[tt] NS: Darwin: Still controversial after all these years

Fri Apr 4 14:21:45 UTC 2008

Darwin: Still controversial after all these years
opinion - 12 February 2008 - New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13307-darwin-still-controversial-after-all-these-years.html

* 14:01 12 February 2008
* Colin Barras

A year shy of its 150th anniversary, is Darwin's theory of natural
selection still fit for survival? Charles Darwin was born 199 years
ago today, and his theory aired publicly 149 years ago.

Although a century-and-a-half's study has bolstered the theory's
standing among scientists, some sections of society remain
unconvinced and even hostile towards Darwinism, threatening to
overshadow next year's celebrations.

Now, researchers are going on the offensive to ensure that the 2009
festivities which also coincide with Darwin's 200th birthday are a
success. The British Research Councils plough millions of pounds
into research inspired by Darwinism each year, and next month they
launch a website to debate the importance of Darwin's legacy with
the British public.

"We want to focus on modern research and how it draws on Darwin's
theory," says Pat Middleton of the UK's Biotechnology and Biological
Sciences Research Council.

The website will concentrate on a different academic field inspired
by evolutionary theory each month, beginning with the social
sciences and economics. "Researchers are very keen to spread the
message about Darwin's work," says Middleton. "It's applicable to
modern life itself."

But the research councils may be in for a tough fight to convince
Darwin's detractors as Kevin Padian at the University of California
at Berkeley noted last week, there are still sections of society
that blame Darwinism for society's perceived ills.

Evolution - Learn more about the struggle to survive in our
comprehensive special report.

There are 18 comments

Blaming Darwinism For Social Ills
By Jim Barron
Tue Feb 12 15:42:17 GMT 2008
What is happening, in the United States and elsewhere, is that not
true Darwinism, but a rabidly oversimplified version of it, is used
as a supposed justification for an obscenely inequitable and
economically unviable distribution of resources and opportunities.
An example (one of many):
Nepotism is justified as supposedly beneficial to society because
that is claimed by some to lead to more qualified individuals
filling important positions.
All it takes to blow that argument out of the water is four words:
regression to the mean. Or in one word: Bush. (There are numerous
other arguments against nepotism and equally powerful ones, but
regression to the means is the simplest and should suffice.)
The United States with it's infamous political dynasties, is a prime
example of just how severe the damage wrought by such misguided
distortions of science in the service of self interests can be.
Real Darwinism is as much, if not more, about cooperation and
symbiosis as about competition, concepts sorely lacking in American
society today (and many others). Nature is a balance of many
principles and any philosophy that emphasizes only one or a subset
of the whole is misguided and inherently dysfunctional. (The current
extreme dysfunctionality of the U.S. Is a prime example.)
The best way to deal with these misplaced reactions, IMHO, is not to
counter them, but to redirect them to the appropriate targets and
establish that true Darwinism has nothing to do with the gross
distortions of it being used today for such anti-social purposes.

Blaming Darwinism For Social Ills
By Chrisse
Tue Feb 12 16:59:51 GMT 2008
Oh, please, don't drag your absurd anti-Bush diatribe into some
debate about Darwinism of all things. Don't tell us we're seeing
darwinism too simplistically because we don't agree with your
political views.

Blaming Darwinism For Social Ills
By Ron
Tue Feb 12 18:22:24 GMT 2008
Like Bush or not, the original commentor's point is still 100% true.
Unless you provide some kind of analysis, I'll tally you down as
another irrational ranter.

Blaming Darwinism For Social Ills
By Arden
Agreed

Blaming Darwinism For Social Ills
By Polemos
Tue Feb 12 19:24:46 GMT 2008
"Real Darwinism is as much, if not more, about cooperation and
symbiosis as about competition, concepts sorely lacking in American
society today (and many others)."
In most cases, symbiosis is based on genetic affinity and sympathy.
The fact that the US is not a monoracial society like Japan inhibits
cooperation and symbiosis of its citizens.

Blaming Darwinism For Social Ills
By Polemos
Tue Feb 12 19:45:06 GMT 2008
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We
must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and
intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."
***
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents
and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with
it."
(Max Planck)

?
By Dag
Tue Feb 12 15:58:09 GMT 2008
Poor scientists... Thinking that rational evidence-based thinking
has anything to do with Darwin detractors.
I'll bet everything I own that numerous websites pop-up which mirror
the Darwin site and have rebuttals and "Christian answers".

?
By Zante
Tue Feb 12 19:55:10 GMT 2008
Nonsense, you can't label everyone who objects to the oversimplified
theory of evolution as a religios fanatic. In fact, it's very likely
to be the other way around.

?
By Dag
Tue Feb 12 20:08:05 GMT 2008
There is an extremely high correlation between those that reject
modern science, and those that are religious fundamentalists.
That's the case in the US anyway.
As to why that might be the case - well, I've expressed my opinion.

Countering Deniers
By Jd
Tue Feb 12 16:05:42 GMT 2008
A more productive approach would be to start trying to convince the
religious that evolution is not contrary to the bible, and will not
undermine or destroy religion.
Historical examples like Galileo or the church supporting the
flat-earth view might be more instructive than specifics of
evolution. Obviously the church survived fine after they admitted
they were wrong about the sun going around the earth.

Countering Deniers
By Arden
Tue Feb 12 16:36:41 GMT 2008
The reinterpretation of Christian scriptures to accommodate a
non-geocentric universe is much less extreme than accommodating
evolution. Not to mention the theological, practical, and historical
implications of evolution are very significant.
I have spoken with many fundamentalists on the matter... To them,
dismissing Genesis on such a deep level is unacceptable. Many
problems crop up too, for example, evolution requires God to use
death and suffering to create humans, whereas the scriptures account
for death and suffering by the sin of Adam and Eve. So not only do
scriptural accounts get discarded, but the lessons and purpose are
also lost.
IMO, I think you would have to enter into a very intellectually
dishonest state of mind to reconcile reality with scriptures.

Countering Deniers
By J A Roberts
Tue Feb 12 16:58:04 GMT 2008
Perhaps on some aspects, but Genesis 1:21 says "And God created
great whales, and every living creature that moveth,which the waters
bring forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl
after his kind: and God saw it was good." Translation issues as well
as the accuracy of the Bible aside, this could easily indicate an
origin of life from water as many theorize - starting with the
simplest of bacterium. The current wording can easily be blamed on
faulty translation or the like, whereas a great deal of
counter-darwinist arguments rely on one's interpretation of
scripture, which then requires the assumption the the individual can
make a reasonable, if not entirely-accurate assessment.
In terms of relating this to Galileo's Heliocentrism, there are
still numerous fundamentalists that believe he is wrong, or even
more dramatic, believe space doesn't exist all-together. We must
first decide if rationality and logic are the keys to understanding
the "Truth," and if so we must then accept that some people will
choose to remain blind to the "Truth."

Countering Deniers
By Arden
Personally, I believe rationality will get you the closest to
"Truth".
However that is not something that everyone agrees upon. Many take
their religion, faith, tradition, and/or relationship with their god
as their means to "Truth"... Its those people that scientists intend
to battle with this Darwin issue... And for the most part they will
ignore the scientific arguments in favor of their own ideas.
This has been going on for millennia.

Countering Deniers
By Mark
Tue Feb 12 16:39:28 GMT 2008
The "Church" you mention is not the Bible. And the bible in the old
testament testified that the Earth was spherical. "...the circle of
the Earth..." one of the definitions to the word used where one
translation used circle is Sphere. So long before that "church" was
here the bible already stated the shape of the Earth.
So far as Darwin and his theories are concerned some are accurate
enough but not all. Where you can have natural selection (traits
already within the species) the facts of one species developing into
another is still unproven. Where life came about through
lifelessness is still unproven. So whereas some parts of his
theories are scientific facts others are still just theory.

Countering Deniers
By J A Roberts
Tue Feb 12 17:17:31 GMT 2008
Indeed - micro-evolution has been proven, even some level of
macro-evolution, particularly with regards to the development of
humans from previous forms, but it leaves some areas open(such as
the development from on species into an entirely different species).
However, unlike the Bible, it offers proof, with theories based on
observed interactions and realistic scenarios, whereas the Bible
offers no reason other than its own circular logic as support. The
same circular logic offered by many religions - what makes
Christianity any better if it uses the same techniques, and most
certainly no more effectively?
Not to mention, the circle of the earth doesn't prove a spherical
belief my friend, because they had basic geometry and an
understanding of some 3-dimensional figures, they would have used a
term such as "ball," not circle.
Of course there are gaps left, as there are in any field - nothing
is absolute and everything is contestable, thus is the nature of
human knowledge, however it is reasonable to believe we will find an
answer eventually. Maybe not in our lifetime, or the next, but many
things take time, and questions of existence and the meaning of life
will no-doubt take more than just about anything else

Blaming Darwinism
By Jeremy
Tue Feb 12 16:53:26 GMT 2008
Darwinism IS to blame for many of society's ills. The growth of the
underclass and the low reproductive rate of those supposedly most
"fit" to bring up children can be accounte for by darwinistic,
sociobiological explanations.

Blaming Darwinism
By Dag
Tue Feb 12 17:47:14 GMT 2008
When you say Darwinism is to blame, you're saying that if science
had disregarded evolutionary theory, the disproportionate growth of
the underclass would not occur.
That's silliness.

Neo-darwinism Is Not Controversial
By Adrian
Tue Feb 12 18:39:41 GMT 2008
The science of Neo-Darwinism is not controversial; neither the
theory nor the evidence. The implications of the theory upset some
religious groups who simply do not understand the scientific method,
or choose to misunderstand it.