America's got a Darwin problem -- and it matters. According to a 2009 Gallup poll taken on the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, fewer than 40% of Americans are willing to say that they "believe in evolution." When another study asked if humans had developed from earlier species of animals, the American public split right down the middle. 40% said they had, while 39% rejected any suggestion that our species had emerged from the process of evolution. Even more worrisome is the fact that rejection of evolution correlates closely with political views, with a majority of the members of one of our major political parties casting themselves as Darwin rejectionists. In this election year, the strength of anti-evolution sentiment has been on full display in the presidential race, as one candidate after another declared their distrust of the scientific consensus around evolution. One member of the group, however, broke ranks with the others and boldly declared, "I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming." How'd that turn out for him? Jon Huntsman's early exit from the race confirmed something else he said at the time. "Call me crazy" for trusting science, he tweeted. And sadly, it looks like he was right.
You might think that since Americans are a practical, pragmatic people, this is an issue that would turn on the weight of the evidence. It's not. In an age of molecular genomics, it is ever more apparent that the fingerprints of evolution are pressed deeply into human DNA, just as they are into the genomes of every other organism. Biologists understand this, and so do students who study the science of life. Whether conservative or liberal, fundamentalist or agnostic, the more students learn of biology, the more they accept evolution. So, why does public acceptance matter if the students who actually go into science see the evidence for evolution so clearly?
This is the heart of our Darwin problem. Significant numbers of Americans have come to regard the scientific enterprise as a special interest group that rejects mainstream American values and is not worthy of the public trust. Governor Rick Perry of Texas spoke to this view when he claimed that "There are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data" to their own benefit. Why? Perry was clear about this. It's personal greed. Scientists cheat "so that they will have dollars rolling in to their projects." Perry is hardly alone in his effort to depict scientists as greedy outsiders, "scamming the American people right and left" in the words of one Fox News commentator.
In American today, anti-evolutionism matters because it has become the vanguard of a genuine anti-science movement. To be sure, opposition to evolution isn't new. State laws against the teaching of evolution actually go back nearly a century, and the famous Scopes trial took place 87 years ago. However, if you thought such things were behind us, guess again. Laws designed to encourage the teaching of non-scientific "alternative" theories to evolution were introduced in 11 state legislatures last year. This year, Darwin's 203rd birthday, on February 12th, will see an anti-evolution bill, already passed by the Indiana State House of Representatives, awaiting action in the State Senate. Its fate there is uncertain, but there are plenty of reasons to be concerned.
Our Darwin problem is really a science problem. The easier it becomes to depict the scientific enterprise as a special interest immersed in the culture wars, the easier it becomes to reject scientific findings. We see this everywhere in American culture and politics today, from the anti-vaccine movement to the repeated assertion that global warming is a deliberate "hoax" rather than a straightforward conclusion driven by reams of scientific data. Sometimes this is done for deliberate political reasons, to secure advantage for a particular industry or financial group, but just as often it is motivated by fear of the implications of what science has discovered or might discover in the future.
Our Darwin problem matters for two reasons. First, it threatens the future of American scientific leadership in an increasingly competitive world. Convince enough young Americans that science is a close-minded system with a particular cultural and political agenda, and we will cede leadership to emerging countries that don't share our Darwin hang-ups, and see science as the wave of the future. If you doubt this is happening today, look at the graduate programs of America's research universities, still the greatest in the world. Increasingly, they are filled with bright, eager, creative students from around the world, taking places that American students just don't seem interested in filling. Once trained, they will become the scientists of the future, while more and more of our own students have been persuaded that science has nothing to offer them. If this doesn't change, scientific discovery will increasingly become something that happens elsewhere.
Second, and in my view just as important, our problem with science constrains and narrows our views and vision of the world. My personal concern for those who hold that view isn't just that they are wrong on science, wrong about the nature of the evidence, and mistaken on a fundamental point of biology. It's that they are missing something grand and beautiful and personally enriching.
Evolution isn't just a story about where we came from. It's an epic at the center of life itself. Far from robbing our lives of meaning, it instills an appreciation for the beautiful, enduring, and ultimately triumphant fabric of life that covers our planet. Understanding that doesn't demean human life -- it enhances it. We may be animals, but we are not just animals. We are the only ones who can truly appreciate, as Darwin put it, that there is "grandeur in this view of life," and indeed there is. To accept evolution isn't just to acknowledge the obvious -- that the evidence behind it is overwhelming -- it is to open one's eyes to the endless beauty that life has generated and continues to produce. It is to become a knowing participant, in the truest sense, in the living world of which we are all a part.
Chris Mooney: Want to Understand Republicans? First Understand Evolution
Evan Eisenberg: The Natural Selection of the Immortal Soul: A Thought Experiment
Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.: Evolution Weekend: Protecting Both Religion and Science
Jonathan D. Moreno: Brave New World Turns 80
Lawrence A. Jones, '72
i would bet that if you survey the internet generation half the people who happily lob words like "nazi" at one another couldn't even give a basic definition of it.
it seems to me the majority of the people who cry out eugenics are already literalists just looking for a way to demonize "darwinists." ask others (or for that matter even the very same cynical alarmists) how religiously they avoid genetically enhanced food, or even if they would omit certain genetic diseases from their family if they could and you'll find most people are for "improved genetics."
it's a brave new world out there, brother. with enough xanex it feels like xanadu and all that tiresome thinking just slows you down and gets in the way of enjoying life..
They also misunderstand the word Theory. Scientists don't mean some crackpot idea you tell your bar buddies about. A Theory isn't a fact. A Theory explains a fact. Gravity is a fact and the theory of gravity explains it, yet we don't see many gravity deniers falling all over themselves in republican primaries to prove who believes in gravity the least.
At its root, their objection is misguided religious hooey.
Just saying.
We shouldn't have to give due respect to mythology in a discussion of science.
Science relies on inductive AND deductive reasoning. More importantly, it relies on facts, predictions and peer review. Evolution does not derive from probability. It is based on an enormous amount of empirical data. Frankly, there is more hard data that supports evolution than any other theory in science. It is not a matter of opinion or conjecture.
While no scientist worth his salt would claim jurisdiction over truth, certain theories in science can comfortably be held as "truths", such as the heliocentric model of the solar system, the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution. There is such a preponderance of evidence for each that it is allowable to view them as "facts" while always leaving open the possibility of newer information changing that perspective.
I would caution against, however, making statements such as you have that imply a "supplanted" form of evolution. That is simply not the case. Though there have been debate and subsequent advancements concerning the details of the evolutionary process (i.e. punctuated equilibrium), Darwin got the idea right the first time. Molecular data shows EXACTLY what Darwin predicted when describing the so-called tree of life model of the animal/plant kingdom.
was it that before adam and eve there were other humans that had no souls? or that both their parents were pre-humans that gave birth to children with the astronomically unlikely, exact same mutations so that adam and eve were both the first humans? and what would that arbitrarily defined slight variation from the last generations that engenders souls be?
and shall we also expect to someday find the fossil remains of walking, talking snakes in the sands of iraq?
and what natural evolutionary process do you suppose led to only one tree in the world bearing fruit that creates knowledge of good and evil in those that eat it, and another singular tree in the same grove that generates immortality?
and were there no other animals in that area of the world that saw the trees and felt the slightest bit peckish?
and if we evolved self awareness what was the fruit for?
and if there was no fruit or walking, talking snake, what was the original sin?
don't get me wrong, i think that the thinking of the catholic church is more evolved than most fundamentalist protestantism. and i appreciate the catholic church "permitting" some flexibility of belief.
it's just that the present they've given, if you hold it up and shake it a little, feels like another empty box with pretty wrapping.
some would say self-sufficiency. though they would probably describe it as "saying we don't need god" or "saying that humanity, not god, is responsible for..." salvation, redemption, happiness, what-have-you.
damn good point of piratecapt's, that people should understand the teachings [of their church] better. one better is to understand any teaching, and the purposes it can serve. i'm an educational idealist and my quandary is: do we actually have to depend on "the people" actively desiring critical reasoning skills at a young age? or a vast majority of parents wanting such for their children? i was pretty lucky to get a unit of rhetoric at age 10. i shudder to think of how many millions aren't even given the opportunity to grasp it any way other than intuitively (which is closer to an accidental blessing, not to devalue it of course).
newer cosmic theory. ITOE, Information theory of everything. It will join the mystical with the
sub atomic. So Darwins primitive theory will have a place along with the infinite absolute.
Believe the bible or anything else you want and evolution is still there and it does not really conflict unless you are basically insane.
Evolution is at work all the time. It is nothing to do with Charles Darwin the person, it is just there obvious as a variegated rose.
Normal religious people do not have a problem with this. But we have so many crack pot religious freaks here in the USA that the dark ages are possibly ready to return.
People who believe nothing much are safer as they do not have ideas but are ignorant as cows. People who know better than reality are really dangerous. Jesus what does Jesus have to do with this?
But in reality, they do not. Their failure to do so is a large part of the real reason why so many Americans shut their ears to them.
My suspicion is that of the 60 percent that say they don't believe in evolution, many are lying because they cannot figure out a way to still pretend they believe in god and admit that they understand the theory of evolution. No matter what some so-called enlightened religious leaders say there is really no good way to reconcile religion and science.
I recently came across the term, "extreme atheist", which is someone who not only does not believe in god but does not believe that anyone else does either. This idea makes sense when you think about all the self-proclaimed Christians who hate their enemies, hate children and denigrate and mock the poor. They can call themselves Christians if they want but, if you read the New Testament, they are not really followers of Christ. As Bill Maher has said, they are more fans than followers of Jesus.
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”
Adolf Hitler
"The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God."
Charles Darwin
your description of theory, rather than scientific theory is a lie, and you keep saying it.
it is the religious model, not the scientific one that says the unvierse revolves around us, but you'll keep telling that lie too, won't you?
you've shown yourself to be a big fan of adolf, no wonder you're so pleased to quote him..
also, partial quotes that imply something other than what was actually said are lies. below are a few extra bits of his comment to put your lie in context:
"But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous... but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. ....but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man’s intellect....
-darwin
it is not surprising that some may believe in an ultimate truth, it is only surprising that those who claim it seem most likely to base their arguments on lies..
The quote you attribute to Hitler is actually form Goebbels. Look it up.
The quote you cite from Darwin is misleading. He actually went on to say that this wasn't a valid argument. Look it up.