No other scientific idea has endured as much unfounded hostility as evolution, and no scientist as much undeserved scorn as Charles Darwin. One hundred and twenty-eight years after his death, Darwin's good name is assaulted daily by all manner of creationists, who hold Darwin responsible for everything from the Columbine school shootings to the Holocaust.
It is refreshing, then, that the movie Creation comes out this week on DVD, which means you can finally see it. This movie -- released last year in very few theaters -- tells the story of how Darwin agonized over whether or not to publish On the Origin of Species. It was indeed a momentous decision, for as Darwin presciently understood, the controversy generated by his magnum opus would follow him the rest of his life -- and indeed, long after his life.
Creation, based on a book by Randal Keynes, Darwin's great-great grandson, is well worth seeing. Paul Bettany plays Darwin, and in effect reprises his role as naturalist Stephen Maturin, from the 2003 film Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. His tender and moving performance brings Darwin to life as a man driven by curiosity about the natural world, passionate about his family, and deeply worried about how publication of his revolutionary scientific ideas might affect them.
This view of Darwin as a full human being is a far cry from how Darwin is portrayed by many creationists.
"Darwin was nothing but a blatant racist, a bigot of a man." Thus intoned creationist Ray Comfort, who recently distributed thousands of free copies of Darwin's On the Origin of Species on college campuses. Comfort added his own introduction to Origin, blaming Darwin for a host of atrocities.
The Discovery Institute, the main hub of intelligent design creationism, regularly launches personal as well as "scientific" attacks on Darwin. One Discovery Institute fellow, Richard Weikart, has written not one, but two books arguing that the roots of the Holocaust can be found in Darwin. Another Discovery Institute associate, David Klinghoffer, has tried to link Darwin to Dr. Mengele, H.P. Lovecraft, Chairman Mao, and Charles Manson--although Klinghoffer hastens to point out:
I am not in any way blaming gentle Charles Darwin for murderous Charles Manson. But [the anniversary of Darwin's birthday] does remind us of another stitch, a bizarre one, in the fabric of Darwinism's moral legacy.
It is rather strange to distinguish Darwin from Manson, then claim that Manson is part of Darwin's moral legacy. Klinghoffer is more explicit when talking about the evil of Dr. Mengele:
What would inspire a human being to such devilry? What influence, perhaps early in life, might have nudged him off the course of what could have otherwise been a conventional medical career?
Klinghoffer's answer, of course, is that Charles Darwin "nudged" Mengele toward evil.
Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Benjamin Wiker went to great lengths to attack Darwin in his book The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin. As one reviewer of the book put it, Wiker went so far as to blame Darwin for:
...eugenics, Nazism, abortion, euthanasia, sex education and contraceptives for the poor, cyber-pornography, and cannibalism.
[Which is silly, of course. Everyone knows cannibalism is Jonathan Swift's fault.]
Why do creationists blame Darwin for such creative lists of malfeasance? To many creationists, Darwin is one of a triad of thinkers whose influence creationists blame for the horrors of the 20th century. In Marx, they see a "science of human history" manifested in systematic mass murder and unimaginable suffering. In Freud, they see a "science of the human mind" responsible for sexual licentiousness and the breakdown of traditional values. And in Darwin, they see a "science of the human species" responsible for eugenics and the denigration of man to the status of an animal.
The movie Creation is important because it shows Darwin as a man, a deeply thoughtful man, filled with compassion and fears over the implications, as well as the reception, of his revolutionary ideas. One striking scene from Creation follows the death and decomposition of a young bird. In another part of the movie, Darwin tries to comfort his children after they witness a fox killing a rabbit. Creation is not oblivious to what can seem like the brutality and pointlessness of an evolutionary view of the world. But rather than portraying Darwin as a blood-thirsty Hobbesian relishing a world red in tooth and claw, the film presents his empathy and sad acceptance of a world imbued with so much suffering.
Creation shows Darwin as human being, and his famous theory not as some scary conspiracy, but as a reasoned and reasonable scientific idea. This is a welcome contrast from the misinformed hyperbole and ad hominem attacks that so often flow from creationists.
Creationists will be hostile to Creation for its humanizing of Darwin. Indeed, the group Answers in Genesis found even the title of the film "offensive" and labeled it a "Hollywood hagiography." The Institution for Creation Research called the movie part of "a strategy of evolutionists to win the hearts and minds" of viewers. There is perhaps no better recommendation for the film than their scorn.
John Farrell: Bad Faith (in Science): Darwin as All-Purpose Boogey Man?
I don’t follow this defense of Darwin at all - nor the criticism of “creationists” for slandering him as you claim. Instead of addressing the claim that Darwin’s theory has evil implications that follow logically from his theory and disciples, you assert that such a claim comes only from “creationists” and they do so simply as an attack on Darwin the man. Even if your suspicions were true, haven’t you done the same thing? You label someone “creationist” and that is supposed to end the argument, heh?
I attend skeptic meetings frequently and often “non-creationists” acknowledge that mankind would be better off if we allowed nature to play out its natural course, with survival of the fittest getting rid of the weak, flawed, etc. They further admit that it is only their emotions that keep them from allowing this purging. None of us wants to persuade each other to abandon these emotions and start allowing (or making) unfit people to die, but we see the logical implications of where Darwin’s theory can lead if it is stripped of feelings of morality. To act as if only “creationists” see this connection is naïve and a misrepresentation of “non-creationists”.
Though only a small percentage have followed Darwin’s theory to the point of forced sterilization and eugenics, it is a clear path. Imagining that Darwin’s theory is no more influential than rock music or thinking we should not criticize ideas from such a nice guy is quite naive.
I'm a bit alarmed that only "emotions" are keeping those people you describe from "purging" their fellow citizens. I'm afraid I'm going to have strongly disagree with the statement that "it is a clear path" and a "logical implication" of evolution. I've had the luck to be able to study both modern German history and Darwin, and so the reason I don't address the claim is that I know it's so clearly wrong, so utterly without historical basis, that it's not a serious proposition. Das ist absolut Unsinn. There is really only one academic who wholly agrees with the "clear path" connection--Richard Weikart, a Discovery Institute fellow who may see this as a form of Christian apologetics. Anyway, the Darwin-Hitler linkage is not viewed warmly by mainstream historians. Maybe they're all wrong, and maybe only Weikart is correct, but that's an unlikely scenario.
There may be non-creationists who want to make this connection, and there may be non-creationists who just, for some reason, have a bone to pick with Darwin. Given the wide range of opinions people have about everything under the sun, it would be unusual if there were _no_ such examples. But the vast majority of these kinds of attacks come from creationists, and that's what I was referring to. In almost all cases, when we see someone attacking "Darwinism," and saying evolution = Nazism, that inflammatory and extremist language comes from the creationist camp.
When I refer to human emotions as the obstacle to embracing nature’s “natural” course, I am simplifying the discussion. Some naïve people think these emotions reflect an innate morality but true evolutionists know that morality is an illusion. (If you disagree I suggest you do a little study on this as I am only echoing what noted materialists have acknowledged). I think this point is part of what is giving you some needless frustrations. On the one hand evolution provides no justification for believing that objective morals exist but because your emotions convince you that they do, you feel compelled to respond to claims that someone is doing something “bad” or claiming the evolution leads to “bad” deeds. When you make value statements about such things you have already stepped into the creationist’s worldview. Evolution is amoral and when you write as if it is otherwise it seems you don’t follow this path of dots either.
That being said, the aspersions cast on Darwin and evolution are ridiculous. And I have seen Creation. It's a fine film.
Christ.
6:00 PM CST
Steve, a steadily growing group of Huff posters will be addressing this very issue, among others. Would you care to join us ?
Write : old world gallery at hot mail dot com (in the usual e-mail text format)... for details.
Your input would be invaluable to us.
J.B.
6/29/10
Isn't creating billions of otherwise innocent men, women and children for the sole purpose of being tortured for etenity, worse then genocide?
And can someone tell me why those who claim themselves the most religious and closest to God are the most judgemental and un-Christ-like amongst us? Its baffling!
...and still this insane GOP cult theocracy screams NOOOO0000000OOOOO,,,,,,
....plus climate science is a lie and a conspiracy....
wheres my book of magic?
7:35 PM CST
Another great article tracing out the absurdities of "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design". My bet is the promoters of such tripe have never even read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species". If those who've never read Darwin would read just the last paragraph in the "Origin", they would learn how deeply compassionate (and empathic) Darwin was toward nature; such a deep reservoir of understanding shines throughout the book, but many are so frightened that it will destroy their entrenched delusions and fairytale views of the world that they dare not read a sentence.
J.B.
6/27/10