book review, Volume 5 number 6, July 2003 Chuck D. Charles Darwin: The Naturalist Who Started a Scientific Revolution A few years back the Kansas Board of Education voted to remove all references to the teaching of evolution from the state’s science curricula. The move was lambasted by many, including the majority of Kansas residents who didn’t enjoy finding themselves the butt of jokes by late night comedians who painted them as a bunch of retrograde dunderheads. More concerned were scientists, already worried about the scientific illiteracy of the nation’s children. As evolution is the cornerstone of biology, they complained that Kansas schoolchildren would find themselves at a distinct disadvantage if they were not properly instructed in the science’s fundamentals. More alarming was the thought that this move would ignite a nationwide upsurge of attacks on science in the name of religion, a battle as old as science itself. Eventually the good of the children took precedence over reactionary impulses, and the board quietly reversed its decision. But the incident illustrated once again how divisive evolutionary theory remains in a nation with a religious tradition which could be charitably described as Neolithic. Nearly one hundred and fifty years after Charles Darwin first presented his ideas, and after endless research which has only lent further credence to his theories about the origin and development of life, Darwinism continues to be a source of bitter controversy. Fundamentalists have long associated Darwin with the Devil himself, characterizing him as a horned, fire-breathing Satanist reaching out to steal children from their rightful place in heaven. In truth, Darwin was a well-mannered upper-class product of Victorian England who just happened to stumble upon the laws of nature thanks to his insatiable curiosity about the world. In a brief, highly accessible new biography, Charles Darwin: The Naturalist Who Started a Scientific Revolution, Cyril Aydon presents us with a genteel man whose thirst for knowledge altered history. The son of a physician, Darwin was rather unfocused in his youth. Possessed by an intellect which impressed many, he managed to obtain the position of captain’s companion on the now legendary, world-spanning journey of the H.M.S. Beagle. A naturalist by disposition, and a relentless observer and note taker, Darwin filled his travel diaries with detailed descriptions of varied landscapes and the flora and fauna that inhabitated them. It was his study of the finches on the Galapagos Islands west of Ecuador that ultimately led him to the theory which revolutionized science (contrary to myth, Darwin did not experience an "aha" moment while observing the finches; his conclusion came to him much later, after extensive reflection). Aydon provides a lively account of the sea voyage and its impact on the eager explorer. Once Darwin returned home, he set to compiling his notes in a series of books which ultimately rocked the established order. At the same time his health went into decline and he was beset by a series of personal tragedies which resulted in his losing his faith in God, a loss which was science's gain, since it eased his decision to make his findings public. (More pressing was the news that another naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace—a mere commoner in socially stratified Britain—had reached the same conclusions as Darwin and was about to go public as well.) Still, Darwin shrank by nature from conflict, and he knew that publication of his book, The Origin of Species, would bring controversy down on his head like an iron mallet. And sure enough, it did. The book was an enormous success, but it was immediately denounced by ministers, who saw it as an attack on their moral authority. Like Galileo, Darwin had challenged the teachings of the Bible (at least, on a literal level), and for the demagogic, this was an unacceptable threat. For the most part, Darwin didn’t have to lead the fight in his defense. This job fell by choice to the combative Thomas Huxley, who gleefully attacked the clergy, a move which had solid scientific underpinnings, but which greatly exacerbated the battle, making it personal rather than scientific. Darwin went on to publish The Descent of Man, which brought humans into the evolutionary equation and cemented his reputation as an agent of the antichrist. This book, too, sold like hotcakes. His notions about the survival of the fittest were warped by colonial apologists and American expansionists to justify the destruction of native peoples across the globe, an interpretation which Darwin abhorred. Already, his legacy was being twisted. Darwin died a national hero, but in America he has become perhaps the leading bogeymen for opponents of modernity. The decision in Kansas was but the latest chapter in a long saga which reached its nadir with the Scope Trial in 1925. At issue is the fact that many Christians base their faith on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Any discovery which contradicts scripture is dismissed outright. It’s a sad statement on the state of religion. One would hope that if the moral truths which Christians claim to embrace are true, that they would stand alone, shining through in the examples of practitioners. Indeed, this is the case with many Christians. But those who hold to literalism lack genuine faith. It is a sign of the weakness of their creeds that they cannot maintain their belief without taking every word of the Bible as gospel truth. This explains why fundamentalist Christianity, for all its talk of morality, is so morally nebulous. Theirs is an ossified god, good for political purposes, but by no means a living entity. Darwin, despite his loss of faith, pointed to a better way. The moment of creation is not some distant act, occurring "in the beginning." Creation is the core fact of life, always happening around us. We still live in Eden, we just need to realize it. For the genuinely spiritual, this provides a reaffirmation of faith. For the pious, it presents an irrevocable dilemma. If this is Eden, how can you justify the continued destruction of Creation while claiming to honor the Creator? You can’t. And that is one reason Darwin presents a moral challenge to today’s fundamentalists.
| ||
 | | |
