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.

[pgyanke]

So much for being conversational. Goodbye.

[Secret Agent Man]

If God exists, then ANY way He chooses to create something is “natural” for Him. You may need to explain what your definition of “natural” is. It may appear “supernatural” to us, or something we are unable to presently explain with our understanding of physical laws.

But don’t fall into the trap of limiting God, to only being able to create things through physical laws He created. He is not bound by His own laws in the sense that He cannot override them by His own will.

[Coyoteman]

And I am sure it will stand the test of time just as Nebraska man, Piltdown man, and the Archaeoptrix finds did (they didn’t). People will write papers for dozens of years and stake their whole scientific careers on it, only to down the road be proven to have based their whole careers on a fraud.

Don't you mean Archeoraptor?

[Secret Agent Man]

Archaeopter or archaeopteryx (depending how people are naming it).

[andysandmikesmom]

Hopefully you are being sarcastic, and just kidding, and dont mean a thing you just said in post #45...but the scary thing is that there are people who actually agree 100 percent with what you have just said, those who think you are actually serious...that is frightening...

[samtheman]

Dude! Don’t go! Where else can I learn REAL SCIENCE???

[pgyanke]

You aren’t interesting in anything but schoolyard taunting. I’m sorry to have replied to your post. I’m sorry to have used an overly conversational tone. And I’m very sorry to have made your acquaintance. Good bye.

[samtheman]

The reason I taunted you is you pretend to higher knowledge that you don’t have and employ it towards an ignoble end, ie covering up the long history of the Catholic Church’s war against science. The fact that you prefaced your absurd implication with a “conversational tone” made your post seem even more pedantic and sophomoric than it already was.

I’m sorry I hurt your feelings. I know what I did was offensive. But if you really want to read the history of science, by all means do so.

But please don’t pretend that you have until you actually do.

[Coyoteman]

Archaeopter or archaeopteryx (depending how people are naming it).

They are two entirely different things.

Archeoraptor was a recent fraud from China, while Archaeopteryx is from southern Germany, with the first specimen being found in 1862.

If you are going to criticize fossils, at least you should be able to tell them apart. It would lend some credibility.

[editor-surveyor]

They don’t want to see the evidence; it shatters their anti-biblical view.

They especially hate Humphreys, because no one has been able to construct a viable refutation of his work. If they could refute him, they would love him.

[Claud]

I noticed you sidestepped pgyanke’s question.

Fundamentalist theology didn’t exist until the late 1800s. So it’s a little ridiculous to blame it for 1000 years of Christian teaching. And second of all, your premise is completely flawed, i.e.—Christians came to accept heliocentrism, they will eventually accept evolution.

Back in the 1950s, one could have said the same thing about the Steady State theory: it was held by the majority of astronomers, rejected by Christians as contrary to Genesis. Yet I needn’t point out to you who was proved right in that particular question.

[samtheman]

Actually, Christians are already in the process of accepting evolution. There are many Christians in the biological sciences who take the common sense view that the existence of natural selection does not “disprove” the existence of god.

It’s only the hard-core atheists and the most unreasoning of religios who hold to the equation that “if there is evolution, then there is no god”.

I presume you are one of them. Atheist? Christian?

It hardly matters which if your mind is closed.

[editor-surveyor]

"There are lots of transitionals now, and more are found every year."

Then why couldn't the late, great Stephen Gould see any of them? He spoke frequently of the complete absence of them. Was he a crypto-creationist?

[ravensandricks]

Actually we have some on this website arguing for a geocentric view

Seriously, please tell me you're exaggerating for effect.

[Claud]

The reason I taunted you is you pretend to higher knowledge that you don’t have and employ it towards an ignoble end, ie covering up the long history of the Catholic Church’s war against science.

I marvel at the fact that Christians are supposed to be expert palaeontologists, but scientists can be so staggeringly ignorant of Christian theology. This asinine kinda comment I'd expect from liberal flaks, not on FR.

War on science my rear. Ever read Augustine? Ever read Aquinas? What profession was Copernicus? What profession was Mendel? What profession was Lemaitre?

Go up and read my post above about Bellarmine.

[pgyanke]

Your characterization of the Catholic Church's "war on science" is absurd. Modern science wouldn't be nearly as advanced as it is without the Church's influence!

If you are truly interested and not just baiting, I can point you here for an exhaustive read on the view of the Church toward scientific inquiry. If you have no real interest in history and just enjoy attacking the Church without reading relevant citations, then don't bother replying and accept my farewell.

[Coyoteman]

Actually we have some on this website arguing for a geocentric view

Seriously, please tell me you're exaggerating for effect.

See post #78.

[ravensandricks]

Holy mackeral. I thought that creationism was about as ignorant as humanity got in these times. I stand, sadly and ashamedly, corrected.

[Claud]

I actually don’t see any conflict between evolution (rightly understood) and Christianity. Compare the hexaemeron in Genesis to the geologic ages of the earth and there is a remarkable consonance in the progression of forms.

[wintertime]

Ping for later