Andrew Stutts
My knowledge of Darwin is cursory at best and my knowledge of science is also at the fundamental level. I’ve always been interested in the ideas and discoveries of others, especially concerning evolution and science. However, despite having a skeptical and inquiring mind, I’ve never developed the aptitude to investigate on my own or challenge the established ideas of others. This is probably due to having an interest in a variety of subjects and never devoting enough time in this area to have the expertise to form a concrete or static opinion. Furthermore, I leave the complexity of such matters as science to the experts. However, I view everything with a healthy amount of skepticism and science is no exception. Science is continually making new discoveries and changing established paradigms of thinking. Therefore, I tend to observe and evaluate the discoveries of others in the realm of science and continual reshape my model of thinking. Man should always seek to continually evaluate his existence and the world in which he live. Neither science nor religion should be exempt from this directive.
As I begin my studies into Darwin, Science, and Evolutions, I find that Evolutionism and Creationism is similar to American politics. Just as you have the extreme right and left in politics, with neither side wanting to meet in the middle, so does the warring factions of Evolutionism and Creationism seem to be polar opposites. There appears to be no comprises in views or agreeing that the other side has something to offer. In fact, some have even refused to debate with the other side, stating that the other side’s views are so ludicrous or backwards that to begin to even attempt a meaningful dialogue is pointless. This in my view is most likely a cop out. Debate if approach in the right manner will always bear good fruit. Furthermore, defending a superior viewpoint from the scrutiny of examination even to the point of nauseam will only sharpen its logic to a keen edge. No issue no matter how grounded in logic it seems to be is above constant reevaluation. This is especially true concerning matters of science. Science should remain a means for discovery and not become a belief system.
Moreover, even when such debate occurs it often involves complex terminology and links to volumes of scholastic information. That leaves those less scholarly inclined in the middle of the debate pulled and tugged in each direction by the extreme factions of Evolutionism and Creationism. Ironically enough, the proselytization on both sides to gain more converts only instills in the general populace a middle viewpoint. This is because most people are inclined to rely on a combination of proven scientific fact, cultural influences and intuition to define the world in which they exist. This is perfectly acceptable because society as a whole will progress at a rate that is natural in light of discovery and its perception of reality based on that discovery. Mankind will always seek to discover and define the world around him under his own terms regardless of the tugging of the extremely dogmatic religious and equally dogmatic atheist factions.
The editor, Philip Appleman, of my text book Darwin is no exception to the aforementioned polarization. While I’ll concede that the highly distinguished Professor and writer is my intellectual superior. I’ve noted a tone of bias in his writing easily discernible to even a layman such as myself. Note the following excerpt from his book on Darwin’s life and work; “Also in the year of my birth the famous evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson, concocting an alibi for an extended rendezvous with her lover, claimed to have been kidnapped by ‘gamblers, dope peddlers, and evolutionist.’ Then, a year after my birth, the American Anti-Evolution Association was founded, declaring itself open to all citizens except ‘Negroes, Atheists, Infidels, Agnostics, Evolutionists, and habitual drunkards.” (Appleman 16) This was typical of the close-mindedness and stereotypical views that held sway in most of the country during the era referred to by Appleman. Equally stereotypical, narrow minded, and disturbing to the aforementioned excerpts are the distinguished Editor’s assertions at the bottom of the same page. Note the following remarks written by Phillip Appleman; “Compounding their misfortune, these educationally deprived people often become the easy victims of assorted charlatans—astrologers, psychics, self-proclaimed prophets, Bermuda Triangle occultist, parapsychologist, UFO visionaries, New Age mystics, numerologist, faith healers, channelers, pyramidologists, fortune tellers—and creationist. Obviously, the scientific and educational community needs to maintain constant vigilance and a vigorous program of public information and public advocacy, if factual knowledge and common sense are to prevail over ignorance and superstition.” (Appleman 16) Another equally short sited statement I heard was that creationist bastardized science and misappropriates the scientific language. Is not science was a process, a tool for discovery and inquiry, not a static phenomenon? Does use of the scientific vernacular in and of itself constitute the charge of misappropriation? I think not, even laymen should use the appropriate language of the applicable subject, albeit, ensuring its correct usage. Statements such as these supports my insight that many of those who espouse the tenants of evolution see themselves as the self-appointed vanguards against backwardness and the champions of all that is absolute truth. However, I propose that their close-mindedness can be as detrimental to humanity’s progress as any fundamentalist zealot.
Moreover, I see little differences in the two extreme camps of Evolutionism and Creationism. Both use science to propagate their belief systems. The dictionary defines an atheist as a “person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.” (Dictionary.com) A belief that there is no deity or deities still constitutes confidence in certain way of thinking and is thus another belief system. Therefore, it should be obvious that Atheism is indeed a religion and Charles Darwin has been misappropriated to fulfill the role and function of its surrogate messiah. Furthermore, the online dictionary site Dictionary.com provides the following clarification concerning the various terms often confused with one another regarding atheism; “ Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.” (Dictionary.com) The definition and clarification of these terms are important but equally important is the recognition that all beliefs systems must remain excluded from science for it to truly remain secular.
I have no issue with the theory of evolution or have any arguments against its fundamental tenets and logic. However, I’m skeptical concerning the manner in which it is propagated with such absolute certainty. Furthermore, staunch supporters of Darwin’s theories insist upon its total acceptance and considered any deviation in thought backwards by their standards. This mind set leaves no room for alternative ideas or investigations. Consequently, movements in the scientific research community such as Intelligent Design are automatically associated with Creationism and are summarily dismissed as backwards. The following excerpt from John West’s article “Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren’t the Same” highlight some of the nefarious tactics used; “Some advocates of Darwinian evolution try to conflate ‘intelligent design” (ID) with ‘creationism,’ sometimes using the term ‘intelligent design creationism.’”(West) This is unfortunate because Intelligent Design differs from Creationism in a number significant ways but primarily in the fact that, unlike Creationism, it does not attempt to uphold the inerrancy of the Bible through science. In the same previously mention article University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers, who happens to be critical of intelligent design but impartial to opposing views, is quoted that he “agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement.” (West) The John West article further cites Numbers conjecturing that some Darwinists keep trying to identify Intelligent Design with creationism because they reason such claims are “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.” (West) The article make the obvious contention that this rhetorical strategy is employed by some Darwin extremist in an attempt to purposely delegitimize Intelligent Design by associating it with Creationism avoiding “actually addressing the merits of its case.” (West)
Furthermore, there appears to be an atheistic agenda attached with Darwinism to the point where even an agnostic must be careful not commit blasphemy against the concept of no deity or risk being marginalized. It is no secret that prominent Darwinists routinely try to draw out theological and cultural implications from the theory of evolution as pointed out in the following example from John West’s article “Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren’t the Same”; “Harvard’s E.O. Wilson employs Darwinian biology to deconstruct religion and the arts.” I know of no other scientific theories that are treated with such reverence. Why has evolution become such a sacred cow? It has been said by proponents of evolution that just because some flaw may be found in the theory does not discount it all together. This may be true but in all fairness the same could be said of Creationism or any topic for that matter.
Parenthetically, a good theory that initially had flaws in it was the theory of a heliocentric or sun centered universe. In the past mankind’s prevailing view on the universe was one that was earth centered. In the succeeding paragraphs I will reveal the initial flaws in this theory. Furthermore, I shall relate why it is applicable to my skeptical views concerning the culmination of Darwin’s theories.
What does Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) or Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) has to do with Charles Darwin (1809-1882). Well, I reason they have a considerable amount to do with each other. Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking book “The Origin of Species” in 1859 and his investigations caused a principal change in how we view ourselves. In the same manner Copernicus and Galileo altered and reformed what we know about the earth. (Appleman)(Sellers)
To make my point I must begin by discussing the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) There are many things that can be said concerning Aristotle but for the sake of brevity this paper will concentrate on his influence as an Astronomer. Like Darwin, he was an ardent observer of the world around him and “his rigorous logic set an example for future natural philosophers to follow.” (Sellers) However, he made some mistakes and was just wrong on some things. First, he reasoned that if he dropped two objects at the same time, one heavier and one lighter, the heavier object would fall faster and thus hit the ground first. This theory would later be disproved by Galileo. Aristotle also mistakenly modeled a universe that was geostatic (Earth not moving) and geocentric (Earth Centered) that would dominate astronomy for 2000 years. The esteem held for Aristotle by astronomers and natural philosophers allowed astronomy to stagnate for centuries. (Sellers)(Bufka)
Now let’s shift the focus to Nicolaus Copernicus. Although not the first, he is best known for advancing the scientific theory that the earth rotated on its axis and revolved around the sun. However, his theory was not perfected due his clinging to the Greek tradition that orbits followed uniform circles. It is now known thanks to astronomer Johannes Kepler’s(1571-1630) three laws describing planetary motion that the planets move in an eccentric orbits which are various deviations in shape from a perfect circle. Due to his erroneous geometry, Copernicus’s heliocentric model could not prove Earth moved or explain why Earth rotated on its axis. His heliocentric model of the universe would not be promoted again until almost 70 years after his death. (Sellers)(Bufka)
Succeeding Copernicus, Galileo Galilei with the aid of his mathematics skill and the newly invented telescope made observations and came to conclusion that supported the Copernican heliocentric theory of the universe. Subsequently, Galileo went on a public crusade in support of the heliocentric theory of the universe that put him at odds with the Catholic Church. He was force to recant and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. (Sellers)(Bufka)
The quest to gain acceptance for a heliocentric model of the universe was long and hard fought. The Copernican theory gained acceptance but was not 100 percent accurate either. Science has since revealed that the sun is not exactly in the center of the universe as postulated by the Copernican theory but in the center of our solar system. Furthermore, our sun is merely one of millions of stars and there multiple galaxies. Do these facts negate the importance of his theory? Absolutely not because Copernican’s theory of the universe was inherently correct. The fact that it was flawed and improved upon does not diminish its importance in coming to better understanding of our universe. (Sellers)(Bufka)
Religion, specifically Christianity, is commonly blamed for the resistance to Copernican’s more correct model of the universe. Consequently, Christianity is charged with hampering scientific progression in this regard. However, the reverence medieval scholars held for all things classical, Greek and Roman, allowed Aristotle’s principles to become dogma. Therefore, one can postulate that this one man’s theory had every bit as much to do with the stagnated progress in astronomy as religion.
Copernicus and Galileo changed the knowledge of the world. Likewise, Darwin’s work forced Humanity to reevaluate the world in which it lives. Some would say this knowledge was a direct attack on the Christian cosmology of their era and confronted a mindset that took scriptural interpretations to literal extremes. This in fact may be true; however, tenacious attachments to strict paradigms of thinking can also be found outside of religious institutions. The unwavering commitment by Evolutionist to every tenet and minute detail of Darwin work begs the question if he is our modern equivalent of Aristotle? This is doubtful since much of his theory appears to be the 80 percent solution making it fundamentally correct. However, much like Copernicus, his theory could potentially have flaws that can be improved upon when viewed from another angle or through another discipline entirely. One thing is for certain it is not futile to critically inquire and reevaluate established theories or concepts. Note the example I previously supplied concerning geocentrism vs heliocentrism . Interestingly enough, scientists still find the geocentric modeled universe useful for some applications. (Sellers)(Bufka)
Charles Darwin propelled another fundamental change in mankind’s understanding of the world when he published his Origin of Species in 1859. However, his ideas instead of opposing the physical order of the universe challenged our views of life itself, including human life. His observations led to a supposition that continues to challenge the ascendancy mankind in relation to the literal interpretation of the Bible. This is due to the conjecture the humans evolved from other forms of life just as all forms of life have evolved over billions of years. Many presume that Darwin was hesitant to publish his work because it did not mesh well with the beliefs of time. However, it is just as likely he was exercising scientific discretion and discernment. It would be interesting to know Darwin’s opinions on later scientific discoveries on the age of the world and other matters related to his observations. One can only speculate how these scientific discoveries would fare against the scrutiny of peer review done Charles Darwin himself. Darwin was cautious in his assumptions holding to a staunch set of personal standards and ethics concerning academic inquiry. It is doubtful that he would support any idea or methodology that was not up to scratch, including ones detracted from his own theories. I am doubtful that the same can be said of many academics today and that includes those from both the Evolutionist and Creationists factions.
Proliferate and around for us to see there is no deny the merits or even confirmation of Darwin’s theory. Author and columnist Norbert Bufka in his 2009 “Heliocentrism and Evolution Changed Our Understanding of the World Forever” article observed the following concerning evolutions taking place right before our eyes; “For example they have observed the evolution of the mosquito Culex molestus from its ancestor species Culex pipiens between 1898 and 1998. Other examples abound. In all of these cases, a population of the original species still exists, and is unable to interbreed with the new species. Perhaps one of the most striking and undeniable example is the evolution of our plentiful and rich agricultural corn from the rather pathetic Mexican field grass teosinte under the artificial selection by the Native Americans.” (Bufka) Finally, Darwin’s theory of evolution should not cause distress or fear. It should be a comforting thought to know that one is part of the world and connected to nature and not alien to it.
The Great Integrity expresses one.
One manifests as two.
Two is transformed into three.
And three generates all the myriad of entities
Of the universe
Lao Tzu (Tzu Verse 42,85)
In conclusion, I wish to strengthen my knowledge concerning evolution and the origin of man. I want to better understand the evidence and the assertions of evolution. Contrariwise, I would also like to learn of any flaws in the theory and explore alternate theories. Most importantly I want to learn exactly what theories belong to Darwin’s and which ones were ad hoc. I would like to further explore the subject of Neo-Darwinism, which I am ignorant of other than the following definition I stumbled across;
“Neo-Darwinism:
1. the theory of evolution as expounded by later students of Charles Darwin, especially Weismann, holding that natural selection accounts for evolution and denying the inheritance of acquired characters.
2. any modern theory of evolution holding that species evolve by natural selection acting on genetic variation.” (Dictionary.com)
Furthemore, I do desire to increase my knowledge concerning Darwin and science which would enable me to discourse intelligently on the subjects. However, I do recognize my limitations and realize I am not a Biologist or Scientist. With that in mind, I shall internalize what I learn and focus it toward a topic of great interest to me and that is the adaption of mankind to knowledge and how it shapes his cosmology.