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.

[Tax-chick]

I had a friend back in Oklahoma who liked to talk about Velikovsky, especially when Having Drink Taken. I couldn’t ever find Mr. V’s books in the library, though.

[Philly Nomad]

Simple, men spend most of their time trying to have sex with women. Everything action and thought a man takes is trying to have sex with a woman.

But the gay man, with easy access to sex with other men, suddenly has all this brain power to focus on other things. And after sex comes violence.

So tribes with Gay men are able to conquer more territory because the gay male has more time to plan the attacks and build the weapons, while the straight male is looking for some food so he can have sex with a woman.

[Badeye]

(chuckle)

And here I always thought it was because their caves looked simply fabulous!

[RightWhale]

Why, in short, is Darwin still the subject of continuing controversy and acrimonious debate?

In short? Hmm. Might be that nobody understands either Darwin or science or if they do they know how to string out some arguments forever just to pass the time.

[Omedalus]

“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.”

Diagnostic and surgical medicine has been repeatedly disproven, evidenced by the fact that sick people still die, even when they’ve been examined by a hospital. Yet its adherents have remained in denial and try to insist that silly things like antibiotics, organ transplants, surgical removal of tumors, and differential diagnostic techniques still be taught as “Fact(TM)” in medical schools to the exclusion of all other curative theories, such as leeching or exorcism or crystal-power. There is no scientific support for modern medicine.

[Coyoteman]

Your post includes many incorrect statements, but for lack of time I'll just examine one.

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.

You are probably referring to Darwin's statement that the lack of transitional fossils posed a serious problem for his theory, and that if they weren't found in the future his theory would be in trouble.

Guess what? Darwin was speaking of the fossil record as it existed prior to 1859.

There are lots of transitionals now, and more are found every year. There was just an announcement in the last week about a new whale transitional. And if you want to see living transitionals, just google "ring species" for examples of speciation with the transitional populations still intact and alive.

The problem seems to be that some folks with particular religious beliefs are unable to admit there are transitionals because that would contradict their beliefs. But denial won't make all of the transitionals magically go away.

[RightWhale]

Evolution has been repeatedly disproven

Rhetoric might be convincing but it isn't proof.

[Gen-X-Dad]

It seems like every few weeks we have to recycle the neverending debate over evolution and religion. This forum has spent thousands of hours and words debating this topic ad infinitum. Each time an article like this pops up (evolutionist pokes creationist in eye, take that!) another article quickly follows (creationist returns favor with a double poke in the eyes to the evolutionist!) The most amusing thing is how everyone scurries to hold up their favorite references to prove the other side is ignorant, idiotic, and uninformed. It is like they have never seen this topic discussed on this forum before.

The bottom line, much like other polarizing discussions, is that most people have made their mind up already, and no amount of debate will change it. Anything this heavily beaten to death has had every angle covered on this forum, and quite frankly people should just respect the fact that others think differently and there is nothing wrong with it.

Oh well, I am sure this discussion will carry on in its normal pattern, so have fun recycling the well established point-counterpoints on this topic.

[klgator]

I know what you mean. I was entranced in my younger years by documentaries on UFOs and the Kennedy Assassination; yet, many years later, I find the newer documentaries regurgitating up the same “evidence.” I tired of it all.

There was a documentary on the History Channel where they traced back DNA to the original source of man, and they came to the Bushmen of Africa as having the first “marker” in their genetic makeup. Interestingly enough, there had to be a source before the Bushmen that had no markers. A single source! A single primate? I doubt it.

Also, archaeologists have long searched for the “missing link” without success. Maybe because there isn’t one?

[ml/nj]

I couldn’t ever find Mr. V’s books in the library, though.

Well, they're in my library!

Most are also available used. Many suggest that Ages in Chaos should be read before Worlds in Collision, though the latter was published first. I believe that among the "many" was Albert Einstein. Einstein was rereading Worlds in Collision at the time of his death.

An interesting book about Velikovsky is Ginenthal's Sagen and Velikovsky.

ML/NJ

[af_vet_rr]

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.

This question was answered in the paragraph preceding the one I posted - Darwin has only been around 150 years. It took centuries before Christian fundamentalists finally accepted Copernicus' findings (and some were still against it even into the late 19th century).

Everytime I see one of these arguments, and they bring up Copernicus and Galileo as examples of fundamentalists being open minded or accepting of science, I have to really laugh, because they clearly haven't read up on their history. I would be shocked if the fundamentalists accepted Darwin or anything like it within the next 50 years. Then again, the younger generations are holding much different views than many fundamentalists, and within 50 years, you'll see a huge change in society away from religion (unfortunately).

[Non-Sequitur]

bump

[Tax-chick]

Thanks! I’ll run those through the library catalog here (bigger system than Tulsa’s “-). I hadn’t thought about it lately!

[m8n8]

Three Words:

Piltdown Man Hoax.

Still defended by the most ardent Evolutionist Zealots..

[Steamburg]

Much of this argument is based on what people thought he said, not on what he actually wrote. I have never found his original works to be in conflict with Christian teachings only “Christian” interpretations of both his works and the Bible. It seems that this idea of a static earth is being preached by a certain Divinity School Dropout.

[Captain Pike]

There is no scientific support for evolution.

That's an easy thing to say if you think that anything you personally don't accept isn't "science".

People who say things I disagree with aren't intelligent.

If you can redefine something into what it isn't merely because you say so, then so can I.

[Omedalus]

You don’t even need to go to something as exotic as ring species. (Even though creatures such as Darwin finches aren’t exactly “exotic”, most people aren’t particularly familiar with them.)

Even two species as familiar as the lion and the tiger comprise a snapshot of evolution in action. Lions and tigers are almost-but-not-quite reproductively isolated from one another (the definition of a species). That is, they do not normally mate, and when they do, the offspring is usually not viable; when it is viable, it is sterile. Therefore, any mutative adaptations among lions cannot transfer to the tiger population and vice versa. They are genetic islands, i.e. species.

There is one exception to this, however. If a female lion and a male tiger mate, their offspring will be an animal called a tigon. Male tigons are sterile, but female tigons can mate with either lions or tigers (producing animals called ti-tigons or li-tigons, which are then fairly representative of just a tiger or just a lion). Through this extremely narrow hybridization channel, lions and tigers can still interbreed.

What would it take for full speciation to occur between tigers and lions? Well, presumably there’s some gene on the male tiger’s Y chromosome that makes gamete manufacture malfunction in the context of some set of chromosomes from a lion - thereby rendering male tigons (with their tiger father’s Y chromosome and their lion mother’s X chromosome) sterile, but leaving female tigons (with one X chromosome apiece from their father and mother) fertile. It would be possible, due to mutation or transchromosomal crossover, for that gamete-breaking gene on the Y chromosome of some male tiger somewhere to move over to that tiger’s X chromosome (presumably this would occur during fertilization when that male tiger gets conceived). All of that tiger’s daughters would have a copy of that modified X chromosome - and as they have offspring in turn, that gene would spread throughout the tiger population until the ability for tigers to form fertile offspring with lions in any way whatsoever would be a vanishingly unlikely phenomenon.

[Captain Pike]

Then again, the younger generations are holding much different views than many fundamentalists, and within 50 years, you'll see a huge change in society away from religion (unfortunately).

I believe you are correct.

And to a great extent the blame will be on the creationists. By drawing a line in the sand and saying "evolution cannot be true because the Bible says so". Then if evolution is true, the Bible is false.

When children taught such nonsense get into college and discover the mountains of evidence for evolution, then many will reject their faith forever. That is a sad thing.

[Edit35]

wait till after the election to bring up this FR ripper.

AFTER the election??

Heck, we're having a Darwin Primary Election right NOW!!!

It's survival of the fittest, with each candidate being forced to evolve -- or they will become extinct!!!

[Edit35]

you could argue God did create man in His image, using evolution as his tool.

The Darwin Primary Election is happening right now all over America!

The candidates who fail to evolve, fall by the wayside and go extinct.

It's survival of the fittest in its purest form.

/sarc