... padded from both sides ...

Way back on February 27, 2007 -- (Man! Over two years ago!) -- I stated that I had decided to read On the Origin of Species in order to be a fair critic of Reverend Darwin. (What? You had no idea that he was a clergyman?) In that post I commented that I had fallen asleep in the first chapter.

Beloved, it does not surprise me that Charlie D. gave up theology for biology. I thought I was bad, based on the number of nods per minute the pulpit sleepometer records. Not only did I fall asleep in the first chapter, but also in just about all of the chapters. In fact, a week or so after that fateful post, I fell asleep in Chapter 7 and put the project on the back burner.

As it happened, about a month ago I figured that I had better finish the project, so I started over again with Chapter 1. A few days ago, I finished Chapter 14, the final chapter. I have now read the entire unabridged first edition of On the Origin of Species.

Darwin's theory of progressive change was rooted in his familiarity with the selective breeding of domestic plants and animals. As I mentioned above, he was a clergyman, and also quite religious. It is clear, however, that his religion was one that centered around a worship of Nature, and it is interesting to read his statements that seem to personalize Nature. In fact, and this will anger some of the E Camp people, Darwin makes statements that imply that Nature has produced similar adaptations, in widely separated and different species, by some sort of Intelligent Design. Of course, he also makes the statements which infuriate the C Camp people, namely, that there is no reason to invoke special creation of species when his theory adequately (in his mind) explains the origin of all species.

Now I will upset a number of people.

I think Darwin has postulated a working explanation for change -- spell that e-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n -- which is rational and has quite a bit of utility. The concept of natural selection was founded in the observation that humans selectively breed their domestic stock and create new varieties by keeping the stock with desired traits and eliminating the stock that does not have those traits. To that end, his theory makes sense.

Darwin, however, made (and admitted to) a number of assumptions which were necessary to accept his theory and reject special creation. He assumed that geological change occurs steadily and peacefully, without any catastrophic events. This we know to be untrue. He also assumed an extremely old age for the earth, which he inferred from geological strata but which scientists today infer from radioactive decay and from a "flat space" concept of the universe, both of which suffer from being rooted in additional assumptions.

Cascading assumptions create superstition, not science.

True science draws its strength from an understanding of probabilities. A "law" of science is a statement of something that has been observed to be true on every occasion. If there is one chance out of an infinite number of trials that the "law" does not hold true, then it must either be rejected or revised to account for the exception. Without a witness to an event, causation cannot be proven. [Failure to abide by this dictum in the legal arena, by embracing the concept of "circumstantial evidence", has without doubt been responsible for the wrongful conviction and execution of innocent people. It is for this reason that God required that at least two witnesses were necessary for a capital conviction. The use of "circumstantial evidence" in a court of law is a perversion of justice based on a thorough misunderstanding of the nature of science.] The use of evolution as a tool in the biological sciences is extremely important, but it can never point to first causes due to the assumptions which must be made regarding events for which there have been no witnesses.

Therefore, each person has a choice set before himself. He must decide whether to believe that God created and maintains the world by His design and ability, or that "Nature" has accomplished the same thing through pure serendipity. Both positions require a leap of faith; at the bottom of every logic pit are the bones of belief.

I choose to believe that God created and maintains the world. I also choose to believe that He operates through "natural selection", with the understanding that He not only does not "play at dice", but there is no such thing as pure randomness.

If you think such a position points to a careless and unloving God, beware, for He created me as a facultative carnivore, and I work toward the extinction of less adaptive varieties by eating them, and He blesses all my meals, for which I thank Him.

So, now that I have refused to walk down the middle of the road, and indeed, have set off cross-country like a bee going from flower to flower, I expect to hear from all those who believe they are on the Narrow Way simply because they think they have avoided the Ditch. Be careful that you know the difference between the two.