Why We Are Still Arguing About Darwin

TCS Daily ^ | 10 Jan 2008 | Lee Harris

[neverdem]

Today, almost one hundred and fifty years after the publication of The Origin of Species, we are still arguing about Darwin. How is this possible? If Darwin's theory of natural selection is a scientific theory, as its defenders claim, then why hasn't it been able to establish itself securely in the public mind? Why, in short, is Darwin still the subject of continuing controversy and acrimonious debate?

Contrast this on-going battle over Darwin with the fate of the other great scientific revolutions. The same Christian fundamentalists who argue that public school should teach creationism have no quarrel with the Copernican revolution. No one argues that public schools should be forced to teach the Ptolemaic system because it permits Joshua to make the sun stand still. Yet polls in the USA show that a large segment of American society continues to reject Darwin's scientific revolution.

Modern proponents of Darwin, like Richard Dawkins, have an elegant explanation for this puzzling phenomenon. Those who reject Darwin are ignorant boobs who take the Bible literally. The Bible says God created man in his own image, and so that is what they believe, despite the evidence that shows that human beings share more than 98% of their genes with chimpanzees. Therefore, in order to get people to accept Darwin, you must first destroy their adherence to Biblical fundamentalism. Once people see that the story of Adam and Eve is simply a fairy tale, they will be in a position to embrace the idea that we all descended from lower primates. But is this interpretation really psychologically plausible? Is it only the second chapter of Genesis that stands in the way of a universal acceptance of Darwin's theory that we descended from creatures far more monkey-like than us-like?

The stumbling block to an acceptance of Darwin, I would like to submit, has little to do with Christian fundamentalism, but a whole lot to do with our intense visceral revulsion at monkeys and apes. This revulsion, while certainly not universal, is widely shared, and it is a psychological phenomenon that is completely independent of our ideas about the literal truth of the Bible.

Our visceral revulsion at the mere sight of lower primates has been noted by the Dutch primatologist Frans de Waal. Observing the visitors to the chimpanzee colony at the Arnhem Zoo, de Waal noticed a frequent pattern among them. Many people would stare at the chimps for a few minutes, then, after saying, "Oh I could watch them all day," they would swiftly make their way to the nearest exit. They had had enough monkey business. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, another great naturalist, was equally aware of this deep-seated revulsion against monkeys. In his novel Elective Affinities, a character declares her feelings about monkeys in no uncertain terms: "How can anyone bring himself to expend such care on depicting horrid monkeys! It is debasing simply to regard them as animal [!], but it is really more malicious to succumb to the temptation of seeking in them the likeness of people you know."

This visceral revulsion against monkeys explains why so many people prefer to hold on to the far more flattering mythology of man's creation as it was presented in Genesis. It is not Genesis that turns them against Darwin; it is Darwin that makes them turn to Genesis.

Now the proponents of Darwin will argue that a visceral revulsion is not a logical argument, and the proponents of Darwin will of course be right. From the fact that most people are horrified to think of themselves as descending from the lower primates, it does not follow that they must have arisen from a more respectable ancestry.

At the same time, those who accept Darwin (as I do) need to understand the true origin of the revulsion so many people feel against his theory. For the basis of this revulsion is none other than "the civilizing process" that has been instilled into us from infancy. The civilizing process has taught us never to throw our feces at other people, not even in jest. It has taught us not to snatch food from other people, not even when they are much weaker than we. It has taught us not to play with our genitals in front of other people, not even when we are very bored. It has taught us not to mount the posterior of other people, not even when they have cute butts.

Those who are horrified by our resemblance to the lower primates are not wrong, because it is by means of this very horror of the primate-within that men have been able to transcend our original primate state of nature. It is by refusing to accept our embarrassing kinship with primates that men have been able to create societies that prohibit precisely the kind of monkey business that civilized men and women invariably find so revolting and disgusting. Thou shalt not act like a monkey - this is the essence of all the higher religions, and the summation of all ethical systems.

Those who continue to resist Darwin are not standing up for science, but they may well be standing up for something even more important - a Dawkinsian meme, if you will, that has been instrumental in permitting mankind to transcend the brutal level of our primate origins. Our lofty humanitarian ethical standards have been derived not by observing our primate kin, but by imagining that we were made in the image of God. It was only by assuming that we were expected to come up to heavenly standards that we did not lower our standards to those of our biological next of kin. The meme that asserts that we are the children of God, and not merely a bunch of wild monkeys may be an illusion; but it is the illusion upon which all humane civilizations have been constructed. Those who wish to eliminate this illusionary meme from our general meme pool may be acting in the name of science; but it is by no means obvious that they are acting in the name of civilization and humanity.

[allmendream]

Thanks for your concern GGG but I think I do good work with small molecule drug discovery. Anti-pain, anti-inflamation, anti-cancer, etc. We do good work for people.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your blessings, dear brother in Christ! She is doing much, much better. But we’re only through about half of her stuff, trying to get it inventoried and stored.

[GodGunsGuts]

Don’t get me started on small-molecule drugs. I just thought that, if you’re not married to your current work, you should give your first love another look.

[Coyoteman]

I don’t know about archeological evidence.

That's becoming clear.

After all, a global flood would have wiped almost everthing clean.

And that would be easy to see! But what of all the places where there is continuity for 10,000+ years? Continuity in human cultures, soil layers, fauna and flora, mtDNA, etc.

But there is plenty of scientific evidence, and there is plenty of global folklore, all leaning in the direction of a global flood.

Scientific evidence? Please feel free to post that if you can't find any archaeological evidence.

In the meantime, your archeological brethren are leaving you behind:

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/nov/did-a-comet-cause-the-great-flood/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

I am familiar with that. It doesn't prove a global flood. Care to try again?

[GodGunsGuts]

It’s fascinating to think about it sometimes. But when I do take the time to think about it, I truly am your brother in Christ. What an amazing God we serve! Not only are we spiritually related, but we go back all the way to the Garden of Eden. Is it possible to be sisters, brothers, cousins, mothers, fathers, grandparents, and great (great, great, great, ...) grandparents all at once? Only in God’s world! May the Lord bless you and keep you dear SISTER in Christ!!!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your blessings, dear brother in Christ! And may God bless you, too - and all those you love.

[GodGunsGuts]

It may take a little time to download, but how about we start with paleocurrents (indeed, I recommend you read the entire section on the geologic column):

http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Paleocurrents

[Coyoteman]

It may take a little time to download, but how about we start with paleocurrents (indeed, I recommend you read the entire section on the geologic column):

http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Paleocurrents

You are using a creationist/ID website as scientific evidence? What a joke!

You said you had evidence from archaeology of the bible's accuracy. I asked for evidence from archaeology for a global flood--clearly the biggest and most obvious event in the past 5,000.

You have failed to provide any evidence! Please try again, and avoid those creationist websites for a change.

[metmom]

You’ll notice GGG picked it because it was *short and sweet* as he says.

He’s not trying to snow people and pass it off as science, as some people who pass themselves off as scientists on this forum do.

Not like evos who claim they’ve posted a *scientific link* and expect us to believe that wiki counts, and then scoff at us for not accepting it.

[GodGunsGuts]

==You are using a creationist/ID website as scientific evidence? What a joke!

If you consider Creation/ID websites as a complete joke, not only have you exempted yourself from countervailing evidence, but you have closed yourself off from all further debate. How convenient.

[Coyoteman]

If you consider Creation/ID websites as a complete joke, not only have you exempted yourself from countervailing evidence, but you have closed yourself off from all further debate. How convenient.

Only if that's all you got! And I guess it is.

You claimed scientific evidence for the bible, I asked for the scientific evidence supporting a global flood at 4350 BP, and you can't find anything but creationist/ID sites to support your contention?

I think my point is already made.

[GodGunsGuts]

Didn’t you read the Discover Magazine article?

“Among 175 flood myths, Masse found two of particular interest. A Hindu myth describes an alignment of the five bright planets that has happened only once in the last 5,000 years, according to computer simulations, and a Chinese story mentions that the great flood occurred at the end of the reign of Empress Nu Wa. Cross-checking historical records with astronomical data, Masse came up with a date for his event: May 10, 2807 B.C.”

[webstersII]

LOL

[allmendream]

Well Wiki does have its place, but of course one can sock-puppet the entry then source it as confirmation; Ward Churchill type scholarship.

GGG used Wiki for a clean fast cheap source of info, with apologies for it being from a ‘wiki’ style source. I know the subject and was able to confirm the validity of the data in the entry (i.e. the Universal Genetic Code is only mostly universal, many organisms use a slight variation with some of the codons specifying a different amino acid). I think that is a good use of Wiki, especially when there is someone around to confirm the basics of what the entry states.

And i am in no way trying to pass myself off as a Scientist. I am a Scientist. Anyone who reads my posts on Biology would know that either I am an extremely well educated layman or have a reasonable education as a specialist in the field. And hopefully you can take my word for the fact that I am not a layman. But I would in no way be ashamed to be a layman who is this well versed upon the subject, it might mean I know other subjects equally well (but unfortunately I don’t). ;)

[Captain Pike]

[==If God can do what He will, then He could have easily created evolution.] Very true. But he could also have created ex nihilo. The Bible says He created ex nihilo.

If ex nihilo, then what were the details of *that* creation method? Could it not be that "ex nihilo" means out of nothing, Big Bang, 12 billion years plus evolution?

I am in awe of a God that could have the patience and power to do that.

A God that snaps his fingers and something happens is a fairy tale. If God creates the weather and has dominion over everyday life today, then He does it via tools in plain sight of us. And science explains them.

the scientific method should be used to find out if the physical evidence supports the Bible’s claims re: origins and cosmological history.

No matter how the creation occurred, it was a nearly infinitely complex thing that could never be described with clarity in a handful of Bible verses. I think you have a lack of imagination to connect those few words in Genesis with the immensity of reality around us and see that science does indeed describe Gods creation quite clearly.

[Captain Pike]

See, the way this works here at FR is you make a point about something, and then the rest of us are free to support it or challenge it. Your point, it seemed to me, was that evolution was "science" and and that jeddavis didn't really understand what "science" was.

jeddavis thinks that anything he believes is "science", and what he doesn't believe isn't science. We've had that discussion before.

But I think the more interesting point I made is that it is beyond doubt that when Christians insist that either evolution is true, or the Bible is true, but not both, then some Christians will abandon their faith as a result.

Why fight science if the cost will be some people's loss of their faith? Is it spite? Hatred? Rivalry? Or just the sheer pride that you are right and therefore people should acknowledge your superior knowledge? Are any of those things worth people living in the dark without Christ?

The ways of God are a mystery, and the details of Genesis is a mystery. Even if you think God "just did it", don't you think it was a complicated thing not possible to describe in a few verses in the Bible? Science believes it understands a part of the creation, but not nearly everything. So what? Accept Jesus and leave science alone.

[ml/nj]

Why fight science if the cost will be some people's loss of their faith?

Still won't say what you think science is, huh?

ML/NJ

[Coyoteman]

I read the article, and have been aware of this idea for a while.

It means nothing in terms of your claim that archaeology backs up the bible and the story of a global flood.

If there actually had been a global flood about 4350 years ago there would be worldwide evidence. Look at the evidence left in southern and eastern Washington state from the post Ice Age floods there. Those were small by comparison, and twice as old, yet we can still read the patterns nicely.

Now, think of the evidence a global flood of biblical proportions should have left. And such a flood also would have wiped out the evidence of the post Ice Age floods. And these channeled scablands are only one small piece of the evidence against the idea of a global flood at that time. mtDNA patterns alone disprove the flood story.

Archaeology in this case contradicts the bible, contrary to your claim many posts above.

Face it--you are arguing from religious belief, not scientific evidence.

[Captain Pike]

[Why fight science if the cost will be some people's loss of their faith?] Still won't say what you think science is, huh?

I'm not really interested in the discussion. I think the evolution fight is damaging for Christians, and damaging for science, and think the useless battle should end.

The "true" definition of science is irrelevant to the fact that the fight can accomplish nothing positive for either side.

The Bible is not a science textbook, and the subject of science does not encompass faith. Those that use Genesis to attack science, and those that use science to attack faith are both abusing their respective disciplines.

[DaGman]

If you believe in creationism, you have to believe in geocentrism. The bible says the earth is fixed and does not move.