This year is Charles Darwin’s year. It marks the 200th Anniversary of his birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication On the Origin of Species.
On the Origin of Species is one of the most important and influential books of all time. In it, Darwin details his theory of evolution by means of natural selection, a crowning scientific achievement and one of the singular accomplishments of our species in the 200,000 or so years we have been around.
Whether, as in some Hollywood special effects blockbuster, I am confronted by aliens to justify why mankind should not be exterminated, or whether, as some religious mythologies hold, I am confronted by some god on a day of judgment as to why mankind should not be, well, exterminated, (both equally likely) what better action could I take than throwing down the gauntlet of On the Origin of Species? There is no greater testament to the pursuit of truth nor to the humility or nobility of humanity.
It is here that mankind places itself in creation. No, that is wrong. There has been enough of that nonsense. We don’t place ourselves in creation. Through Darwin, we understand and accept our place in creation. All species, all life, are products of natural evolutionary processes sharing common origins. In a single theory, Darwin connects all life.
Origin was released in London on November 24, 1859. Not surprisingly, the media is beginning to run various reports and features related to the anniversary of publication. This includes my own Calgary Herald (Canada’s largest Christian daily) and The Globe & Mail. Both contained features highlighting the work of Charles Darwin in their respective Saturday November 21 editions. The similarity, however, ends there.
The Globe & Mail ran a piece entitled Witnessing evolution with their own eyes by Ivan Semeniuk. It focuses on the work of Richard Lenski, an evolutionary biologist at Michigan State University who has been running an experiment involving bacteria for the last 21 years. The high reproductive rates of bacteria combined with the length of the experiment, has allowed Dr. Lenski and his researchers to literally see evolution taking place with the formation of a potentially new species. Dr. Lenski’s results make a lie out of creationists weak assertions that no one has actually ever seen evolution or that some biological systems demonstrate irreducible complexity that could not have evolved over time. Outside of coming close to confusing what is meant by fit in evolution (it means fit within an environment such as a glove that fits, not fit as in my daily fitness program), Mr. Semeniuk’s description of Dr. Lenski’s research proves to be an excellent vehicle for talking about, and explaining, evolution.
It also proves to be an excellent vehicle for talking about the demonization of Darwin and evolution. As noted in the article, Dr. Lenski’s striking vindication of Darwin has made him a lightning rod in the culture wars. Last year, right wing Christian activist Andy Schlafly demanded that Dr. Lenski make his data public. Dr. Lenski responded that his data was, and always has been public, published in numerous peer reviewed scientific journals.
Don’t the anti-evolution nuts like Andy Schlafly understand that evolutionary biology is a science and like all science, built on a foundation of evidence, publication, peer review and methodological rigor? Is it that they don’t read or that they can’t read?
Speaking of the scientifically illiterate, contrast Mr. Semeniuk’s article with that published in the Calgary Herald entitled Darwin still evokes awe and outrage by Allen Abel for Canwest News Service. The vehicle for Mr. Abel’s piece is a visit to the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution which is celebrating the anniversary of Origin.
Unlike the piece in the Globe & Mail, the focus of Mr. Abel is not the science but rather the so-called culture wars over evolution. Mr. Abel’s views are largely favourable towards evolution referring to it as a wondrous truth while referring to anti-evolution efforts by conservative Pat Buchanan as a fusillade of confusion. Nevertheless, Darwin still evokes awe and outrage does a disservice to Darwin, fitting in nicely into the Herald’s anti-evolution bias.
First, of course there is awe and outrage, there is with every scientific advance. There is awe and outrage with every opening of a new Starbucks. What does that say about anything other than some people will always be for it and some will be against it – regardless of what it is?
Secondly, the title and tenor of the piece promotes the myth that there is a debate over evolution. There isn’t. Evolution is the fact of life (I love that line). Certainly, there are there some nut cases that don’t believe it. There are also some people that don’t believe the Holocaust took place. Are we likely to see the headline, Holocaust still evokes certainty and doubt anytime soon in the Herald? Not likely. How about, Copernicus still evokes awe and outrage? Why won’t the Herald, in the interests of journalistic balance, give voice to all those flat- earthers out there?
It seems the editors of the Herald are simply incapable of publishing any honest, fact-based account of evolution. Anything that speaks to Darwin or evolution must be framed within a ‘culture wars – the debate continues’ context. To add evidence to this, in that same Saturday edition, the Herald published a companion piece to Darwin still evokes awe and outrage entitled, Bible literalists refute theory of evolution, also by Allen Abel. Here, Mr. Abel brings two students from Bryan College to the courtroom of the original Scopes monkey trial to debate evolution. It is a great story device that only serves to support that lie that there is, in fact, a debate.
If a level of ignorance can be awe inspiring then I am awed by the Calgary Herald. I am also outraged that a major Canadian daily, operating north of the 19th century, actively promotes anti-evolutionary nonsense under the rouse of journalistic balance.
All of which means we must be careful on how we get our information. An important concept here is credibility. When it comes to matters of science, especially evolution, The Globe & Mail has at least some. The Herald has none.
Darwin, by the way, has more than either. If you really want to know what Darwin said, what better way to find out than by reading On the Origin of Species – less than $10 in paperback. There is even a recently released illustrated edition with plenty of pictures for those who like illustrations and for the anti-evolutionists who have no alternative but to look at the pictures.
Get a copy of The Descent of Man while you’re at it. (Sorry anti-evolutionists, no illustrated version)
-
I understand with what you’re saying a agree with most it. My only sticking point is that you declare, “evolution is the fact of life.” You say that there is no debate regarding evolution. Well, THERE IS (or should I say, “there must be?”). Look at it from two perspectives. The first is that people are disagreeing over the issue. Irregardless of either party’s intelligence level, this circumstance does describe a debate. Secondly, the very premise of science and the design of its methodology invites debate. Debate is the very essence of science!
It was, always has been and always will be the “Theory” of Evolution. Can you remember back to grade 8 science when you teacher explained why that word “theory” exists in the practice of science? It’s because nothing can be undeniably proven. It can only be shown accurate again and again until a consensus is established among the knowledge powers that be. But yet that’s only a consensus, not a patch of pure truth from the very fabric of the universe. Declaring that evolution is TRUTH irrevocable is akin to that same attitude the Catholic Church had in its hardline gospel that the earth was flat.
The frontiers of science are limitless, a point emphasized in the studies of quantum physics or ecology. Any introspection upon the integrity of scientific inquiry – in your case, within media – demands a critical and fair presentation of the circumstances. If you are truly “dedicated to battling pseudo-science and superstition in the media. Specifically where facts, rationality and truth have been sacrificed upon the alter of entertainment,” then could you please refrain from succumbing to the same premature conclusions of so-called “truth” and uninitiated name-calling?
Thanks.
-
Thanks for your comments. Let me address some of the points you raise.
First, on the matter as to whether or not there is a debate. You correctly observe that there is an obvious public debate, otherwise, we wouldn’t be talking. So let me correct myself, I meant a meaningful debate. Simply having people disagree doesn’t constitute a meaningful debate because people will always disagree and there will always been some nut case to take the opposite side of something. This is, in part, why I used the example of the holocaust. Are holocaust deniers contributing to a meaningful debate or are they just nuts? I say they are nuts. As I posted some years ago . . .“It was only six years ago that the supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, issued a fatwa (edict) declaring the world to be flat and anyone believing otherwise to be punished as an atheist. Was the Sheik contributing to meaningful debate, or simply arguing for an obscure point of view that fails to accept the reality of our world?”
Go to ASkepticRTN http://askepticrtn.com/?p=79 for the complete article.
So to your point – meaningful, intelligent, scientific debate is indeed the very essence of science. What the Calgary Herald engages in is not; meaningful, intelligent nor is it science. It’s crap. Part of the job of science is calling it as it is.
As to your comments concerning the nature of scientific theory. Assuming your memory of Grade 8 science is better than mine, and I am sure it is, I assume you were educated in Alberta or took from science class what you were predisposed to take. The meaning and/or definition of theory (in the scientific sense of the word) has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not things can be ‘unconditionally proven’. Nothing in science can be unconditionally proven – theory or fact. If your Grade 8 teacher taught you something different, demand a refund.
An excellent discussion on this is provided by Moti ben-Ari in his excellent book, Just a Theory. He does a very good job of explaining why a theory, such as evolution, is also considered a fact – as “there is no longer any reason to doubt it”.
Lot’s of theories fit this description, among them, the theory of gravity which has less evidence to support it than evolution. Strangely, no one at the Herald seems ready to write up a big article on the gravity debate.
Lastly, on my ‘uninitiated’ name calling. I take it you are referring to my calling anti-evolutionists ‘nuts’.
They are (at best).
-
Great rebuttal. You’re agree about the “meaningful” debate. You misunderstood my second point about theory, however. I never said theory meant something can be unconditionally proven but that it implies something cannot be unconditionally proven and therefore it DOES have something to do with whether or not things can be unconditionally proven (I hate to get all semantics on your ass, but you brought it).
Nothing can be unconditionally proven, that was my whole point! I reread my comment and don’t understand how you misunderstood that.
At any rate, that Just a Theory book sounds interested. The line you quoted – “there is no longer any reason to doubt it” – might have some interesting implications. No reason to doubt a “fact” … until a new reason is uncovered. But that’s what it’s all about, right? Science, that is. I suppose the question then is whether or not to adopt a conservative approach to science – only accepting a new paradigm once its been pounded into your head a thousand times (which is not without its virtues) – or by adopting a more idealistic, precautionary approach to scientific theory – accepting only that change is constant and should be anticipated.
All this only drills into my mind the subjective nature science takes on when used by the power “politik” actors and the need for people like you to continuously challenge the deluge of garbage spewed out of scientists’ mouths.
Hell! I’ve got my bachelors degree. I guess that makes me a “scientist” now. Bull&#^!
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://askepticrtn.com/wp-trackback.php?p=699