Darwinist Theodosius Dobzhansky was not an orthodox Christian believer!

I cannot believe I am hearing this nonsense again! The debate over purposeless Darwinian evolution retails more urban legends than a group of high school girl's smoking in the women's can.

In the Correspondence section of Nature, we can read, from U Kutschera , Institute of Biology, University of Kassel, Heinrich-Plett-Strasse 40, D-34109 Kassel, Germany (Nature 443, 26(7 September 2006) | doi:10.1038/443026b), yet another defence of Theodosius Dobzhansky, as a Darwinist poster boy for theistic or even Christian faith, sort of:

Dogma, not faith, is the barrier to scientific enquiry

[ ... ]

He collaborated for many years with Ernst Mayr, who, when asked about his religious views, replied: "I am an atheist. There is nothing that supports the idea of a personal God. On the other hand, famous evolutionists such as Dobzhansky were firm believers in a personal God. He would work as a scientist all week and then on Sunday get down on his knees and pray to God" (Skeptic 8, 76-82; 2000.

In about 1950, Dobzhansky and Mayr founded our modern 'atheistic' evolutionary theory. Their work showed that Christians and atheists can cooperate to develop scientific theories, as long as religious dogma is not mixed up with facts and experimental data. Unfortunately, this is exactly what young-Earth creationists and intelligent-design theorists are doing. They should read the 1973 essay in which Dobzhansky - an open-minded, non-dogmatic theist - thoroughly refuted their irrational claims.

Dobzhansky was, of course, free to believe whatever he wanted, but in what sense was he a Christian or a theist?

Australian biologist Stephen E. Jones, who keeps up with these things better than anyone I know, has the goods on Dobzhansky's real state of faith. He writes me,

Dobzhansky really was an orthodox believer. That is, if you don't count "fundamental beliefs of traditional religion, such as the existence of a personal God and of life beyond physical death"!:

and quotes :

Dobzhansky was a religious man, although he apparently rejected fundamental beliefs of traditional religion, such as the existence of a personal God and of life beyond physical death. His religiosity was grounded on the conviction that there is meaning in the universe. He saw that meaning in the fact that evolution has produced the stupendous diversity of the living world and has progressed from primitive forms of life to mankind. Dobzhansky held that, in man, biological evolution has transcended itself into the realm of self-awareness and culture. He believed that somehow mankind would eventually evolve into higher levels of harmony and creativity. He was a metaphysical optimist." (Ayala, F.J. & Fitch, W.M., Genetics and the origin of species: An introduction," _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA_, Vol. 94, July 1997, pp.7691-7697, p.7693.

Ayala was Dobzhansky's student, incidentally. Now, I have to admit, I smile when I think of the middle Americans who go away from a meeting with the Darwinist spokesfolks, vastly relieved to hear that Dobzhansky was a "religious man," and there they can go back to sanctified materialism with a good conscience. They certianly do not want to know that Dobzhansky's views would hardly qualify him to be considered a Christian, let alone Orthodox, because the basic statements of the Creed stand in fundamental opposition to them.

Steve Jones offers some more information that might help:

Those who really understand Darwinism, but still have spiritual inclinations, have the option of making a religion out of evolution. Theodosius Dobzhansky - Gould's prime example of a Christian evolutionist - actually exemplified the religious dimension of Darwinism. Dobzhansky discarded the traditional Christian concept of God, followed Teilhard de Chardin in spiritualizing the evolutionary process, and worshipped the glorious future of evolution. ... See Francisco Ayala, `Nothing in biology makes sense except the light of evolution,' The Journal of Heredity, vol. 68, pp.3, 9 (Jan.-Feb. 1977). Ayala described his teacher's religion as follows: `Dobzhansky was a religious man, although he apparently rejected fundamental beliefs of traditional religion, such as the existence of a personal God and of life beyond physical death. His religiosity was grounded on the conviction that there is meaning in the universe. He saw that meaning in the fact that evolution has produced the stupendous diversity of the living world and has progressed from primitive forms of life to mankind. Dobzhansky held that, in man, biological evolution has transcended itself into the realm of self awareness and culture. He believed that somehow mankind would eventually evolve into higher levels of harmony and creativity.'" (Phillip E. Johnson, "Response to Gould", Origins Research, Access Research Network, Vol. 15, No. 1, Spring/Summer 1993, pp. 10-11. )

also from Johnson:

The leading Darwinist authorities are frank about the incompatibility of their theory with any meaningful concept of theism when they are in friendly territory, but for strategic reasons they sometimes choose to blur the message. When social theorist Irving Kristol published a New York Times column in 1986 accusing Darwinists of manifesting doctrinaire antitheism, for example, Stephen Jay Gould responded in Discover magazine with a masterpiece of misdirection. [Gould, S.J., "Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between Fact and Theory," Discover, January 1987, pp. 64-70] Quoting nineteenth century preacher Henry Ward Beecher, Gould proclaimed that 'Design by wholesale is grander than design by retail,' neglecting to inform his audience that Darwinism repudiates design in either sense To prove that Darwinism is not hostile to 'religion,' Gould cited the example of Theodosius Dobzhansky, whom he described as `the greatest evolutionist of our century, and a lifelong Russian Orthodox.' As Gould knew very well, Dobzhansky's religion was evolutionary naturalism, which he spiritualized after the manner of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. A eulogy published by Dobzhansly's pupil Francisco Ayala in 1977 described the content of Dobzhansky's religion like this: `Dobzhansky was a religious man, although he apparently rejected fundamental beliefs of traditional religion, such as the existence of a personal God and of life beyond physical death. His religiosity was grounded on the conviction that there is meaning in the universe. He saw that meaning in the fact that evolution has produced the stupendous diversity of the living world and has progressed from primitive forms of life to mankind. Dobzhansky held that, in man, biological evolution has transcended itself into the realm of self- awareness and culture. He believed that somehow mankind would eventually 44 Darwinism and Theism evolve into higher levels of harmony and creativity.' [Ayala, F.J., "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," _Journal of Heredity_, Vol. 68, January-February 1977, pp. 3, 9] Evolution is thoroughly compatible with religion-when the object of worship is evolution. (Johnson, P.E., "Darwinism and Theism", in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?" , Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, 1994, pp.43-44.)

So now you know what to think when you hear someone retailing this "Dobzhansky as believer" nonsense.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Public opinion watch: How religious people perceived by US political parties' supporters

From the Gallup organization. September 7, 2006:

(Note from Denyse: Less than a third of Democrats and leaners perceive evangelical Christians positively. This gap in favourable opinion probably impacts how people interpret statements made re the ID controversy.

For example, some people will interpret "I believe that the universe shows detectible evidence of intelligent design" as "I want to start a theocracy and jail gays." Why? Because the hearer's opinion of the speaker is so negative that the hearer "hears" things that were not said, desired, or perhaps even imagined. - d. )

Partisan Differences

The table below displays the percent of Republicans (including independents who lean to the Republican party) and Democrats (including leaners) who have a positive opinion of each of the ten groups:

Positive Evaluations of Religions/Spiritual Groups by Party Affiliation Aug. 28-31, 2006

Republicans Including Leaners% Democrats Including Leaners% Republican Minus Democratic Gap


Jews 70 51 +19

Catholics 68 51 +17

Methodists 67 51 +16

Baptists 70 47 +23

LDS/Mormons 34 26 +8

Muslims 27 27 0

Evangelical Christians
63 31 +32

Fundamentalist Christians
50 24 +26

Atheists 9 20 -11

Scientologists 9 11 -2


From Gallup: "It is clear that for the most part, Republicans report more positive images of these religious groups than do Democrats. The differences are particularly large for Evangelical Christians, Fundamentalist Christians, and Baptists, but are also evident for such groups as Catholics and Jews.

Democrats and Republicans are essentially equally likely to have positive opinions of Muslims and Scientologists. Democrats are somewhat more likely than Republicans to have a positive opinion of atheists, although neither group rates atheists that positively.

Note: View a summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy.


Read more here but you have to register.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

O’Leary’s comments on Francis Beckwith, a Dembski associate, being denied tenure at Baylor.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudeby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.