The theory of evolution as an Enlightenment project

I think we can best understand modern evolutionary theory if we see its origin in the Age of Enlightenment.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'Of the Age of Reason Charles Frankel once
wrote :
"In the view of historians, the general pattern of the Age of Reason can now be identified. Its unity of purpose had a decisive effect on the course of subsequent historical development. The special effort of the Enlightenment was to find a foundation in every field, from the profane sciences to revelation, from music to morals, and theology to commerce, such that thinking and action could be made independent of speculative metaphysics and supernatural revelation.
Religion was treated mainly as an appendage to morals
and discussed as though it were a part of physics." [1.]

- Erasmus Darwin was part of the Enlightenment project to find secular foundations for all of thought. He focused on biology, as did his grandson Charles. He wanted to make geology and biology independent of special revelation. The theory of evolution, as it developed, didn't come from pressing observations of the world that forced such a view on people; but rather came from this grand Enlightenment project. The early evolutionists of this time may have thought they were getting free of metaphysics, but they were merely' changing one metaphysical worldview for another. The foundation of E. theory is the Enlightenment project; and at its heart it is profoundly philosophical in nature. The theory of E. is as philosophical as the ideas of democracy or communism that were also developing around the same time.

To be able to understand E. theory we have to look at it in its historical and intellectual context. Merely arguing over fossils won't get us anywhere. (We do want to come to some kind of agreement don't we?) You don't find theories tucked away in the rocks like trilobites; theories are the creations of human beings; of men living in certain societies and cultures. The further we stray in our investigations from inert matter the more 'philosophical' the theories get. This is why comparisons of E. theory with gravity, and heliocentrism are so pointless and nonsensical.

Man is a unique creation, and when we come to the subject of man we have human beings investigating themselves. This is what makes the subject of human origins a philosophical one. A key question that faces us is this; can man understand himself? (Is there any reason to believe he can?) To do so it would appear he must get outside himself... but how can he do this? The situation is much harder for the materialist; as he must give an account of how a bit of matter in motion can understand itself. (I see no way he can accomplish this.)

In dealing with the theory of E. we are dealing with a philosophical issue. This is as true now as it was during the Enlightenment period. A materialist must be an evolutionist; there's no way around it. People like to call themselves evolutionists (or even Darwinists) but they don't like to call themselves materialists for some reason. (I guess it gives the game away.)

The counterpart to this is that a theist must be a creationist. Well; you'd think so... but I happen to know some theists who deny not only that they're creationists, but who deny that they even believe in creation. I don't understand how that's possible... but that's what they claim. (I believe Ken Miller is one of this small elite group.)

There are theists (even ones who profess the Christian faith) who claim god evolved sometime after the Big bang event... perhaps after life began to evolve. Some claim god is still evolving. (Ain't theology a hoot? You can't beat it for comedy.)

Notes;
1. The Christian philosophy of law, politics and the State - E.L. Hebden Taylor
- This excellent book is available as a free download at Reformationalpublishingproject.com
2. The Age of Enlightenment was followed (not surprisingly) by the Age of Revolution.