Posted on 08/06/2003 11:40:54 AM PDT by RJCogburn
August 7, 2003, marks the hundredth anniversary of the birth of the great anthropologist Dr. Louis S. B. Leakey (1903-1973). This day deserves commemoration not just because of Leakey's achievements but also because of the political and cultural implications of his life-long enterprise.
Leakey spent his career with his wife Mary and son Richard in Kenya and in the Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania seeking fossils of man's prehistoric ancestors. Truly finding needles in haystacks, the Leakeys discovered bones of the 20 million year old Proconsul man, a possible link between apes and humans; the 1.75 million year old Zinjanthropus; and Homo habilis, which Dr. Leakey considered the first true member of the human genus and a first toolmaker.
But as Leakey was beginning his career, a Tennessee law that banned any teaching that conflicted with the Biblical story of man's origin was being challenged. The Scopes monkey trial in 1925 pitted the science of evolution against the myth of creation, and free inquiry against censorship. And it is truly sad that today, three-quarters of a century later, and with mountains of evidence supplied by men like Dr. Leakey, "creationists" still confuse belief based on faith with knowledge based on reason, and neo-conservatives like Irving Kristol and Robert Bork have declared Darwin dead because they seem to need the "creation myth" to keep the masses in line.
Yet many individuals genuinely fear that evolution implies that man is nothing more than a lower animal, that his free will is at best an illusion, and that individuals are not morally responsible for their actions. After all, Clarence Darrow, who defended Scopes and evolution, made just this last argument when he defended the thrill-killers Leopold and Loeb. Another worry is that many of evolution's most vocal proponents have a decidedly leftward leaning. Many American secular humanists who correctly defend freedom to think also tend to be socialists who would limit most other freedoms. Anthropologist and essayist Stephen Jay Gould was a Marxist. And what is the animal rights silliness but a failure to distinguish men from beasts?
Those who are concerned about these implications of evolution need not worry. Humans are the only animals for whom history has any meaning. Only humans can know their past and learn from ancient and bygone ancestors. Only humans can ask, "Where did we come from?" And only humans -- like the superlative Dr. Leakey -- can actually use their minds to answer such questions. The laws of evolution do not negate our free will or moral nature. Rather, our ability to discover those laws displays the true ascent of man.
Many American secular humanists who correctly defend freedom to think…
The author apparently defends the freedom to think, as long as you don’t heretically disagree with the theory of evolution.
I believe that evolution is a credible explanation for species diversification, but I don’t think it “sad” that some people don’t agree with me.
Ah! The good old days!
One of 'em. Hardly advances the state of knowledge at all, although the Leopold and Loeb part was news to me.
So what? Either we have free will or we don't. Either we're descended from lower animals or we're not. Accepting a scientific theory or not accepting it doesn't change reality one bit. Either way, lots of us know how to behave properly.
Neither do I. I think it sad why some people don't agree with me.
This has been proven by science.
What was the consensus on this claim about Gould? IIRC the discussion was mostly in one of the threads that recently got pulled.
Gould laughed a lot. Many Marxists laugh a lot. It is not a laugh of happiness, it is a laugh of superiority. Hillary laughs like that. The Church Lady smirk. Followed by the Superior Dance. Marxists all. SJG QED
The evo Gould, from Harvard, was a leftie, but probably not a Marxist -- at least I never heard that he was.. There's a Steven Gold who is an avowed Marxist. Two different guys. But one of the creationists erroniously claimed the Gold guy was in fact the Gould guy. I don't know if the error was ever admitted, but it's an error for sure.
Disagreeing with a theory is hardly the same thing as suppressing it.
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.