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.

[CottShop]

1: [[To claim that these tiny amounts of C14 prove a young earth are simply lies.]]

I tried to follow you line of ‘reasoning’ but found nothign but nonsense- nowhere does the site make any claim of it amounting to ‘proof of a young earth’ as you deceitfully allege.

2: [[ And this nonsense has been picked up by a lot of creationist websites. Sorry, the textbooks are not obsolete; the creation science folks are simply wrong once again]]

Lol- the earlier info using racemization is wrong, science is finding out, but our textbooks that teach the results based on racemization techniques aren’t obsolete? Please, do wish... errr I mean explain this one away.

3: [[Anyone can submit an AMS sample. I’ve done nearly 125 myself. If creationists have $700 they can do a radiocarbon date on bone, just like real scientists do.]]

The original sentence that coyote seems to be confusing reads “”It is likely that the mass spectrometer technique will never be permitted to be applied to major ancient archaeological or pre-archaeological materials, such as ancient hominid bones. To do so would reveal their recent age. “

Nothign in there about SUBMITTING, as Coyote alledges. How many of the submitted results are demed valid Coyote? None, becuase htier ages conflict with our suppsoed human evolution models- again, the article mentions nothign about submitting- it simply mentions the fact that they are not permitted as dates becuase they conflict with ealier estyimates of hominids- when the new technique that shows an earlier date for supposed hominid skulls makes it into science books, then let me know- till then, the article is spot on.

When arguing coyote- try to at least stay true to the points being discussed- making stuff up as you go shows a lack of careful critique.

[[Got any more radiocarbon nonsense to post? Every time I rebut one of your silly articles it just makes you look foolish.]]

You’ve ‘rebuttled’ one? Where? All I see are false accusations and a silly error on your part showing that you misunderstood what the site was saying about Radiocarbon dating and ancient fossils, which I pointed out before.

[CottShop]

[[That is simply not true. You have offered no evidence that they had any preconceived idea of how old the rocks “should be.”]]

And you sir have offered nothign to suggest anythign but assumptions was used prior to any type of testing- it ‘looked old’ therefore it must have been old was the mantra, and ‘since we note uniform present stratas, then it ‘must have been the same’ in the past’ mantra is all they had to go on- nothign but asusmptions- sorry-

[metmom]

Col 1:16 & 17 For by him [Christ] all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Sounds like Paul is talking about something working against the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the forces we know about like gravitation and strong and weak nuclear forces.

Gee, I wonder how someone knew that things needed to be held together 2,000 years ago. Why would someone of that age even begin to suspect that matter would have a tendency to come apart if it wasn't being held together?

It's almost like someone would have had to tell him or something.

[CottShop]

[[I would say somebody ORDERED them!]]

Can’t be- everyone knows that when 3 bricks get whisked up by strong winds and land atop the others and form what ‘looks like’ an intelligent design, then it’s entirely possible for a brick and mortar building to evolve from raw materials and create a structurally sound complex building complete with plumbing, lighting, computer systems etc all workign harmoniously and in sync with no help from an intelligent instructor/constructor- don’t be silly GGG- Nature-dun-it you heathen unbeleiver

[CottShop]

[[I followed the argument up to page 13, and found this nonsense]]

Lol- 13 pages of facts, and you find one example you mistakenly label as mistakes? Not bad for a site that you claim ‘can’t be trusted’ and is nothign but ‘pure propoganda’

I can go on TalkOrigins site and every page practially contains outright lies and halftruths, misleading ommissions and pure propoganda- yet you’ve no qualms about listing TalkOrigins as a reputable ‘science’ site? And you can only find one thing in 13 pages that you mistakenly think is a mistake? When will the light dawn, old one?

[GodGunsGuts]

You certainly have a way with words, Cottshop. I’m proud to share these threads with you and hope to bump into many times in the future. All the best—GGG

[GodGunsGuts]

Wow, I was wracking my brain to find the perfect scripture verse to sum up what we have been talking about on this thread, and you plumb nailed it! Thanks, Metmom. I will most definitely commit those verses to memory.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

it ‘looked old’ therefore it must have been old was the mantra

You're wrong, I've explained why you're wrong a couple of times, and yet you keep saying the same wrong thing. At this point I can't decide if you can't understand why you're wrong or just don't care that you're wrong, but it doesn't matter. I know when to stop beating my head against a brick wall. Go ahead, high fives all around with your buddies: I'm out of this particular tangent.

[GodGunsGuts]

==I’ve explained why you’re wrong a couple of times

I’m certainly all ears. Feel free to elaborate.

[CottShop]

I don’t have any buddies :(- what ya doing for the next 30 40 years? whataya say? Pals for life?

[CottShop]

i also don’t have any hands, so I can’t high-five anyone- but you knew that and were just being cruel

[js1138]

I'm a trained physicist. It's not obvious to me, therefore your assertion is false. You said "any chemist or physicist" therefore it is sufficient to disprove your hypothesis with only one example to the contrary.

Perhaps I should have narrowed it a bit to physicists who have given some thought to the algorithmic nature of evolution.

Would you be willing to stand up before an audience of your PhD peers and explain in some mathematical detail exactly what physical law is violated by the process of evolution that would not also be violated by metabolism?

If you were to do this, what would you say?

[bvw]

Why would I have a PhD? Did you evolve that assumption?

[js1138]

An M.S. then, with some published research papers?

[bvw]

How about an Associates? Or even, like Einstein, just a mere Bachelor’s? And, why “published papers”?

[js1138]

Regardless of your credentials, if you are going to take on the science community and tell tens of thousands of PhDs that they are misinformed about thermodynamics, you should be able to present a solid mathematical case why trial and error learning, which is what evolution is, violates the Second Law.

Evolution, as it is now formulated, involves a number of well defined and fully described chemical processes. Perhaps you would care to pick out the one that violates the laws of physics.

Are you suggesting that Point Mutations, Frame-shift mutations, Deletions, insertions, Inversions, DNA expression mutations, Substitutions, and Duplications violate thermodynamics?

I suspect you are going to argue that mutations are always harmful, but that is contradicted by vast amounts of experimental evidence. In fact it is now possible for a grad student to produce modified lines of organisms within a few years, just as dog breeders produce variations and improvements. Except that with single celled organisms you can start with a single individual, insuring that all change is the result of mutation.

[bvw]

It is easy to built upon a great design. Great design inspires others to create. Life defies thermodynamics, because it is both great design and continually adjusted for the benefit of we sons of Adam. As we make our contributions to the design, the Creator makes sure the apparatus still achieves its designed purpose.

[gondramB]

>>Life defies thermodynamics, because it is both great design and continually adjusted for the benefit of we sons of Adam<<

If life defies the laws of thermodynamic then we change the laws of thermodynamics to fit the evidence much like modern physics has adjusted Newton’s laws of motion.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

> Life defies thermodynamics

I’m glad someone said this, because that seemed to be where the whole conversation about the Second Law was headed. Now if we can get those who seem to have trouble with evolution and thermodynamics to agree that evolution doesn’t violate the Law any more than life itself does, we may have found some common ground.

[js1138]

Life defies thermodynamics...

Perhaps you will favor us with an example, preferably accompanied by some math, in which thermodynamics is violated.

And while you are at it, I'm still waiting for a conceptual discussion of how evolution is thermodynamically different from metabolism.