Why We Are Still Arguing About Darwin

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.

This format is strange, and has me a little disoriented, try to cut me some slack while I learn it.

I have been writing and studying on this issue for 28 years.

I had a religion column in a daily newspaper owned by Gannett (USAToday and the Salinas Californian) and in addition to my weekly column did several speacials on creationism.

I have been acquainted years ago with Morris, Gish, Snelling, Humphries, Bube, Rankin, and many others contributors on the subject of creationism, and worked with some of them in publishing creationist articles.

In 1996, I proposed the first new model in over 60 years, called Presuppositional Creationism.

I could say more, but why bother, I’m can see I’m going to get flamed on this site no matter what I say, because Christians are largely stupid, and haven’t got the sense to actually comprehend what someone is trying to say before the try to contradict it. i’m seeing this same thing on other threads, not speaking of you personally.

On my site, if you download the link PC2.wps, that is sort of an abstract article that overviews the problem, and briefly discusses my views. The larger thesis was originally 700 pages, I pared it down to 100, but is still too big to allow people to just download it free. I’m still, ten years later, working out polishing things. I’m not too concerned about publishing in a book format now, it may take a few more years for the general public to come to grips with the fact that all popular creationist models are DEFUNCT. if you don’t know that yet, there are several reasons that are more the fault of the leaders of the popular models, than your fault.

But I have done the work, and so have many others, that the information is out there for you to come to this conclusion on your own, if you work at it.

My theory is one that creationists, biblical traditionalists can use in the interim while Christianity comes to grips with this fact.

I’m here when you guys decide you want to talk rationally.

[[On my site, if you download the link PC2.wps, that is sort of an abstract article that overviews the problem, and briefly discusses my views.]

I’m not interested in paying for anything, and as well, I’m not itnerested in your ‘views’ on the issue- the only hting I’m interested in are solid facts- and the fact is that Macroevolution has NEVER been wtinessed or demonstrated and is nothign but a biological impossibility peddled off as a scientific fact- so unless you have some scientific faccts to present that demonstrate macroevolution- somethign the scientific comunity apparentl7y is unaware of, then I’d be careful throwing around the insults- simply calling people stupid for having different OPINIONS about the evidences isn’t very civil of you. You may be under the misguided OPINION that homologous systems and organs LOOK LIKE some animals MIGHT be related, but you have no hard evidence to difinitively show Macroeovlution is ANYTHING but a misguided hypothesis based on nothign but assumptions and a priori dogma.

[[I have been writing and studying on this issue for 28 years.]]

Good- then you’ll be able to succinctly give a run down of all the supposed evidences for this mystery ‘overwhelming evidence’ that you claim to have in a short and neat format here- Let me make some popcorn while you get busy wowing us all with htis stunning evidence.

[[I had a religion column in a daily newspaper owned by Gannett (USAToday and the Salinas Californian) and in addition to my weekly column did several speacials on creationism.]]

Lot’s of people are ‘religious’- VERY few are Saved and true Children of God. Sorry- not impressed.

[[My theory is one that creationists, biblical traditionalists can use in the interim while Christianity comes to grips with this fact]]

My theory relies on FACTS and doesn’t need to invent hypothesis based on assumptions- My theory relies on eyewitness accounts, and my theory relies on biological evidences- not biology violating assumptions and guesses, and my theory doesn’t need to explain away many serious natural law violations with more assumptions. My theory shows the facts of discontinuity, and doesn’t need to invent mythical creatures that are entirely missing in the fossil records to fill in all the gaps between species in order to make hte hypoithesis sound possible.

But, it seems that you, a self professed Christian, seem intent on misleading people with a hypothesis that lacks any concrete scientific evidnece to back it up? No 6thanks! I’ll stick to the scientific facts and stick to belieing in the God who is true to His Word.

Here- in your spare time- a link to get up to speed on the biological sciences behind ID- The site rips scientific reports a new one by pointing out hte blatant misrepresentations, lies, half-truths, and fairytale yarns being spun by agendists in the scientific fields- (Note, you’ll notice how many ‘scientific reports’ on the site are riddled with lies and half truths in order to make their cases, which the site rips to shreds with FACTS-) If after studying hte site you still feel a need to beleive in a hypothesis that has no scientific evidence to back it up, then swell- whatever, just don’t expect us stooopid Christians to swallow such tripe.

Sure, let’s start with ID then if that’s your choice.

1. Nearly every ID theorist on the planet is a theistic evolutionist. Some choose not to publicize their TE views, such as William Lane Craig, but they hold these views nevertheless. John Mark Reynolds of Biola is the only six-day creationist ID theorist that I’m aware of, and he does not propose a model that traditionalists can use.

2. ID theory accepts just about everything neo-Darwinism says, except for a blind belief in Methodological Materialism.

3. In over 15 years of professional ID publishing, they are no nearer the Holy Grail of ID, the irreducibly complex mechanism, than they were when they started publishing in the early 90’s. ID theorists contribute NOTHING to overall science that wasn’t already there to begin with, and that is sciences designed to detect and identify undirected and directed causes. These disciplines were already in place and are used used in many industries, including criminal and business law, forensic science, insurance, astrophysics, etc.

4. The problem with ID is that it proposes to replace methodological naturalism as methodology, and then does not provide anybody, Christian or non-Christian, with a replacement methodology for doing science, because THERE IS NO OTHER METHODOLOGY FOR DOING SCIENCE IN A FALLEN WORLD.

5. Quoting scientists like Michael Behe gets one NOWHERE in terms of advancing the Creationist position. Behe is not a Christian, nor does he believe in a creationist construct, he believes in some type of neo-Darwinian model, just one that is not described yet.

6. ID theory is not original, it is warmed over Paley. The same problems inherent with Paley’s version are inherent with modern ID, such as the fact that ID theory does not preclude explanations such as Quantum Tunneling and other non-Christian views. Once ID has set up the world to detect a designer, and science suddenly declares they have found that designer, but it isn’t God, it is Panspermia, or the Quantum Flux, what are you going to tell your children, suddenly the ID theorists are wrong, after you built up their views?

Think about it.

Here’s the first section of my thesis, which discusses this problem:

Ex. 31:17 - “It [the sabbath day] shall be a sign between Me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He abstained from work and rested

In Table Talk’s A Day in the Life of the Universe: Understanding Creation, both R.C. Sproul Jr. and David Hall call for committed Bible-believing Christians to stand for the orthodox position of six-day creationism. Sproul makes the case that those who are “ashamed” of the traditional doctrine of creation may also become ashamed of the traditional doctrine of a miraculous Resurrection, and indeed modern Church academia is rife with such higher-critical abandonment of essential creedal distinctives. This article is meant to examine problems with the logic of currently popular creationist theories, and offer thoughts that are intended to affirm the faith of those still holding a Biblical model of six-dayism.

Two debates in one

To begin with there are really two debates, 1) the external debate between naturalism and theism, and 2) the internal debate between the three major creationist views - theistic evolution, progressive creationism, and young-earth creationism. I believe that each of these models have internal contradictions which makes them inadequate by themselves to satisfy any meaningful reconciliation of both the theological and scientific data. We will examine a few points relevant to each of these.

Intelligent Design Theory

Much of the external debate between naturalism and theism is being conducted today by proponents of the model known as Intelligent Design. Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, and many other notable scholars make up a unique and distinguished group of people interested in bringing back “natural theology,” but in a newly resurrected and more scientific form. Their books are interesting, highly academic, and seem to provide Christians with the ammunition needed to battle rampant naturalism on their own turf. Their goal is to chip away at the stranglehold that naturalistic science has on the academic world and establish a new legitimate scientific methodology wherein theorists can infer intelligent causes without undue ridicule or professional blacklisting. In and of itself ID has a place in science, certainly. The principals used in design theory are common scientific principles (detecting and identifying undirected and directed causes) used in many industries, including criminal and business law, forensic science, insurance, astrophysics, etc. The point at which the debate affects our discussion of orthodoxy is not whether inferring intelligent design is a valid scientific methodology in comparison to that of methodological naturalism (we will leave that to the philosophers of science), but whether the application of ID theory reduces the Biblical doctrine of Creation from the traditional view. In my opinion ID theory is helpful to the traditionalist to show that a theistic belief system is not necessarily unscientific. However, Christian design theorists are rarely six-day creationists, with perhaps the exception of John Mark Reynolds of Biola University. Their descriptions tend to sound a lot like theistic evolution, almost to the point where one hardly can tell the difference between what they are proposing and what naturalism proposes. Does ID lead to theistic evolution? William Dembski says no, “intelligent design is incompatible with what typically is meant by theistic evolution” (Mere Creation, p.20). While I wish to take Dembski at his word, I have noted that in Chapter 12 of the same book, Del Ratzsch attempts to make the case that God may have wound up the universe (in the initial conditions) and then let it run, Himself undetected, much like the Deists believed. His explanation is really complex, but when all is said and done it seems nothing more than an apologetic for theistic evolution. Authors like Michael Behe still believe in some type of grand scheme of evolutionary theory, but simply believe that the neo-Darwinian explanation has fatal gaps. They don’t believe in a Christian cosmogony, so what do they believe in? It seems there are only a few options:

1) Some type of non-Darwinian naturalist explanation

2) Panspermia (aliens did it)

3) a pagan cosmogony of some sort

While design theorists offer new and exciting descriptions of the universe that does seem to support some kind of theism, I can’t help after reading them but wonder just exactly how much evolution they really are willing to accept? While a case can be made that Design Theory does not have to explain who the Designer is, it is difficult to see how a traditional cosmogony can sprout from theories which differ little in form from their pagan counterpart except to say that some mysterious designer lurks behind it all. I fear that one of the problems of Christians following the logic of Intelligent Design is that while the battle over theism might be won (and that is certainly not the case at this point in the external debate) the war might be lost in that too much evolutionary theory may be accepted and a conservative view of Genesis lost forever in Christianity. It is also difficult for me to see a traditional view sprouting from a theory which legitimizes the opinions of non-Christians and even cultists. For example Jonathan Wells is a well known Intelligent Design theorist and author who also happens to be an apologist for Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church. How many Christians reading Dembski’s Mere Creation (Wells authored ch. 2) knew that little fact? I think it’s relevant. I see a conflict of interest in legitimizing the theologies of cults by legitimizing the theologians of those cults, merely to serve some perceived apologetic purpose. Once the Church begins to widely legitimize these associations, we may as well hand them the right hand of fellowship and invite them to share their theology from our pulpits. When naturalistic evolutionists promote design theory without abandoning naturalistic evolution, and Moonies and Presbyterians get together to extol the virtues of their common theism, I have difficulty in seeing how a Biblical Interpretation is going to spring forth from such unions.

[[1. Nearly every ID theorist on the planet is a theistic evolutionist.]]

I could care less what their PERSONAL views are OUTSIDE of the scientific FACTS- their BELIEF makes NO difference in regards to the FACTS

[[2. ID theory accepts just about everything neo-Darwinism says,]]

See above!

[[3. In over 15 years of professional ID publishing, they are no nearer the Holy Grail of ID, the irreducibly complex mechanism, than they were when they started publishing in the early 90’s.]]

Sure htere is- you just CHOOSE not to admit them

[[4. The problem with ID is that it proposes to replace methodological naturalism as methodology, and then does not provide anybody, Christian or non-Christian, with a replacement methodology for doing science, because THERE IS NO OTHER METHODOLOGY FOR DOING SCIENCE IN A FALLEN WORLD.]]

Good Golly- ID presents the FACTS that directly refute Naturalism- they don’t have to produce any “Replacement methodology” Cripes- I thought you were goign to discuss science- not opinion, and I thought You were goign to produce somethign of relevence- apparently I was mistaken! The laws of Nature directly contradict Macroeovlution- ID points to IC- and it ALSO shows discontinuity- Macroevolution produces nothign but assumptions- get with hte program

[[5. Quoting scientists like Michael Behe gets one NOWHERE in terms of advancing the Creationist position. Behe is not a Christian, nor does he believe in a creationist construct, he believes in some type of neo-Darwinian model, just one that is not described yet.]]

Who’s discussing Christianity? We’re talking about science- Behe’s BELIEFS outside of the SCIENCE that he studies is a NON issue here- stick to the science!

[[6. ID theory is not original, it is warmed over Paley.]]

ID stands on it’s own as a valid science- You are suggesting ID needs to present soemthign alternative- they do NOT- they showc the SCIENCE that exposes the problems with Naturalism- an absolutely ligit pursuit in sicnece!

[[Once ID has set up the world to detect a designer, and science suddenly declares they have found that designer, but it isn’t God, it is Panspermia, or the Quantum Flux, what are you going to tell your children, suddenly the ID theorists are wrong, after you built up their views?]]

ID does NOT set out to detect a designer- you are woefully misinformed if thwt is what you htink- obviously you know very little about ID science if this is what you think-

You have presented absolutely nothign but false accusations and have produced NO scientific evidence to refute ID- I’ll address the rest of your long winded OPINION later- but so far- You have failed ot present ID in an honest light, and have offered us nothign but your biased views about ID. Sadly you don’t seem to differ from Naturalists who worship a false hypothesis that is completely lacking in evidence to support=

I had asked you to stick ot the science, but apparently you can’t as there simply isn’t any evidnece you can produce that shows macroevolution- Get back to me when you can OBJECTIVELY set aside your biased views and can present some actual science.

[[ID theorists contribute NOTHING to overall science that wasn’t already there to begin with, and that is sciences designed to detect and identify undirected and directed causes.]]

This is a lie on a massive magnitude- IC is the single most important contribution to science ever. IF IC takes a designer- then the hypothesis of Macroevolution is dead- don’t you get that? That is significant- that is massive. IC is a fact- and IC could not have coem about via Macroevolution- there is no stepwise process that can produce IC systems. IC systems fail when their critical components are removed- this is a verifiable scientific fact. Step-wise Macroevolution breaks Natural laws and biological laws- Macroevolution is an unproven unsupported hypothesis, whereas IC is a demonstratable scientific fact- there are no assumptions-= IC can be tested quite simply, whereas Macroevolution haS FAILED all the testing we’ve thrown at it scientifically-

[[. The problem with ID is that it proposes to replace methodological naturalism as methodology, and then does not provide anybody, Christian or non-Christian, with a replacement methodology for doing science, ]]

Again- You fail to understand I guess that IDdoesn’t have to and indeed absolutely should not present a ‘replacement methodology”. ID uses the same methodology that has been rightfully establisehd in science to refute the hypothesis of Macroevolution. ID also uses the same science to show that IC is a fact, that it can be tested, and that if true, then obviously a designer is needed because the systems we KNOW to be true in nature are far too complex to have been created and assembled via Macreolvution.

There is absolutely NO evidence that nature is even remotely capable of creating and assembling such irreducible complexities. As I mentioend, Naturalism has had 150 years to produce such evidnces, but has failed miserably to do so. Furthermore, the fossil records are completyely absent of evidence showing continuity between dissimiliar KINDS-

I’m not worried about IC being wrong- it isn’t- IC is fact- NAturalism has had a very long time to show a naturalistic means of IC and yet they can’t- despite the fact that the best minds in the world have all been working on this problem. It would be a scientific irresponsibility though to suggest to my children that a biologically impossible mechanism is responsible for IC, and to suggest to them that a severe lack of evidence to support Macroevolution isn’t a problem.

Now- in your thesis or whatever you liek ot call it, You start off by suggesting that we leave assumptions to the theologians, yet you then break into nothign but assumptions to make your case.

You make the case that Christians must adopt a naturalistic process IF they study ID, yet this is a fallicy- ID studies science, not unproven hypothesis. While it is true that some within the ID science movement might have their own personal OPINIONS abotu life, appealing to hteir beliefs in no way undermines the validity of the actual scientific facts that they present. Folks like Behe and Demski can beleive in the lie of Macroevolution if they like- but they have absolutey ZERO evidence to support said lie, and the strict science of ID has far more scientific evidence to support it AND to suggest that indeed an intelligence is needed- Any forensic scientist will tell you that when desing- especially complex design is noted, then it is an absolutely valid conclusion that an intelligence is behind that design.

What you are suggesting though is that, suppose we ran across an automobile (and suppose noone has ever seen one before), and there are two camps- one believes it must have evolved Macroevolutionarily, while hte other investigates the design and discovers that there are irreducibly complex systems present which they beleive points to a designer.) What you are suggesting is that in order for a Christian intelligence investigator to beleive that a designer is needed, he must then accept some belief of the other camp- that the vehicle could have evolved-

Untrue- one need not adopt ANY of the beliefs of the othewr camp- all one need do is look OBJECTIVELY at the evidences and come to reasonable, valid scientific conclusions.

Judging by your excerpt, it appears that your whole dissertation is based on the idea that you are worried Christians must ‘sell out’ simply because the leading proponents for ID are under them istaken impression that a biologically impossible process still could have happened.

As I mentioend before, I don’t give a hoot what someone beleives OUTSIDE of the factual scientific evidences, and I asked that you present us with the supposed ‘overwhelming evidences’ for Macroevolution, without interjecting your PERSONAL OPINIONS, but you have both failed to present any evidence, and you’ve indulged in nothign but your own biased opinion about the legitimate science of ID.

You also seem to be under th4e mistaken impression that ID needs to present soemthign alternative to forensic science, and this is not true. If you are goign to make a case that ID isn’t a legit science, then present your case, but so far, you’ve offered us nothing. Soem, have suggested Stepwise evolution can create IC but I have YET to see any evidence that it can- infact, ALL I see is scientific evidence scientific facts that show that it can not. If you’re goign to make the case that Christians need to abandon God, and need to abandon reasonable conclusions, then you are going to have to do a way better job at presenting evidences than science has done so far. The evidences against it are overwhlmingly detrimental to the hypohesis so far. A wing and a prayer in defense of the hypothesis just isn’t going to cut it with reasoning and intelligent beings I’m afraid.

[[ID theorists contribute NOTHING to overall science that wasn’t already there to begin with,]]

Yes they have- they have introduced the idea that the IC that we KNOW to exist in nature couldn’t possibly have coem about via step-wise Macroevolution. ID need not present some foreign science ideas in ordeer to present that scientific facvt. Not sure where you get the idea that they must?

[[ I see a conflict of interest in legitimizing the theologies of cults by legitimizing the theologians of those cults, merely to serve some perceived apologetic purpose.]]

You’ve made a critical mistake here- we are NOT legitimizing the theologians- We are VERIFYING that their SCIENCE FACTS are VALID FACTS. You make htem istake of every other opponent of Christianity inthat you assume that Christians aren’t smart enough to seperate the FACTS from opposing science and the BELIEFS of those who practice the opposing theories. We most certainly CAN seperate the two, and we most certainly SHOULD cite the FACTS while agreeign to dissagree on the other issues of BELIEF within hypothesis. This may come as a shock, but Christians are bright enough to think for themselves- just because we agree with the FACTS of ID scientists doesn’t mean we blindly buy into everythign they beleive OUTSIDE of the strict scientific facts- nor are we in any danger of doing so simply becaus4 we are logical enough to recognize that scientific FACTS are ALL THAT MATTER, and for understanding that those FACTS directly REFUTE the BELIEF of Macroevolution. The capitalized words are VERY important here- because it is apparent that you have made a critical biased mistake of lumping all CHristians into the camp of dimwitted mindless rats who follow any voice in the wind.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.