OK, which great thinkers do you have in mind? Many of them probably made statements on evolution, science and religion.
Marx on religion:
Marx writes:
Man makes religion, religion doesn't make man. Religion is the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet found himself or has already lost himself again
Marx writes:
Religious poverty is, in one, the expression of real poverty, and in another, a protest against real poverty. Religion is the sigh of a heavy laden creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people
I imagine marx would see creationists as a bunch of misguided people who have despaired at improving their economic condition so turn to the afterlife instead. Perhaps he would not be concerned with the fact that the leaders of movements like ID tend to be right wingers. He thinks the power of those leaders comes from the disillusionment of the masses with capitalism. The cure is to make life better for workers, then they will abandon their dreams of a better afterlife because they have a good life right now.
Marx writes:
Its [religion's] disappearance must be done by social development, in which education must play a part
Studying biology might help creationists, only insofar as they are able to improve their material conditions by doing so.
However some later marxists had a slightly different view of Darwinism.
Pannekoek (1909) writes:
That Marxism owes its importance and position only to the role it takes in the proletarian class struggle, is known to all. With Darwinism, however, things seem different to the superficial observer, for Darwinism deals with a new scientific truth which has to contend with religious prejudices and ignorance. Yet it is not hard to see that in reality Darwinism had to undergo the same experiences as Marxism. Darwinism is not a mere abstract theory which was adopted by the scientific world after discussing and testing it in a mere objective manner. No, immediately after Darwinism made its appearance, it had its enthusiastic advocates and passionate opponents; Darwin’s name, too, was either highly honored by people who understood something of his theory, or despised by people who knew nothing more of his theory than that man descended from the monkey, and who were surely unqualified to judge from a scientific standpoint the correctness or falsity of Darwin’s theory. Darwinism, too, played a role in the class-struggle, and it is owing to this role that it spread so rapidly and had enthusiastic advocates and venomous opponents.
Darwinism served as a tool to the bourgeoisie in their struggle against the feudal class, against the nobility, clergy-rights and feudal lords. This was an entirely different struggle from the struggle now waged by the proletarians. The bourgeoisie was not an exploited class striving to abolish exploitation. Oh no. What the bourgeoisie wanted was to get rid of the old ruling powers standing in their way. The bourgeoisie themselves wanted to rule, basing their demands upon the fact that they were the most important class, the leaders of industry. What argument could the old class, the class that became nothing but useless parasites, bring forth against them? They leaned on tradition, on their ancient divine rights. These were their pillars. With the aid of religion the priests held the great mass in subjection and ready to oppose the demands of the bourgeoisie.
It was therefore for their own interests that the bourgeoisie were in duty bound to undermine the divinity right of rulers. Natural science became a weapon in the opposition to belief and tradition; science and the newly discovered natural laws were put forward; it was with these weapons that the bourgeoisie fought. If the new discoveries could prove that what the priests were teaching was false, the divine authority of these priests would crumble and the divine rights enjoyed by the feudal class would be destroyed. Of course the feudal class was not conquered by this only, as material power can only be overthrown by material power, but mental weapons become material tools. It is for this reason that the bourgeoisie relied so much upon material science.
I doubt that Pannekoek would have sided with right-wing creationists over Darwinism in the present day. but it's an interesting quote!
What thinkers other than Marx would you like to consider? Do you think setting up a thread "Great thinkers on religion, science and biology" would be fun? Contributors could offer a short essay on the thinker of their choice, and others could comment or criticise.
Best wishes,
mick
™ Version 4.2
