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]

Not only that, the mtDNA clock supports a recent creation. That’s why the Evos are busy trying to revise it. This has proven to be a major embarrassment for them.

[Coyoteman]

As you should already know, there are many problems with radiocarbon dating having to do with calibration methods, not to mention the potentially erroneous assumption that atmospheric C14 levels (relative to C12) are the same today as they were thousands of years ago. And it should not be surprising that the Evos are trying to revise results derived from the mtDNA clock as it supports a recent creation. LOL

With every post you are showing your gross ignorance of science.

The atmospheric ratios of C14 and C12 are known to have fluctuated! We don't assume they remained constant. There are calibration curves to account for those fluctuations.

By the way, the scientists who deal with radiocarbon dating (nuclear physicists, chemists, etc.) are the ones who are working out the details of that technique. Are they all "evos" too?

And you still have not addressed the issue: the mtDNA remained the same from 10,300 years ago to the present among the members of this lineage. That precludes a global flood about 4350 years ago.

[CottShop]

Exactly:

“‘Why does LD extend so far? LD around an allele [or variant form of a gene] arises because of selection or population history—a small population size, genetic drift or population mixture—and decays owing to recombination [crossing over], which breaks down ancestral haplotypes [blocks of SNPs]. The extent of LD decreases in proportion to the number of generations since the LD-generating event. The simplest explanation for the observed long-range LD [such as what we find in humans] is that the population under study experienced an extreme founder effect or bottleneck: a period when the population was so small that a few ancestral haplotypes gave rise to most of the haplotypes that exist today.’”

“‘We obtained over 55 kilobases of sequence from three autosomal loci encompassing Alu repeats for representatives of diverse human populations as well as orthologous sequences for other hominoid species at one of these loci. Nucleotide diversity was exceedingly low. Most individuals and populations were identical. Only a single nucleotide difference distinguished presumed ancestral alleles from descendants. These results differ from those expected if alleles from divergent archaic populations were maintained through multiregional continuity. The observed virtual lack of sequence polymorphism is the signature of a recent single origin for modern humans, with general replacement of archaic populations.’”

“These results are quite consistent with a recent human origin and a global flood. Evolutionary models of origins did not predict such low human genetic diversity. Mutations should have produced much more diversity than 0.1% over millions of years. And yet this is exactly what we would expect to find if all humans were closely related and experienced a relatively recent event in which only a few survived”

—”The mitochondrial Eve findings were, in the first instance, in line with biblically-based expectations; while not proving the biblical Eve, they were consistent with her reality, and were not predicted by evolutionary theory.

—The dates assigned to mitochondrial Eve were said by evolutionists to rule out the biblical Eve. But these dates were based upon ‘molecular clock’ assumptions, which were calibrated by evolutionary beliefs about when certain evolutionary events occurred, supposedly millions of years ago.

—When these assumed rates were checked out against the real world, preliminary results indicate that the mitochondrial ‘molecular clock’ is ticking at a much faster rate than evolutionists believed possible. If correct, it means that mitochondrial Eve lived 6,000 to 6,500 years ago, right in the ballpark for the true ‘mother of all living’ (Genesis 3:20).

—These real-time findings also seriously weaken the case from mitochondrial DNA which argued (erroneously) that Neandertals were not true humans. “

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/events.asp

Yep- the flood is a “Myth”, and the Mitochondrial Eve that links all mankind to one woman, just as the bible states, is a “Myth”, provided that you are iwlling ot ignore all the supporting evidences

[CottShop]

[b]And you still have not addressed the issue:[/b] That every individual’s mtDNA is traced back to one woman, and as such, every culture woudl have been continuously linked genetically despite there being a bottleneck such as the flood. The genetic markers were carried by all descendents of Eve and of course fossils foudn would carry the markers regardless of a catastrophic event wiping out all but a few. The line was not broken, it continued through the few and spread the very same markers after the flood so that there was no itnerruption, which is exactly what we find in the fossil records as expected IF all mtDNA can be traced to one woman, which has been done.

[GodGunsGuts]

==With every post you are showing your gross ignorance of science.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! lol

==The atmospheric ratios of C14 and C12 are known to have fluctuated! We don’t assume they remained constant. There are calibration curves to account for those fluctuations.

Tell me Wiley, how would the atmospheric ratios of C14 and C12 change if the global folklore is true and a massive global flood occurred within the past 5000 years? Here's a thought question for you: It is estimated that there is about 175 times the organic matter buried under the earth than exists in our biosphere today. If this matter were buried as a result of a catastrophic global flood, would that have any impact on the C14 to C12 ratio? Would it cause radiometric dating methods to make things look older or younger?

[Coyoteman]

Tell me Wiley, how would the atmospheric ratios of C14 and C12 change if the global folklore is true and a massive global flood occurred within the past 5000 years? Here's a thought question for you: It is estimated that there is about 175 times the organic matter buried under the earth than exists in our biosphere today. If this matter were buried as a result of a catastrophic global flood, would that have any impact on the C14 to C12 ratio? Would it cause radiometric dating methods to make things look older or younger?

You are arguing from religion, not science.

Get back to me when you are willing to actually read the article I posted and discuss the science. Until then, don't waste my time.

[CottShop]

You asked: [[If this matter were buried as a result of a catastrophic global flood, would that have any impact on the C14 to C12 ratio? Would it cause radiometric dating methods to make things look older or younger?]]

Coyote “answered” [[You are arguing from religion, not science.]]

An evo can’t conceive of anythign but what their assumption drivin imagination can conjure up, and hterefore, any valid scientific question posed them is concidered ‘religion’ and thusly they don’t have to answer. After all, wonky Bristlecone rings and conditionally varying varves are used for their ‘precise’ calibration methods don’tchaknow?.

They are determining unknowns with methods that rely on unknowns- An “I don’t know” + another “I don’t know” = “pure science” don’tchaknow? Challenging their “I don’t knows” is unscientific and nothign but religion sir!

[[Until then, don’t waste my time.]]

Translation: My god is bigger than Your God!, and that is that and if you challenge me I’m taking my ball and going home!

[js1138]

Yes- I mistakenly thought flora- not fauna- Flora are very resilient and could very well have survived the flood- as for animals surviving outside the ark- no- every thing that crept/walked, flew was destroyed. This may sound inpossible, but remember, Noah only needed to save the original KINDS, not every subspecies within the KINDS- After hte flood, genetic diversities would have produced all the millions of subspecies within the KINDS.

You will no doubt be able to give me some examples of kinds that managed to bring forth the millions of insect species.

[CottShop]

We’ve alr4eady discussed KINDS i nthis thread as well as given the biological classifications of KINDS along with the various established classification criteria that is based on evidences rather than on pure assumptions as does the cladistic classification system.

[js1138]

If biology had nothing but assumptions, then some of them would have proved wrong by now, after 150 years.

I’m sure the world is dying to hear the opinions of someone that had to be reminded that every living thing not on the ark died, according to your story. And the opinions of someone that doesn’t know fauna from flora.

[metmom]

He's not "arguing" anything. He's asking a question and an interesting one at that.

Here's a thought question for you: It is estimated that there is about 175 times the organic matter buried under the earth than exists in our biosphere today. If this matter were buried as a result of a catastrophic global flood, would that have any impact on the C14 to C12 ratio?

So would it?

And here's another one: It the physical or climatological conditions on the earth really were different as seems to be indicated by the account in Genesis, what effect could that have on the C12/C14 ratios?

[GodGunsGuts]

==You are arguing from religion, not science.

Sorry Wiley, using the scientic method to investigate the historical claims of the Bible is not religion. And as pointed out before, your fellow archaeologists are indeed starting to take the global folklore seriously with respect to a global flood--that includes the biblical version. The data from paleocurrents is also pointing towards a global flood. And if the great bulk of organic matter buried under the earth was deposited there by a global flood, the net effect of which would be to increase the C14 to C12 ratio since that time, then radiometric dating will be skewed in favor of older dates with respect to organic specimens both before and immediately after the same.

I submit that it is your religious bias in favor of Darwinian naturalism that prevents you from impartially weighing the evidence for and against the global flood.

[GodGunsGuts]

==So would it?

The answer is, of course, yes. But Wiley won’t entertain that possibility, let alone the actual evidence in favor of the Noahitic flood. But he’s not religious! Oh no, he’s just has a very, very, very, very, very, very passionate committment to Darwinian naturalism. LOL

[GodGunsGuts]

Yes, his chaos god, and his anti-chaos god have created every living thing on earth. Isn’t it amazing!

[metmom]

Hey, where’d everybody go?

*chirp, chirp, chirp......*

[CottShop]

I know the difference spanky- I made a mental error whjen reading quickly and responding quickly- but thanks for the petty little insult- speaks mucho about your arguing ‘skills’

[[If biology had nothing but assumptions, then some of them would have proved wrong by now, after 150 years]]

Here’s the great hting (for the evo side) most of the assumptions about past unkowns can’t be proven, but they sure can be shoved down our kids throats despite a complete lakcof evidence and biological support- infact- it’s worse than that- it’s shoved down our kids throats despite overwhelming evidences that show the impossibiltities of it and it’s called science? If the evidence backs them into a corner? Heck, no problem- just adjust the assumptions to suit your needs with hypothesis that also rests entirely on assumptions.

[[I’m sure the world is dying to hear the opinions of someone that had to be reminded that every living thing not on the ark died, according to your story.]]

Bzzzt Wrong- every living thing didn’t die- stil lwant to throw aroudn the petty insults JS? Cuz you’re looking a bit foolish with that statement if you do.

[CottShop]

[[[[2) Fauna and flora are continuous across this date worldwide. For example, pollen cores that show no discontinuity attributable to a global flood 4350 years ago. Neither do glacial varves, tree ring sequences, or several other methods of tracking time]]]]

This was CM’s original statement- I responded thinking Flora but typing fauna- but again- I guess everyone isn’t quite as perfect as you (nor as apparently petty, jumping on someone for making a mental mistake)

[From many - one.]

“Flora are very resilient and could very well have survived the flood”

!!!!
Which flora do you have in mind that are “very resilient?”

Fungal spores are pretty resilient, and can have survived a worldwide flood, but God is not mentioned as having created fungi. Perhaps they don’t exist.

[CottShop]

God isn’t mentioned as creating many things specifically- just everythign in general, and some htings specifically.

Seeds can survive soakings, even sprout on sludge rafts later to take root dry land. pollen also survives. Acorns can survvive, some trees can survive being submerged for weeks- on and on it goes- many can.

[From many - one.]

A very few can, most can’t.

Mosses, ferns, liverworts, fresh water algae, most angiosperms can be downright persnickety.

Fungal spores last, but they have to wait for their hosts to grow.

Maybe they’ve all evolved persnickety-iness since the flood.

Funny how God is only mentioned as creating things folks were already familiar with. No mosses, no ferns, no algae, no fungi, no slime molds. Just “animals” creatures of the sea, and seed bearing plants.