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.

[dinasour]

The truth about evolution:

 

[YHAOS]

"Sure. So easy, even a monkey can do it!"

In that case, well past the abilities of a Liberal, then?

[bigcat32]

“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?

[YHAOS]

"Would you like some squirrel with that? “o)"

No thanks. There are already more than enough squirrels in the Democrat Party.

[Iris7]

The problems with Darwinism as a “theory” are mathematical and biochemical. Darwin’s hypothesis runs into unsurmountable obstacles when confronted with simple modern arguments.

Essentially Darwinism is just another discredited “origin myth”. People simply want to believe that they “understand” what is going on when they simply don’t.

[fungoking]

Should a woman drive a car with a Darwin decal after what he had to say about women?

Man is more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman, and has a more inventive genius. His brain is absolutely larger, but whether or not proportionately to his larger body, has not, I believe, been fully ascertained.

The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman- whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.

We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on Hereditary Genius, that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman. Thus, man has ultimately become superior to woman. It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of the equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise, it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.

[ml/nj]

No one argues that public schools should be forced to teach the Ptolemaic system because it permits Joshua to make the sun stand still.

That is, the sun apparently stood still. Read this:

In the Mexican Annals of Cuauhtitlan - the history of the empire of Culhuacan sn Mexico, written in Nahua-Indian in the sixteenth century - it is related that during a cosmic catastrophe that occurred in the remote past, the night did not end for a long time.

It's from Immanual Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision. It made me stand up and take notice more than 40 years ago.

ML/NJ

[dmz]

The problems with Darwinism as a “theory” are mathematical and biochemical. Darwin’s hypothesis runs into unsurmountable obstacles when confronted with simple modern arguments.
________

‘fess up, you pulled that info off the sleeve of Behe’s ‘Darwin’s Black Box’.

Can you summarize, in your own words, what those obstacles are?

[Mogollon]

So there you have it. Revulsion at the sight of lower primates is why the great unwashed reject darwin's theory. LOL.

Maybe those that have bought into darwin's theory can explain why the primary mechanism of evolution (mutation followed by natural selection) doesn't work: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/10mut10.htm ) I'm a scientist and have changed my mind about what I was force-fed during undergrad and grad school about evolution.

[Secret Agent Man]

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

[ConservativeWarrior]

I don't see how tracing humans back to apes negates any Christian thinking. Even taking "created man in His own image," you could argue God did create man in His image, using evolution as his tool.

Additionally, the fact that we evolved from animals and are just another of nature's species precludes humanity's ability to "harm" the "natural world," as our existence, along with all our behavioral traits, are part of that natural world. We can't do any "harm" the environment, because we're part of it. I'm not saying deforestation is a good thing, but it's certainly natural.

[Badeye]

If Darwin was correct, how do we explain gays?

(ask that of any liberal, be sure they aren’t drinking fluids when you do so, however)

[jeddavis]

Evolution has been repeatedly disproven and yet its adherents have remained in denial and try to insist that Darwinism be taught as a “Fact(TM)” in public schools at public expense to the exclusion of all other theories of origins. There is no scientific support for evolution.

[the_devils_advocate_666]

It took until the 1700s for science to accept that hand washing would stop the spread of infection. People of faith aren't the only stubborn ones.

I think it took a while for some folks to be convinced the world was not flat.

[Carry_Okie]

I'm a scientist and have changed my mind about what I was force-fed during undergrad and grad school about evolution.

I'm right there with you, having become perfectly happy to admit that we just don't know. I have observed natural selection aplenty (thanks to Darwin), but never once have seen signs of evolution to a higher state of complexity.

This educrat's obsession with claiming that modern science has all the answers robs young people of the aspiration that they too could make important contributions. That deprives science of future talent. We should never say that what we have is anything more than a model with specific limits. It's time for science to come clean about the necessity to admit ignorance where appropriate.

The problem is that in a grant driven world, claiming more for your work than it warrants is a matter of survival. Yet another reason why government as a source of funding has its inherent perversities.

[Coyoteman]

Evolution has been repeatedly disproven and yet its adherents have remained in denial and try to insist that Darwinism be taught as a “Fact(TM)” in public schools at public expense to the exclusion of all other theories of origins. There is no scientific support for evolution.

BS

[Disturbin]

“If Darwin was correct, how do we explain gays? (ask that of any liberal, be sure they aren’t drinking fluids when you do so, however)”

Exactly. Big Government/Socialism is completely at odds with so-called natural selection or “survival of the fittest.” Maybe since the left believes in it, they advocate big government because they are scared of being weak and overtaken by others who are strong.

[Secret Agent Man]

Along your same point, should minorities drive a car with a Darwin fish on it after what he had to say about them?

It’s funny how they never want to give the full title of Darwin’s book as it originally appeared.

The book’s full title is: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. Later on in 1872 the title was changed to hide the last half, perhaps because of its racist overtones, to just “The Origin of Species.”

And it als ois very interesting to see the darwinists trying to equate the reluctance to accept their views with Christians. There have been many, many attempts over 2000 years trying to snuff out Christianity. So many that millions of people over the last 2000 years have been killed for their beliefs. THe killing goes on today, in Sudan, in China, in muslim countries. Show me the millions of people who have believed in Darwin so strongly they’d give their own lives defending that belief.

The truth is Darwin is junk science, it fails Darwin’s own tests due to lack of evidence. By his own words Darwin would have abandoned his own theory long ago. A hundred and fifty years beating a dead horse is the picture of the evolutionists. Today’s masquerading ‘science’ instead says lack of evidence is evidence for it - it just happened much differently than Darwin said it did.

If the Darwinists can use lack of evidence as evidence, then I guess we can too when they ask us to call forth God so that they can see Him.

The truth is that the theory of evolution is an origins theory, which requires faith to believe in because it cannot be scientifically proven. Anytime you discuss origins there’s belief and faith involved whether God is the creating source, or evolution. If one can’t be in the schools, neither should. Otherwise you are favoring one origins theory over another.

The other truth is that if there is no God then there are no moral absolutes, right and wrong do not exist. Morals are really just a fancy name for ‘preferences’. It’s just our personal perceptions of what we prefer or don’t. The reality of this is that maybe it is okay to kill other people if they don’t agree with you, because since there’s really no right and wrong, nothing is wrong, so everything is fair game. You may not agree, but since there is no absolute standard to which everyone is measured, it’s just one person’s preferences being different from another’s. Nobody’s wrong. Hopefully you don’t run into someone who thinks it’s okay to kill you for your tennis shoes because he liked the pair you were wearing when you walked by him on the street that day.

This would have to be true because if we evolved from animals the way it’s claimed, you don’t see anything in nature operating this way. The lion doesn’t have a moral issue about killing the gazelle. It’s all self preservation and ‘do what you will.’

Today in America we don’t eat people, but in other places of the world they do. Maybe one day our views will change and enough people will accept eating people again, especially if we have food shortages and because we’re using all our biocrops to fuel our cars. MMMM, soylent green....

And for those of you who think the ‘societal’ morals in our laws and such solve the problem, they just slow down the problem. But the societal morals drift and change as society changes. And good luck if half the time if they even want to enforce a law on the books, much less mete out a full punishment. And also good luck if soceital morals shift (since there are no absolutes) to where YOU become part of a legally persecuted class with the full force of government backing those who want ot come after you. (And I’m back to 2000 years of Christian persecution and millions of deaths of Christians by those who would persecute them.)

[Badeye]

Yep.

I’m serious about asking a liberal about this. Drives em almost as crazy as if you say ‘Bush’...(chuckle)

[Omedalus]

“The problems with Darwinism as a “theory” are mathematical and biochemical.”

Please tell me you aren’t talking about irreducibility.

Essentially the anti-evolutionist argument of irreducibility is just another discredited myth. People simply want to believe that something mystical and nondisprovable and beyond human comprehension is going on, when it simply isn’t.