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.

[Secret Agent Man]

And one should never ever pick apart something for a small error but fail to address the larger point of the argument someone was making.

Anyways both (now that I see that they really are addressing two different finds) are frauds. Coyoteman already confirmed for me Archeopter was a fraud. Now I find that Archeopteryx was also not a transitional form.

Archeopteryx is discussed in evolutionist Francis Hitching’s book, The Neck of the Giraffe - Where Darwin Went Wrong. Hitching speaks on six aspects of Archeopteryx, following here.

(The following six points are quoted from Luther Sunderland’s book, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, pp. 74-75, the facts of which points he gathered from Hitching’s book.)

1. It had a long bony tail, like a reptile’s.

In the embryonic stage, some living birds have more tail vertebrae than Archeopteryx. They later fuse to become an upstanding bone called the pygostyle. The tail bone and feather arrangement on swans are very similar to those of Archeopteryx.

One authority claims that there is no basic difference between the ancient and modern forms: the difference lies only in the fact that the caudal vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But this does not make a reptile.

2. It had claws on its feet and on its feathered forelimbs.

However, many living birds such as the hoatzin in South America, the touraco in Africa and the ostrich also have claws. In 1983, the British Museum of Natural History displayed numerous species within nine families of birds with claws on the wings.

3. It had teeth.

Modern birds do not have teeth but many ancient birds did, particularly those in the Mesozoic. There is no suggestion that these birds were transitional. The teeth do not show the connection of Archeopteryx with any other animal since every subclass of vertebrates has some with teeth and some without.

4. It had a shallow breastbone.

Various modern flying birds such as the hoatzin have similarly shallow breastbones, and this does not disqualify them from being classified as birds. And there are, of course, many species of nonflying birds, both living and extinct.

Recent examination of Archeopteryx’s feathers has shown that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds that are excellent fliers. Dr. Ostrom says that there is no question that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds. They are asymmetrical with a center shaft and parallel barbs like those of today’s flying birds.

5. Its bones were solid, not hollow, like a bird’s.

This idea has been refuted because the long bones of Archeopteryx are now known to be hollow.

6. It predates the general arrival of birds by millions of years.

This also has been refuted by recent paleontological discoveries. In 1977 a geologist from Brigham Young University, James A. Jensen, discovered in the Dry Mesa quarry of the Morrison formation in western Colorado a fossil of an unequivocal bird in Lower Jurassic rock.

This deposit is dated as 60-million years older than the Upper Jurassic rock in which Archeopteryx was found. He first found the rear-leg femur and, later, the remainder of the skeleton.

This was reported in Science News 24 September 1977. Professor John Ostrom commented, “It is obvious we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archeopteryx lived.”

And so it goes with the fossil that many textbooks set forth as the best example of a transitional form. No true intermediate fossils have been found.

[editor-surveyor]

"Nothing I could say would surpass your self-inflicted wounds."

You sound like the grumbling school yard bully, after getting his a$$ whipped by the little girl.

Could you show us one of the wounds?

[Coyoteman]

Francis Hitching: Commonly quoted by creationists

Research on Hitching turned up the following: Hitching is basically a sensational TV script writer and has no scientific credentials. In The Neck of the Giraffe he claimed to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, but an inquiry to that institute said he was not. He implied in the "Acknowledgements" of The Neck of the Giraffe that paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had helped in the writing of the book, but upon inquiry Gould said he did not know him and had no information about him. Hitching also implied that his book had been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, but upon inquiry Dawkins stated: "I know nothing at all about Francis Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a charlatan, good for you. His book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years."

More at the link.

[allmendream]

Several creationist cosmologies? You mean “gasp” there isn’t just ONE? The cosmology that God put forward. Oh yeah, no two creationists can seem to agree on anything because they all seem to be making it up as they go along.

So this data point supports the essentials of SEVERAL different Creationist cosmologies. Does it support one more than others? Please explain.

[editor-surveyor]

"Look, if you wanna find poorly endowed guys, don't spam me, go hang out in a Hummer dealership"

LOL !! Most of the hummers in our neighborhood are driven by the succer moms.

[editor-surveyor]

Learn to read, and you’ll never need to ask for explanation again.

In this particular case, the issue is profound.

[MichiganMan]

This deposit is dated as 60-million years older

Ok, now here is a point I'm curious about (interesting post BTW) The dismissing of "evidence" of a transitional species (which I cede is a point against evolution as a theory) would indicate that you lean more toward creationism. But then you mention the 60 million year age of the fossil. Are there creationists that believe that man, descended from Adam, has been around that long? And that he only started showing up in the fossil record 200,000 or so years ago?

[metmom]

None of the theories I've read posit that the changes are brought about by a number of generations passing. So fruit flies within the theory, wouldn't necessarily evolve any faster than other species just because they die quicker.

So you're saying that the fact that there's thousands of generations of fruit flies that exist in the same amount of time that one generation of humans exists is irrelevant? It would take the same amount of time to produce the same amount of changes regardless of the number of generations involved? You've got to be kidding.

It's not a matter of fruit flies dying quicker, it's that they can grow to reproduce in a much shorter period of time.

Besides, with all the attempts at genetic manipulation, where man has tried to speed up the process (and not only with fruit flies), no new species has been created.

You got it. They're still fruit flies.

Scientists can't do on purpose what they claim happened by accident.

[MichiganMan]

So you're saying that the fact that there's thousands of generations of fruit flies that exist in the same amount of time that one generation of humans exists is irrelevant? It would take the same amount of time to produce the same amount of changes regardless of the number of generations involved? You've got to be kidding.

Well, you have to indulge me. I believe that God put evolution into play, so no, I don't think we can "trick" it into happening faster than it was programmed to. But I fully admit this particular aspect of my belief is fully faith based, and thereby scientifically unprovable.

[js1138]

Modern birds will grow teeth if their embryos are exposed to a bit of the right chemical. The genes for teeth are still there.

[allmendream]

Amazing that despite developing the ability to read nearly incomprehensible scientific jargon and make sense of it; I have found that understanding it only compounds the tendency to ask questions about it.

Such that if someone tells me a data point agrees with SEVERAL DIFFERENT models; I might ask the relevant questions about which model does it best fit, what is the discrepancy and how well does the model account for it. Apparently you are content with what was given, I need to know the answers to these very poignant questions, but apparently you are unable to supply them.

You must think you have reached a state of knowledge where you need never ask for explanation, and as such you are incapable of learning. I realize that such a state of knowledge doesn’t exist, and it is my nature to ask questions such as “If it fits several different models, which model does it best fit and why?”

I stand in awe of your self satisfaction at your own state of knowledge, and only ask that all observers take note of what dividends this philosophy of knowledge has brought to you.

[MichiganMan]

It's not a matter of fruit flies dying quicker, it's that they can grow to reproduce in a much shorter period of time.

Again, I'm showing ignorance of the specific experiments, but most theories of evolution also require that the population be provided with a stressor that both punishes the existing population by restricting their likelihood of mating, while rewarding those that adapt to the stressor with an physical adaptation. Two thoughts come immediately to mind, first that the researchers may not have used a stimulus that was sufficiently stressful to bring about change as quickly as they desired without killing the population beyond sustainable numbers. Second, nothing says that all species share the same potential to evolve, (ie. insects vs. primates) much less, as my previous post implied, the same potential speed of evolution.

[editor-surveyor]

Your assumption (unwarranted) that the models to which the article referred were vastly different was your undoing.

[curiosity]

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?

Because some people refuse to accept scientific evidence that conflicts with their religious beliefs.

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?

Because the public is generally ignorant about science.

[Popman]

Why We Are Still Arguing About Darwin

Why We Are Still Arguing About Darwin Abortion

[js1138]

Could you show us one of the wounds?

An advocate of coffee enemas wonders about self-inflicted wounds?

A guy who argues that anal sex is safe wonders about why people ridicule him?

[editor-surveyor]

You are the only person here that regards anal anything as ‘sex.’

Its as ‘safe’ as your ‘protection,’ which is nothing

[GodGunsGuts]

==Please keep them coming.

No need for me to keep them coming, AMD. God’s handywork, as described by a plain reading of Genesis, is built right into nature. If it is your policy to run from the God of the Bible, the last thing you would want to be is a scientist. All creation sings. Why on earth would you want to become a scientist if your whole life is devoted to ignoring the song?

PS As for HIV/AIDS, I find it fascinating that the same fanatical devotees to the Temple of Darwin on FR are also fanatically opposed to the notion that AIDS might be caused by human behavior. Instead, you guys have an an almost religious need to believe that we are “all at risk” from the “deadly virus.” Indeed, there were supposed to be hundreds of millions dead by the "deadly virus" by the turn of the century. Boy, that sure proved to be a flop of a prediction! What a bunch of losers...LOL.

[GodGunsGuts]

JS, please refrain from posting to me. Thank you.

[MichiganMan]

LOL !! Most of the hummers in our neighborhood are driven by the succer moms.

Well certainly women aren't immune from the need to uh, "compensate"