The Theories of Darwin and Their Relation to Philosophy, Religion, and Morality — Inside the Classic

Schmid's Method: Separating Problems and Voices

Schmid's preface reveals a deliberate method: he aims to treat the different problems and their attempted solutions not only in their relations to each other but also separately. This approach is a response to what he calls the 'illogical and confused manner' of noisy leaders who confound sciences and their consequences. Throughout the excerpts, Schmid consistently distinguishes between Darwin's own cautious statements and the more radical conclusions drawn by followers like Ernst Haeckel and Ludwig Büchner. He notes that Darwin praised Haeckel's Natural History of Creation, claiming he might never have completed his own essay had it appeared earlier—yet Schmid points out that Haeckel and Büchner 'firmly unite Darwinism and monistic naturalism or even materialism.' By separating Darwin's voice from his followers', Schmid creates a layered argument that allows him to critique the anti-Christian results derived from Darwinian premises without dismissing Darwin entirely.

Darwin's Theological Ambiguity Under Scrutiny

Schmid carefully examines Darwin's own theological position, finding it inconsistent. He notes that in Origin of Species and Descent of Man, Darwin does not contest a teleological view of nature, rejecting only the idea of sudden creation out of nothing—a concept Schmid argues is not required by religious views anyway. However, Schmid detects a shift in Darwin's later work, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, where a passage 'seems to give just as much support to the adversaries of teleology as to its advocates.' He also highlights Darwin's silence on the anti-Christian results drawn by Haeckel and Büchner, which makes Darwin's own position 'very uncertain.' Schmid characterizes Darwin's theology as inclined to 'a quite cool and superficial deism,' influenced by traditions of the last century, and suggests that Darwin allowed himself to be too impressed by anti-teleological deductions of followers, separating Creator and work more widely over time.

The Problem of Defining Creation

A recurring analytical thread in Schmid's argument is the definition of 'creation.' He contends that Darwin's rejection of 'creation' of single species is based on a misunderstanding shared by many theologians: that creation implies direct intervention out of nothing. Schmid argues that this definition is proper only for the origin of the universe, not for the origin of single formations within it. He states that such a view is 'neither asked for by the religious view of the world, nor established by the Holy Scriptures, nor by a cautiously reasoning theology.' By reframing the concept, Schmid attempts to dissolve the apparent opposition between Darwin's theory and religious creation. He quotes Darwin's rejection of the idea that 'certain elemental atoms have been commanded suddenly to flash into living tissues' and agrees with Darwin's right to reject it, while insisting that Darwin does not deny the dependence of new species on a divine author. This careful parsing of terms is central to Schmid's project of reconciliation.

Schmid's editorial voice is that of a theologian who respects scientific inquiry while insisting on the limits of its domain. Readers will find that the book's value lies not in its scientific novelty—it draws on Darwin's published works—but in its systematic attempt to disentangle the philosophical and religious implications that were often conflated in popular debates. The author's method of separating problems and voices offers a model for engaging with controversial ideas without surrendering to polemics.

Holding the old Schmid translation, I felt its careful attempt to hold science and faith together, a theologian’s quiet balancing act. That patient, almost tender wrestling with mystery reminded me of another book I once loved, The Philosophy of Mystery — Story, Setting & Ideas, whose serene voice approached the unknown not as a problem, but as a companion. Odd, how two such different voices can share the same gentle breath.