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.

[GodGunsGuts]

I picked that entry because it is short and sweet. But who knows, it may quickly become long and sour once the evos over at Wikipedia discover their entry is being used to challenge Darwinism :o)

[GodGunsGuts]

What’s funny is that Wiley Coyote goes around trying to convince everyone that Creation and ID science is a secret conspiracy to impose a theocracy on this country. But then he also goes around equating those who challenge Darwinism as those who believe in little green men, crop circles, the Loch Ness Monster, BigFoot, Atlantian mermaids, etc. Putting aside for a moment that his first claim is laughable, he still hasn’t even realized that these two distinct groups of people do not go together.

[metmom]

Nice little system. Edit wiki and then use it to support yourself.

How convenient.

[allmendream]

The variations of the Universal genetic code are based upon a difference in the DNA that codes for the protein that loads the amino acid onto the transfer RNA that corresponds to the codon. It is thus transfer RNA’s that contain the ‘key’ to this code. Change which amino acid the tRNA carries, and you change the code for that particular digit. The Wiki entry is correct in that the ‘so called’ universal code is only ‘mostly’ universal, there are some code differences, the one I presented was mostly universal throughout eukaryotes, but different in mitochondria which reflects their proposed prokaryote origin.

And yes, DNA elements that are not transcribed do have a function separate from the genetic code. Their specific sequence is bound by specific proteins (coded for by different DNA)that will then....

-initiate transcription or inhibit transcription of a nearby or downstream Open Reading Frame (gene).
-bind up the DNA around a histone.
-acetylate or deacetylate histones to get them on or off the DNA.
-methylate the DNA to increase the binding of histones
-etc, etc

As I have been saying, ad nauseum, this does not constitute a ‘code’ in the same sense in that it is information that can be translated. This is all regulatory function, determining if/when the sequence in the Open Reading Frame will be read or not. As I said before, if phosphorylation of RNA polymerase constitutes a ‘code’ then ALL this regulatory stuff constitutes a ‘code’ in the same sense. You are not embracing that argument that it is all a ‘code’. I am merely pointing out that it is not a ‘translatable code’ there is no ‘key’ to this ‘code’ and it is therefore not a ‘code’ in the same sense as the (mostly) Universal Genetic Code.

[allmendream]

‘not’ should be ‘now’ as in....

“you are now embracing that argument that it is all a code”

[allmendream]

Did he really? OMGoodness!

......shaking my head.......

[GodGunsGuts]

So what controls all the epigenetic functions of a cell? It certainly isn’t the “Universal Code.” And if these sophisticated functions are not the product of a code, what are they the product of?’

PS When I say code, I am including the notion of a language that can be understood. Are you?

[allmendream]

Please explain to me how ‘epigenetics’ shakes the Universal Code to its core?

The code is used to make all the proteins that carry out the epigenetic program, as well as every other function of the cell. Epigenetics is based upon the pattern of methylation your father and mother imprinted upon your genome. All this pattern of methylation DOES is recruit histones to discourage transcription of nearby open reading frames (genes). It is like a lock on a door. It isn’t a note on the door telling you to come in and heat up your dinner that is in the fridge.

[allmendream]

Epigenetics is based upon methylation and histones.

Histones are proteins coded for by the univeral code.

Methylation of specific DNA sequences is done by DNA methylases, proteins coded for by the universal code.

Modifications of histones is done by proteins coded for by DNA using the universal code.

[allmendream]

If I stood at a doorway and didn’t allow you to come in I guess I would be speaking a language that could be understood. But would you equate it to speaking English to eachother?

[GodGunsGuts]

==Please explain to me how ‘epigenetics’ shakes the Universal Code to its core?

I meant it is shaking the religious importance neo-Darwinists place on random mutation (of the so-called Canonical or Universal Code) as a materialist explanation for the diversity of all life on earth.

[Captain Pike]

For starters, the fruit fly experiments conducted over the early decades of the last century ....

What does that have to do with my proposition that when Creationists present an either/or proposition, that either the Bible is true or evolution is true, that it will surely lead to some believers rejecting their faith entirely?

Why are some (but by no means all) Christians so determined to destroy the science of biology by attacking evolution? Is there a point to the endeavor?

If God can do what He will, then He could have easily created evolution. To deny that is to deny the infinite power of God. You are left with a disagreement over Bible interpretation in Genesis I. Bible interpretation fights have occurred within Christianity since the Bible was assembled several hundred years after Christ. Doctrine fights have resulted in hundreds of different "Christian" denominations, none of which can agree on the meaning of the Word of God.

I think Christians should work out their differences between the various interpretations held by different denominations, and then perhaps worry with attacking biology.

Oh, about your fruit fly story. That was almost a century ago. Do you think research confirming evolution ended there? Contradictory findings pop up in science all the time, so pointing out research from long ago that counters recent findings is pretty meaningless.

[Captain Pike]

Why don't you share with us, then, your definition of science and/or scientific method.

And that relates in what way to my point that an either/or presentation to young people, where either the Bible is true, or evolution is true, will lead at least some of them to reject their faith?

[GodGunsGuts]

==If I stood at a doorway and didn’t allow you to come in I guess I would be speaking a language that could be understood. But would you equate it to speaking English to eachother?

There is a lot more going on than that. But to answer your question, I would most certainly interpret your body language as saying you don’t want me to go through that door. My next question would be “WHY DOESN’T HE WANT ME TO GO THROUGH THAT DOOR?” The very same kinds of questions should also apply to biology, and, indeed, science in general. Much of science consists (whether Darwinists are willing to admit it or not) of the reverse engineering of purposeful designs originally created by God.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Epigenetics is based upon the pattern of methylation your father and mother imprinted upon your genome.

You left out the fact that this includes the “acquired characteristics” your father and mother imprinted on your genome.

[GodGunsGuts]

==If God can do what He will, then He could have easily created evolution.

Very true. But he could also have created ex nihilo. The Bible says He created ex nihilo. Thus, the scientific method should be used to find out if the physical evidence supports the Bible’s claims re: origins and cosmological history.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Epigenetics is based upon methylation and histones.
Histones are proteins coded for by the univeral code....Methylation of specific DNA sequences is done by DNA methylases, proteins coded for by the universal code....Modifications of histones is done by proteins coded for by DNA using the universal code.

All very true. But what causes methylation and histone modifications once the methylases and histones are made?

[GodGunsGuts]

Did you know that there are many scientists that are saying that the “epigenetic code” is in many ways more important than what you call the “Universal Code.” Personally, I think they are both crucial. But it is starting to look like the genetic code simply makes the basic building blocks that the epigenetic “code” then takes and fashions into living life forms.

[oh8eleven]

"After 80 years and millions of generations of fruit flies subjected to X rays and chemicals which cause mutations, all they have been able to produce are more of the same: fruit flies."
Works for me - thanks for the link.

[GodGunsGuts]

==And that relates in what way to my point that an either/or presentation to young people, where either the Bible is true, or evolution is true, will lead at least some of them to reject their faith?

If they reject creation ex nihilo as found in the Bible, then they are far more likely to reject the rest of the gospel message, including the resurrection. Perhaps you should be asking this question of the Evos who say if evolution is true, then the Bible can't be true???