Charles Darwin wrote in Descent of Man, “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
But this article is not about that book, even though it is about that sentence. Rather, today marks the day, 150 years ago, that Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was published, a book that revolutionized how we view the world.
Darwin’s theory of natural selection as an explanation of evolutionary processes is the foundation of all of modern biology. At its heart, the theory is elegantly simple: individual creatures with traits best suited to their environment are better able to survive and reproduce offspring.
And yet, it has been hailed as The Single Greatest Idea Ever: Darwin showed how the pieces of life’s amazing diversity fit together, and consequently, how we fit into that puzzle.
But, as Darwin clearly understood at the time of publication, Origin of Species would also challenge religious notions, not only of a 6,000-year-old world and a literal acceptance of Genesis, but about ideas of human exceptionalism.
Even though Darwin never raised the issue of human evolution in Origin (that would come 12 years later in his Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex), the underlying point was not lost on the public.
If man evolved from apes, how could we have been made in God’s image?
Evolution Rewritten
Religious fundamentalists have been fighting the notion ever since, despite the fact that the evidence for evolution has only grown stronger with scientific advances: DNA analysis, comparative anatomy, the fossil record, molecular biology.
Most recently, last week, former Growing Pains child actor and born-again Christian Kirk Cameron, along with evangelist Ray Comfort, led a crusade at college campuses around the United States and Canada, distributing free altered copies of Origin of Species.
Because Origin is in the public domain, Comfort was legally able to add to the book his own new 50-page introduction, in which he quotes from Mein Kampf in order to link Darwin to Adolf Hitler, accuses Darwin of being sexist, and argues falsely that there are no transitional fossils in the fossil record.
Next month marks the four-year anniversary of the decision of Kitzmiller v. Dover, in which Judge John E. Jones determined that intelligent design was merely religion masquerading as a scientific conceit and therefore unconstitutional to teach in the public schools.
Since then, evolution’s opponents have been struggling to redefine their message.
But the underlying point remains the same. As a woman distributing Comfort’s altered copies of Origin last week explained to CNN, it was important to her because evolution “impacts a person’s eternal destiny.”
Banana, Proof of God’s Existence
Comfort is a man whose best-known evolutionary criticism is the banana (or “the atheist’s nightmare,” as he calls it), which he says proves God’s existence because of its intelligently-designed appearance.
In an unintentionally funny video from 2006, he expounds on the brilliant design of the banana, as a most impressed Kirk Cameron looks on.
That Comfort is so lacking in imagination that he can’t perceive any reason for the banana’s appearance other than “God did it” is not so surprising.
But what is surprising is that Comfort doesn’t appear to have read Origin of Species, for if he had bothered to crack open the very book he was handing out, he might have become familiar with the relatively uncontroversial topic of selective breeding.
In Chapter 1, “Variation Under Domestication,” Darwin spends 50 pages discussing the inheritance of favored traits. Down at the bottom of page 29, Comfort would have learned how it is that the modern banana is so well suited for human consumption:
Let us now briefly consider the steps by which domestic races have been produced, either from one or from several allied species. Some effect may be attributed to the direct and definite action of the external conditions of life, and some to habit; but he would be a bold man who would account by such agencies for the differences between a dray- and race-horse, a greyhound and bloodhound, a carrier and tumbler pigeon. One of the most remarkable features in our domesticated races is that we see in them adaptation, not indeed to the animal’s or plant’s own good, but man’s use or fancy…
We cannot suppose that all the breeds were suddenly produced as perfect and as useful as we now see them; indeed, in many cases, we know that this has not been their history. The key is man’s power of accumulative selection: nature gives successive variations; man adds them up in certain directions useful to him. In this sense he may be said have made for himself useful breeds.
This is what creationists attacks have devolved to: A man best known for arguing that the cultivated banana is irrefutable proof of the existence of God because it fits comfortably in the human hand and comes with its own biodegradable packaging has the audacity to write an introduction to one of the most important books ever written.
Bending the Stories We Tell about Nature to Support a Larger Political Goal
But the utter ridiculousness of these tactics is not the whole story: Just as a sizable portion of the population continues to believe Obama was born in Kenya, about half of Americans continue to say they don’t accept the reality of evolution.
The big difference between the Kitzmiller trial and what we’e witnessing today is that the Seattle-based Discovery Institute (intelligent design’s chief champion) at least pretended it had developed a legitimate scientific theory—even though, to this day, there remains not one peer reviewed-scientific paper on the concept and no one has produced any research into its legitimacy.
Tags: atheism, darwin, evangelicalism, evolution
This should be the golden age of the science of intelligent design. The door is now open for them to do the research and to once and for all prove this issue one way or the other. The key is the new capabilities developed for genetic sequencing.
Sequencing the entire human genome took several years and millions of dollars, but it came in ahead of schedule and under budget because the technology kept advancing, and is still advancing making it practical to now sequence many different species, and some already have been sequenced. In the past, evolution science made its advances through comparing biology and comparing fossils. Then they learned to measure DNA giving a number of what percent of the DNA between two species is the same, such as human and chimp DNA matching 98%. All of these techniques have been a powerful way to catalog the spectrum of life, but true and complete DNA sequencing can do the job better, and present a picture of the relationships between species that has thousands of times more resolution than what we can see through the old methods of fossil and biology comparisons and percent of DNA match.
DNA sequencing can show the individual changes that took place, the order, and how they fit into the tree of life. It is a big job because it requires sequencing the species, uploading the billions of bits of information to the internet, and writing computer software to scan this data and coming up with the math and logic to map out what the changes mean. The answer that the evolutionists and creation design scientists are seeking is there in the mathematics of the sequences. Is it a tree of common ancestory as predicted by Darwin, or are there contradictions in the sequences that can't be fit into a single tree of ancestry and could only be explained by separate creation events or interventions? A simple example of a contradiction would be mathematically proving through certain segments of dna being enhanced copies of other segments that species A is an ancestor to species B in one part of the DNA, and species B is an ancestor to species A in another part. Evolution couldn't explain something like that, it would require an act of God (or an intelligent designer).
This whole enterprise wasn't possible until now. It is a big job, and traditional science is currently more focused on finding genetic cures for diseases and genetic engineering to enhance our food supply than they are on generating a complete DNA sequenced proof of the tree of life. This leaves the field open to the science departments at Christian colleges. It would give them a chance to prove the issue, and it would be a mathematical scientific proof that the rest of the world of science would have to respect and believe because it would be reproducable. All they have to do is scan the data and find the species that show the contradiction and work out the mathematical proof. Other conventional scientists would jump at the chance to reproduce their work and provide the verification.
If the work ends up showing there are no contradictions in the tree of life, than that would also be a great thing for these Christian scientists because they could show their brothers the evidence that Darwin was right in his tree of life concept, and Christianity could move forward and stop beating itself up on this issue. In the long run, it would be like the church accepting Galileo's planatary orbits. Accepting it ended up being good for the church. Whichever way the evidence turns out, the world and the scientific community would owe the Christian colleges a huge debt of gratitude for undertaking the expensive task of doing this great and valuable scientific work.
Jim, I completely agree with everything you say here. Your suggestion seems excellent, though it may be difficult to get the funding. My grandfather is on the board of a Christian college in Michigan and is very passionate about reconciling evolution and faith. I'll see what he thinks.
I agree with you that reconciliation is only possible through a concerted, determined search for the truth, on the part of all involved, whatever the truth turns out to be. Meanwhile, both scientists and Christians (and those who are both) must studiously avoid drawing metaphysical theories from the data of nature or, on the other hand, binding science to fallible interpretations of theological data. This way, when the scientific truth becomes clear, worldviews can adapt and adjust instead of violently exploding with radioactive social fallout.
As Laurie mentioned, this seemed to be happening just after the publication of Origin of the Species - i.e. Christians found it not too difficult to adapt their worldviews to Darwin's explanation of our physical origins. But Laurie, I have to quibble with you on one point: it wasn't the publication of the Fundamentals that bred Christian opposition to evolution. If I remember correctly, the Fundamentals featured three essays on origins: one arguing for a literal 6-day creation, one suggesting an old earth with non-literal days of creation, and one arguing for something like theistic evolution. At the time, evolution was still theologically acceptable to the Christian community. It was only when the ideology of social darwinism began to gain popularity in intellectual circles that the church started opposing evolution. Both the scientific and Christian communities share the blame for this: the scientific community allowed and even supported the perversion and co-option of a scientific theory for metaphysical purposes (survival of the fittest went from an is to an ought) while the Christian community, rather than doing the difficult work of excising the metaphysical tumor of social darwinism and preserving evolution, decided instead to wage war on science, the theory of evolution, and even Darwin himself. William Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor in the Scopes monkey trial, even admitted that he didn't have a problem with the scientific theory of evolution per se, but that if defeating evolution was necessary to bring down all the social ills caused by its misinterpretation and misapplication, then that's what he would do. For a great, in-depth book on this subject, read Denis Alexander's Rebuilding the Matrix.
Today, both communities need to repent of their errors and realize that religious texts cannot guide science and that science cannot guide human morality and spirituality (though it can investigate them, as long as it recognizes that it is descriptive and not prescriptive).
Reuster, thanks for the response. Having this brought up to a Christian college would be great, but I also think getting approval for the funding would be difficult. Even without getting the funding, just discussing it could be of value because that helps clarify things.
How much would it be worth to come up with a proof that Darwin's tree of descent is wrong at some places and only special creation events could explain the sequences? That would give a new meaning to the word "priceless". A true Christian scientist would want to be a part of this. What about the other side, what if the tree is verified and there are no special creation events? What would that be worth? To the Christian scientist, that also would have value. If he thinks it is not of value, meaning he wouldn't really want to know, then he is not a scientist. So even if the funding doesn't come through, this question has implications for what it means to be a Christian and a scientist.
I totally agree. I think being a Christian and a scientist (or even just being a faithful Christian) requires a hunger for the truth and a willingness to accept all truth (after rigorous verification) as an insight into the character of God. I agree, every Christian should support the examination of the tree of descent and all other origins science.
In this respect, at least, I think there has been a sea-change in the way (parts) of the Christian community have approached the origins issue. Decades ago, I think most creationists would have opposed any scientific investigation of origins. I used to think contemporary creationists/IDers were the same, until I actually got the chance to meet Fazale Rana (VP of Reasons to Believe, the Hugh Ross outfit) in person. I asked him straight out "how is your work different from all these god-of-the-gaps theories that have sprung up and died over the years?" He said something like "The hallmark of a god-of-the-gaps theory is that it discourages inquiry. We encourage it: we want to surround these issues with data points so that we can actually determine the truth." I've found similar themes on a couple different ID websites.
Clearly, the ideas these people are advancing are a long way from peer-reviewed, original research, but for all my doubts about their methods, preexisting biases, lack of rigor, etc., I can't fault them for their curiosity and willingness to acquire new data. Not to mention that many Christians nowadays subscribe to some form of theistic evolution (including the pastors of my church) and would presumably have no problem with origins studies. I'm sure there are still those in the Christian community opposed to origins research in any form, but I think the tide is turning and there are a lot of Christians who would support the experiments you're talking about. Either answer would be a marvelous result worthy of pursuit.
The change in approach is welcome news. I hope it is followed through. Sometimes people are open to new ideas as long as there won't be any conclusive evidence that will make anyone change in ways they don't want to change. They will encourage debate as long as it doesn't lead anywhere.
If the DNA sequences do show there are things going on here more than just Darwinian evolution, that would be really incredible news, and many things would have to change in how we view the world. But it still seems like a long shot because historically speaking when science conflicts with church doctrine, the church eventually has to change.
This issue might end up redirecting the wedge. Nova and BBC have been putting out some great evolution DVDs as the Darwin anniversary approaches, and some of them have explained the concept of how the wedge was aimed. They say the wedge was developed by creation research and intelligent design with the idea that there are different Christian interpretations of creation such as young or old earth, and the first goal should be to question evolution and unite Christianity, and put off ultimate decisions about which creation or design theory until later. They first want to split off the ungodly science. But those Christians who are also scientists might end up redirecting the wedge. They will become allied to science, and split off from the 6 day and 6000 year Christians. That will be progress. It will create some turmoil in Christianity, but it is something they must go through to strengthen the religion. The status quo will tear them apart, so the sooner they go through that little period of pain the easier it will be on them.
Kirk Cameron was on Growing Pains, not Family Ties.
Ack! Thank you for calling that to my attention. It's being corrected. OK, for the future: Family Ties starred a young actor who went on to become a staunch supporter of science and stem-cell research; Growing Pains featured a kid whose understanding of science boils down to, "If evolution were true, how come there are no crocoducks?"
Got it.
Seems to me Kirk Cameron is evidence against evolution and for devolution, or survival of the unfit!
If God created the banana so perfectly to fit human convenience, why did he put in those pesky stringy bits? And why can't you put them in the refrigerator?
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.