A prominent new atheist blogger has just completed a week-long series paying homage to the great journalist H. L. Mencken, best known for his coverage of the 1925 Scopes Trial. The series represents ongoing efforts to enhance the mythology of evolution, efforts that have been particularly successful when it comes to the Scopes Trial.
Most people today see the Scopes Trial as a simple confrontation between superstitious hillbillies who rallied around a great buffoon, William Jennings Bryan, who prosecuted a great and open-minded science teacher, John Scopes. The crime was the teaching of evolution.
Mencken was widely read and is celebrated today for his hyperbolic and uncharitable rhetoric. He ridiculed the local population in Dayton -- called them "rustic ignoramuses" -- in ways that no major news outlet would publish today. When Bryan died, shortly after the trial, Mencken wrote a most hateful obituary:
"It was plain to everyone, when Bryan came to Dayton, that his great days were behind him -- that he was now definitely an old man, and headed at last for silence. There was a vague, unpleasant manginess about his appearance; he somehow seemed dirty, though a close glance showed him carefully shaved, and clad in immaculate linen."
Such uncharitable caricatures of the critics of evolution make it easy to dismiss their concerns. If our critics are buffoons, we can ignore them.
Bryan was certainly wrong about evolution. But he was not a buffoon; he was a champion of liberal causes and ran three times for president on the democratic ticket. We would do well to think about the concerns that animated his anti-evolutionary campaign and brought him to Dayton. Bryan was, for example, horrified at the way German intellectuals were rationalizing the militarism that would lead Germany into World War I. A professor at the University of Leipzig published a frightening book titled "Darwinism Applied to Peoples and States" in 1910, arguing that the morally advanced European races should exterminate the morally inferior ones. He called this the "righteousness of the struggle for existence" and anticipated it would lead to the "extermination of the crude immoral hordes."
Whether or not this is an appropriate application of Darwin's ideas -- I don't think it is -- Bryan's concern along these lines certainly deserves our respect, not ridicule, and we might learn something from pondering it.
Bryan watched developments in Europe closely and warned president Woodrow Wilson that the U.S. should not enter the war. "It is not likely that either side will win so complete a victory as to be able to dictate terms," he wrote in 1914 after two years as Secretary of State, "and if either side does win such a victory it will probably mean preparation for another war. It would seem better to look for a more rational basis for peace." Bryan resigned as Wilson's Secretary of State in 1915, protesting America's entry into World War I.
The concerns about evolution that Bryan expressed -- perhaps inarticulately -- represent a dark chapter in the history of Darwin's theory that many of its champions today would like to suppress as they mythologize the story of evolution. In Bryan's day evolution was almost universally believed to sanction draconian measures to improve our species by eliminating the less fit. The textbook from which John Scopes supposedly taught evolution -- George Hunter's "A Civic Biology" -- spoke in chilling language of "parasitic" families that do harm by "corrupting, stealing, or spreading disease." The students were warned of the importance of preventing the propagation of such a "low and degenerate race."
This, of course, is the sordid tale of Social Darwinism -- a misapplication of Darwin's ideas that died in the Nazi death camps along with those the Nazis perceived to be from a "low and degenerate race."
Bryan, of course, was wrong about evolution -- although we might cut him some slack given the state of the theory then -- and his performance in Dayton certainly had a few blunders. But we should not reduce him to a caricature to avoid confronting the reality of what evolution meant for so many at that historical moment.
In the same way, we should listen more carefully to the critics of evolution today. Not all of them are stupid, wicked or insane.
Follow Karl Giberson, Ph.D on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gibersok
Steven Newton: Tennessee Volunteers for Creationism
Peter M. J. Hess, Ph.D.: Creationism and Monkey Business in Tennessee
Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.: Tennessee Joins the Anti-Evolution Parade and Ignores the Experts
Karl Giberson, Ph.D: Rebuilding the Evangelical Mind Requires Courage
In stark contrast, the vast majority of opponents of evolution believe that Genesis is completely correct -- perfect, in fact. They accept Genesis as accurate history and science.
The conflict of ideas here could not be more clear. And it is clear where Giberson stands on the issue -- squarely on the side of evolutionary theory. When it comes to the science, he believes that Darwin was correct, and that the book of Genesis is false.
Yet he criticizes Richard Dawkins for labeling those who choose Genesis as "ignorant."
Does Giberson truly believe that it is possible for a person to fully understand evolutionary theory and still choose Genesis and NOT be either "ignorant, stupid or insane"?
If so, how? How exactly does the book of Genesis deserve consideration as a scientific theory by informed, smart and rational people?
I think I know Giberson's answer:
"Ummm.....Hitler!"
On other topics, perhaps not. On this one, oh yes he was. Most certainly.
"ryan was, for example, horrified at the way German intellectuals were rationalizing the militarism that would lead Germany into World War I."
Which has as much to do with the validity of evolutionary theory as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have to do with the validity of atomic theory. If Bryan thought this was a reason to reject evolution you are not exactly making your "he was not a buffoon" case very well.
"In the same way, we should listen more carefully to the critics of evolution today. Not all of them are stupid, wicked or insane."
Oh? Add "blinded by dogmatic adherence to religion" to that list then name one that doesn't fit it.
Mencken's obituary for Bryan was nowhere near "most hateful." Actually, it reads like a sympathetic appraisal of a man who died disgraced. And as for Mencken's "rustic ignoramuses" comment being unprintable today, have you turned on cable news or picked up a paper in the last ten years? "Rustic ignoramuses" is practically a love letter compared to what the loathsome "news" industry prints or reads off teleprompters.
Deniers of evolution are not buffoons because they disagree with sensible people, they are buffoons for being buffoon-like. Just because some people express doubt about something doesn't make it a "debate" or open an issue or make an answered question unanswered. Only an ignoramus would think he could, say, express doubt that the earth is round and have that mean that the earth's shape is now unknown.
Yes, I realize a lot of social studies are passed off as "science", but that's why you have to pay attention to what you're reading, and figure out exactly how the proposition works, and what they are telling you.
Or, let's approach this from a different angle. Please cite & explain at least 1 issue from any critic of evolution that you want us to pay attention to.
If a father believes that evolution implies his son should get as many girls pregnant as possible to advance his genetic fortune, we should be sensitive.
If someone believes evolution implies there is no God, we should listen.
I was speaking in the present tense - is there any critic of evolution today that you think we should pay attention to? What is his/her issue?
I don't think that's a good idea, for several reasons. 1st, I suspect most scientists would say they are no more qualified to judge values than anybody else. 2nd, I believe people must have the freedom to be idiotic, and figure things out for themselves, if that's what they want. 3rd, there is no way on God's green earth that all the stupid questions of stupid people can be answered. I simply do not see that it is a biologist's problem if somebody somewhere has a religious issue with what somebody else may believe.
What you hypothesize here are not real problems or criticisms of evolution. They are some of the possible ways that people could be mistaken about this - pretty much the same way as they could be mistaken about anything, like whether the last light was red, or their spouse is cheating on them. Until their beliefs actually involve somebody else (eg 1 of your examples disturbs the peace because of their belief) then it's not really a problem - and even then, the problem is the disturbance.
In the same way? You mean the ones who are misapplying the theory? We should listen to the "critics" who equate it to shaking up a bag of watch parts hoping to create a watch? We should listen to the critics who say evolution means life has no meaning? We should listen to the critics who say evolution means humans are no different from bacteria?
Maybe it would help if you identify some thoughtful critics who you find value in listening to on the subject of evolution.
Best known to you maybe, but it's just wrong to state that. Mencken was and would still be well known even if the Scopes trial never happened. Just as one quick check, there's a long Wikipedia page on Mencken with nary a word about Scopes.
Those who are ideologically opposed to teaching children about evolution don't flinch from it. That's good. What's not good is saying that whether or not evolution is a fact is not yet scientifically certain. That's not good. Evolution is scientifically certain.
Therefore doubters or deniers of the scientific truth of evolution today can only be stupid or wicked or insane or ignorant. There are no other possible explanations.
History is full of examples of "scientifically certain" and later found to be not so certain, even totally invalid.
It is interesting that each generation thinks it is above history.
What is certain is that scientific materialism has become a paradigm paralysis not to be questioned by the authories and their followers.
Much like the christian authorities and their followers dont want their bible and religion questioned.
This makes materialism and religion very much alike not in their beliefs but in how their beliefs become their certainity.
The human ego loves certainity. ie its certainty.
And yet we have a wealth of certainties courtesy of science. If science were as fickle as you are trying to paint it, we wouldn't be debating this over a global digital communications network. We wouldn't have eradicated smallpox. We wouldn't have a picture-taking probe in orbit around Saturn.
There ARE certainties, and you know this. And one of them is that you share genes with monkeys and birds and fish and bananas just as you share genes with your distant cousin because you are related to all of them. This we know.
You said: "What is certain is that scientific materialism has become a paradigm paralysis not to be questioned by the authories and their followers."
That is bollocks. Materialism is the starting assumption because it has NEVER been proved wrong, and supernaturalism is NOT the starting assumption because it has NEVER been proved right. But there are MILLIONS of dollars just waiting for the first person to prove supernatural causation for anything at all. The reason nobody is cashing in on those millions is that, so far, supernaturalism has an unbroken record of failure.
And if someone DOES prove the supernatural exists, science will take the new data and alter its course. Science is about change, not about preservation of ancient myths.
It's really that simple.
Philosophical Naturalism or Metaphysical Naturalism are necessary assumptions to do correct science. Natural processes have been proven time and again to be the cause of all that we see and experience and never have supernatural forces been prove evidenced to be the cause of anything. This continuing ever growing mountain of explainable natural phenomena as the cause of all that we can know or experience makes it highly improbable that supernatural phenomena (God) will ever be found at play or to cause anything in this universe.
God does not act in our world. It would be trivially easy to find and capture evidence of such action if it existed. There is no difference between an invisible undetectable God who does not act or influence anything in our world and provides no evidence of itself and no God.
The problem with your assertion that certainty is a scientific flaw because science has updated its cannon repeatedly throughout history in the light of new evidence.... is well that science has updated it's cannon repeatedly throughout history in the light of new evidence.
Rick-K explained better than I can what else is wrong with this notion of...
"History is full of examples of "scientifically certain" and later found to be not so certain, even totally invalid."
One pertinent reason for perhaps believing that Hitler practiced more than 'social Darwinism' is the fact that 'Action T4' (the euthanasia programme) went as far as euthanising those deemed 'medically incurable'. From a eugenics perspective, euthanasia was not necessary for the most part since the vast majority of subjects were incapable of reproducing in any case. Furthermore, the expenditure and logistics required for such an undertaking actually outweighed any potential financial savings.
The best explanation I've seen is by Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben, who suggests that Hitler was, in fact, exercising his power as sovereign of a biopolitical state in deciding which lives held political value (able-bodied workers) and therefore which lives did not and could be killed with impunity.
Science is science, and a good theory (like the theory of evolution) takes on all comers and outperforms them on the evidence. Make science political and it stops being science. If we could all learn to see when we step over the line, This entire debate would cease to exist.
So let's make this perfectly clear…
From a purely scientific perspective (as we all know) evolution is the theory that best fits the currently available observations. If someone wants to posit another theory (even a completely silly one) the onus is on them to show that their new theory fits the currently available observations better than evolution. That's how science works.
From a purely political perspective we have a bitter conflict over the socialization of children. There are Christians who want to make sure their children are raised with Christian values, and fight against science in a misguided effort to preserve their faith. There are Atheists who think religion is an anathema, and want to use science to break its hold over the next generation. None of that has anything to do with science, or religion, or even education, except to the extent they get used as political billy clubs.
ok?
The problem is that the world is filled with people who misunderstand and misuse faith. Many of the faithful misunderstand faith; many agnostics and atheists do too. And as a rule, the more people misunderstand, the more noise and aggression they display. It's unfortunate, but natural.
I will remind you (because I know you know it) that it is possible to reject an idea and still respect those who hold it. Right?
Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact? Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, candidly wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes “That the religious people keep their mouths shut. No conspiracy theory here is there Parker95
If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe agnostic/atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on facts or on myths? Really, belief in evolution is an act of “faith.”
The bibles definition of faith is knowledge not blind credulity. You are looking at the dictionery definition of faith. Hebrews 11v1 says "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the EVIDENT demonstration of realities though not beheld.
That's all I've got to say.
"If the various checks specified in the last two paragraphs, and perhaps others as yet unknown, do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and the otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has too often occurred in the history of the world. We must remember that progress is no invariable rule." (Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1998, p. 145)
So? Even if he was racist, which wouldn't be weird considering the mindset of the time, that doesn't make him wrong on his claims. Also, he was quite a progressive for his times.
Racism was not a product of the times. It was a product of Darwinism. Christians believed, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3.28)