Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nature Can’t Wait for Darwin Day (materialism is our god, and Darwin is its prophet)
CEH ^ | November 23, 2008

Posted on 11/24/2008 7:24:37 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

Nature Can’t Wait for Darwin Day 

Nov 23, 2008 — Darwin Day (Feb. 12, 2009) is months away, but Nature devoted a special issue to it this week.  The cover story, Darwin 200, includes 15 articles and features, some of which are available to the public.  Features include a list of celebrations and exhibitions around the world, including a re-enactment of Darwin’s voyage on a “modernized replica” of the HMS Beagle.  The voyage will be a floating field trip beamed to classrooms worldwide.     The lead Editorial, “Beyond the Origin,” contained the expected creation-bashing and touting of Darwin’s theory as the greatest idea in history, but it ended with a curious theme: synthetic biology will allow the origin of life by intelligent design, though Darwin’s law of natural selection will continue to rule biology. 

By the time the 200th birthday of On the Origin of Species is celebrated, the life under study by science may well no longer be united by common ancestry in the way that all life is today.  In that sense, Darwin’s view of the world will have been superseded.  But whether that life exists around another star or in a bioreactor, it will still evolve, if given leave to, according to the simple and awe-inspiring algorithms of natural selection.     The essay of Dobzhansky’s quoted earlier bears the now-famous title “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”.  That is so close to being an analytical truth – a necessary implication of what life itself is – that we can be certain it will continue to be true into the future.  But that certainty in no way limits the diversity and sheer wonder of what we will find on the voyage that Darwin began.
The celebratory euphoria in this editorial was quenched somewhat by another article in the special issue by Janet Browne, historian at Princeton and authority on Darwin.  Although calling Darwin’s theory a “magnificent achievement” offering “remarkable explanatory power for 150 years,” she found some dirty laundry in the political history of Darwinism.1  Noting that “it is worth remembering that scientific anniversaries also provide an opportunity to push an agenda, and even to adapt the past, so telling us what we like best to hear,” Browne revisited prior Darwin celebrations in 1882, 1909 and 1959 to see what happened then.  She found an interesting phenomenon: Darwin celebrations tended to be agenda-driven attempts to shore up a theory in crisis:
  1. 1882:  When Darwin died, his supporters used his “funeral as propaganda.”  Concerned at the time over criticisms that Darwin’s views were hostile to religion, Thomas Huxley and crew hastened to get him buried in Westminster Abbey.  Why?
    The funeral service and many obituaries stressed that Darwin was not an atheist.  He was instead described as a good man, committed to truth and honesty.  This was true, but it was also valuable propaganda at a time when relations between science and religion were intensely fraught.  The men of the Royal Society used Darwin’s funeral as a way to reassure their contemporaries that science was not a threat to moral values, but rather was becoming increasingly important in the modern world.
  2. 1909: The 50th anniversary of the Origin found Darwin’s theory in decline.  New views on genetics, fossils and orthogenesis were undermining his views on gradual change, implying instead a goal-directed path of descent and even teleology.  “The 1909 commemorations, organized by a small group of naturalists and Darwin family members from the University of Cambridge, provided a way to reassert the primacy of natural selection against other evolutionary rivals,” Browne said.
  3. 1959:  The bombastic Darwin Centennial hosted by the University of Chicago in 1959 was another attempt to whitewash Darwin, Browne argued. 
    This Darwin anniversary was held at the University of Chicago in Illinois, in a symposium that pointedly celebrated the integration of genetics and population statistics with selection theory.  Ten years earlier, this integration had almost taken the form of a political treaty.  Putting it bluntly, field naturalists were eager to re-establish their value in an increasingly laboratory-based world.  Prominent naturalists such as Ernst Mayr managed to get geneticists and statisticians to agree that evolution could take place on three levels: in molecules; in the flow of genes through populations; and in the environmental world of organisms undergoing competition and natural selection.  In 1942, Julian Huxley invented the phrase ‘modern synthesis’ to combine genetics with natural selection, and Mayr’s key work within this synthesis, Systematics and the Origin of Species from the Viewpoint of a Zoologist (Columbia Univ. Press), was published.
    In addition, the Darwinites “in effect created modern Darwinism by emphatically rejecting any form of Lamarckism” in the context of the cold war:
    In 1959, socialist Russia had only recently withdrawn from Lamarckism in genetics, and the idea was strongly associated in US minds with the cold-war struggle.  The delegates also rejected the idea that the fossil record shows signs of directed evolution, and expanded Darwinian thought to cover the evolution of mind and behaviour.  During the conference, Julian Huxley, the grandson of Thomas Henry Huxley, gave a secular sermon in the style of his grandfather, and provocatively declared that religious belief was merely a biological feature of evolving mankind.
    This was about the same time, contrary to many people’s impressions, that the Darwin Finch story became a prop for evolutionary theory.  Mayr and Huxley had encouraged David Lack to spend time in the Galapagos observing the finches.  “It was only after this ... that the finches sketched by Darwin became collectively known as Darwin’s finches, and were held up as the first and most remarkable evidence of evolution in real organisms in a natural setting.
So instead of being spontaneous occasions to appreciate a universally-accepted hero of science, previous Darwin celebrations, Browne argued, were political ploys by advocates with an agenda.  The question becomes, will history repeat itself in 2009?
But biologists will also surely use the occasion, once again, to affirm the truth and elegance of Darwinism in the face of criticism, this time from those who prefer a creationist view of the world.  Evolution by natural selection has suddenly become a highly contentious idea, especially in the United States.  Creationist proponents abound in the US school-board system, opinion polls highlight the public’s belief in a divine origin for humankind, and ideas about intelligent design are widely circulated.  Against this, Darwin has become the figurehead for rational, secular science, and Darwinism the main target of the fundamentalist movement spreading across the globe.  Attacks extend beyond arguments over the Bible.  To criticize Darwinism is a forceful way to express anxieties about the growing power of modern science and the perceived decline of moral values in society.  To try to poke holes in Darwin’s argument is to express dislike not just for evolutionary theory but also for science itself.     There is some irony in this situation.  Looking back to Darwin’s funeral in 1882, Darwin’s Christian qualities, his stature as a man of truth and honesty, were brought to the fore.  He was celebrated as a man whose religious doubts were an integral part of his wisdom and insight; few critics made personal attacks on his social virtues.  Now, his heroism in modern science is seen by many as an offence to religious values.  It goes to show just how diversely Darwin and his theory have been perceived and used over the years. 
Browne, author also of the award-winning biography Charles Darwin: The Power of Place (Princeton, 2002),2 quipped in conclusion, “Darwin himself would surely be amazed by how differently we have chosen to celebrate his anniversaries.”
1.  Janet Browne, “Birthdays to remember,” Nature 456, 324-325 (20 November 2008) | doi:10.1038/456324a.  This article requires a subscription. 2.  Search on the keywords "Janet Browne" for quotations from this outstanding book in previous entries.
Expressing anxieties?  Expressing dislike for science itself?  Moi?  Au contraire; we are just helping shed light on evolution.  Thanks to Brett Miller for this cartoon exposè that illustrates our 12/22/2003 commentary so well (click on the icon at right for the full cartoon).  It will come in handy often, every time the Darwin Party uses some piece of contrary evidence to claim it is “shedding light on evolution” – their favorite big lie (e.g., 09/18/2008, 09/03/2008).  We love light at CEH.  Celebrate Darwin Day in style – turn on the floodlights, and shed the light all around. Next headline on:  Darwin and Evolutionary TheoryIntelligent DesignTheologyPolitics and EthicsMedia


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creation; darwin; darwin200; darwinday; evolution; intelligentdesign; lamarck; nature; scientism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

1 posted on 11/24/2008 7:24:38 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gondramB; editor-surveyor; metmom; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; GourmetDan; MrB; valkyry1; ...

ping!


2 posted on 11/24/2008 7:26:01 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
1909: The 50th anniversary of the Origin found Darwin’s theory in decline. New views on genetics

The term "gene" was apparently coined in 1911.

3 posted on 11/24/2008 7:53:29 AM PST by Soliton (This 2 shall pass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Supernaturalism has no place in science, thus science (real science, anyway) is materialistic by definition.


4 posted on 11/24/2008 7:57:18 AM PST by GL of Sector 2814
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Here's Darwinism for you: the civilization (Western) that has embraced Judeo-Christian principle and the bible and used them as its guides in everything from morality ("Do unto others ...") to government (U.S. constitution) is the civilization that has thrived, along the way obliterating slavery and child marriage, among other evils.

As that Western civilization today begins to abandon Judeo-Christian principles, it slides into decline and misery. Meanwhile, other civilizations that never embraced Judeo Christianity remain weak and filled with strife and slavery of one form or another, and have come and gone for millenia.

Judeo-Christianity IS our key to survival. Darwinism tells observers in essence: Adapat or perish. Human societies that adapt to the Judeo-Christian ethos and the bible, survive. Those that don't, perish.

Darwinism is entirely in keeping with God's truth.

5 posted on 11/24/2008 8:05:44 AM PST by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


6 posted on 11/24/2008 8:15:44 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
But biologists will also surely use the occasion, once again, to affirm the truth and elegance of Darwinism in the face of criticism, this time from those who prefer a creationist view of the world.

What this says is that the scientific battle is long over and that the theory of evolution has prevailed.

7 posted on 11/24/2008 8:34:00 AM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GL of Sector 2814

So what your saying is if God created the universe and everything in it, science can never have anything to say about it other than formulating fairytales that have nothing to do with how the universe and everything in it came about.


8 posted on 11/24/2008 8:43:25 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
What this says is that the scientific battle is long over and that the theory of evolution has prevailed.

Only say the evo-cultists. Rational people know better.

9 posted on 11/24/2008 8:53:55 AM PST by tpanther (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Obscene!


10 posted on 11/24/2008 8:54:03 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Obama - not just an empty suit - - A Suit Bomb invading the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
==What this says is that the scientific battle is long over and that the theory of evolution has prevailed.

Au contrare, even the Evos are becoming increasingly aware (and openly so!) that Darwin's fanciful creation myth is on the verge of being overturned by an ever growing mass of scientific falsification.

11 posted on 11/24/2008 9:22:11 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GL of Sector 2814

Welcome to FR.


12 posted on 11/24/2008 1:34:55 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
So what your saying is if God created the universe and everything in it, science can never have anything to say about it other than formulating fairytales that have nothing to do with how the universe and everything in it came about.

A brilliant shower of perjorative confetti to start the celebration!

13 posted on 11/24/2008 1:40:58 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

We are either the product of chance or design. A philosophy of science that is only open to one possibility is a very shabby science indeed.


14 posted on 11/24/2008 6:42:41 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
We are either the product of chance or design. A philosophy of science that is only open to one possibility is a very shabby science indeed.

How is creationism "open to the possibility" of chance?

15 posted on 11/24/2008 6:50:17 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
We are either the product of chance or design. A philosophy of science that is only open to one possibility is a very shabby science indeed.

How is creationism "open to the possibility" of chance?

Creationism isn't a science, its a religious belief. It doesn't have to be open to anything, particularly science and evidence.

And the reason science isn't "open" to creationism is that it was tested and falsified a couple of centuries ago. There is simply no scientific evidence supporting it.

16 posted on 11/24/2008 6:59:49 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Creationists are quite willing to present their evidence, debate the Evos, and open creation science up to the possibility of falsification in the mainstream science journals—the Evos are not.


17 posted on 11/24/2008 7:05:50 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Creationists are quite willing to present their evidence, debate the Evos, and open creation science up to the possibility of falsification in the mainstream science journals—the Evos are not.

How is creationism "open to the possiblity" of chance? It's basic premise disallows it.

18 posted on 11/24/2008 7:07:02 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

==How is creationism “open to the possiblity” of chance? It’s basic premise disallows it.

Creationists routinely argue that either chance or design is true, that the evidence favors design, and are quite willing to let both sides be heard in debate. The Evos are afraid of such forums.


19 posted on 11/24/2008 7:13:29 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Creationists routinely argue that either chance or design is true, that the evidence favors design, and are quite willing to let both sides be heard in debate. The Evos are afraid of such forums.

Source?

20 posted on 11/24/2008 7:14:26 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson