Darwin, Science, and Me: What I Know and What I Would Like to Know
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.
Works
Cited
Appleman,
Philip. Darwin, texts, commentary. 3rd. New York, NY: W W Norton &
Co Inc, 2001. Print.
Dictionary.com. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/neo-darwinism?s=t
Sellers,
Jerry. Understanding Space An Introduction to Astronautics. 2nd. New
York: McGraw-Hills Companies, Inc., 2000. Print.
Bufka
, Norbert . Heliocentrism and Evolution Changed our Understanding of the World
Forever. 2009. Print. <http://www.thisonly.org/Articles/Heliocentrism
West,
John. "INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND CREATIONISM JUST AREN'T THE SAME." Research
News and Opportunities in Science and Theology. (2002): n. page. Web. 17
Feb. 2013. <http://www.discovery.org/a/1329>.
Comments
Post a Comment