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.

[ZULU]

“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. “

Two world views, mutually irreconcilable, speaking different languages.

The Bible states God create man in His Image. I don’t think it mean to say God looks like Bill Clinton. The Bible here is clearly referring to man having an immortal spirit. But the atheist evolutionists and the Biblical literalists simply don’t get it.

Evolution and the Bible and Genesis are not mutually exclusive unless you start from a premise that God does not exist and the Bible is simply a Fairy Tale, or start from a premise that everything in the Bible must be taken literally - word for word - with no symbolism or allegories.

[js1138]

I still don’t understand why you are injecting your personal interpretation of God into a discussion of science.

There is nothing in the Bible that says that disease causing bacteria are the result of some action by humans. You may believe that, and you may even belong to a church that teaches it, but it is made up. It isn’t in the Bible.

At any rate, it is definitely illegal for you to impose your rather idiosyncratic Biblical inferences on others through the public school. If E.coli is designed, then science classes will teach what the flagellum does, what its designed purpose is, and not some religious doctrine.

[CottShop]

[[When you say that something is designed, you are saying something about its purpose. In doing so you are inquiring about the attributes of the designer. I have been assured many times that intelligent design is not promoting any religious doctrine, so I am at a loss as to why you are injection religion into a discussion of design and designers.]]

Yuo sir are the one insisting on injecting God into the equasion. I argue strictly scientific fact- You are the one going beyond the design, and even beyond the itnelliegence of hte design, and inferring that it is God. While I personally beleive in God the creator, I argue here the science of hte design only, as I’ve noticed that Evos don’t allow anythign further from Creos while fully allowing htemselves the ability to argue pure apologetics in defense of their case. You began appealing ot God in your quesitons about the design of E Coli. I apeal strictly to the design and to the fact that Irreducible complexity is present- that’s it. I swear- we just can’t win with you folk- You demand we stick to hte science, We do, you then appeal to the supernatural, we answer your quesitons about hte supernatural in side issues fro mthe main issue being discussed (the scientific facts), and you accuse us of appealing ot the designer. ID oesn’t promote Religion- it promotes Desing and itnellgience. Intelligence can be reasonably and ligitimately concluded based o nthe evidence, just as you have indicated, BUT this does NOT mean ID is ‘promoting religion’ no more so than someone looking at several thousand intricate pots of clay would be promoting a relgion IF they REASONABLY and LIGITIMATELY conclude that an itnelligence was the causation of the design, and was NOT a Macroevolutionary natural result.

We were talking about irreducibility, you are the one that broke off from the design discussion and started posthulating about the designer and His intentions. If you’re goign to accuse, at least be honest in your accusations.

[[When you say that something is designed, you are saying something about its purpose. .]]

True

[[ In doing so you are inquiring about the attributes of the designer.]]

False- Strict Science CAN show facts that indicate a designer without appealing to any attributes of the designer. ID shows hte facts that validly show the fignerprints of a designer- NOT the attributes. Let’s be clear on this- While soem in BOTH camps go further than the objective science, this in NO way invalidates EITHER camp. If you are suggesting htat it does, then by admission, you are invalidating your own preffered scientif hypothesis as well.

[CottShop]

[[At any rate, it is definitely illegal for you to impose your rather idiosyncratic Biblical inferences on others through the public school. If E.coli is designed, then science classes will teach what the flagellum does, what its designed purpose is, and not some religious doctrine]]

Sigh- I NEVER said my relgious beliefs should be taught - I think the scientific FACTS of ID however should NOT be excluded when the evidences point more toward a design and an intellgience, and I simply htink that what is taught now is an apologetic interpretation that excludes any other hypothesis simply based on subjective prefferences.

[[There is nothing in the Bible that says that disease causing bacteria are the result of some action by humans.]]

It was you that was asking why- in answer, I told you our bible talls us that EVERYTHING was cursed after the fall, and that man was told that he would have great trials and tribulations as a result, and obviously, this would include disease in world where disease wasn’t orignianlly present.- if you didn’t want to know, then why ask?

[ZULU]

“..but it it does seem a bit odd that most living things are parasites or predators.”

Are they?

I don’t believe in “intelligent design” but believe in evolution and the Bible.

Science studies what can be replacated in the laboratory or proven by scientific testing. That is not possible with faith. So the two are mutually exclusive branches of study. Problems arise when scientists start making theological assumptions based on science or when theologians get involved in scientific theory.

[js1138]

Are they?

Probably, although there are a lot of symbiotes. By weight or count there are probably more microorganisms in your body than cells having your DNA.

[js1138]

Strict Science CAN show facts that indicate a designer without appealing to any attributes of the designer.

I rather doubt that. Certainly when you look at a watch or an airplane, and claim they are designed, you are claiming these thing have a function. As an anthropologist, you might not be able to infer trivial attributes of the builder, such as height, dress or hair color, but you could infer that the builder was motivated to tell time or to fly.

By the same token, when you run across an object having the primary purpose of causing dysentery, you know something about the interests and motives of the designer.

No where in this discussion have I mentioned God or said anything that could be construed as relating to God. I certainly do not think God is motivated to cause suffering and death in infants and children. But if the flagellum is, in fact, a specific design, created by a sentient being, then it is fair to consider the motives of that being.

Perhaps those who think the designer might be a space alien have some merit to their conjecture.

[neverdem]

But the atheist evolutionists and the Biblical literalists simply don’t get it.

That's so well said! I'm sorry I posted this article in a way, but I also think it helps to explain why no conservatives are left in the GOP primary races. We have three original RINOs, Rudy, Romney and McCain, plus Huckabee, an evangelical populist, and Dr. Paul, a small 'l' libertarian with good domestic policy proposals but a crazy foreign policy, IMHO.

[js1138]

The Bible states God create man in His Image. I don’t think it mean to say God looks like Bill Clinton. The Bible here is clearly referring to man having an immortal spirit. But the atheist evolutionists and the Biblical literalists simply don’t get it.

I'm not sure whether you intend to imply that evolutionists are necessarily atheists, but the fact is that most people who accept evolution are churchgoers, and most churches accept common descent as a well demonstrated fact. I have made the point a number of times on these threads that the "image of God" is unlikely to refer to a physical body.

I have no antipathy to the mysteries of religion; I just cringe when people distort our knowledge of how this world works.

[Coyoteman]

I have seem transcripts of court cases in which intelligent design proponents testified under oath that there is nothing in the design inference that specifies the identity of the designer. So why are you injecting a religious doctrine into a scientific discussion?

You know, I think that at the next "Dover" trial CottShop should be called as a witness!

It would be fascinating to see what he says, under oath, with careful questioning and cross examining.

I bet this would significantly affect the case for ID.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

> ans yes, your comment was funny

Thank you. And I do appreciate your concern for where I’m spending eternity. But I was raised Catholic, so as I’m sure you’ve read here before, my belief system doesn’t require me to come to particular scientific conclusions in order to have a happy eternity. Yours apparently does, and let me gently suggest that your need to arrive at a certain conclusion makes it difficult for you to think scientifically.

[js1138]

The intelligent design movement is driven by the assumption that evolution would have to produce the same results if the tape were re-wound. This is the specification part of specified complexity.

The currently existing forms of life are platonic gravity wells, and change can only orbit the true forms.

[js1138]

It would be fascinating to see what he says, under oath, with careful questioning and cross examining.

No competent attorney would allow anyone to testify in an evolution trial who has any history of association with fundamentalism. There was some dancing around at the Dover trial when three expert witnesses dropped out. There were all kinds of lame excuses, but the simplest explanation is that Dembski and others have written extensively about the religious core of intelligent design. This would cause all kinds of trouble if he testified under oath. Perhaps that is why he demanded a personal attorney.

[ZULU]

Not a very appetizing thought.

[ZULU]

No. Id didn’t mean to imply all evolutionists are atheists.

As I said, I believe in the Bible and in evolution.

Some evolutionists however, try to explain the appearance of man in the fossil record as due to merely a series of fortuituous accidents. When they say that they are expressing personal religious beliefs not scientific facts.

[js1138]

Forensic science assumes that the laws of nature are constant over time. That assumption goes back to the age of Newton, and was formalized by him in the Principia.

But you are correct that no one has ever observed directionality in evolution, other than the rather obvious direction embodied in selection.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

> The intelligent design movement is driven by the assumption that evolution
> would have to produce the same results if the tape were re-wound.

Similarly, I’ve often thought creationists’ thinking on the subject was hobbled by the assumptions that the only animals that could ever exist are things that we already know about. They keep asking for eggs hatching into cats or cows giving birth to whales or something like that. If chickens are evolving, they’re evolving into something we’ve never seen before. And whatever penguins are evolving into (*that’s* a project that sure doesn’t look finished), it won’t be something we recognize from what we already know.

[metmom]

*What if* arguments tend to be the lamest around; usually absurd to the nth degree.

God created a perfect world; His intention was for man and animals to live forever in peace. The choice was man’s. When he chose to disobey, corruption entered the world, the 2nd law took effect. Things started to deteriorate, mutations occurred, death entered.

There’s nothing wrong with the initial design. The mechanism that allows for flexibility and variety withing a species will also result in bad things happening when it is corrupted. It there were no room for variety, everything would be a carbon copy of it’s parent. Would that be preferable?

Order, complexity, beauty, are all hallmarks of the designer being both intelligent and competent. If it weren’t competent, it wouldn’t have worked so well for so long and still be working well for the vast majority of time.

God could certainly have obliterated Adam and Eve and the entire universe when they sinned and started over, but to what effect? If He is going to give creatures a free will, then they need to make the choice to follow Him or not. Even if Adam and Eve had chosen to not sin, I believe that each of their children would have to make that choice for themselves, otherwise free will would not exist. In that case, somewhere along the line, someone would have chosen to disobey and the end result would have been the same, corruption would enter the world.

The concept of a god who delights in *torturing* his creatures because bad things sometimes happen is intellectually and morally dishonest. It’s no more correct an image of God than accusing a parent of delighting in torturing their child because they administer a spanking for the child running out into the street, or having to hold them down while they get their immunizations. Would you accuse a parent of torturing their child for those things?

If one is just going to look at the short term, yeah, things don’t always work out the way that we think they should. They’re *not fair* (have some cheese). Justice is done in the end, though.

You think pain is bad? Talk to lepers. Talk to people who have a condition that doesn’t allow them to feel pain. See what their opinion of it is.

[Delacon]

Lol. Very evolved thinking.

[js1138]

God could certainly have obliterated Adam and Eve and the entire universe when they sinned and started over, but to what effect?

Well actually he pretty much did, if you remember the story of Noah. As I recall, it took about ten minutes for things to get back to business as usual. You'd think He would have seen it coming.

So your question of "to what effect" is apt.