In the last 150 years there has been no more influential theory than Darwinism. The theory of evolution by natural selection has not just influenced the scientific world but also, through offshoots like the theory of Social Darwinism, affected international politics, economics and social development across the globe.
Given the influence this theory has had in our time it is not surprising that when Intelligent Design, a revised version of creationism, became popular, that we saw both scientists and politicians or social commentators jumping up and down as if they feared that the end of logic and rationality was nigh.
The question that this response should trigger is, why be so afraid of a theory in which one, or perhaps many, unknown entities aided in the development of our ecosystem, our world order, our societies and even ourselves. If we are totally secure in the correctness of Darwin's theories then why are we now seeing a concerted campaign against those scholars who choose to utilise their scientific abilities to question evolution.
As stated by Robert Crowther, Director of Communications for Discovery Institute's Centre for Science and Culture on their website; "There is a disturbing trend of scientists, teachers, and students coming under attack for expressing support for the theory of intelligent design, or even just questioning evolution." stated Mr. Crowther
"The freedom of scientists, teachers, and students to question Darwin's theory, or to express alternative scientific hypothesis is coming under increasing attack by people that can only be called Darwinian fundamentalists," stated Mr. Crowther.
As argued by Gordon Walter, in his editorial against the proponents of Intelligent Design for Fort Wayne's The News Sentinel in the United States recently; "no theory is considered final, because further discoveries may lead to modifications or extensions. Einstein's theories of relativity provided one example by modifying Newton's laws of motion, and there is still continuing effort to complete them".
So if science is the quest for knowledge and true understanding then why are we seeing, in such places as America, the discharging of Chemistry Professor Nancy Bryson from her job at a state university after she gave a lecture on scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory to a group of honours students.
Of similar concern was the campaign against Ohio University graduate student Bryan Leonard which occurred three days before his dissertation defence was to take place. Darwinist professors accused Mr Leonard of "unethical human-subject experimentation" simply because he educated his students on the scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory.
Moreover, Biology professor P.Z. Myers at the University of Minnesota recently wrote that the only appropriate response to anyone supporting intelligent design or questioning the modern theory of evolution should be "some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and public firing and humiliation".
He is also quoted by the Centre for Science and Culture as stating "Our only problem is that we aren't martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough."
Undoubtedly there is some sense of fear over the renewal of a different approach; some would even say a spiritual approach to life. Clearly the question that begs to be asked is why are most scientists afraid of turning their own principles on their heads and looking at things with a new light. Certainly modern genius's like Einstein, Edison, Bell, or even Newton would never have been able to make new discoveries, additions or annotations to existing theories if they had not stepped outside of the proverbial box to look at current theories and poke at them where they looked weak.
Instead, many of our most brilliant minds appear to be disregarding or simply arguing against evidence that might suggest a different approach to the development of life. At the risk of angering evolutionists there is significant evidence that calls into question Darwin's theory and its offspring.
One of the first comes from the arguments of prehistory. Remembering that according to Darwin's theory of evolution advanced humankind could not have existed 100 million years ago, we have findings from China, Tibet and America that contradict this claim. In one example a Chinese fossil expert by the name of Hai Tao reported in the Journal of Geographic Science that a fossilized human shoe footprint was found at Red Mountain in the city of Urumqi, Xinjiang, it carbon dated to 270 million years. The Opatz Myth, as it came to be known, also had a double-sewn stitch impression which can be seen in the fossilised print.
Furthermore, miners at Klerksdorp in South Africa have unearthed metal spheres in a stratum of earth estimated to be 2.8 billion years old. The spheres contained very finely etched grooves, which specialists concluded could not have occurred by any natural process. These findings plus others illustrate that today's scientists might do well to not stubbornly refuse another investigation into this theory and the concepts behind natural selection and evolution even if it is to simply make them more accurate.
Perhaps the reason behind their reluctance is, as I mentioned in my opening paragraph, that science and all forms of social studies from anthropology, archaeology to socio-economic development are often viewed through a Darwinian mindset. Take one of evolution's more sinister offspring, Social Darwinism, for example.
Proponents of Social Darwinism believe that as there is a struggle for existence among animals and plants which results in evolutionary change so too there is struggle among human societies and humans to make the perfect breed of human. For those who support social Darwinism, the need for progress or development means that evolutionary change should be humanly nurtured by creating an intensified prosecution of the struggle for survival which would encourage the 'best' out of individuals and societies.
The reality of Social Darwinism is however made clearer in a foreword by evolutionist Steven Jay Gould in "On the Origin of Species", in 1859, "subsequent arguments for slavery, colonialism, racial differences, class structures, and sex roles would go forth primarily under the banner of science".
Social Darwinism's first foray into politics was around the turn of the 19th century when German politicians and scholars utilised its concepts as a justification of Germany's aggressive militarism. The militarist, Friederich von Bernhardi, in his book Germany and the Next War even justified the build up of military power as a "biological necessity" and that peaceful resolution was wrong mainly because it was a "presumptuous encroachment on the natural laws of development." The theory was also utilised by such men as Adolf Hitler who appeared to be a fan of the Eugenics movement, which was developed by Charles Darwin's cousin, Sir Francis Galton. Galton argued that based upon Darwin's theory the human race should seek to improve our genetic make-up by a selective breeding program. Included in this program was the belief that marriage and child bearing should be strictly controlled and limited to people with the right genetic make-up and by controlling how many children they were allowed.
Another world leader Benito Mussolini who brought fascism to Italy, interestingly believed that Darwin's theories supported his belief that violence was essential for social transformation. A theory also supported by none other than Karl Marx. In December 1860 Marx is reported by Conway Zirkle in: Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene, to have written to Engles that, "Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis of struggle in history...not only is a death blow dealt here for the first time to 'Teleology' (ie Creationism) in the natural sciences, but their rational meaning is emphatically explained."
According to Dr. David Menton in his article The Religion of Nature; Social Darwinism, the three things that made Marx indebted to Darwin were: a) the atheistic explanation for the origin of the Cosmos which enabled Marx to argue that nothing was higher than the state in the society; b) the struggle for existence which encompassed Marx's argument for constant struggle between the masses and the need for revolution c) the progressive development and improvement of man which feeds into Marx's theory that humankind's process of development improves only through class struggle.
The combination of social Darwinism and communism is no where more clearly seen than in the policy of the Chinese Communist Party which developed the 95:5 formula of class assignment. The formula basically argued that 95 per cent of the population would be classified as various classes that could be won over by the CCP, but five per cent should be designated as class enemies. As stated in the Nine Commentaries, "People within the 95 per cent were safe, but those within the 5 per cent were struggled against."
Not surprisingly Social Darwinism was re-examined in the 1970's and 80's and became regarded as a defunct theory of development. Yet while many of us today would not support such a theory and social Darwinism, or even Eugenics, we do openly believe that Darwin's theory is the definitive hypothesis of how we became what we are today. As the debate over Intelligent Design continues to rage one can only ponder if it is not time for our great minds to ponder another theory which reconciles those among the scientific community that have both faith in a inspired being and the divinity of nature.
Feeds