Why We Are Still Arguing About Darwin

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.

Tinkering? More than tinkering, but rather constant upkeep -- and even upkeep is too small a word. And thank G-d for it all, for that is the sign there is a caring G-d, a merciful G-d.

Nor does the Creator have to break any laws -- for there is plenty of room for adjustments to be made, all within the most exacting laws of physics, chemistry and biology as we know them, or might ever know them.

And what is the Good in that, for doesn't that mean the creation is imperfect, so you ask? What is the purpose for what might appear an imperfect world to our eyes -- an "imperfect, broken" creation by a loving, merciful and good G-d?

Perhaps the purpose! Perhaps the purpose is for us to build up our souls, and what seems what could be broke is a test to the soul -- and then by man's free will and the choices made by men, the great intrinsic desires for life, the result of spiritual forces disbursed into the creation -- our merciful G-d must continually adjust so that to men, to all souls and each soul at every instant the creation presented to each and to all souls, can be the perfect universe at that next instant. Perfect to be the best possible existence for spiritual growth, not just as a whole, but for each individually.

Is a conversation perfect?

Biblical scholars place the date of the flood at about 4350 years ago. If you are going to propose a global flood at that date there are a few bits of data you need to account for.

1) Neither sedimentology nor archaeology support a global flood at that date. Rather, the soils and human cultures are continuous in most areas spanning this date. Post-Ice Age floods are known; we can see those floods but we can't see a much larger, much more recent flood? That doesn't make any sense.

2) Fauna and flora are continuous across this date worldwide. For example, pollen cores that show no discontinuity attributable to a global flood 4350 years ago. Neither do glacial varves, tree ring sequences, or several other methods of tracking time.

3) mtDNA shows a continuity that can be tracked back tens of thousands of years. Just on the west coast a skeleton dated to 10,300 years ago found in southern Alaska was found to have the same mtDNA as living individuals in southern California and all along the coasts of Central and South America. There was no break in Native American mtDNA, followed by replacement by mtDNA attributable to Noah's folks.

These are just a few of the things that help to disprove the idea of a global flood at 4350 BP.

You folks ask for the precise definition of KINDS as though if it can’t be precisely defined, then you’ve got some sort of falsification for KINDS, but yet you can’t even precisely define species or give biological evidence for connections between continuities that you claim are related.

The definition of KINDS has been given many many times here on FR, but yet evidently, you Evo folks ignore it and continue to ask in every evo/creo thread. KINS is a term used to describe discontinuity of species- something for which there is biological evidence- Continuity has no biological evidence between different KINDS- the only way to claim continuance is to propose nothign but assumptions. The linean KINDS is far more biologically viable than the cladistic system that is based on scientifically missing facts and asasumptions. KINDS is based on precise bariminological biological science (When you folks have biological evidence for continuances between dissimilar KINDS, then you can demand a more precise definition- until then, you cladistic classification system is a far more problem riddled system than bariminology, and if you’re suggesting that because there are problems with bariminology, then it must not be true science, then you have just confessed that your own cladistic system should not be taught in schools either because it has far more problems and heck, even biological impossibilities than bariminology does, and thus shlould not be called science. You folks really NEED more scientifically valid arguments against Creation/ID than the ones you present- because quite frankly, the ones you present fall flat on their faces when compared to the more biologically valid and demonstratable creation/id models:

Holobaramin: A Holobaramin is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, meaning all members of our species (Homo sapiens) are descended from a singular creation event (i.e. the creation of Adam and Eve) and will always be fully and completely human. Culturally, many racial ideas and myths still stubbornly linger on, but recent research regarding genetic diversity in humans, has convinced a great majority of scientists that “race” is no longer a useful concept in understanding our species) An example would be dogs, which form a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the Ark, and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. This term is synonymous with the use of “baramin” above and is the primary term in baraminology.

Monobaramin: A monobaramin is an ad hoc group of organisms who share common descent. Any group of specific members of a holobaramin such as wolves, poodles, and terriers or the humans Tom, Dick, and Harry are monobarmins. Holobaramins contain monobaramins; for instance, wolves are a monobaramin of the Dog holobaramin.

Apobaramin: An apobaramin is a group of holobaramins. Humans and Dogs are an apobaramin since both members are holobaramins. A group containing Caucasians and wolves is not an apobaramin since both members are monobaramins.

Polybaramin: A polybaramin is an ad hoc group of organisms where at least one of the members must not be a holobaramin and must be unrelated to any or all of the others. For example: Humans, wolves and a duck are a polybaraminic group. This term is useful for describing such hodgepodge mixtures of creatures.

Three additional terms introduced by Wise:[2]

Archaebaramin: An archaebaramin is the originally-created individual(s) of a given holobaramin. For instance, Adam and Eve form the archaebaramin of the holobaramin of Humanity.

Neobaramin & Paleobaramin: A neobaramin is the living population of a given holobaramin, whereas a paleobaramin represents older forms of a given holobaramin. Neobaramins have undergone genetic degradation from their perfectly created forms (archaebaramin) and so may differ from their paleobaramins in notable ways. For example, the neobaramin of Humanity has a much shorter lifespan and greater prevalence of genetic diseases than the Human paleobaramin (e.g. Adam lived for 930 years[3] and his children could interbreed without fear of deformity[4]).

In order to determine the baraminicity of a given group of organisms, baraminic demarcation must be evaluated. This process involves four foundational concepts[5]:

Biological Character Space (BCS): A theoretical multidimensional space in which each character (e.g. height or color) of an organism comprises a dimension, and particular states of that character occupy unique positions along the dimension. A single organism is therefore precisely defined by a single point in the multidimensional space.

Potentiality Region: A region of that biological character space within which organismal form is possible. Therefore, any point in the biological character space that is not within a potentiality region describes an organism that cannot exist.

Continuity: describes the relationship between two organisms which are either in the same potentiality region, or linked to each other by a third, such that transmutation between the two is theoretically possible.

Discontinuity: describes the relationship between two organisms which are in disconnected potentiality regions, such that transmutation between the two is impossible.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.