Apr
7
2009
7
2009
Quote from Charles Darwin
An article by 
Charles Darwin is a man most known for giving us the theory of evolution by natural selection. He was a highly moral man with his eyes open to the world around him. I was struck by this quote from him:
If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin. ~Charles Darwin
There’s a challenge in that. What think ye?
Did you enjoy this article? Share it!
Related Posts
Define: Poverty
Do I Have Myths to be Busted?
A Christmas Reflection – Power Snubbed- Gap Between Rich and Poor Keeps Widening
About the Author: Frank Ritchie
Frank is the Education and Advocacy Manager for TEAR Fund NZ. Frank is a licensed Minister in the Wesleyan Methodist Church of New Zealand and has a keen interest in biblical perspectives of Justice and how this connects to service to, with and for the poor, disadvantaged and marginalized people of the world.
45 Comments + Add Comment
Leave a comment
TEAR Fund New Zealand
Get Blog Updates Via Email
Recent Comments
- Hướng dẫn Đăng kí vào Diễn đàn bằng hình ảnh thật dễ dàng...^^ on Cyclone Aila in Bangladesh – Diary of a Humanitarian
- BuffCrIsoff on World’s Poorest Prove to be a Good Credit Risk
- hébergement de site internet on NZ Prostitution Law Review Committee: Report
- hoagsardell on Cyclone Aila in Bangladesh – Diary of a Humanitarian
- Twin Bed Frame on The Controversy of Easter. The Crucifixion & Freedom.
Blogroll
- Aid Watch
- Change.org
- Empire Remixed
- From Poverty to Power
- God's Politics
- Good Intentions are not Enough
- Just Comment
- Just.
- New Internationalist
- Restorative Justice
- Tax Justice Network
- The Distributist Review
- The Green New Deal Group
- The Thoughtful Campaigner
- Truth Dealer
- Wronging Rights
- ZNet – the spirit of resistance lives
What think I? Darwin was unable to think through the consequences of his ideas.
Julian Huxley was able to think things through without the correctional attitude wrought by the fear of God:
The Humanist Frame (1961) p. 18
One can only conclude that Huxley would blame slavery on evolution as well (though he would probably have never admitted such).
Darwin didn’t like slavery, but his ideas lead logically to the conclusion that slavery happened not because of rebellion against God, but because it is a natural part of the world.
great quote frank this is a gem keep up the good work
we are more than just animals, this is a thin veneer to hide behind in shaping presuppositions towards the poor. They are just like us woven together by the Divine, designed for a purpose, relationship, intimacy with the Creator with hopes, dreams and ambitions – only to be stolen away and forgotten buy something so cheapening and mass produced like Darwin’s theory.
To keep things open and honest I must state that I personally support Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. I do not believe evolution and Christianity are mutually exclusive.
To preempt the disagreement from some quarters, I am only putting that forward because I feel a need to, I won’t be drawn into a debate on it as the subject does not fit the point of this blog.
Great quote Frank. I’m tentatively with you
, though it’s not a big point of interest for me. Out of interest, did Darwin ever find any kind of reconciliation with his earlier Christian beliefs?
Christianity is faith in Jesus Christ so I guess there is no direct exclusion for belief in Darwinism.
More importantly, and this might be of interest to the site, is how to tell when people say things that aren’t true. Darwin’s quote fits within today’s acceptable social standards rather than saying what Darwin’s beliefs point directly toward.
A belief in evolution is a belief that slavery, poverty, disease and all forms of hardship and subjugation are necessary for its progression or necessary by-products of its existence.
Belief in evolution directly contradicts a vision toward trying to end poverty.
I’ll reword the quote in an attempt to make it more palatable for those who vomit in their mouths at the mention of Darwin or evolution:
~ Damian Peterson
or, to tie in the theme of the poor,
~ Damian Peterson
Actually, I think the original quote was making more of a point about indirect actions of those in power – i.e. institutions – causing suffering to the already downtrodden. If our industry is really having an effect on the climate as the evidence seems to suggest then this quote would be quite relevant in ways that Darwin probably never imagined.
Thinking over that quote makes me review what the institutions I’ve worked for do in terms of adding to the misery of the poor. When you’re ‘on the field’ so to speak, and treating people from both ends of the socio-economic spectrum, it’s easy to see the misery of the poor & the differences in access to support. (i.e. appts sometimes have to be confirmed over the phone or health clinics cancel them to prevent no-shows, but this means those without phones can’t access appts). But trying to find a way to change it – I just can’t come up with something. If in my job I was to provide an equitable service to ‘poor’ and ‘rich’, I’d have to spend more money & more time on the ‘poor’ in order to visit them / run around making visits (no phones to easily book appts) etc etc. But that would leave me in the position of treating less people. So where do you draw lines? Go the extra mile to support those who can’t easily access your service at the cost of other people’s health & wellbeing, or treat more, but with a distinct bias towards the ‘rich’ as they find it easier to negotiate the system??
It feels a bit impossible sometimes.
It’s not a crime to make and sell cigarettes. What planet are you on!?
Flendolyn. The poor you will always have with you. Your responsibility is to act as you can where you are.
Yeah. We should all give up electricity and cars and live in the same conditions those without do .. just to be fair.
Grant, just because we will be with God after death by his grace, should we simply give up on doing our best to grow in holiness while we are alive?
In the same way, just because God is going to remake the earth after the final judgement, should we simply give up on trying to advocate for justice, or doing our best to alleviate suffering for the “least of these”?
Grant, I have trouble with the way I think you are using that quote from Jesus – “the poor you will always have with you.”
Just to make sure I’m not misunderstanding you, do you think there is any directive within scripture to offer our lives in service to the poor? Do you think there is any directive given to take responsibility for the poor?
No.
What is this even in response to?
The directive is to love your neighbour as you would yourself. But that does not mean we have to go out looking for poor people to help.
What do you think Jesus meant when He said there will always be poor people?
I think he meant that there will always be poor people with us.
Who do you think he was talking about when he said “your neighbour”? Who is your neighbour?
Grant, I like that you challenge some of our assumptions. I agree when you say, “Your responsibility is to act as you can where you are.” but you seem to contradict yourself when you say
“The directive is to love your neighbour as you would yourself. But that does not mean we have to go out looking for poor people to help.”
Ithink that we don’t need to “go out looking for the poor”, if we want to see them they are very obvious both in our local community and around the world. Not recognising this is choosing to ignore them.
Taking this into account we should aim to “act as we can, where we are” by follow Gods commands (both in new and old testament) to look after the poor. I think that the where of our action must include all our interactions and the consequences which they have.
This isn’t easy and so far I’m only doing a little towards this myself, but it’s a journey.
To tie things back to the quote – it might be the case that the poor are always with us, that’s nature and the way things are, but it is our actions which worsen or alleviate their misery.
First of all the two questions (‘the poor’ and ‘neighbours’) are being addressed by two different stories.
John 12 (the poor you have with you always .. v8) recounts the story of Jesus being annointed for burial and Luke 10 gives us the story of the Good Samaritan (which .. do you think was neighbor to him..? v36).
Luke 10 has nothing to do with the poor and John 12 has nothing to do with neighbours.
Also, Jesus asked the question a different way from how you asked it. He asked “Who was a neighbour to this man?” (the beaten guy), not “Who is my neighbour”.
He asked it this way of necessity. The story was all about the actions of those who saw what was happening and were there to do something. “If Jesus had asked the question in the manner you have here the story would have made no sense.
Nobody should read into the story of the Good Samaritan that we are expected to be available in every instance where injustice is wrought, nor should anyone be caught up by guilt or obligation when someone points out injustice in a far off land.
And you’ve managed to run completely away from the subject that addresses the original post. Darwinian thinking leads directly to the conclusion that suffering and injustice are necessary for life.
Here are the three positions:
Darwinian – Suffering and injustice are necessary.
Jesus – There will always be poor people.
Frank – We have to help poor people.
On a final note – Jesus’ attitude toward the poor is clear evidence that there is nothing wrong with having little money. Thus giving money (or other items) is not an act of righting injustice. Injustice may well cause people to be poor, but being poor is not an injustice.
Christian – There is no contradiction. There is only the need for you to realise that being poor is not an injustice. Giving money to poor people is not righting injustice.
Of course there is nothing wrong with helping out poor people, but that is a very different situation from seeing injustice and being able to do something about it. Giving money will never make right an injustice.
Grant you’re misquoting things:
Jesus – “You will always have poor people among you, but you will not always have me”.
You’re missing the point.
Acts 9:36, Acts 10:2…. etc…
Why do you think it is that when you do a simple word search on ‘poor’ you find that Jesus spoke of giving to the poor often, the early Christians were often recorded as actively looking after the poor? Given that so little of what happened was recorded, taking care of the poor is given a whole lot of page space.
I wonder why that is.
We may never be able to cure injustice, but if we were to sit back and do nothing, try nothing, not have conversations, not think it over, not pray about it – what would that say of our hearts?
This says it all I think:
“The multitude of your sacrifices – what are they to me?” says the Lord. “I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats…. Stop bringing me meaningless offerings!….make yourselves clean… seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.”
(Full text in Isaiah 1:10 – 17)
I don’t help the poor because Frank says so. I help the poor because God commanded it. Jesus commanded it. And now the Holy Spirit commands it of me.
Flendolyn, you can show me all the stories of people who have given to the poor you like, that doesn’t defeat my point. I have made no claim that it is wrong to give to the poor and nor do I suggest that you stop. All I have said is that giving money to poor people is not addressing injustice. [this paragraph was edited to remove the subjective insult at the beginning]
Your claim that I have misquoted something requires some evidence.
Your claim that giving to the poor is a command is flat out wrong.
Your passage from Isaiah does nothing to support your case against me. I do not deny we should “make [our]selves clean… seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow”, but giving money to people is, curiously, not listed. That is because giving money to poor people does nothing to right injustice.
just jumping back on the band wagon
A few thoughts from my perspective,
there is a lot of talk about justice here what defines biblical justice? can money right injustice and how do these statements effect poverty through the lens of Christianity.
hey grant just bringing to light an angle in your last post That is “Because giving money to poor people does nothing to right injustice.” – Grant
I think this statement has some truth to it, especially if the money is just used to gloss over a “media favorite” country, flash in the pan tactics will never work. Sustainability long term relationship and intelligent Aid management really can break a despairing cycle of poverty and in turn bring about a form of justice.
For most of us we will probably never visit Calcutta or Darfur. Were people can die from a ridiculous affliction such as diarrhea. To be honest what an incredibly humilating and desperate and painfull way to have your life ended.
If we in the “West” can donate money through sponsorship, disaster relief, micro enterprise etc to save even just
one life…surely isn’t that a form of justice isn’t this righting a unnecessary wrong, isn’t that part of what Jesus intended for us putting value on each others lives regardless of race, status or location.
my thoughts anyway – peace, carl
Grant, after all that I’m still keen to know who you think your neighbour is.
Grant, I agree that being poor – in the sense of having less money than some other people – is not unjust therefore giving poor money would not right anything.
But what I meant with poor is probably better described as being in need (of help, material but not necessarily of money). It seems clear to me that the bible teaches (yes even commands) we should help those who are poor and in need (including by giving them money).
eg Matthew 25:31-46 We should give food to those who are hungry, drink to those who are thirsty, clothes to the naked and be hospitable to strangers (all these cost money). Because, as we do to ‘the least of these’ we do to Jesus.
“If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.” 1 John 3:17-18
I also have a question regarding your statement,
“nor should anyone be caught up by guilt or obligation when someone points out injustice in a far off land”
Would you apply this to slavery and slave trade as it existed (in the 1700’s) before abolition?
Slavery was an injustice ‘in a far off land’– but that didn’t negate peoples responsibility to work against it and even give money to further the cause. Or do you disagree?
My definition of neighbour is the man who loves others as he loves himself.
Christian – Matthew 25 is about salvation. If you want to make this a discussion about salvation then you are shifting the goalposts again. The point is that there is no command to give money to the poor. There is a command to not murder, there is a command to not commit adultery, to not steal and to not commit perjury.
Jesus taught (and a few others have worked it out since) to show we would never be able to gain salvation by obedience to the law.
If you are going to teach “Giving to the poor” as a commandment then you have two choices. Either:
A) God requires us to give to the poor in order to attain salvation, or
B) God expects governments to make giving to the poor a legal requirement.
I don’t think you can make either stick and I don’t think you can redefine what a commandment obliges.
Once again, my position does not deny a person’s right to give to the poor. Nor does it deny a person’s right to show compassion in any situation. When I said, “nor should anyone be caught up by guilt or obligation when someone points out injustice in a far off land” I meant an injustice that one would not have known about otherwise. Why should our obligation only come into effect when some organisation tells us about a specific situation?
Grant, where this conversation is at I agree with you. One’s salvation is not dependant on looking after the poor. In that sense doing so is not a commandment. I think you are also right whenyou say that we should not feel guilty or obligated out of guilt to help in every issue presented to us. That’s just not possible.
The Christian life is to be driven by love, not obligation.
I also, along with you, think simply giving money to the poor doesn’t solve much or necessarily lead to justice. This is why I don’t work for an organisation that simply hands out money to the poor. The development work I am connected to is a whole lot more complex than that and I would argue that in many instances it does lead to justice being played out at varying levels.
At no time do I expect anyone to support our work because I think they have to. I do think Christians have a responsibility to live as christ in the world and if they choose to support our work as part of that life, then great.
On the neighbour question. I struggle with your answer a little because I think it narrows the definition further than Jesus did. If we take your definition then Jesus was saying “love those who love others as themselves, as you would wish to be loved”. It makes no sense in light of the parable.
Jesus asked who the neighbour was to the person in need. It was the person who showed mercy to the person in need. He then told the questioner to do likewise, to essentially be that neighbour, show mercy to those in need. This is not commanded of us, but it is certainly a responsibility we are given not out of obligation or law, but simply because to be Christian and human is to help those in need, to be that neighbour. By using this parable and asking the question of the person who is able to show mercy, “who is your neighbour?” – it is the person in need.
I personally choose to try and structure my life to follow that as best as I can. Sometimes that involves some rigorous self examination and it involves working out where I can help those in need.
I’ll see if I can get to the Darwinian issue another day. Going to play games with my daughter now.
Grant,
I’m not sure what you mean exactly by “Darwinian thinking” but I’m assuming you mean the observation of evolution and the theory of natural selection as a driving process.
I addressed this common misunderstanding a while ago here if you are interested to learn how ‘nature red in tooth and claw’ isn’t always true and how altruism is very much a necessary feature of societal living.
Evolution (change by random mutation and natural selection) is not an observation. It’s a theory.
Something not always being true does not mean that thing is not necessary.
Darwinian thinking makes suffering and poverty a necessary part of existence.
Grant, I’m not convinced you care at all for the truth. And I suspect you didn’t even read the article I linked to.
Lots of things evolve. Language evolves and we can observe the evidence by way of historical documents and regional comparisons that evolution has happened and is happening. Life forms also evolve and we can observe the evidence by way of the fossil record, morphology, geographic distribution, genetics and much more.
We can observe language evolving in our own lifetimes and we can also observe life forms evolving in the lab.
That language and living things evolve is a fact. The explanation for what is the mechanism for evolution is a theory.
In science, a ‘theory’ does not mean a ‘hunch’ as it does in day-to-day use. In science the word ‘theory‘ means “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena”.
I hope that clears that up for you.
Now, onto your misunderstanding about ‘Darwinian thinking’ – whatever that means.
You seem to be acting as if our observations about the natural world (as ugly or as beautiful as it may appear) ought to be treated as some kind of an ideology. It’s not. It’s just an observation about how life works and says nothing about the way in which it ought to work.
If I observe that the sun burns things to a crisp or that a praying mantid eats its mate it doesn’t mean that I ought to advocate for burning things or eating spouses. It is what it is.
It is not ‘Darwinian thinking’ that ‘makes’ suffering and poverty a necessary part of existence. It’s just the way much of life works. But beauty is also a necessary part of existence (bees find flowers ‘beautiful’) and so is altruism (just look at any species that forms societies). This doesn’t mean that I feel the need to correct the ways of the praying mantid or turn the sun down to a more reasonable temperature.
What we can say, however, is that cooperation has played a very large part in our successful human societal strategy so far. This doesn’t mean that we ought to continue to be altruistic merely because it’s worked for us in the past any more than that we ought to participate in genocide for the same reasons.
You are making a strawman argument either deliberately or out of ignorance when you set up evolution as an ideology rather than an observation and I hope that you are interested enough in truth to see the fallacy. If it is ignorance then I encourage you to at least understand what the theory of evolution by natural selection’s claims really are and if deliberate, consider whether you value truth over pre-existing beliefs.
Why should I read your link when your invitation to do so is so laced with inconsistency?
Lots of things do change. However I know of no observation that necessitates the belief that random mutations and natural selection have turned single celled organisms into people.
When you say:
…I agree with you!
But only if you are very clear that the word “evolve” is a synonym for “change” and the word “evolution” is the theory that all living things descended from a common ancestor. You are not so clear in your descriptions. You prefer to use the word ‘evolve’ as liberally as possible.
Stick to clearly defined ideas and we’ll be able to understand each other.
And do not presume to lecture me on the proper use of the word theory. I know what it means.
Nor should you accuse me of constructing a strawman argument. If you believe that all people descended from a common ancestor then you necessarily believe that all men were born into a world where suffering and poverty were inherent.
That’s all I’ve said. Your myriad of defensive tactics are irrelevant.
Grant, do you agree then that this “Darwinian thinking” (again, whatever that is) “leads directly to the conclusion” that suffering, injustice (although I’d say ‘indifference’ is more appropriate), beauty, regeneration, altruism, disaster, love, anger, lust, mercy, playfulness, fear and comfort are “necessary for life”? Or are you going to focus on only the bits of life you don’t particularly like and ascribe them to a chap called Darwin as if they were his personal idea for how the world ought to be?
How about you respond to the points I do make then we can discuss other things if you like. That’s how a conversation generally works.
The key word you are missing is the first one. I say “IF” Darwinian Thinking is correct then life depends upon suffering and poverty. I.e. I do not believe Darwinian Thinking is correct. I believe that poverty and suffering are among the consequences of rebellion against God.
Evolutionists generally have stories to explain the existence of things like beauty and altruism that are not necessarily predicted by their ideas. I regard that all as exactly what they are. Stories invented to defend an idea.
Ahhhhh, that explains the disconnect! Are you a young earth creationist?
Yes, sir.
We have so little in common in our understanding of how the world works that I think it’d be a waste of both our time to take this any further.
Take what any further? I claim that Darwinian thinking makes suffering and poverty a necessary part of existence. You either agree or you don’t. Our different world-views do not come into it.
Damian,
I would love to hear exactly what life forms have been observed evolving in a lab. By evolving I mean ‘gaining genetic material’ not by means of mutation or devolving etc…
P.S. I’m a young young earth creationist so you may not want to support your argument by replying to me as well.
Hi-5, David. Another sensible man.
Gentlemen, please take any discussions about the nature of evolution to another blog, it is not the point of this post, nor does such a discussion fit the nature of this site. There are many other sites that exist to cover such conversations.
Frank,
please allow Damian just one last reply, before the poor chap pulls the trigger of the gun he’s holding to his head.
Hopefully we won’t run out of room on this page!
David, with all due respect, the conversation will not end with Damian offering a ‘final’ response. No matter what he says (and I do not think he has a trigger to his head at this point) both you and Grant will feel compelled to respond and thus it goes on.
Your question may be a worthy one, but it does not fit this blog, thus my request is that it endeth here and that Damian not respond. Being the polite man he is I am sure that he will respect that request as I am sure both you and Grant will as well.
[comment deleted]
Frank,
I’ve always wanted to join that club(!), but is it possible to get an explanation?
David, welcome to that club then, it’s pretty exclusive
Sorry mate, I would have explained but thought it was self evident – you were continuing to try to push Damian to get an answer when I had clearly expressed twice that I did not want that line of conversation to continue as it does not fit the nature of the blog.
Fair enough; as Paul Henry recently said, “Start a group”.
hmmm… which is what I might do…
Allow me to affirm there’s nothing personal in it. You and I have had some good robust discussions on this blog and I look forward to more.
This is simply about making sure that in this formative stage of conversation happening here, that the tone is set and kept on track as whatever happens now will set the tone for the future