I haven't read much Darwin, but I also have been moved by what I have read by him. Interesting article and thank you for collecting your thoughts and these sources!
But God is not at the core of religious opposition to evolution. I think that the specific issue which is at the core of the debate is whether man can be fully explained through evolution. Or whether there is something uniquely beyond animal in man (spirit, intellect etc.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Descent_of_Man,_and_Selection_in_Relation_to_Sex . For example during the Scopes trial, I believe the issue was only about human evolution. And, of course, the history of eugenics is also interwoven with theories of human evolution.
In light of this, I'm curious as to your thoughts about my Darwin/Iyov analogy. According to my understanding, Hashem rebuked Iyov's friends at the end of the sefer because even though they were defending traditional doctrines, they were doing so dishonestly, whereas Iyov - despite holding and advocating for heretical doctrines - was at least doing so honestly. Is it better to be a truth-seeking Darwin who begins life as a Scriptural literalist and ends up an intellectually honest agnostic?
I haven't read much Darwin, but I also have been moved by what I have read by him. Interesting article and thank you for collecting your thoughts and these sources!
If Darwin epitomized so many of our religious ideals, why do you think it is that he and his theories seem to have the opposite reputation?
Because of Biblical literalists and the types of people the Rambam discussed in the Moreh 2:6.
Darwin's views also changed through his life, and I think that he was an agnostic by the end. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin . There is also the issue of later evolutionists such as Huxley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy
But God is not at the core of religious opposition to evolution. I think that the specific issue which is at the core of the debate is whether man can be fully explained through evolution. Or whether there is something uniquely beyond animal in man (spirit, intellect etc.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Descent_of_Man,_and_Selection_in_Relation_to_Sex . For example during the Scopes trial, I believe the issue was only about human evolution. And, of course, the history of eugenics is also interwoven with theories of human evolution.
In light of this, I'm curious as to your thoughts about my Darwin/Iyov analogy. According to my understanding, Hashem rebuked Iyov's friends at the end of the sefer because even though they were defending traditional doctrines, they were doing so dishonestly, whereas Iyov - despite holding and advocating for heretical doctrines - was at least doing so honestly. Is it better to be a truth-seeking Darwin who begins life as a Scriptural literalist and ends up an intellectually honest agnostic?