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.
Are you asserting that a scientific theory, or hypothesis if you'd prefer that has roots in or associations to theism, is not valid for a schools curricula because it violates the "establishment clause" of the 1A? If you are, then there are implications that neither you nor I would like one bit, Lemaitre and BBT being a case in point. Under your expansive reading of the "establishment clause" Lemaitre's work would have been banned from American public schools because when he first posited it, his peers looked askance at it, and of course Lemaitre was a Catholic Priest as well as a scientist. And a dreaded creationist at that.
You may certainly assert that it should not be so, but for the time being, it is so, whether you happen to approve or not.
:-} You'll understand if I don't treat that sentence like it was special delivery from a guy named Moses.
And something makes me think you would be somewhat less sanguine if some school board somewhere decided to ignore, say, the Thirteenth Amendment, federal as it may be.
Right, I would not be sanguine at all if states started enslaving students. I'll concede that point.
Ah, I'm free to express my opinion, but of course I really shouldn't have one in the first place. Got it. ;)
I don't think you got it at all. The victim-hood quotient on FR has been steadily increasing lately. If I wasn't interested in what you had to say I would never have posted to you. You have to admit, there's a certain logic there even if it flows from the keyboard of the dreaded creationist.
You are conflating two senses of the term "intelligent design".
I conflated nothing in fact. I was pointed in what I said, to wit, intelligent design, small id, is a fact. You telling me that intelligent design doesn't mean intelligent design doesn't get us anywhere. You are stuck on ID and there's no way out. Not my problem.
The fact that humans can manipulate organisms does not in any way lend support to the ID thesis that some ineffable designer has guided or otherwise influenced evolution in the past.
I never said it did. So, in essence, you have engaged yourself in argument. I'm interested in how it will come out. :-}
However, I think I see a way out of the forest of equivocation here. We can simply include a chapter on genetic engineering and the techniques used by biochemists in biology textbooks - this will then satisfy the Discovery Institute's desire that "intelligent design" should be addressed in science class.
There you go, you solved your own problem. Now for the next question. What will be the penalty for school districts describing genetic engineering generically as intelligent design? The stocks or the feds?
Or will it? Hmmmm....
Dunno, I am not in any way, shape or form associated with the demons at DI.
>>>As it is Written, there is nothing "NEW" under the sun and there is nothing new about denying the Creator.<<
"And Creationists will always trot out the lie that evolution is a denial of God. Some things never change."
IF your (man's) ancient theory discounts that the Heavenly Father formed fully grown adult human beings, more than two then that is discounting/denying the CREATOR. I will not assert that evolutionists deny a "god", as there are two gods and most don't know the difference.
I will also state that I unlike most Creationists know this earth is million upon millions of years old, how old NO man knows. This flesh was created/formed for a specific purpose and age, when the flesh 'age' is complete the flesh will no longer need be. Even old Darwin knows this now.
I once knew a girl from Peru who's family came from the mountains. We hiked in Southern California, and nobody I had ever seen could hike those mountains that well with no observable out-of-breath effects like her. She was amazing, particularly above 10k feet. Claimed she had never seriously hiked, and was not a physical fitness geek.
Lemme mull it over.
What is it with the creationist obession with homosexuality? Why is homosexuality gratuitously dragged into crevo debates by the creationists so often?
Because they can't drag in science.
Dang, I should have thought of that.
Adaptation to altitude is something most people can do, although it takes time. At least three weeks, maybe more. In the bad old days of East Germany, they build an underground gymnasium and dormitory for their Olympic athletes to live in and train for the Mexico Olympics.
Projection?
Closets.
Only if you peer into emanations from penumbras. His statement is what it is. You can't dress it up in pink and call it Barbie. The mix is "religion and tribalism". Unless you are from the school of thought that says atheism is a religion, his comment was not directed at the commies at all.
You bet it is.. Its time we made a choice to live by our Constitutional values, and forgo the "toxic" values of the other two ideologies.
The United States Constitution singles out religion for special treatment, that would be the "free exercise clause". They could just as easily made special mention of scientific humanism but they didn't. So I have to ask, just what constitution would you be referring to?
I'm curious though, are you an adherent to the Humanist Manifesto?
She claimed she moved to the city at low altitude as a young girl, and never went into the mountains. If I understand Coyoteman's post, he's saying that there was a genetic adaptation to natives of high altitude South American mountains. If so, she had it. I was on her first hike at altitude to 10k feet, and she acted like she was walking along the beach at Malibu. Even the other serious hikers in the group were at least working a bit, and she was'nt at all.
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.
'Toxic mix of religion and tribalism'. What a great concise phrase. Radical Islam and the reactionary anti-science religious right in this country are dangerous.
Once again, to all those who believe in Creationism and reject Evolution:
How do you explain dinosaurs?
They think the Flintstones are historically accurate.
YEC INTREP
Creationists have no problem explaining dinosaurs. They were created along with the other kinds of animals. Not sure what your question is...
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.