I have nothing against Bl. John H. Newman, in many respects he was a very wise and respectable scholar, but I will rather bet on or go with Chesterton’s insights about Darwin and evolution.

In any case, as your quote “Mr. Darwin’s theory need not be atheistical…” indicates, even Bl. J. H. Newman considered Darwinism atheistical, at least in practical terms. Lately there has been a push in Christian circles to theoretically reconcile Darwin and Christianity or theism, but without any success yet. It all depends on how one understands or misunderstands or gets confused or gets sloppy about the metaphors for “random”, see my reply to the Olde Statistician here, Dec. 20, 2011 at 1:27pm

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/12/16/plantinga-on-naturalism-and-evolution/

I agree with you that many Catholics ought to learn more about these evolutionary debates and controversies. Unfortunately, there are still many high profile Catholics, like the group of Vatican astronomist Jesuits, who should know better than indiscriminately insist on defending Darwin and Teilhard de Chardin. The 5 day Vatican conference on Darwin in 2009 was a shameful joke.

It is not about “fearing” Darwinian natural selection, rather scientifically it matters whether it is true or false. Many biologists today know that it is simply false or seriously unexplanatory or actually counter-explanatory. (Chesterton said so almost 100 years ago, read his Myths and Metaphors. Notice how he mentioned the “last surviving Darwinians” in 1929. ) That is why an increasing number of high-profile biologists have been quite critical of the original Darwinism, including the pseudo-genetic New Synthesis theory concocted by the British eugenicist “sir” Ronald Fisher in 1930 under the guidance of Darwin’s son Major Leonard Darwin. Biologists are today still searching for some theory or theories that would truthfully explain the mysteries of life.

However, as Chesterton aptly put it in his essay On Darwinism and Mystery. (Notice how Chesterton calls Darwinism “old” biology) :

“It is not my theology, or the old Puritan theology any more than the old Darwinian biology. What remains is mystery–an unfathomed and perhaps unfathomable mystery.”

Mark,

I have it from other sources, but here is what the British Socialists are saying:

“In Marx’s initial enthusiastic reading of The Origin of Species he had written to both Engels (19 December 1860) and Lassalle (16 January 1861) that it “contains the natural-history foundation of our viewpoint” and that “it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle.” … It is unlikely that in the 18 months separating what he wrote in the famous 1859 Preface …”

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2010/no-1272-august-2010/marx-and-ideology-darwin

I can understand why the British Socialists are trying to dissociate Marx and Darwin, but I know that the hardcore Eastern Bloc marxists, ideologues and philosophers were very fond of Darwin and evolution. Lysenkoism was used mainly for agricultural propaganda, and not to prop up marxist ideology philosophically. If I wanted to be cynical, I could point out that genetically Lysenkoism was partly based on Lamarckism, not unlike some of the modern biologists subscribe to because they know that Darwinism is simply wrong as a scientific theory of biology.

One recalls Bl Joh Henry Newman’s 1863 note, “There is as much want of simplicity in the idea of the creation of distinct species as in those of the creation [of] trees in full growth (whose seed [is] in themselves) or of rocks with fossils in them. I mean that it is as strange that monkeys should be so like men, with no historical connexion between them, as that there should be, or the notion that there was no history or course of facts by which fossil bones got into rocks. … I will either go the whole hog with Darwin, or, dispensing with time and history altogether, hold, not only the theory of distinct species, but that also of the creation of the fossil-bearing rocks”

He also wrote to Pusey, ” “Mr. Darwin’s theory need not be atheistical, be it true or not; it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill.”

It was Evangelical Protestants, with their theory of Scriptura Sola, who were predisposed to a literal interpretation of scripture. Catholics and Tractarians were far more interested in the mystical, allegorical or typical sense of the OT.

Only half true. Marx — along with many other intellectuals in England and elsewhere at the time who had nothing to do with socialism — found Darwin’s case compelling for the simple reason that it’s true.

On the other hand, you would be wrong to suggest that, for instance, Stalin was fond of Darwinian evolution. Stalin’s government infamously promoted the crank pseudo-science of Lysenkoism as an alternative to Darwinian evolution by natural selection.

Yet while Christians should oppose materialism, we need not fear natural selection or Darwinism. These are compatible with both materialism and Christian metaphysics. The Church in recent years has basically gotten it right on this issue, embracing the truths of evolutionary science while rejecting materialism, determinism, and other metaphysical errors that some Darwinists unfortunately promote.

Some of the particulars about multilevel selection vs. gene-centered selection, the neutral theory of molecular evolution, the group selection controversy, eusociality, the role of epigenetics remain to be ironed out. Christians and other religious people should take the time to learn about these debates, thereby gaining more appreciation for the beauty and complexity of Creation.

With regard to the radical evil of totalitarianism, Father Boyd never said anyone should “prefer the morality of Russia, China or Noth Korea”–that would be absurd to anyone who values human dignity, freedom, human rights and faith. Of course we should emphatically oppose totalitarianism by all moral and just means.

The point of Father Boyd’s comment, conveying Chesterton’s thinking, was not to diminish or relativize the appalling evil of totalitarianism (or suggest we should lessen our fight against it), but to point out that, precisely because Western-style consumerism is far more humane and tolerant, people are more susceptible to its destructive enticements when they do arise.

Totalitarianism is obviously and blatantly evil; damaging policies within open, democratic and pluralistic societies are much more subtle, but can have devestating consequences for Judeo-Christian principles if they are not recognized and resisted: this was among Chesterton’s many profound insights, which are certainly applicable to our time, and consistent with the teachings of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

Clearly, you are not familiar with Chesterton’s writings — he was one the smartest and the most consistent thinkers who ever lived, deeper and more profound then all the other Christian apologists, including C.S. Lewis or Ravi Zacharias. If you had bothered to google the quote, (such as here http://americanchestertonsociety.blogspot.ca/2010/03/next-great-heresy-quote.html) you might have understood what Chesterton was talking about.

Also, you are obviously not familiar with socialist or communist totalitarian systems – they had or still have double standard of morality, one for the workers (TV, movies, literature, magazines etc. were censored, drugs were not allowed), the other for the high ranking Party members. The privileged had their private clubs and access to smut, screening banned movies that the workers never had a change to see, etc. The masses and the workers had to be kept in line and productive, being imposed on by the official sham morality presumably leading to the workers’ paradise promised by Marx, Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc.

Oh, by the way, Marx and the communist totalitarians too were very fond of Darwin and evolution — Marx even offered to write a Preface to Darwin’s Origin of Species!

The problem is not that the Catholic morality is not being taught, from the pulpit, in Sunday schools, in many Christian magazines, on the internet, etc. It is taught where I live and I think it is pretty much everywhere else in North America. It is also not so much that the laity doesn’t care — most Catholics do care, but they are confused, tired and dispirited fighting the loosing battles on moral issues against the pervasive culture of death.

The problem, as I stated above, is that the root causes are not understood by the Church leaders and by the bishops — they and every honest Catholic should dig deep into Chesterton to understand what is going on and how to fight it. Chesterton is our best ally in this fight, I would say our only chance to make this new evangelization meaningful and effective.