Darwin’s Passion

Presentation

Introduction

Darwin’s Passion is a dramatised symphonic work with voices in three acts, it explores various theatrical art forms, of which the core is music. This metaphorical drama is designed to draw the audience into an extraordinary polemical debate, which took place 150 years ago since Darwin first published ‘The Origins of Species’. ‘Darwin’s Passion’ aims to sensitize the audience, by bringing closer Darwin’s thoughts his controversial ideas of a new rational science over the hegemony of a God. His theory challenged the orthodoxy of his day, causing consternation, which clashed bitterly with his own innate nature. Darwin was a gentleman, belonging to the ruling establishment and was only too aware of the painful truths that he discovered.

However much this work might appear historical we are all too aware of it’s real significance in our contemporary world driven by religious intolerance and political dogma, paradoxically not too dissimilar to Darwin’s own time.

Darwin’s discovery is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth. It helps us understand our origins … We are part of a total process, made of the same matter and operating by the same energy as the rest of the cosmos, maintaining and reproducing by the same type of mechanism as the rest of life.

The future of Darwin’s legacy is subject to the directional whims of succeeding generations, but it is certain that Darwin’s theory of evolution will continue to spark the curiosity of modern thinkers and inspire the search for truth.

The heroic intellectual curiosity of Darwin exemplifies our potential and the core of our humanity. ‘Darwin’s Passion’ portrays this vigorous intellectual life and the humanitarian values produced from such thinking.

Copyright © 2007 Janusz Podrazik & Duncan Ward

Darwin’s Paragraphs

Darwin’s opening paragraph to the Origin of Species, 1859

When on board H.M.S. Beagle as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the organic beings inhabiting South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts, as will be seen in the latter chapters of this volume, seemed to throw some light on the origin of species- that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers. On my return home, it occurred to me, in 1837, that something might perhaps be made out on this question by patiently accumulating and reflecting on all sorts of facts which could possibly have any bearing on it. After five years’ work I allowed myself to speculate on the subject, and drew up some short notes; these I enlarged in 1844 into a sketch of the conclusions, which then seemed to me probable: from that period to the present day I have steadily pursued the same object. I hope that I may be excused for entering on these personal details, as I give them to show that I have not been hasty in coming to a decision.

Origin of Species (1859)

…why should the species which are supposed to have been created in the Galapagos Archipelago, and nowhere else, bear so plain a stamp of affinity to those created in America? There is nothing in the conditions of life, in the geological nature of the islands, in their height or climate, or in the proportions in which the several classes are associated together, which resembles closely the conditions of the South American coast: in fact there is a considerable dissimilarity in all these respects. On the other hand, there is a considerable degree of resemblance in the volcanic nature of the soil, in climate, height, and size of the islands, between the Galapagos and Cape de Verde Archipelagos: but what an entire and absolute difference in their inhabitants! The inhabitants of the Cape de Verde Islands are related to those of Africa, like those of the Galapagos to America. I believe this grand fact can receive no sort of explanation on the ordinary view of independent creation; whereas on the view here maintained, it is obvious that the Galapagos Islands would be likely to receive colonists, whether by occasional means of transport or by formerly continuous land, from America; and the Cape de Verde Islands from Africa; and that such colonists would be liable to modification;- the principle of inheritance still betraying their original birthplace.

The famous last paragraph of the Origin of Species is a concise and eloquent précis of Darwin’s vision

It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Darwin read Malthus – Essay on Population

In October 1838, that is fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus’ Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence [a phrase used by Malthus] which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation 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 result of this would be a new species. Here then I had at last got hold of a theory by which to work.

Cardinal vs. Darwin

In 1950, Pope Pius XII wrote in his Encyclical Humani Generis:

“The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter”.

Pope John Paul II in a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences:

October 23, 1996

“New findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

A theory is a meta-scientific elaboration, which is distinct from, but in harmony with, the results of observation. With the help of such a theory a group of data and independent facts can be related to one another and interpreted in one comprehensive explanation. The theory proves its validity by the measure to which it can be verified. It is constantly being tested against the facts; when it can no longer explain these facts, it shows its limits and its lack of usefulness, and it must be revised.”

The Pope and Darwin

Why Benedict XVI wants to talk about evolution, but won’t tread into the
U.S. battle over intelligent design
By Jeff Israely/Rome

Aug. 31, 2006

Headline writers (even TIME’s) might be tempted to advertise a grudge match between the Holy Father and the high priest of natural selection. But look again. Our title promises the Pope AND Darwin, not the Pope VS. Darwin. Benedict XVI will indeed be hosting a scholarly pow wow this weekend at his summer residence at Castel Gandolfo, south of Rome, to debate evolution and creation.

But don’t expect the Catholic Church to start disputing Darwin’s basic findings, which Pope John Paul II in 1996 called “more than a hypothesis.” Moreover, advocates of the teaching in U.S. schools of intelligent design — which holds that nature is so complex that it must be God’s doing — should not count on any imminent Holy See document or papal pronouncement to help boost their cause. This weekend’s private retreat is an annual gathering of the Pope’s former theology students to freely discuss one topic of interest, without the aim of reaching any set conclusion. Evolution appears to be very much on the pontiff’s mind. It is a ‘natural selection’ of its own that this was the singular subject chosen by the Pope and his disciples for three days of lectures and discussion. Some conservative Catholics do indeed have growing doubts about the teaching of Darwin, which they say is now used to explain the very meaning of human existence.

The issue of evolution has been on this pope’s agenda from Day One, as Benedict proclaimed at his installation mass: “We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God.” These concerns echo those expressed by backers of intelligent design, who include a mix of mostly Protestants and Roman Catholics. The ID advocates take pains to distinguish themselves from old-school “creationists,” arguing instead that evolution has simply elbowed out any other explanation for how we or the world was created. Darwin, they worry, has become “Darwinism” — natural science transformed into dogmatic philosophy.

Still, the heart of the battle in the U.S. is not about theology or philosophy. It’s about location. Proponents say ID should be taught in biology class at public schools, and this is a debate that Benedict will almost certainly avoid. The ID proponents have found intellectual allies in the highest reaches of the Catholic hiearchy. Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, the influential Archbishop of Vienna, wrote an opinion piece last year in the New York Times that was favorable to the theory of intelligent design. Three months later, the pope entered the fray personally, when he used the words “intelligent project” to describe the universe’s creation. Not surprisingly Schönborn, who was a star student in the early 1970s of then professor of theology Father Joseph Ratzinger, will give the equivalent of the keynote address this weekend at the Castel Gandolfo get-together.

Another former student, Father Joseph Fessio, a conservative Jesuit theologian and U.S.-based publisher of Ratzinger’s writings, will also be there. Fessio did his best to downplay the significance of the meeting. “This is not a gathering of experts on evolution and creation called in to advise the Holy Father,” he told TIME shortly after his arrival in Rome. “This is just a former professor having an informal gathering with his old students. There has never been a subgroup that produced a document. We ‘ ve never issued a statement, nor has he.” Once Ratzinger was elected pope, however, interest was sure to heighten in these gatherings, which in the past have covered ecuminism and the Eastern rite church. Last summer, the chosen topic was Islam. Fessio does not deny that evolution may be a top papal priority. “These are the fundamental questions of any human being who becomes aware of himself. Where did I come from? Where I am going? What is the meaning of life — mine and in general?” Fessio says the American debate over ID involves other factors, including separation of church and state. “Intelligent design isn’t religion in terms of ‘revealed truth.’ It’s also not science. It’s natural philosophy. It ‘ s a possible conclusion of humans seeking sufficient reason for the order of universe.” Fessio agrees with Schönborn that Darwinists “are overstepping the bounds of science…If matter is all that there is, that’s a philosophy.”

Beyond any eventual Vatican document specifically on evolution, the debate over Darwin may arise in the Church’s ongoing battle on bioethics. In a speech last week at a Catholic conference in Rimini, Italy — a sort of public warmup for the high-stakes private lecture he will give at Castel Gandolfo — Schönborn condemned what he called “scientism,” or the failure of those in the scientific community to recognize that their findings can’t provide all the answers. “The grand epic of modern science is to have found…the wonder of the origin of life,” he said sardonically. Schönborn said this attitude has inherent implication in public policy at both ends of life, from assisted fertility to euthanasia. And so like the Pope himself, Schönborn is an ally in the ID battle, as much for his theological firepower as for his institutional muscle. “This is a myth that has become history,” he said of the findings of the British naturalist. This is indeed stronger language than the pope has ever used. Maybe, after all, we could at least call this the Cardinal vs. Darwin.