............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Darwin and Wallace both credited an English clergyman for inspiring their evolutionary theories. What are the facts?
.
In
the 19th century, two men independently of each other conceived the supposition
now known as the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. They were
Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Both these men were inspired by An
Essay on the Principle of Population, written by English clergyman and
economist Thomas Robert Malthus. It was not their theory of evolution that led
Darwin and Wallace to disbelief in God, but rather their non-belief in God that
led to their theory of evolution. Natural selection, or “survival of the
fittest”, is a reality in this fallen world. But it is not capable of supplying
the new genetic information to turn microbes into magnolias and
microbiologists. Undoubtedly Malthus’s Essay triggered a line of thinking in
the minds of both Darwin and Wallace that led both men independently to conjure
up the concept of evolution by means of natural selection, in opposition to the
Genesis account of creation. Malthus cannot be blamed for this, and many of his
assumptions have not stood the test of time.
By
Russell Grigg
In the 19th century, two men independently of
each other conceived the supposition now known as the theory of evolution by
means of natural selection.
They were Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and Alfred
Russel Wallace (1823–1913).
Population vs food supply
Malthus was challenging the so-called
Enlightenment philosophy that man was essentially good, that he had proceeded
upward from the savage, and would continue towards perfection as a law of
nature.
Malthus said that population numbers tend to
go up much more rapidly than food supplies, resulting in misery, not
perfection, for mankind.
He wrote: “[T]he
power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to
produce subsistence for man. Population, when unchecked, increases in a
geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio.”
“Taking the
population of the world at any number, a thousand millions, for instance, the
human species would increase in the ratio of 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256,
512, etc. and subsistence as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc. In two
centuries and a quarter, the population would be to the means of subsistence as
512 to 10: in three centuries as 4096 to 13 ….”
He went on to say that the system was kept in
check by things which retarded population increase.
These he labelled ‘misery’, i.e. pestilence,
plague, war, and famine; and ‘vice’, e.g. infanticide and murder.
In later editions of his Essay he added moral
restraints such as postponement of marriage, and sexual abstinence prior to and
outside of marriage.
In addition, Malthus opposed financial relief
for the poor because it encouraged larger families rather than smaller, and so
resulted in more workers for fewer jobs in the labour market.
Effect on Darwin and Wallace
In his Autobiography
Charles Darwin recorded the following tribute to Malthus: “In October 1838 …
I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared
to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from
long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once
struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be
preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed.
The results of this would be the formation of
new species. Here then I had at last got a theory by which to work … .”
He was not considering survival of the
fittest, but was writing to debunk utopian views of perfection in society
inspired by the French Revolution, at least, before the Reign of Terror.
Alfred Russel
Wallace, too, tells us in his autobiography: “One day something brought to
my recollection Malthus’s ‘Principles of Population,’ which I had read about
twelve years before. … Why do some die and some live? And the answer was
clearly, that on the whole the best fitted live. From the effects of disease
the most healthy escaped; from enemies the strongest, the swiftest, or the most
cunning; from famine, the best hunters or those with the best digestion; and so
on. Then it suddenly flashed upon me that this self-acting process would
necessarily improve the race, because in every generation the inferior would
inevitably be killed off and the superior would remain—that is, the fittest
would survive. … The more I thought over it the more I became convinced that I
had at length found the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem
of the origin of species.”
So, what should we think of Darwin’s and
Wallace’s crediting of Malthus for the idea that all things evolved by
selection from a common ancestor? Consider these points:
Malthus certainly was entitled to his view of
the economic situation as he saw it in 1798 ff.
However, life was changing. The industrial
revolution of the 19th century required a huge new work force.
In Malthus’s day, in Britain, much farming
was done by individuals on small land plots that were subdivided as families
increased.
He could not have foreseen the huge increase
in food production that would be provided by the application of machinery to
the farming of vast areas of countryside as has occurred in the USA and
elsewhere.
Nor the modern breakthroughs in crop varietal
selection and breeding to produce greater yields.
Malthus was not a scientist but an economist.
He was not considering survival of the
fittest, but was writing to debunk utopian views of perfection in society
inspired by the French Revolution, at least, before the Reign of Terror.
Malthus saw his principle of population in
the context of God’s providence.
Thus, it was not the duty of humans to
struggle against each other for survival, but to resist evil.
He concluded his
Essay: “Evil exists in the world not to create despair but activity. We are
not patiently to submit to it, but to exert ourselves to avoid it. It is not
only the interest but the duty of every individual to use his utmost efforts to
remove evil from himself and from as large a circle as he can influence, and
the more he exercises himself in this duty, the more wisely he directs his
efforts, and the more successful these efforts are, the more he will probably
improve and exalt his own mind and the more completely does he appear to fulfil
the will of his Creator.”
Throughout his Essay, Malthus constantly
referred to God as the Creator, the Supreme Being or Providence.
He even invoked the
Gospel in his final chapter: “But the doctrine of life and Mortality which
was brought to light by the Gospel, the doctrine that the end of righteousness
is everlasting life, but that the wages of sin are death, is in every respect
just and merciful, and worthy of the great Creator.”
It was not their theory of evolution that led
Darwin and Wallace to disbelief in God, but rather their non-belief in God that
led to their theory of evolution.
In contrast, Darwin had given up Christianity
by the age of 40 (1849), and Wallace said he was an agnostic by the age of 21
(1844).
In this connection it is interesting to note
that it was not their theory of evolution that led Darwin and Wallace to
disbelief in God, but rather their non-belief in God that led to their theory
of evolution.
Selection, yes; evolution, no
Natural selection, or “survival of the
fittest”, is a reality in this fallen world.
But it is not capable of supplying the new
genetic information to turn microbes into magnolias and microbiologists.
Even where new species have been observed to
arise from selection adapting a population to its environment, these are
information-losing (downhill) events.
The idea of natural selection was proposed
well before Darwin and Wallace by Edward Blyth, but Blyth was an ardent
creationist.
He saw the process of natural selection as a
conserving mechanism for eliminating unfit individuals from the created order
to preserve the species, i.e. an anti-evolutionary mechanism that kept the
species stable, rather than a means of forming new species.
Weeks writes, “If
one assumes that the normal type of the species is adapted to its environment,
then any departure from that type will be less fit and will be selected
against. Thus with Blyth, natural selection is a homeostatic mechanism to
prevent change.”
Evolutionist Francis
Hitching goes so far as to say that Darwin “showed real insight by listening
to Blyth and realizing that everything he was saying could be used to support
an opposite conclusion.”
Conclusion
Undoubtedly Malthus’s Essay triggered a line
of thinking in the minds of both Darwin and Wallace that led both men
independently to conjure up the concept of evolution by means of natural
selection, in opposition to the Genesis account of creation.
However, Malthus cannot be blamed for this,
and many of his assumptions have in any case not stood the test of time.
Russell M. Grigg M.Sc. (Hons.)
Creationist Chemist and Missionary
CMI–Australia
Biography
Russell Grigg was born in Auckland, New Zealand, in 1927. He
received his schooling and university education in that country. He studied
chemistry at Victoria University College, Wellington (now known as Victoria
University of Wellington), graduating in 1948. He then worked for a number of
years as an industrial chemist and then as a manager in the paint manufacturing
industry in Wellington and Christchurch.
After theological studies at the New Zealand Bible Training
Institute (later known as the Bible College of New Zealand, and now as Laidlaw
College), he joined the Overseas Missionary Fellowship in 1959. He served for
12 years, heading up OMF’s publishing program in Jakarta, Indonesia. Here he
met and married Miss Merle Cornelius, another member of OMF, from Adelaide,
Australia. Merle went to be with the Lord in January 2009. Russell has three
adult children and nine grandchildren.
https://creation.com/dont-blame-malthus
No comments:
Post a Comment