Religion Isn't Working - Joseph Habedank

 

 

Before Darwin: The Ideas That Prepared the Way

In the first article of this series, we looked at Charles Darwin—the man whose ideas helped change the way generations of people thought about life, origins, and the Creator.

But there is a question worth asking:

Where did the intellectual climate that made Darwin's ideas so influential come from?

Darwin did not suddenly appear in a vacuum.

Ideas rarely do.

They travel from one generation to another. One man raises a question, another develops it, and someone else eventually carries it into an entirely different field. Sometimes the later idea resembles the original. Sometimes it goes much farther than the original writer intended.

That is one reason history matters.

Darwin Was Not the Beginning

It is tempting to tell the story as though everything began with Darwin.

But the question of how life and the world could be explained without God was already being discussed long before Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859.

There had been philosophers who attempted to explain the universe through natural causes rather than beginning with the Creator revealed in Scripture.

There were also changing ideas about geology, the age of the earth, human history, and the development of living things.

Darwin entered that conversation and gave one of the most influential explanations for biological development.

But the soil had already been prepared.

The Shift From “Who Created?” to “How Did It Happen?”

There is an important difference between asking a scientific question and adopting a worldview.

Science can investigate how something happens.

But the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” reaches beyond laboratory observation.

The Bible begins at the starting point:

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
— Genesis 1:1 KJV

That statement establishes the foundation.

God is not presented as a possible explanation among many explanations.

He is the Creator.

Once that foundation is removed, however, man is left looking for another starting point.

And that is where naturalism becomes so important.

Naturalism Needs a History Too

Naturalism did not simply appear when Darwin published his book.

The basic idea—that nature should be explained by natural causes without appealing to God—had a long intellectual history.

Darwin's theory gave that worldview a powerful biological mechanism.

Instead of simply asking how individual creatures had been designed, people could now ask whether the appearance of design could be explained through natural selection.

That was a tremendous shift.

The argument was no longer merely:

“Maybe God isn't necessary to explain this particular thing.”

It increasingly became:

“Perhaps nature can explain life itself.”

That is a much larger claim.

And once that claim enters the discussion, the consequences reach beyond biology.

Ideas Have Consequences

This is where David Breese's warning about men who “rule the world from the grave” becomes interesting.

A man's influence doesn't necessarily end when he dies.

His books remain.

His ideas are taught.

His students teach their students.

Eventually, people may accept an idea without ever knowing who first popularized it.

That is how an idea can become part of a culture.

People may not know the history behind the belief. They simply assume it is the way intelligent people think.

But Scripture tells us to examine what we are being taught.

Paul warned the believers at Colosse:

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”
— Colossians 2:8 KJV

Notice that Paul did not tell believers to stop thinking.

He warned them to be careful what kind of thinking controls them.

That distinction is important.

Following the Trail

This is why looking at the men and ideas that influenced modern thought can be useful.

We aren't trying to blame every modern problem on one person.

We aren't saying that every person who accepts evolution has consciously rejected God.

And we certainly shouldn't accuse historical figures of things they never actually taught.

Instead, we can ask a more useful question:

What happened to the idea after it left the hands of the man who first proposed it?

That question can reveal a great deal.

Darwin's work concerned biological development.

But the worldview built around naturalism eventually affected discussions about education, morality, psychology, sociology, and man's understanding of himself.

The idea traveled.

The Bigger Question

Ultimately, the issue isn't merely Darwin.

It is the foundation upon which we build our understanding of reality.

Do we begin with:

“In the beginning God created…”

or do we begin with:

“Nature is all there is…”?

Those two starting points lead in very different directions.

One begins with a Creator.

The other must eventually attempt to explain the Creator away.

And that is why the story didn't end with Darwin.

The ideas kept traveling.

In the next article, we'll follow that trail a little farther and look at another thinker whose ideas helped shape the intellectual world in which modern man lives.

---

You May Also Like

The Man Who Tried to Explain Life Without the Creator

Charles Darwin's ideas changed far more than biology. They helped introduce a way of thinking about origins and life that continues to influence the world today.

John the Baptist: The Last of the Aaronic Line?

 

Letting Scripture Connect the Dots

One of the interesting things about reading the Bible straight through is discovering how often the New Testament reaches back into the Old Testament.

Sometimes you read an Old Testament story and think, “I wonder if there is more to this than what I'm seeing?”

That can be a good question.

But there is also a danger.

We can see a detail in an Old Testament story and decide what we think it represents. Before long, we can have an interpretation that sounds good but isn't actually supported by Scripture.

Paul gives us an important example.

In Galatians 4, Paul uses the story of Sarah and Hagar to explain the difference between the two covenants. He says:

“Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants...”
— Galatians 4:24

Paul was inspired by God when he made that connection. We aren't.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't look for connections. It means we should be careful about who is doing the connecting.

Look for the Bible's breadcrumbs

Take Balaam.

If we only read Numbers 22–24, we might wonder why Balaam's later reputation is so bad. He couldn't curse Israel. In fact, he blessed them.

Then later Scripture begins filling in the missing pieces.

Jude says Balaam ran greedily after error “for reward.”

Peter says he “loved the wages of unrighteousness.”

Revelation refers to “the doctrine of Balaam.”

And Numbers 31 tells us that Balaam's counsel was involved in Israel's sin at Peor.

Now we have something more than our own theory.

Scripture has connected the dots for us.

The prophets were looking forward

Peter gives us another important clue when he writes about the prophets:

“Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify...”
— 1 Peter 1:11

The prophets were writing under the inspiration of the Spirit, yet they were also searching to understand what God was revealing through them.

Then the New Testament comes along and gives us information that helps us understand what they were looking toward.

Paul does the same thing with things written “aforetime.”

“For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning...”
— Romans 15:4

And then he tells us in 1 Corinthians 10:11:

“Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition...”

There is a pattern here.

We read the history.

We notice what happened.

We may have questions.

Then we look to see whether Jesus, Peter, Paul, Jude, or another inspired writer gives us more information.

If they do, we have a biblical connection.

If they don't, perhaps the safest thing to say is simply:

The passage says what it says.

A question is not a doctrine

I've been reminded of something while reading through the Old Testament.

There is nothing wrong with saying:

“Could this be connected to something later?”

The problem comes when we change “could” into “is” without Scripture giving us the evidence.

A Bible study doesn't have to answer every question immediately.

Sometimes the best note in the margin is simply:

“Check this later.”

Then keep reading.

You might find the answer in the next chapter—or you might find it in something Paul wrote years later.

And if you don't find it?

That's okay too.

We don't have to make Scripture say something just because we think it ought to say it.

The safest path is to let Scripture interpret Scripture.

Look for the breadcrumbs—but let God put them there.

Is Faith The Gift in Ephesians 2:8?

 

Session 1: What Is the Bible? Canon, Preservation, and Trust

 

Where Will I Spend Eternity?