I wrote the following essay because I want to write a book on why and how thinking—especially from smart people—goes awry, and this would be one chapter.
Aside from global warming, evolution is the most hotly contested scientific fact debated in the Roman colosseum of public collective thought. Disguised as prudent thoughtfulness, antievolution is a meme of antimatter seeking to annihilate the matter of science. FOX News may have trademarked the phrase “fair & balanced” but “fair & balanced” is not the same action as fence–sitting an issue and deciding there “may be something” to each side, not when there is only one side. On the aggregate sociological level, people reject evolution not because the science is wrong—evolution is actually the penultimate triumph of science—but rather because they perceive it implies and negates certain questions and implications of ethics and morality. Kurva!—my inner ancestral Czechoslovakian dares to say. Science prohibits cherry–picking of truths most especially when based upon unscientific considerations. Evolution is a demonstrably proven truth insofar as anything can be proven and its acceptance is mandatory insofar as that precious thing called reality is concerned.
The United States no longer pioneers the frontiers of science and has lost its eminence as the bastion of leading scientists. Scientific discoveries predominantly originate from Europe and Asia, with honorable mention of up–and–coming India. The United States has not attained total insignificance but one canary in the coal mine of its disinterest in science is the general rejection of evolution by the general population. Given if the public opinion surveys are reliable, in the ballpark of sixty percent of Americans are creationists, three out of ten believe in evolution guided by theism, and only ten percent believe in naturalistic evolution (1). Approximately half of Americans believe they are “very familiar” with evolution but only one–fifth believe is “definitely true,” which is less confidence than creationism (for which three–tenths believe “definitely true”) (2). Of 34 Western countries, the United States ranks an abysmally 33rd in general acceptance of evolution, only worsened by Turkey (3). Apparently cold weather improves mental function, as the countries with the highest acceptance of evolution are Iceland, Denmark, and Sweden. Move over, Hamlet—something is definitely very aromatic in Denmark.
As idiotic, dogmatic, and uncritical this will sound, there is no debate in evolution. Within the non–debate is debate of explosive Cambrian proportions over specific data points, but for all the inner debate is a convergence from many scientific fields—including paleontology, anthropology, developmental and molecular biology, biochemistry, geology—and consenus of the international scientific community abroad, the central tenant is settled and agreed upon. Evolution is true and it happens on the grand scale. Whether evolution denial, global warming denial, or even Holocaust denial, one methodology the denial movement employs is mistaking genuine academic debate within a field as casting crucial doubt over the premise of the entire field. Another tactic is confusing very minority dissent as substantive debate with the consensus; henceforth, dissent by creationists—(un)intelligent design—is used to argue the principle of evolution is under controversy. Science has often been characterized by fringe movements as political, but science is political in the sense arguments need to be convincing; science actively encourages dissent and promotes the processes of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis; but dissent must considerably be convincing to constitute genuine debate.
Quote:
For good or ill, the late Stephen Jay Gould had a huge influence on American scientific culture, and on balance the good came out on top. His powerful voice will echo on for a long time. Although he and I disagreed about much, we shared much too, including a spellbound delight in the wonders of the natural world, and a passionate conviction that such wonders deserve nothing less than a purely natural explanation. Another thing about which we agreed was our refusal to engage in public debates with creationists. Steve had even more reason than me to be irritated by them. They distorted the theory of punctuated equilibrium so that it appeared to support their preposterous (but astonishingly common) belief that there are no intermediates in the fossil record. Gould’s reply deserves to be widely known:
Quote:
“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”
Some time in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: “Don’t do it.” The point is not, he said, whether or not you would ‘win’ the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don’t. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. “There must be something in creationism, or Dr So–and–So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms.” Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science (4).
It certainly is a dicey conundrum. Academics need to devote their time to conducting real science and making advancements in knowledge, as their time is precious enough, but ignoring the fringe plays into enemy hands of not playing fairly by not giving dissent equal time and practicing confirmation bias. But engaging the fringe only gives credence. Most erroneous beliefs never gain enough traction to develop into viral memes and perish away unnoticed, but occasionally as with evolution denial it catches on and surmounts a viable threat to the very fabric of reality.
Quote:
...[S]cience keeps its playing field level by the rather admirable system of anonymous peer–review. If you have evidence that evolution is false, you are entirely at liberty to submit a paper to the Editor of Nature, or Science, or the Journal of Theoretical Biology, or the American Naturalist, or Biological Reviews, or the Quarterly Review of Biology, or any of hundreds of other reputable journals in which ordinary working scientists publish their research. Do not fear that Editors will reject it simply because it opposes evolution. On the contrary, the journal that published a paper which really did discover a fallacy in evolution, or convincing evidence against it, would have the scoop of the century, in scientific terms. Editors would kill to get their hands on it <ibid>.
To wit:
Quote:
Pick up any issue of a peer–reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept. Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid–1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years [of 2002], surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless. Creationists retort that a closed–minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes) (5).
By no authority am I permitted to evaluate the merit of scientific considerations, any more or less than nuclear physics or aeronautical engineering, but rather refer and delegate to expert authorities. But therein lies the rub. Due to the very nature of the subject, the origin of humans, people wrongly think they can decide whether they should accept it, and Cobb County (Georgia) placed this infamous sticker: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.” Ergo, the issue of evolution itself is hotly contested solely in the public’s imagination. However tempting and correct it is to blame defective educational institutions, the media, politicians, and religious organizations, it seems to me perhaps the greater underlying monkey wrench is pervasive anti–intellectualism against Ivory Tower academicism. People believe they are smart—and many are—and have enough common sense to reach their own conclusions about the natural world without those pesky irksome “know–it–all” academics who really “don’t know what they don’t know” tell them how is the state of the world. One factor which may hinder the acceptance process, I surmise, is grasping the sheer magnitude of time wherein evolution has operated. Our own lifetime is long enough to comprehend, as are centuries, but evolution has occurred over billions of years. By my own calculations, life has existed and evolved on Earth roughly about three times as many years (4.6 billion) as there are inches around the Earth’s equator (63,360 inches in a mile x 24,901 miles)(1.58 billion). Given how long is one year and how small is one inch, evolution is nearly unfathomable. (Editorial note: I used the estimated number of years life has existed on Earth and not simply the number of years from the Cambrian explosion of complex organisms.)
Quote:
It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and whenever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life. We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the long lapses of ages, and then, and then so imperfect is our view into long last geographical ages, that we only see that the forms of life are now different from what they formerly were (6).
“Just” a theory?
To fully appreciate the absurdity to argue evolution is “just” a theory (and therefore unproven) you simply need to look the word up in the dictionary, but understand conventional colloquial usage by ordinary people is often an entirely different context than the technical context scientists use the term. According to dictionary.com, based upon the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2006), colloquial usage of theory is defined as “contemplation or speculation” (definition six) and “guess or conjecture” (seven). This starkly contrasts with technical usage by scientists: “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena” (definition one), “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well–established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact” (two). Although definition two mentions “whose status is still conjectural,” there is no contradiction between the two; definition one pertains to a group of propositions whereas definition two pertains to the veracity of a single proposition. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (fourth edition) defines: “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena” (definition one). In a word, fact. The Oxford American Dictionary defines law as “a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are met” (definition two). In other words, theories explain whilst laws describe.
Science and all knowledge is provisional. Dictionary.com defines provisional as “providing or serving for the time being only; existing only until permanently or properly replaced; temporary” (definition one), “accepted or adopted tentatively; conditional; probationary” (definition two). I can hear laughter in the background—some goofballs in my reading audience think scientists are acknowledging they are a moron (“a city in Argentina, to the west of Buenos Aires,” WordNet 3.0 by Princeton University, definition two). Provisionality is not doubt and the collective body of science is smarter than you. Science continuously weighs evidence, continuously draws conclusions, accepts as true certain theories of fact, the most probable answer based upon the best available information. Calculus would describe the limit of x as x approaches 100 (percent certainty). Science is always open to reconsidering theories of fact when upon newly discovered disconfirming evidence, but there is the fine distinction between possibility and probability. “In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’ I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms,” Gould said it best.
Quote:
Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid–air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape–like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered (7).
Next time you hear someone proclaim “Evolution is just a(n unproven) theory,” instruct them they must be from a small city in Argentina.
The Great Debate
In terms of scientific debate over certain aspects within evolution, I have neither the time nor resources to cover every debated issue but I do wish to focus my crux on the debate between the two most prominent figures, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould.
Dawkins opined of the position held by Gould,
Quote:
The theory of punctuated equilibrium is a minor gloss on Darwinism, one which Darwin himself might well have approved if the issue had been discussed in his day. As a minor gloss, it does not deserve a particularly large measure of publicity... the theory has been sold—oversold by some journalists—as if it were radically opposed to the views of Darwin and his successor (8).
Gould opined of the position held by Dawkins,
Quote:
As the main claim of this book [Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin], I do not deny the phenomenon of increased complexity in life’s history but I subject this conclusion to two restrictions that undermine its traditional hegemony as evolution’s defining feature. First, the phenomenon exists only in the pitifully limited and restricted sense of a few species extending the small right tail of a bell curve with an ever–constant mode at bacterial complexity and not as a pervasive feature in the history of most lineages. Second, this restricted phenomenon arises as an incidental consequence... of causes that include no mechanism for progress or increasing complexity in their main actions (9).
And, said separately,
Quote:
The outstanding [misunderstanding of evolutionary theory] is clearly the equation of evolution with progress. People believe that evolution is a process that moves creatures toward greater complexity through time. This makes our very late appearance in the history of the Earth a sensible outcome. The word evolution means progress, but for Darwin, evolution is adaptation to changing local environments, which are randomly moving through time. There is no principle of general advance in that (10).
But two agreements are clear. For one, Dawkins wrote the book Climbing Mount Improbable (1997) and Gould opined “the proof of evolution lies in those adaptations that arise from improbable foundations.” Secondly, both agreed evolution is true. As though speaking to the ghost of Gould, the opening remarks of Dawkins’ The Ancestor’s Tale read:
Quote:
History has been described as one damn thing after another. The remark can be seen as a warning against a pair of temptations but, duly warned, I shall cautiously flirt with both. First, the historian is tempted to scour the past for patterns that repeat themselves; or at least, following Mark Twain, to seek reason and rhyme for everything. This appetite for pattern affronts those who insist that, as Mark Twain will also be found to have said, ‘History is usually a random, messy affair,’ going nowhere and following no rules. The second connected temptation is the vanity of the present: of seeing the past as aimed at our own time, as though the characters in history’s play had nothing better to do with their lives than foreshadow us.
Under names that need not trouble us, these are live issues in human history and they arise with greater force, and no greater agreement, on the longer timescale of evolution. Evolutionary history can be represented as one damn species after another. But many biologists will join me in finding this an impoverished view. Look at evolution that way and you miss most of what matters. Evolution rhymes, patterns recur. And this doesn’t just happen to be so. It is so for well–understood reasons: Darwinian reasons mostly, for biology, unlike human history or even physics, already has its unifying theory, accepted by all informed practitioners, though in varying versions and interpretations. In writing evolutionary history I do not shrink from seeking patterns and principles, but I try to be careful about it.
What of the second temptation, the conceit of hindsight, the idea that the past works to deliver our particular present? The late Stephen Jay Gould rightly pointed out that a dominant icon of evolution in popular mythology, a caricature almost as ubiquitous as lemmings jumping over a cliff (and that myth is false too), is a shambling file of simian ancestors, rising progressively in the wake of the erect, striding, majestic figure of Homo sapiens sapiens: man as evolution’s last word (and in this context it always is a man rather than woman); man as what the whole enterprise is pointing towards; man as a magnet, drawing evolution from the past towards his eminence (11).
Essentials of Physical Anthropology senior authored by Robert Jurmain of San Jose State University reads:
Quote:
What the advocates of punctuated equilibrium are disputing are the tempo (rate) and mode (manner) of evolutionary changes as commonly understood since Darwin’s time. Rather than a slow, steady tempo, this alternate view postulated long periods of no change punctuated only occasionally by sudden bursts. From this observation, it was concluded that the mode of evolution, too, must be different from that suggested by classical Darwinists. Rather than gradual accumulation of small changes in a single lineage, advocates of punctuated equilibrium believe that an additional evolutionary mechanism is required to push the process along. They postulate speciation as the major influence in bringing about rapid change.
How well does the paleontological record agree with the predictions of punctuated equilibrium? Indeed, considerable fossil data show long periods of stasis (on the order of 10,000 to 50,000 years) punctuated by occasional quite rapid changes. The best supporting evidence for punctuated equilibrium has come from the fossilized remains of marine invertebrates. Intermediate forms are rare, not so much because the fossil record is poor, but because the speciation events and longevity of these transitional species were so short that we should not expect to find them very often.
How well, then, does the primate fossil record fit the punctuated equilibrium model? In studies of Eocene primates, rates of evolutionary change were shown to be quite gradual (Gingerich, 1985; Brown and Rose, 1987; Rose, 1991). In another study, here of Paleocene plesiadapiforms, evolutionary changes were also quite gradual. Although no longer considered primates, these forms show a gradual tempo of change in another, closely related group of mammals. The predictions consistent with punctuated equilibrium have thus far not been substantiated in those evolving lineages of primates for which we have adequate data to test the theory.
It would, however, be a fallacy to assume that evolutionary change in primates or in any other group must therefore be of a completely gradual tempo. Such is clearly not the case. In all lineages, the pace assuredly speeds up and slows down as a result of factors that influence the size and relative isolation of populations. In addition, environmental changes that influence the pace and direction of natural selection must also be considered. Nevertheless, in general accordance with the modern synthesis, microevolution and macroevolution need not be ‘decoupled,’ as some evolutionary biologists have recently suggested (12).
I point towards a recent research which demonstrates human culture has apparently sped up human evolution over the past 10,000 years (13-14). Evolution is a dynamic rather than static process, so next time you hear someone argue there “hasn’t been enough time” for evolution, ask them how is the weather to the west of Buenos Aires.
Evolution denial argues macroevolution has never been observed—ergo an upper limit between mutations within a species and speciation of macroevolution—but that would be neglecting to consider the historical record of transitional fossils. Herein I cite a few examples: Tiktaalik roseae (see below), Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Elginerpeton, Obruchevichthys, Hynerpeton, Tulerpeton, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Pederpes finneyae, and Eryops demonstrate steps from fish to amphibians. From diapsid reptiles to birds are Yixianosaurus, Pedopenna, Archaeopteryx, Changchengornis, Confuciusornis, Ichthyornis (15). Many lineages have been found in evolution of whales—Mesonychids, Pakicetus[/i], Ambulocetus, Dalanistes, Rodhocetus, Takracetus, Gaviocetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus, Mysticetes, Odontocetes (16)—and in December 2007 the announcement arrived the missing link between whales and their “four–footed ancestors” is the 48 million year–old ungulate Indohyus (17). In fact, in November 2006 a bottlenose dolphin was found... with feet. The dolphin had an apparent mutation which reactivated the vestigial limbs (18).
The discovery of Tiktaalik Rosae in 2006 was heralded as arguably the most significant finding since Archaeopteryx (discovered almost 150 years ago).
Quote:
[Tiktaalik Rosae] lived in the Devonian era lasting from 417m to 354m years ago, and had a skull, neck, and ribs similar to early limbed animals (known as tetrapods), as well as a more primitive jaw, fins, and scales akin to fish. The scientists who discovered it say the animal was a predator with sharp teeth, a crocodile–like head, and a body that grew up to 2.75 metres (9ft) long.
“It’s very important for a number of reasons, one of which is simply the fact that it’s so well–preserved and complete,” said Jennifer Clack, a paleontologist at Cambridge University and author of an accompanying article in Nature. Scientists have previously been able to trace the transition of fish into limbed animals only crudely over the millions of years they anticipate the process took place. They suspected that an animal which bridged the gap between fish and land–based tetrapods must have existed—but, until now, there had been scant evidence of one.
“Tiktaalik blurs the boundary between fish and land–living animal both in terms of its anatomy and its way of life,” said Neil Shubin, a biologist at the University of Chicago, and a leader of the expedition which found Tiktaalik. The near–pristine fossil was found on Ellesmere Island, Canada, which is 600 miles from the north pole in the Arctic Circle. Scientists from the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, the University of Chicago, and Harvard University led several expeditions into the inhospitable icy desert to search for the fossils. The find is the first complete evidence of an animal that was on the verge of the transition from water to land. “The find is a dream come true,” said Ted Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences. “We knew that the rocks on Ellesmere Island offered a glimpse into the right time period and were formed in the right kinds of environments to provide the potential for finding fossils documenting this important evolutionary transition.” When Tiktaalik lived, the Canadian Arctic region was part of a land mass which straddled the equator. Like the Amazon basin today, it had a subtropical climate and the animal lived in small streams. The skeleton indicates that it could support its body under the force of gravity.
Note how evolution is testable. The scientists made an educated prediction where they would find such an animal—and did.
Quote:
Farish Jenkins, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard University said: “This represents a critical early phase in the evolution of all limbed animals, including humans—albeit a very ancient step.” Tiktaalik also gives biologists a new understanding of how fins turned into limbs. Its fin contains bones that compare to the upper arm, forearm and primitive parts of the hand of land–living animals.
“Most of the major joints of the fin are functional in this fish,” Professor Shubin said. “The shoulder, elbow and even parts of the wrist are already there and working in ways similar to the earliest land–living animals” (19).
And hey, what about Manbearpig?
To briefly touch upon one more facet of this great debate within evolution, there certainly are open questions concerning the roles of natural selection and genetic drift. The question is not diametrically either/or—may I remind the reader of the logical fallacy of a false dilemma—but rather finding the proper synthesis between the two mechanisms. To illustrate the perplexing complexities of evolution is the eyeless cavefish:
Quote:
Previously, scientists could not determine which forces contributed to regressive evolution in cave–adapted species, and many doubt the role of natural selection in this process. Darwin himself, who famously questioned the role of natural selection in eye loss in cave fishes, said, “As it is difficult to imagine that eyes, although useless, could be in any way injurious to animals living in darkness, I attribute their loss wholly to disuse”... Cave adaptations have evolved in many species independently, and each cave species can be considered a replicate of the same evolutionary experiment that asks how species change in perpetual darkness. This makes cavefish a rich source for the examination of the evolutionary process...
[Research] results suggested that eyes and pigmentation regressed through different mechanisms. Mutations in cave populations that affected eye or lens size invariably caused size reductions. This observation is consistent with evolution by natural selection and inconsistent with evolution by genetic drift. By contrast, mutations in cave populations that affected pigmentation sometimes caused increases instead of decreases in pigment cell density, consistent with evolution by random processes and genetic drift (20).
By way of another example is evolution of the human skull apart from Neanderthals. “A take–home message may be that we should reconsider the idea that all morphological (physical) changes are due to natural selection, and instead consider that some of them may be due to genetic drift” (21).
An amoral wasteland?
Scientists and the general public debate evolution with two different sets of questions. The questions debated by scientists are scientifically relevant and with merit, but the general public debates with a different but illegitimate set of questions. The illegitimate questions include but are not limited to: physics, e.g. the Big Bang, thermodynamics, entropy, etc.; statistics, e.g. irreducible complexity; abiogenesis; ethics and morality. As for abiogenesis, the unresolved mystery of abiogenesis is irrelevant because evolution is not a theory of the origin of life; the two issues are separate. As for statistics of improbability, natural selection provides the mechanism of guided probability, so go ahead and deal yourself any hand in the game of bridge and then tell me the 1–in–6 billion odds are so improbable that you couldn’t have been dealt that hand through random chance.
The comedian Ben Stein hosted the polemic antievolution documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed which will be released in April 2008. Prominent academics such as Richard Dawkins and Paul Zachary Myers have blasted the producers for flagrantly lying about their intentions—remember how Dawkins refuses to debate creationists. But pertinent to this essay is Stein’s response to a simple and most elementary question:
Quote:
Paul Lauer: You mentioned that Darwinism appears to be lacking on certain fronts. From your research, and your travels, and interviews with many different scientists, what are some of the areas that scientists are, perhaps, increasingly saying are problematic with the theory of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution?
Ben Stein: Well, just a couple of them, I’ve already hit one is: Where did life come from? Second one is: How did the cell get so complex? Third one, which I think is overwhelming, and just sort of blows the whole theory of Random Mutation out of the water, is, at least, let me say, raises big questions, that is. Assuming it all did happen by Random Mutation and Natural Selection, where did the laws of gravity come from? Where did the laws of thermodynamics come from? Where did the laws of motion and, of heat come from? Where, I guess that’s the same as thermodynamics. Where did all these laws, that make it possible for the universe to function, where did they all come from? Why isn’t all just chaos and everything collapsing in on itself and killing everything? I think that’s where the universe works. Who created these perfect laws, that keeps the planet in motion, keeps the blood pumping through our bodies? So, I think, all these are giant questions that need answers (22).
For a man who once hosted his own television show aptly dubbed Win Ben Stein’s Money, the question was his money shot (at my money). Rather than address the question and summarize scientific evidence against evolution, Stein engaged in evasive rhetoric of displaying Bertrand Russell’s turtles all the way down by hinging evolution upon a regressive set of increasingly extraneous conditions beyond the scope of evolution; evolution is not a house of cards in which everything is ultimately predicated upon the point of singularity of the Big Bang (another true fact). (Lest I remind the reader science is compartmentalized and evolution is not a “theory of everything.”) (And gravity is the tragic flaw of evolution? Newton’s Law: dumb brains fall equally fast as brains of geniuses.) To the question asked of him, after all his research and during which the inordinate time he had at his disposal to contemplate the subject, his response was essentially “I have no clue.” Most revealing, Stein wrote: “Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process” (23). I understand and empathize how egregious misapplications of science may forge a touchy personal issue to Stein, but reductio ad Hilterism is a logical fallacy and nonetheless the denial of evolution self–evidently is rooted in reasons separate and apart from scientific considerations of evolution. (Kiddies, that is how you debate with eloquence.) An extreme example of pegging evolution with amorality and the horrors of history’s past is Tourette Syndrome political commentator Ann Coulter, but she is too absurd (and political) to warrant any further consideration. There is even a book written by Tom Sutcliff entitled Why Evolution is a Fraud: A Secular and Common–Sense Deconstruction wherein rests the description: “exposes the shocking racism and blatant distortions of this pseudo–scientific, atheistic philosophy” (24). But as Michael Shermer, author of The Science of Good and Evil and chief editor of Skeptic magazine, scribed in his latest book Why Darwin Matters:
Quote:
This is what bothers people about evolutionary theory, not the technical details of the science. Most people do not know, nor care about, adaptive radiation, allopatric speciation, phenotypic variation, assortative mating, adaptation and exaptation, gradualism and punctuated equilibrium, and the like. What people want to know is this: If my kids learn about evolution in school are they going to become atheists? Will we lose all meaning and morality? Will society go to hell in an immoral handbasket?
He then itemizes and expounds upon “six specific fears about evolution:” general resistance to science, belief that evolution is a threat to specific religious tenets, misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, the fear that evolution degrades our humanity, the equation of evolution with ethical nihilism. He then reassures “All of these fears are baseless.” (25). I have not yet had the pleasure to read Why Darwin Matters, but herein I cite a passage from his earlier book Why People Believe Weird Things:
Quote:
1. The use or misuse of a theory does not negate the validity of the theory itself. Marx once claimed that he was not a Marxist. Darwin would undoubtedly be spinning in his grave if he knew how the twentieth century has used his theory to justify all manner of ideologies from Marxism to capitalism to Fascism. The fact that Hitler implemented a eugenics program does not negate the theory of genetics. Similarly, any correlation between loss of faith and belief in evolution cannot touch the theory of evolution. Scientific theories are neutral; the use of theories is not.
2. The creationists’ list of social problems–promiscuity, pornography, abortion, infanticide, racism, and so on—obviously existed long before Darwin and the theory of evolution. In the several thousand years before Darwin came along, Judaism, Christianity, and other organized religions failed to resolve these social problems. There is no evidence that the fall of evolution–science will either mitigate or eradicate social ills. To blame Darwin, evolutionary theory, and science for our own social and moral problems is to distract us from a deeper analysis and better understanding of these complex social issues (26).
Science is science is science.
Closing remarks
In my humble personal opinion, a most captivating discovery of zoology are naïve chimpanzees and gorillas of the Goualougo Triangle located between the Ndoki and Goualougo Rivers of the Nouabalé–Ndoki National Park in the country of Congo, as well as neighboring Langoue Bai in the country of Gabon. Described by Time magazine as the “Last Eden” and by National Geographic as “The Last Place on Earth,” this region is home to chimpanzees and gorillas who had little or no contact ever with humans and therefore are naïve to predatory poachers and our propensities of habitat destruction. Their reaction is most astounding and spellbound.
Quote:
“Gorillas and chimpanzees, when they’re completely naïve, they recognize you as a fellow primate. They see your head, they see your arms, they see your fingers, and they think they’re just like us, but they’re not. There’s something different,” says [Mike Fay of New York’s Wildlife Conservation Society]. “They’ll actually go get their buddies and say, ‘Look at this, man, this is really amazing.’ Their great–great–grandparents haven“t seen humans, so they can’t kind of pass down that fear, that instinct, to say humans are predators and they’re bad” (27).
When researchers visited the Goualougo Triangle, their initial contacts lasted upwards of seven hours and “ended only when we chose to leave the chimpanzees to continue our surveys. Often times when we were leaving the chimpanzees, they would follow us through the forest canopy” (28). Amazing!
The issue of evolution has been a divisive point of contention in my personal life for numerous years. My family, many of my extended family, and many of their friends are creationists—though probably, I would think, mostly of the unintelligent design variety—and I happen to be of the Richard Dawkins variety. Despite what dimwitted half–baked pundits love to otherwise contend with grotesque rhetorical distortions, science and evolution are not religion. I remain unwavering in my support of evolution and given the perpetual state of scientific illiteracy and anti–science which abounds, I feel the moral imperative as an educated and eloquent writer to spread the excellence of knowledge.
Darwin’s efforts to pen Origin of the Species spanned over twenty years, which remarkably was only intended to be an introductory outline to his magnum opus which was to span twenty volumes. It took him so long to write the book partly because of the controversial firestorm his work would most assuredly generate. In the same spirit, I made a rather most unprecedented effort in my own writing to deliver a most tediously and cogently argued and referenced essay, which took me more than twenty days but less than twenty weeks and most assuredly less than 20,000 words. If I may—well, of course I may, I’m the writer!—I wish to end with the final words in Origin of the Species.
Quote:
It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants, of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us... There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet as gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
Q.E.D.
Endnote
What does the title mean, you ask? Piranhas, pythons, and crocodiles are dangerous animals for which I allegorically symbolized for evolution denial and their sequence was a metaphorical evolutionary lineage, from piranha to crocodile.
References
- “Majority Reject Evolution, 51 Percent Believe God Created Humans.” CBS News. October 23, 2005. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
- David W Moore, “Most Americans Tentative About Origin-of-Life Explanations.” September 23, 2005. Retrieved on March 23, 2008
- Ker Than, “U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution.” August 10, 2006. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
- Richard Dawkins, “Why I Won’t Debate Creationists.” May 15, 2006. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
- John Rennie, “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.” Scientific American. July 2002. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
- Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species (1859). Page 71.
- Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory.” Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (1986).
- Stephen Jay Gould, Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin (1996). Page 197. (See also excerpts of Stephen Jay Gould on Stanford Presidential Lectures in the Humanities and Arts).
- “Stephen Jay Gould.” Boston Globe Magazine. December 31, 1995.
- Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor’s Tale. First edition (2005).
- Robert Jurmain, et al., Essentials of Physical Anthropology. Fourth edition (2001).
- David Biello, “Culture Speeds Up Human Evolution.” Scientific American. December 10, 2007. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
- Analee Newitz, “Getting Evolution Up to Speed.” Wired News. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
- “Transitional Forms of Whales: The Journey from Land to the Deep Sea.” Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
- “List of transitional fossils.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
- “Whales Descended From Tiny Deer-like Ancestors.” Science Daily. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
- “Japanese Researches Find Dolphin With ‘Remains of Legs.’” Associated Press. November 6, 2006. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
- Alok Jha, “Discovered: the missing link that solves a mystery of evolution.” The Guardian. April 6, 2006. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
- “‘Regressive Evolution’ In Cavefish: Natural Selection Or Genetic Drift.” Science Daily. February 16, 2007. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
- “Skulls Of Modern Humans And Ancient Neanderthals Evolved Differently Because of Chance, Not Natural Selection.”Science Daily. March 20, 2008. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
- Dan Whipple, “The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists ‘Expelled.’” Colorado Confidential. February 15, 2008. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
- Ben Stein, “Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?” The blog for EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. October 31, 2007. Retrieved on March 23, 2008. The blog entry could not be directly linked, but rather browse to the cited entry.
- Book description. Why Evolution is a Fraud: A Secular and Common-Sense Deconstruction by Tom Sutcliff (Book) in History. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
- Newsletter of Skeptic magazine. August 30th 2006. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
- Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things. Revised edition (2002). Page 135.
- “The Garden of Eden.” 60 Minutes II. CBS News. February 25, 2004. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
- “Chimpanzees With Little Or No Human Contact Found In Remote African Rainforest.” Science Daily. March 14, 2003. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
