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.

[js1138]

How is AIDS being caused by a virus incompatible wiht the fact that the most common route of transmission is anal intercourse?

You are the one obsessed with proving that anal intercourse does not spread AIDS.

[js1138]

You didn’t get the memo? There was a whole thread started by FR management on the subject of whether you could request people not post to you. The policy is that if yo can’t take the heat, get off the thread.

So let me take this opportunity to ask why you are obsessed with proving that anal intercourse doesn’t spread AIDS?

[GodGunsGuts]

js1138, this is your last warning. Do not under any circumstances reply or ping me. If you and your posse keep following me from thread to thread I will be hitting the abuse button. Thank you.

[js1138]

You are on this thread, and I have the right to respond to you on this thread.

Is there something divine about you that you can post that the earth (or solar system) is the center of the universe and you cannot be contradicted?

Do you have the right to post that the debate over Darwin is over, and you cannot be contradicted?

[GodGunsGuts]

I told you I no long wish to communicated with you. Surely you can find other FReepers to follow around and harass! Thank you.

[schu]

The civilizing process has taught us:

1. never to throw our feces at other people, not even in jest.

2. not to snatch food from other people, not even when they are much weaker than we.

3. not to play with our genitals in front of other people, not even when we are very bored.

4. not to mount the posterior of other people, not even when they have cute butts.

Hmm, thinking about a group of people who do/have done these things .....

schu

[js1138]

I don’t follow people from thread to thread, and I couldn’t care less what you are posting on non-science threads.

I only post against stupid and harmful ideas, and your medical advice could kill people. Your understanding of science — just evidenced by reading what you have posted on this thread — is so odd, that I think calling attention to it is a good idea.

I think calling attention to the fact that you have proclaimed yourself smarter that all the physicists in the world, and all the medical doctors, and all the biologists, says something important about you.

Something that people should consider when they read your medical advice.

[metmom]

Because the public is generally ignorant about science.

And just why is that? It's not the fault of the creationists/IDers.

Evolution has enjoyed a virtual monopoly in the public school system for decades now. You'd think with all that teaching, something would have sunk in by now. It clearly hasn't.

What's actually going on is that the US is lagging the rest of the world in science and math, and likely other areas. Private schools and homeschools usually teach both creation and evolution and those students consistently outperform public school students in virtually every kind of test, be it standardized, ACT, or SAT.

If the teaching and belief in creation were to blame for the poor educational performance, it should be easy to demonstrate. So go ahead. Show that teaching creation translates into an ignorance of science and is responsible for it.

[arthurus]

Competing religions will never agree with each other.

[unlearner]

You need to brush up on your science, history and understanding of Christianity.

First of all, no “true” scientist calls a scientific theory such as evolution, the “truth”. In science there are facts, and there are theories. Evolutionists have a hard time telling them apart.

And by allowing for evolution to be a theory I am being generous, as the broad generalization of common descent is not scientific. While many aspects of evolution are testable, the overall premise that evolution is THE one and only explanation for the variety of species is untestable (i.e. not falsifiable) and unscientific. (I do accept that a more limited scope of evolution is observable in real time and is an essential part of biology.)

Secondly, a brief reading of church history from readily available early church sources, such as Irenaeus, easily refutes the vitriolic attack of those who blame “The Church” for the unscientific and illogical and unbiblical views and practices of the pre-Reformation Catholic Church. While a dominant faction of heretics did persecute what they considered heretics who were scientists; the same persecuted even much more severely those who held the true faith and teaching of Christ, which you now indict as being guilty.

True Christianity is no more guilty of persecuting science than science is guilty of it.

True Christianity was the victim - right alongside science, reason and basic moral decency.

You can easily prove to yourself my view is not made up. The very scriptures that show the teachings of Christ contradicted the practices of this sad era of Christendom were safeguarded (and suppressed) by the very culprits of this evil.

To lay charge to Christians for this monstrous evil is far, far worse than telling a rape victim she (or he) is to blame.

By doing so, those who make these charges actually side with the evil beast that made rivers of blood flow from true martyrs of Christ. Do your homework before making slanderous accusations.

It is as informed of Christianity as someone claiming U.S. presidents are known to be bank robbers because he saw a Keanu Reeves movies in which Nixon robbed a bank.

Back to science. Darwin’s hypothesis was molded by a philosophic choice which rejected the reliable and authoritative revelation of scripture. All science requires philosophic choice to inform hypothesis selection. What makes one hypothesis more interesting and worth pursuing to a scientist than another? In a word, philosophy.

If Darwin had accepted the limitation proscribed in scripture that God made various “kinds” of animals to reproduce after their kind. He might have begun his quest seeking a more informed opinion of what a kind is. He could have still made as great or greater contribution to science without ignoring the record of creation.

Scoffers will quickly mock such claims, but I offer objective evidence:

Luis Pasteur was a contemporary of Darwin, and a greater scientist. He made more valuable contributions to biology and medicine. He began one of his quests with the scriptural premise I just cited.

I am not making this up. It is historical fact.

[GodGunsGuts]

Please stop following me from thread to thread. There was a time when I thought it was stimulating and even fun to debate you. But now that I know what a closed minded bigot you are, I want nothing to do with you. Again, please STOP posting to me.

[ChessExpert]

“My dad used to say we had plenty of ancestress that swung by their necks but never by their tails.’

Could it be that your spell-checker had a say in that? Perhaps your dad said “ancestors.”

[metmom]

So let me take this opportunity to ask why you are obsessed with proving that anal intercourse doesn’t spread AIDS?

Why are you so obsessed with bringing that particular topic up, along with coffee enemas, on totally unrelated threads?

There's nothing in the topic of this thread that could warrant bringing it up here.

[ChessExpert]

“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.”

‘Comedy?’

I wondered about that too. It could have come from Scott Ott (Scrappleface.com). Or these words could have been uttered by Earl Pitts. Earl gives me my wake up bugle call in the morning via radio. This morning he cited studies that show that monkeys have a greater ability in math than college students. Not fair he says. They have twenty fingers for countin.

[ChessExpert]

Are you disagreeing with “science?”

[Carry_Okie]

Thx, pretty cool.

[GodGunsGuts]

He follows me around from thread to thread bringing up anal sex wherever he goes. It’s like he can’t help himself.

[ChessExpert]

“Boston must have a lot of SMUG alerts with all those hybrids driving around.”

I’ll try to remember that!

[Coyoteman]

The more that you conflate Creationism with Geocentricism the better as far as I am concerned.

It is not so surprising that the two ideas go together, and are advocated by the same folks. From Wiki:

Modern geocentrism is a belief currently held by certain groups that the Earth is the center of the universe and does not move. The prime motivating factor for the modern belief, as opposed to the geocentrism of Ptolemy, is explicitly religious.

Advocates generally argue that literal interpretations of certain Biblical passages demand that the Earth be properly described as being the center of the universe. Alternatively, in the case of Catholic geocentrists, scripture authoritatively interpreted by statements of Church Fathers and various Popes is used to justify their belief, even though this viewpoint is no longer endorsed by the Church itself. The geocentrist view is contradicted by modern cosmology, and by the Copernican principle and the theory of general relativity, which together imply that the universe has no center.

[ChessExpert]

I can’t tell if you are serious or facetious. Either way, it’s another Darwinian just so story.