Malcolm Cutchins: Was Darwin really a theologian?
Columnist
Published: February 12, 2009
This year is the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth and the 500th anniversary of John Calvin’s birth. Both were theologians, but many scientists try to cover up that fact about Darwin. His supporters also like to conveniently omit the latter part of the title of Darwin’s famous book published 150 years ago.
The full title was, “On the Origin of Species, The Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.”
I’ll bet that few, if any, school children ever hear about the latter part of the title, or the racist theories promoted. Most are taught at taxpayer expense ideas that agree with Darwin and Darwin extremists like Julian Huxley (life is Godless), Richard Dawkins (life is purposeless), and William Provine (life is meaningless). And we wonder why we are so often in trouble?
Vet school professor Dr. Bruce Gray’s field of expertise before he died in 2002 was histology, that branch of biology concerned with the microscopic study of the structure of tissue. One of my fondest memories of Bruce is his vivid description of the detail of the human eye. In the book, “Darwin’s Enigma,” Penn State engineering grad Luther Sunderland quotes Charles Darwin, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Dr. Gray revealed and documented that absurdity as well as anyone could scientifically do so.
Things have gotten worse for believers in Darwin’s macroevolution theory since he made the above observation about the eye, despite the “celebrations” this year. There was no knowledge of nanotechnology within living cells 150 years ago (or even 25 years ago). We now know that living cells have rotors, stators, U-joints, O-rings, complex circuits, sliding clamps, drive shafts and more. Of even greater significance, they don’t work unless all parts are present.
There was another man born on this same day in 1809, Abraham Lincoln. Abe has his critics, but in “America’s God and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations” (2000, William J. Federer), there are over 18 pages of detailed, meticulously documented quotes from Lincoln. A high percentage of these acknowledge God, the Almighty, the Scriptures, and the Lord. The use of capital letters for the words “Him” and “He” are sprinkled throughout.
One quote in particular contrasts with the idea that everything evolved by time and chance: “It is difficult to make a man miserable while he feels he is worthy of himself and claims kindred to the great God who made him.”
* * *
It has been noted that if the proposed stimulus package could be divided evenly among every house in America, each household would be getting a new Macbook Air, a new 42 inch Plasma, an iPhone, a Nintendo Wii, and a year’s worth of groceries, car insurance, Internet, cable, and phone service.
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins is an emeritus professor of engineering of Auburn University and writes a weekly column for the Opelika-Auburn News.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Darwin about a much a theologian as Satin, right in theory wrong in truth.
Darwin’s “opinion” has been proven solid via every discipline in science! One might argue that if there’s a God or Gods that we’d find him/her/them generally following science. Would that I were just like Darwin as the man truly changed his world. The learned, which in his period likely count more than presently is the case, read, reasoned, and responded. Darwin hit one out of the park in his “opinion”. Darwinism was largely gospel by the end of the 19th Century.
Darwin was just like you he had an opinion!Wrong one at that he was not in line with GOD.
What cause you ask? Movement Conservatism I’d guess. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Movement_conservatism can give you some details on what that might involve. Dr. Malcolm “Chuckles” Cutchins might not know he’s part of the glorious cause yet he reliably totes their water.
Darwin smeared in today’s paper
Professor Cutchins cites “The Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life”, the subtitle of Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species”, to portray Darwin as a racist. But the book concerns plants and animals generally, not humans in particular. The “races” are _varieties_. The “favored” ones are those whose survival and reproduction benefit from a good fit between their environments and their own characteristics.
In “The Descent of Man” and “The Voyage of the Beagle”, Darwin denies sharp racial boundaries among human beings. He shows respect for different peoples and a desire for increasing benevolence within and between groups.
What cause could be noble enough to excuse misinterpreting and smearing an indefatigable scientist and admirable person – and in a column appearing on exactly his 200th birthday?





Advertisement