Discussion Forum Sample #2

Discussion of Darwin

Student #1: I wanted to take this forum as an opportunity to expound on one of the comments made this morning in class regarding the reason behind the tremendous controversy surrounding the Charles Darwin issue as it played out during the 19th century. First, as a Christian I cannot say that my opinions are not colored in any way by my beliefs. It is hard to look at an issue objectively when it deals with something so close to you. That, in a way, is part of why I feel the controversy boiled to extreme temperatures and still does today. The main point I wanted to make was that the Bible makes no hesitations in regards to characterizing human beings. We are all sinners. Paul said in his letter to the Romans that we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. As sinners, we have an innate desire to succumb to the temptations and passions of this world. Whether those are greed, lust, pride or whatever, humans enjoy living the sinful nature. That is, it is enjoyed until the Holy Spirit makes its presence known in your heart. Once that takes place, then the conviction of sin becomes the “moral conscious” that many younger Christians and non-believers confuse with guilt. In our society, as it was in Darwin’s day, people do not enjoy feeling guilty or having someone or something make them feel guilty. Therefore, those who don’t know Jesus Christ as Savior, yet are restricted by God’s preordained moral law which determines the actions of “right” and “wrong,” find the opportunity to indulge their own sin nature a very appetizing proposition. As the gentlemen in class pointed out, people look for the easy way out by nature. If someone enjoys living a life free of “guilt” then they are more apt to adopt ideas that can foster that lifestyle. It is my contention that people argue so vehemently against the Bible and for Darwin’s theory (and it is a theory which has never been proven) because of their own desire to not have a higher power dictate what their life should be like. The only problem with this is that God has created us for His glory and His glory alone.

My Response: It seems to me that this is a good opportunity to point out that issues such as the Darwin controversy, which as you say, hit so close to home, often engender strong passions which sometimes cause us to feel compelled to state our beliefs in a strong fashion. That said, I would remind everyone that what we are about in this class is historical analysis...that is, looking at issues such as this one as historians.  Of course, as we discussed in the first week of the semester, historians are never free from bias. As you said in your posting: "I cannot say that my opinions are not colored in any way by my beliefs. It is hard to look at an issue objectively when it deals with something so close to you." Keeping your own historical analysis completely free of your personal biases is simply impossible. However, that is different from making ideological (political) or religious points in a discussion about events from the past. Different members of the class might find your statements about sin and human nature agreeable or disagreeable, but from an historian's perspective, you have miscast your remarks to try to make points about people in the present (a sort of reverse anachronism). It is certainly possible that some in 19th century England objected to or supported Darwin for reasons similar to those your propose here, but you would need to determine that from research. For example, did ministers preach against Darwin's ideas using these points? Did individuals write letters to newspapers making these points? And so on.

My intention is not to discourage anyone from expressing an opinion on this forum, which I created for you all to use for just that purpose. All I'm trying to say here is that discussion of historical events is most fruitful, at least in my experience, when the focus remains on the events themselves. Of course, that is my opinion and others should feel free to disagree. In fact, if you do disagree, I hope you will here, because (again in my opinion)be a very interesting and enlightening discussion.

His response to mine: Just for clarification purposes, I would like to clear up a couple of points regarding the “Darwin controversy” posting made on September 20. As stated by Dr. Kelly, good historical analysis requires focus on the events themselves, not upon political or ideological opinions. My intention was not “solely” to present these opinions, although that was a nice bonus. Primarily however, my intention was to propose one possible answer to a question that Dr. Kelly did ask us to speculate on.

While it is true that I have done no formal research on the topic of 19th Century human psyche, I did feel as though drawing upon my own observations and experiences as a human being living in a time where the controversy over Darwinism is still prevalent, was relevant. I do not believe that the innate nature of human beings has changed over time, although outward social influences do cause opinions and behaviors to vary from one point in time to another. I by no means credit all of the 19th century European controversy to be a result of my opinion. For me to believe so would be naïve, as well as improper based on my lack of research. I do however believe that it is a possible logical cause and that drawing upon our own experiences in life counts for something in the way of historical analysis. Not being a “certified” historian, Dr. Kelly might very well disagree with me. With that said, I will not use this forum to voice any more of my opinions which do not directly relate to a topic discussed in class. :)