It emerges from last evening's debate that two of the 10 Republican presidential candidates--Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo---don't believe in the theory of evolution. These aren't the big hitters on the GOP side, but it reveals an interesting under-current of anti-Darwin sentiment among Republicans and conservatives.
I know many on the right, especially the Christian right, are scared of Darwin. Even intellectual magazines like Commentary seem to have adopted an anti-Darwin position. This has enabled many on the left, as well as the professional atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, to portray conservative Christians as yahoos. Sometimes we do come across that way.
In my forthcoming book "What's So Great About Christianity" I will show why, contrary to the claims of Dawkins and company, Darwinian evolution does not undermine the design argument for God. On the contrary, the latest findings of modern science have greatly strengthened that argument. Paley was right and Dawkins is wrong. Fasten your seat-belt and wait for my book, or, if you are a real fanatic, pre-order it here.
But if Christian anxiety is misplaced, conservatives are even further off the mark. That's because Darwin's theory actually supports conservative positions in all kinds of interesting ways. First, Darwin gives a dark and selfish view of human nature, which is why we need a tough foreign policy to deal with bad guys who cannot be talked out of their badness--even if U.N. cocktails are served. In addition, the selfishness in human nature warrants a system called capitalism which channels this self-orientation toward the material betterment of society.
It gets better. Darwin shows that social institutions like the family are founded in the deep human drive to reproduce and care for the young. Reproduction and self-perpetuation are the natural root of human family arrangements, which cannot be redefined as mechanisms of "self-fulfillment" without jeopardizing their biological basis and function. Consider a simple statistic: when divorced moms remarry or have boyfriends in the house, those surrogate parents are vastly more likely to physically and sexually abuse the children than their own parents. Darwinian theory supplies the reason: the real parent shares the same genes as the child and this forms a bond that dispels sexual attraction and discourages abuse. "Family values" are supported by modern evolutionary biology.
I'm not saying embrace Darwinian evolution because it is politically useful. I am saying don't hastily reject a theory that has a lot of evidence going for it when it has the added merit of being politically congenial.
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 11)
46. Ed Reints writes: "Evangelists, conservatives and religious fanatics are rapidly driving this country to third world status. Our schools are way behind the rest of the world and we are becoming the laughing stock of the world. No wonder Americans are regarded as stupid in western Europe especially. God help us in about 20 years when this situation becomes much worse, due to our idea that science is evil."
You got that right. Ever since Bush got in office and catered to them its been straight back to the Inquisition. One problem is we're commenting on their home base, which is exactly what I'm commenting. However, the right wing commenters, with the exception for instance of Ken Berg (who IS very intelligent), are often so far out there that its just impossible to reason with them. The scariest thing of all is that Pat Robertson's D grade law school, filled with people just like them, has become the White House's pet recruitment area both for the DOJ and for non-political top bureacratic jobs. Its like having little Pat Robertson sleeper cells scattered throughout our federal buildings.
Ed Reints
Phil at 12:48PM on May 4th 2007
47. Peter, is it still a flower? It didn't suddenly start bearing apples or pull up its roots and walk or fly away, did it? OK, so it mutated. It didn't become another species. (The definition of species being somewhat debatable but in the common sense of different type of creature.)Who is denying that mutations happen? As an aside, mutations are almost always a negative event. The basic argument is that one life form is not changing into another totally new and different type of being. Like fish to lizard to bird, etc. After one comment, you declare that I loose this debate? Now, now, confident one. A couple comments do not a debate make.
You call me a liar. In what way have I lied? I may differ with you in what I believe is the correct interpretation of evidence found but I am in no way trying to mislead others nor do I think you are trying to lie. I think you believe what you write. I just think you are misinformed yourself.
Thank you for the compliment that I have destroyed our school systems single-handedly. Would that I had that kind of influence! So, you think that healthy discussion of two sides of a theory is a bad thing for our educational institutions? You would just present a partial picture and let kids think they have arrived at some profound understanding. If you are so confident that evolution is infallible yet object to it undergoing intense scrutiny, how strong is it really as a theory? Is it so bad to present all of the information and let kids decide which has more merit? Shouldn't schools be teaching kids to think and question and analyse? Or do we want a bunch of future citizens who just swallow whatever information is fed to them?
By the way, I was educated in a very secular public school and college. I came to a point when I became more curious about the apparent conflicts between "religion" and "science" in the area of origins of our world and life upon it. As I read more, I became aware that not all scientists believe the "theory" we were taught as fact.
Since no one was actually there at the beginning, all people must base their belief upon evidence that is available to us here and now. The fact is that everyone (including scientists) come into this interpretation with their own assumptions and biases. If you are really honest, you must admit that it takes a certain amount of faith to accept the conclusions of either camp. It's not a matter of faith really. Just a matter of which faith you choose to be faithful too.
Vicki at 1:00PM on May 4th 2007
48. Ed,
Our schools don't suck because of religious people. They suck because we believe it is better for our students to feel good about what they have done than to actually do a good job. Our schools and test scores have been declining for over 20 years over the course of many presidents from Carter to Reagan to Bush to Clinton to Bush. Of course there are probably many reasons for this, but I vote with you --- let's take the easy way out and blame it on all the church people!! Christians don't say science is evil. The ways some people use science may be questionable.
You know what - the reason Western Europe thinks Americans are stupid is actually because--wait for it---we are stupid. But again, let's not actually have a meaningful talk about what the real causes are--let's just blame the conservatives and Christians!! Whew! I can feel the test scores rising already.
Vicki at 1:59PM on May 4th 2007
49. Phil, a guy that does not believe the Bible and whom does not understand the Bible invokes the power of Genesis, as if he understands the biblical account of creation. He does not understand that the first three days were 'timeless' and that the sun, moon, stars and time as we know it did not come about untile the fourth day in the Genesis account, so that there is a spiritual mystery about the first three days, which many have guessed about, but that no one truly knows either what the evening and mornings were nor the length of time. It is also significant that "...the earth was void" could also be translated, "...the earth became void" which is known by some theologians as 'The Gap Theory', because of the unchronicled period of time. I'm a big boy though, and my scrutiny has obviously struck a nerve in Phil, and I guess he will continue to use the Bible and Genesis to try to make points about a spiritual subject that he may never understand.
Cdalealden at 1:38PM on May 4th 2007
50. The person who says that the evolution of man from simpler forms occurs in a direct link has gotten his information from an inaccurate source. It is a wideheld belief and it is totally wrong. Evolution is less like a tree and more like a web. We are not descended from the apes. We and the apes share a common ancestor who existed eons ago and is now extinct. When the numenclature for describing a species was developed it fell into two parts: the genius and the species such as homo sapiens. It just happens that we are not only a unique species but also a unique genus as well. All other species of Homo such as the Neantherthals and Cro-Magnum are extinct.
The more variation which exists within a species gene pool, the more likely it is to survive any sudden change within the environment. Posters have been discussing the evolution of microorganisms such as bacteria and viruses. Scientists have been able to study them because their generational life-cycle is quite, quite short. The first antiobitics were able to kill a great number of bacteria. However, because of the variation in genetic material, even among such a simple life form as bacteria, there were those who did survive. Due to the external influence of the antiobitic upon their environment, whatever traits those bacteria had which allowed them to survive become a trait which gave them a survival edge over those that did not have those traits or had fewer adaptive traits. Those traits become more and more widespread because they were favored over the others and this created what is commonly known as antiobitic-resistant bacteria. Scientists were then forced to create new antiobiotics which would now kill those more adaptable bacteria. This cycle continues and continues. The more adaptable the bacteria and viruses become the more we search for antiobitics that will be able to attack them. In this way, the process of evolution of those microorganisms continues and geneticists are able to study them.
As regards the "theory" of evolution, it has become a very, very strong theory. It has withstood many assaults. Changes have been made but the basic premise of evolution has withstood the test of time. If, however, the future brings startling new evidence which would bring forth a new theory as to the origin of the species, then modifications must be made. The hallmark of science and the scientific method is to always try to expand our knowledge of the universe even if it goes against current well-entrenched theories such as that of evolution. That is the strength of science. However, I must add that the probability of new evidence which would completely discredit Darwin's theory of evolution is finite.
CAF at 1:39PM on May 4th 2007
51. to alan, Siddhartha said "Once you say the Word, the Word is perverted." You can sum it all up with Biblical cerities and God, but that doesn't further the conversation or illuminate us about the wonders of our world. Science is the study of the miracles.
Darwin's theory is lovely! Let's talk about it.
dorothy at 1:58PM on May 4th 2007
52. Are the Cro Magnum people in any way related to the cro magnon people?
eric at 2:07PM on May 4th 2007
53.
You lied when you said speciation "has not/cannot be observed in a lab" just a few posts ago, and I just proved that it was a lie. I don't know what your definition of species is but it's not correct. Speciation occurs when the two have become too different genetically from one another to mate successfully. You must be thinking of something higher up in taxonomy.
You are making the mistake of underestimating the scale of time. Over hundreds of millions of years those tiny changes (which you acknowledge) add up to what would collectively be a big change. The fossil record shows it happening. Eventually what you recognize as a "lizard" loses it's legs and looks like a "snake". Some snakes still have little stubs where there legs once were. They have no reason to have those stubs nor any use for them.
It's not a matter of faith, I'm not going to let you apply that label to it. There is mountains and mountains and mountains of evidence to show that it is true and -none- to dispute the general principle of the theory. That evidence is readily available to you to see for yourself, just because you don't look at it doesn't mean it's not there.
The debate is over in the scientific world; as far as Biologists are concerned, it's the Law of Evolution now. You can classify it as a theory to try to discredit it as faith all you want, but it's not faith.
I don't know why you think scientists have some sort of agenda other than the advancement of mankind. The study of evolution has already led to advances in genetics which will someday soon be a great boon to humanity, and you do a disservice to humanity when you try to suppress it.
It worries me that you were educated in a secular public school and don't know this, that's exactly the problem here. It's not taught correctly, because it's not really secular when it comes to something that disproves some of the claims the Bible makes.
Peter at 2:06PM on May 4th 2007
54. Peter, Darwinism is just a theory because it has never been replicated. That is the necessary step that turns a scientific theory into a scientific fact. Until you or anyone else shows me an ape giving birth to a person, it is a theory. Respond.
uakujuo at 3:51PM on May 4th 2007
55.
Uakujo-
It is a lie to say it has never been replicated in a lab, because it has, as I have shown in a previous comment. House flies have short lifecycles and reproduce in large numbers. They have been bred in a lab to the point of speciation. There you have it, evolution.
Evolution never said an ape gave birth to a person, that's not how it works. As I suspected you don't know the first thing about it. We share a common ancestor with apes, but we have taken a different evolutionary course then them.
Peter at 4:35PM on May 4th 2007
56. Peter,
Flies? Short life span of flies? That is quite a reach unless they have been successful in achieving a significant change that would point to evolution and still maintain the ability to procreate? I'm asking here.
Cdalealden at 4:57PM on May 4th 2007
57.
It's not a stretch at all, here's another case that might be a little easier to understand.
"5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata
In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.
WH × WH - 75%
P1 × P1 - 95%
P2 × P2 - 80%
P1 × P2 - 77%
WH × P1 - 0%
WH × P2 - 0%
They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations."
To sum up, the Woods Hole (WH) worms were the same species of worm as P1 and P2 (the two groups of worms they got from Long Beach) when they were taken to be used in experiments 20 years ago. Over those 20 years their population was isolated from the larger breeding population of the species.
From here it gets a little complicated so I'll try to explain it in as simple terms as I can. As the worms in the lab reproduced, each successive generation was more and more related to each other genetically because the population was so small. This lack of variance in their genes led to errors in chromosome development, causing a mutation which altered their genetic makeup.
Now they can mate with each other, but they can't mate with the population of the worms in the wild whose species they used to be a part of. So, a new species was created in a lab: They are not infertile but they cannot mate with their original population. If that doesn't prove evolution right there, it's very close to doing so.
Peter at 6:17PM on May 4th 2007
58. I don't need to debate the issue on any one theory. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORD "THEORY"? All I'm saying is, if you are truly (open MINDED) & research SOUND teaching on EACH THEORY, you will be amazed at the evidence for creation. There are scientist who have tried to disprove the creation theory and have walked away actually BELIEVING in it when trying so desperately to disprove it. I could get into a very well educated debate but I don't need to. I just offered up the challenge to STUDY from SOLID sources. I had to and it took many years! I'm still learning and I love it.
Jeni at 8:10PM on May 4th 2007
59.
I'm pretty sure you're the one who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "theory" in science. I'm also pretty sure there are no real scientists out there who having been presented with all the evidence for evolution who switched over to your side of things because you are such an eloquent debator (apparently?).
I don't think you can put forward word one to dispute that "theory" and I can give you lots and lots and lots of evidence to suggest that it is true. I also can give you lots and lots and lots of evidence that there was no worldwide flood 6000 years ago, and that 30 million species can't fit in a wooden boat. They can hardly even fit in the whole world! :)
Peter at 6:32PM on May 4th 2007
60. @ phil (comment #6)
You said, "My question on that is if the doctrine of survival of the fittest is true, how did George Bush become President and what does that say about our chances for national survival?"
Sociopaths are heartless bastards who have no feeling of empathy. They are insanely power-hungry personifications of evil. 'Emperor' Bush took control of government using religion as a tool.
He piddled around victimizing every enemy available... atheists, the elderly, gays... it doesn't matter, no enemy is too small.
The 9/11 tragedy gave 'Emperor' Bush the opportunity to begin total war, endless war.
Do you think that he doesn't mean it when he says that he wishes he didn't have to bother with this 'democracy thing' or 'the constitution is just a piece of paper'?
He's bragged that he has overturned and subverted every attempt at 'democracy in action'... because this is not government by the people anymore...this is 'Emperor' Bush's day in the Sun.
It's not enough that he's trashing Afghanistan(Osama was an excuse, doesn't matter anymore), trashing Iraq,(Saddam was an excuse, doesn't matter any more)... he's eyeballing Iran now.
But he's looking for the big finish... Armeggedon!!
Cheney is similar, but his big finish is ..."I own everything!"
Mr.D'Souza is a sychophant, a lesser demon, urging on Armeggedon, but he's not above spitting on atheists to pass the time... no enemy is too small.
pboyfloyd at 6:43PM on May 4th 2007