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.

[woollyone]

still laughing as I wipe off the monitor

[PhatHead]

Here in MA, you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting one of those Darwin emblems (fish with feet) on the back of a Prius.

Well, keep swinging! You may run out of them sooner than you expect!

[Coyoteman]

Sorry, Coyoteman. Unlike you, I don’t believe in the Loch Ness Monster; I don’t believe in UFOs; I believe crop circles were made by men to sucker people like you; I believe the Holocaust actually happened, and was carried out by Darwinian monsters who share a worldview that is remarkably similar to the one you hold yourself; and finally the only “BigFoot” I truly believe in is the one that is always protruding from your mouth.

You left out the moon landings. How do you feel about them?

How about Atlantis and the supposed global flood ca. 4350 years ago?

[GodGunsGuts]

==You left out the moon landings. How do you feel about them? How about Atlantis and the supposed global flood ca. 4350 years ago?

Unlike you, Coyoteman, I don’t think the lunar landings were faked. And unlike you, I don’t believe there is a civilization of mermaids swimming around under the ocean, although I do think that the prior existence of a land-dwelling Atlantis, as per Greek legend, is an open question. As for the global flood...the history of the global flood is recounted in the Bible. But you completely reject the Bible and salvation, so I would imagine your problems run a lot deeper than the global flood—GGG

[SunkenCiv]

Just in case it's needed...

[atlaw]

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.

What "kind" is a porpoise?

[BlueDragon]

A snippet from GGG's link in regards to Lamarkism;

"...not by changing DNA sequence but by changing the DNA methylation pattern of the mouse genome."

Hints at what could be a determining factor behind the "punctuation" marks in punctuated exqulibrium?

Driven by environmental changes (be it catastrophe in the way of meteor impacts, volcanic eruptions, or other) strong enough to radically enough, alter chemical backgrounds...leading to significant changes in genetic expression? Of course, this still doesn't quite explain how all the original 'coding' came to be, in the first place...

I was pondering upon, and considering mentioning this sort of idea (not my own original idea, of course) in the recent thread concerning histone's role in regulation of gene expression, but didn't get around to it.

[editor-surveyor]

Dull day at the office?

[BlueDragon]

lol

[editor-surveyor]

Stop bringing your family into this.

[Coyoteman]

Observation: if a pro-evolution or pro-science poster had made the insults we see in the above posts s/he would have been banned.

Hmmmmmmm.

[js1138]

It’s interesting to see how someone claims up to proving any time how HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, but has cried to the mods so that two of us banned from posting to him.

This is, of course, how debates work on FR. Some might recall the evolution debate started by Dave, which ended when Dave’s opponent was banned.

When the debate gets tough, the gutless hide behind mommy’s skirts.

[editor-surveyor]

Signing off for a few days, and heading down to Santa Barbara to warm up. The sun is shining here, but it sure is cold!

Be back monday evening. Keep’em hopping GGG.

[allmendream]

The epigenetic code is insufficient to explain large scale evolutionary change. It can only modulate the expression of the genes that are already there. It is not so much a ‘code’ running in parallel to the genetic code as it is instructions on what genes should be turned on and which should be turned off.

Lamarck claimed that evolutionary change was driven by the life experience of the animal, such that the adaptations that animal underwent in response to environment would lead to an unalterable difference in the genetics of its descendants. He thought this the primary mechanism of change. His view has no more acceptance today than after Weissman effectively demolished his hypothesis. The fact that there are some changes in expression of genes that can be inherited does not make Lamarkianism the agent of genetic change. Genes change by mutation and natural selection, the methylation pattern may change based upon environmental stimulus, and this pattern is inherited; but it does not change the genome of the animal, and is only a temporary change in the inheritance of the population; hardly a validation of Lamarkianism as the primary force of evolutionary change.

It is like saying that because SOMETHING orbits the earth, it serves as validation for the hypothesis that everything in the universe orbits the earth.

[Cvengr]

Obligatory evolution image follows: Evolution of Britney Spears

[GodGunsGuts]

Observation: if a pro-evolution or pro-science poster had made the insults we see in the above posts s/he would have been banned....Hmmmmmm

Apparently you forgot that he was responding to the following from you:

“So how do you feel about the moon landings, the Loch Ness Monster, UFOs, crop circles, the Holocaust and Bigfoot?...You left out the moon landings. How do you feel about them?...How about Atlantis...?”

So the answer to you question is YES. After a long litany of insults, you are still here. There is no conspiracy to ban Darwinists. You can now go to sleep each night without first having to look under your bed. Get some sleep! I can only imagine how big those bags under your eyes have become. LOL

[GodGunsGuts]

==Coyoteman writes: “Observation: if a pro-evolution or pro-science poster had made the insults we see in the above posts s/he would have been banned....Hmmmmmm”

Apparently you forgot that he was responding to the following from you:

“So how do you feel about the moon landings, the Loch Ness Monster, UFOs, crop circles, the Holocaust and Bigfoot?...You left out the moon landings. How do you feel about them?...How about Atlantis...?”

So the answer to you question is YES. After a long litany of insults, you are still here. There is no conspiracy to ban Darwinists. You can now go to sleep each night without first having to look under your bed. Get some sleep! I can only imagine how big those bags under your eyes have become. LOL

[allmendream]

DEVOLUTION!

Are we not men? We are Devo!

You can take the white trash out of the trailer park, but you cannot get the trailer park out of the white trash.

I believe the phrase ‘moronic beauty of youth’ comes to mind.

[js1138]

It is like saying that because SOMETHING orbits the earth, it serves as validation for the hypothesis that everything in the universe orbits the earth.

But you've already been told that the earth is the center of the universe. End of discussion.

It's interesting how kookie ideas tend to cluster in people. Geocentrism, the delusion that one has somehow out-thought Einstein, The delusion that one has out-thought all the biologists and all the physicians in the world.

Here's a cluster kind of guy.

[BlueDragon]

I'm not sure that you noticed, but I myself wasn't pushing Lamarkianism, per se, but instead, merely pointing at something else, albeit it does involve environmental factors' potential influence on the genome.

You say;

"It is not so much a ‘code’ running in parallel to the genetic code as it is instructions on what genes should be turned on and which should be turned off.

I highlighted [in red] your words...for the "parallel" wording is strictly your own, not mine. Please do not put that into my mouth, so that you can then argue against it. My own wording was more like 'code within code' which is subtly different.

Did you follow the link, and read the information at the previously posted link;

What is a gene, post-ENCODE? History and updated definition

As is mentioned [among many other things] recent research even shows overlapping genes, sharing some of the same coding, as opposed to each separate gene being a discreet entity unto itself.

There is much more complication than even that, hence the researchers at the Genome Project expressing it as;

" A current computational metaphor: Genes as "subroutines" in the genomic operating system"

A computer subroutine, can be fairly described as being something of an "code within code". You say, only "one universal code"?
Ok. Microsoft Windows is an codified operating system. There are many sub-routines [sub-coding] in the overall sytem. Code-within-the-code? A programmer might well say "yes"!

It's not me who labeled them thus, and applied those labels, to the attempt to more clearly express the increasingly more complicated picture of the genome and it's workings...but I can think I can see what they are saying.

Why can't you?