Posted on 11/05/2005 6:34:38 AM PST by billorites
Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published 150 years ago, but evolution by natural selection is still under attack from those wedded to a human-centred or theistic world view. Edward O. Wilson, who was raised a creationist, ponders why this should be, and whether science and religion can ever be reconciled
IT IS surpassingly strange that half of Americans recently polled (2004) not only do not believe in evolution by natural selection but do not believe in evolution at all. Americans are certainly capable of belief, and with rock-like conviction if it originates in religious dogma. In evidence is the 60 per cent that accept the prophecies of the Bible's Book of Revelation as truth, and in yet more evidence is the weight that faith-based positions hold in political life. Most of the religious right opposes the teaching of evolution in public schools, either by an outright ban on the subject or, at the least, by insisting that it be treated as "only a theory" rather than a "fact".
Yet biologists are unanimous in concluding that evolution is a fact. The evidence they and thousands of others have adduced over 150 years falls together in intricate and interlocking detail. The multitudinous examples range from the small changes in DNA sequences observed as they occur in real time to finely graded sequences within larger evolutionary changes in the fossil record. Further, on the basis of comparably strong evidence, natural selection grows ever stronger as the prevailing explanation of evolution.
Many who accept the fact of evolution cannot, however, on religious grounds, accept the operation of blind chance and the absence of divine purpose implicit in natural selection. They support the alternative explanation of intelligent design. The reasoning they offer is not based on evidence but on the lack of it. The formulation of intelligent design is a default argument advanced in support of a non sequitur. It is in essence the following: there are some phenomena that have not yet been explained and that (most importantly) the critics personally cannot imagine being explained; therefore there must be a supernatural designer at work. The designer is seldom specified, but in the canon of intelligent design it is most certainly not Satan and his angels, nor any god or gods conspicuously different from those accepted in the believer's faith.
Flipping the scientific argument upside down, the intelligent designers join the strict creationists (who insist that no evolution ever occurred) by arguing that scientists resist the supernatural theory because it is counter to their own personal secular beliefs. This may have a kernel of truth; everybody suffers from some amount of bias. But in this case bias is easily overcome. The critics forget how the reward system in science works. Any researcher who can prove the existence of intelligent design within the accepted framework of science will make history and achieve eternal fame. They will prove at last that science and religious dogma are compatible. Even a combined Nobel prize and Templeton prize (the latter designed to encourage the search for just such harmony) would fall short as proper recognition. Every scientist would like to accomplish such a epoch-making advance. But no one has even come close, because unfortunately there is no evidence, no theory and no criteria for proof that even marginally might pass for science.
In all of the history of science, only one other disparity of comparable magnitude to evolution has occurred between a scientific event and the impact it has had on the public mind. This was the discovery by Copernicus that Earth, and therefore humanity, is not the centre of the universe, and the universe is not a closed spherical bubble. Copernicus delayed publication of his master work On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres until the year of his death (1543). For his extension of the idea, Bruno was burned at the stake, and for its documentation Galileo was shown the instruments of torture and remained under house arrest for the remainder of his life.
Today we live in a less barbaric age, but an otherwise comparable disjunction between science and religion still roils the public mind. Why does such intense and pervasive resistance to evolution continue 150 years after the publication of On The Origin of Species, and in the teeth of the overwhelming accumulated evidence favouring it? The answer is simply that the Darwinian revolution, even more than the Copernican revolution, challenges the prehistoric and still-regnant self-image of humanity. Evolution by natural selection, to be as concise as possible, has changed everything.
In the more than slightly schizophrenic circumstances of the present era, global culture is divided into three opposing images of the human condition. The dominant one, exemplified by the creation myths of the Abrahamic monotheistic religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - sees humanity as a creation of God. He brought us into being and He guides us still as father, judge and friend. We interpret His will from sacred scriptures and the wisdom of ecclesiastical authorities.
The second world view is that of political behaviourism. Still beloved by the now rapidly fading Marxist-Leninist states, it says that the brain is largely a blank state devoid of any inborn inscription beyond reflexes and primitive bodily urges. As a consequence, the mind originates almost wholly as a product of learning, and it is the product of a culture that itself evolves by historical contingency. Because there is no biologically based "human nature", people can be moulded to the best possible political and economic system, namely communism. In practical politics, this belief has been repeatedly tested and, after economic collapses and tens of millions of deaths in a dozen dysfunctional states, is generally deemed a failure.
Both of these world views, God-centred religion and atheistic communism, are opposed by a third and in some ways more radical world view, scientific humanism. Still held by only a tiny minority of the world's population, it considers humanity to be a biological species that evolved over millions of years in a biological world, acquiring unprecedented intelligence yet still guided by complex inherited emotions and biased channels of learning. Human nature exists, and it was self-assembled. Having arisen by evolution during the far simpler conditions in which humanity lived during more than 99 per cent of its existence, it forms the behavioural part of what, in The Descent of Man, Darwin called "the indelible stamp of [our] lowly origin".
So, will science and religion find common ground, or at least agree to divide the fundamentals into mutually exclusive domains? A great many well-meaning scholars believe that such rapprochement is both possible and desirable. A few disagree, and I am one of them. I think Darwin would have held to the same position. The battle line is, as it has ever been, in biology. The inexorable growth of this science continues to widen, not to close, the tectonic gap between science and faithbased religion.
Rapprochement may be neither possible nor desirable. There is something deep in religious belief that divides people and amplifies societal conflict. The toxic mix of religion and tribalism has become so dangerous as to justify taking seriously the alternative view, that humanism based on science is the effective antidote, the light and the way at last placed before us.
Religions continue both to render their special services and to exact their heavy costs. Can scientific humanism do as well or better, at a lower cost? Surely that ranks as one of the great unanswered questions of philosophy. It is the noble yet troubling legacy that Charles Darwin left us.
Edward O. Wilson is a professor of entomology at Harvard University. He has written 20 books and received many awards, including two Pulitzer prizes and the 1976 National Medal of Science. This is an extract of the afterword to From So Simple a Beginning: Darwin's four great books, published next week by W.W. Norton.
Nobody, unless you think Mother Nature is a goddess.
Nobody does the selecting??? How can something that doesn't even exist decide who or what should live and how?
The fast cheetah catches the (relatively) slow gazelle. No demons or djinni have to decide anything about it.
Not who, what!
For some, this might apply:
Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
The only way to tell is a simple question, answered a few thousand generations later: Did you leave any descendants, or not?
As was pointed out on some thread earlier today: its not survival of the fittest, its survival of the adequate! Anything that survives and reproduces is adequate.
The long term will determine if your "adequate" was good enough.
Ohhhhhhh.....but eventually the gazelle develops some sort of counter-measure in order to perpetuate its existence doesn't it? Who selects which counter-measure it should develop?
O, how horrible! I will never believe in such an evil system.
</creationism mode>
But his name is Legion; he served at Dien Bien Phu.
Most of us just think it's about a competition between and within species that shapes the survivors in certain ways because they had that something (in the area of bigger, faster, stronger, smarter, more armored, better camouflaged, etc.) that gave them an edge. You're obviously going to stay up all night thinking of "Who?" questions.
Where is the compelling evidence we need a "who" except for the persistence of some back of the class types who think what they DON'T know is science?
For the greatest menace of all, he doesn't seem to win that many fights. He even lost a court case to Daniel Webster.
Yup.
Where is the compelling evidence we need a "who" except for the persistence of some back of the class types who think what they DON'T know is science?
The compelling evidence that we need a "who" rests in the wording of those "in the know". In order for something to "select" something, doesn't it make sense that something has to exist to do the selecting?
Somebody ping the supporters of The Endangered Species Act!
Who decided that the cheetah should be faster than the gazelle?
"Somebody ping the supporters of The Endangered Species Act!"
That wouldn't be me.
"Who decided that the cheetah should be faster than the gazelle?"
Nobody had to.
Argument from semantics. In the actual meat of Darwin's book, he makes clear what he means by natural selection. Nature is not an anthropomorphic deity and none are required. It is enough that some make it because of variations that set them somewhat apart from those that don't. That's all it is.
Willful misinterpretation is a form of lying. You really ought to think about how this looks. Anybody who would be influenced to discard science based upon what you're doing here has the critical faculties of a ham sandwich.
Who put the ram in the ramma ramma ding dong?
Oh. So under "Natural Selection" nobody actually does any selecting? Stuff just happens?
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.