does not preclude him from having his own blind spots.
On the other hand, there exists the possibility that Chesterton was not at all criticizing Darwin in general or evolution in particular but rather 'the Darwinian movement.' Many absurdities have been postulated under the headings of
science and
progress, just as they have under the heading of
philosophy. Social Darwinism, anyone?