Alvaro Vargas Llosa | February 12, 2009
POLLS, particularly in the US, tell us that many conservatives still distrust Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. The bicentenary of his birth should be a fitting occasion for the Right to take another look at a man who contributed immensely to some ideas that it holds dear.
Read news, opinion, features and reviews on Charles Darwin's work, on the 200th anniversary of his birth.
Darwin was not an atheist but a Victorian believer. He was not a proto-Marxist but a liberal, which in 19th-century Britain meant someone who favoured individual liberty over big government. Darwin was an admirer of John Locke and Adam Smith, two of the greatest thinkers of freedom. And although he was influenced by Thomas Malthus, whose writings on overpopulation were later used by critics of capitalism to justify collectivism, Darwin used that political economist's ideas in biology, not political economy.
| MORE ON DARWIN |
Darwin did not set out to deny God. Anyone who has read On the Origin of Species, The Descent of Man or his correspondence is immediately struck by how careful Darwin was to avoid what we would today call an ideological agenda. But this diligent student of nature did make one shattering discovery: not the theory of evolution itself, which had been proposed many times and can be traced back to the Greeks, but the fact that evolution is a random process of natural selection whereby certain variations that become well-adapted to the environment are gradually preserved through hereditary transmission. Ultimately, all species have a common origin.
This finding posed a cataclysmic challenge to the established church, comparable to the re-examination of Aristotle in the 12th and 13th centuries or the Earth's displacement from the centre of the universe in the 16th and 17th centuries. But unlike the teachings of Aristotle, which were absorbed by the church through Thomas Aquinas, and the findings of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, which were reconciled with religion by rational Christianity and deism, Darwin's books have remained anathema to many believers. The pope finally accepted his teachings in the 1990s and the Anglican Church recently apologised to him. But for millions of Christians, Darwin remains unacceptable.
And yet science has confirmed and expanded Darwin's theory, using it to great advantage. What he called the mystery of variation in offspring was explained by modern genetics. DNA sequencing and molecular biology have helped to understand the evolution of viruses and therefore to protect people from diseases.
Darwin's teachings have been caricatured and grossly distorted. Social Darwinism, which turned his biological theory into a sociopolitical one to justify eugenics, harmed his reputation. But Darwin was an early opponent of slavery and, precisely because he identified a common origin in nature, he did more than anybody to debunk the notion that different races belong to different species.
Herein should lie Darwin's appeal to the Right: the English naturalist gave scientific validity to the revolutionary idea that order can be spontaneous, neither designed by nor beholden to an all-powerful authority.
The struggle for existence that drives natural selection according to Darwin has nothing predetermined about it. In fact, he maintained that the presence of certain habits, values and institutions, including religion, themselves part of man's adaptation to the environment, can affect evolution. The instinct of sympathy, for instance, drives some stronger members of the human species to help weaker ones, thereby mitigating the struggle for existence.
It is fascinating that conservatives who advocate a spontaneous order, the free market, in political economy and decry social engineering as a threat to progress and civilisation should resent Darwin's overwhelming case for the idea that order can design itself.
In an essay in The Spectator, the conservative science writer Matt Ridley reflects on the paradox that the Left has claimed Darwin even though leftist political ideas contradict his basic teaching: "In the average European biology laboratory you will find fervent believers in the individualist, emergent, decentralised properties of genomes who prefer dirigiste determinism to bring order to the economy."
The bicentenary of Darwin's birth is a good opportunity for those on the Right who trash him as an icon of the Left to give the author of On the Origin of Species another chance.
Alvaro Vargas Llosa is a senior fellow at the Independent Institute in Washington, DC, and editor of Lessons from the Poor.
Your Comments:
61 Comment(s)
Let%u2019s be clear about Darwin! He noticed underlying themes in a highly diverse natural world and was able to account for this with a logical theory based primarily on the effect of the interplay between competition and altruistic drives within an individual organism on the species as a whole. Accordingly these forces are at work in every organism (and every cell) all the time. The implication of this article is that all of the members of certain political persuasions ought to believe in this theory and hold Darwin the man in high esteem because: 1. the sort of man Darwin was should be considered; and 2. because the theory can be interpreted to describe the establishment of organisation from chaos, it is applicable to free market capitalism. To address point 1; the evidence of Darwin%u2019s life seems to indicate a fairly quiet and retiring fellow who readily made peace with the status quo of his time in most things, only being persuaded to raise controversial theories with the encouragement and support of friends and allies. Perhaps this can be taken to indicate a strong survival instinct, but hardly the inspiration for a certain political or economic persuasion. To address point 2; necessitates the extension of the biological competition and altruism drives to human-generated social structures. Arthur Koestler%u2019s theory of self-assertive and integrative drives and Freud%u2019s Eros and Thantos are just two examples of inductive reasoning theorists who utilising the %u2018two key drives%u2019 concept to underpin their social and psychological theories. Given Darwin did little or no work directly in this area these theorists are the lineage of that approach within the cultural setting. To continue with Darwin to attempt to address this point is too open-ended to be meaningful.
Sarah, As a bioligist with a advanced degree,you obviously should understand what the term "theory" means in a scientific context. Here is a link that makes clear the differences: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19 Theories are based on clear line of evidences and though obviously science does not have all the answers, makes mistakes and produces many unanswered questions, the science of evolution rests on a solid footing that utilizes the foundations of all other physical sciences. Nothing could be more speculative and full of unverifiable assumptions than the various subjective creation or intelligent beliefs used in a effort to satisfy and confirm wishful, self-comforting ideas of supernatural design. I am not ruling out the possibility of a undiscovered intelligence behind the universe, but as long as we are unable to verify and test for supernatural forces these various subjective ideas and personal beliefs remain locked in the minds of individuals and cannot be openly demonstrated as real and in common to all of us and the rest of life. To be blunt,the so-called theories of Intelligent Design and Creationism are not a legitimate part of the scientific method. These ideas are part of the domain of religion and philosophy and cannot be reconciled with mainstream science.
Sarah who created the creator? What is the evidence for a creator let alone an intelligent one? As you should know a "theory" is a work in progress. It can be added to, modified and rethought as eveidence comes to hand. the problem with the religious lot is they think they have absolute truth and are not prepared to change under any circumstances. I we still believed in a creator for all things we wouldn't be as advanced as we are in our understanding of how things work. So do you believe everything that is here now has always been here and in the same form? What do you mean by "intelligent" and what do you mean by " design". Life is here because it can be here and the forms of life exist because they have evolved to fit into their niche environment. Just because you ahve a Masters degree doesn't make you intelligent.
Evolution is a theory not a fact, although in modern education it seems to be considered a fact. To believe that science and evolution provide THE answer to how the earth formed and life evolved is to have greater faith in science than any christian has in God. The probabilities have been described as being equivalent to a whirlwind constructing a 747 in a junk shop. Not impossible, but... You should look closely into the 'proofs' of evolution being the mechanism that developed all life forms from one common ancestor (vs evolution being a process of change within a species). You will find that many assumptions have had to be made, some of which are in conflict with the proof itself. Other proofs have been demonstrated to be based on incorrect assumptions. Don't accept all scientific 'facts' at face value - investigate for yourselves. I have a Masters degree in Biology and am currently looking in to intelligent design as a theory. I have found Lee Strobel's books rather challenging, althouh a bit of a hard read. "The Case for a Creator" is one. Food for thought in any case!
St Andrew of Sydney. You Could have wikapedied this and saved me the time. Asymmetrical Fuana - means no symmetry. Sponges are the only animal im aware of. Radial Symmetrical Fauna - Means a form radiating from a common cetre such as the group known as Cnidarians which include sessile Anthozoa (sea anemones, corals, sea pens); swimming Scyphozoa (jellyfish); Cubozoa (box jellies); and Hydrozoa. Hexamerism and octamerism radial symmetry: Corals and sea anemones (class Anthozoa) are divided into two groups based on their symmetry. The most common corals in the subclass Hexacorallia have a hexameric body plan; their polyps have sixfold internal symmetry and the number of their tentacles is a multiple of six. Corals belonging to the subclass Octocorallia have polyps with eight tentacles and octameric radial symmetry. Andrew this is year 9 maybe year 10 science at best. You should have payed more attention to you teacher at school. Thankyou for letting me prove evolution using your arguement...Cheers
Kevin of SOuthern River, You Said that "The law of biogenesis states that life only comes from pre-existing life. In other words, you don't get something living from something non-living. This is one of the most fundamental laws of biology. It has never been refuted. All of our experience and experiments confirm this law to be true." Mate your about 150 years behind in your journals. The law of biogenesis is based on work by Francesco Redi circa 1668 and Louis Pasteur 1864. Their experiments are a joke amongst modern scientists and far from being considered the most fundamental law in biology unless you just dropped out of a timemachine. Please, please look at experiments by Miller¿Urey circa 1952 that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth. Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10¿15% of the carbon within the experiment was transformed in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed. Please dont spread false information to people keen to learn about science. Your statement reveals a gross level of inaccuracy and is representitive of a person scared to confirm the truth. After all Science is greek for knowledge and some people revel in the fear that a lack of understanding can creat. Religion is the basic instrument for this fear to be perpetuated. It is good to see a greater level of understanding by most of the bloggers. It is refreshing in a world dominated by people who find comfort in religion to exercise their dislike for other cultures and modern independent thinking.
Religion while is has it's admirable alturistic and compassionate attributes,is just as culpable as any other "ism" for much of the tradegies,dispair,disregard for all LIFE(not just human) and polarization in this world. The science of evolution was never intened to be linked to political and ideological ideas. It is simply an examination of how nature operates without the overlay of human /politicalcultural attributes. Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents try to ascribe human social constructs into evolution that Darwin and others never intended it to have. Everything else to them except their insular and cherished beliefs are some sort of perverted, secular conspiracy to corrupt God fearing civilization. My response in seven words...please grow up and get a life. Leave your personal religious worldviews to the domain of the church and do not subvert,influence or try to make over objective science to suit your subjective ideas of how the world operates or was created. Science is supposed to be one place where politics and ideology are put aside in favor of dispassionate examination of natural phenomena. Science has no method to verify anything that deals with the supernatural realm.
Kevin of Southern River: the book's called On The Origin of Species. (Look it up on Google or Wikipedia). The lack of "the" before "Species" indicates that he's talking about species, in the plural. He's not talking about one particular species. It can get confusing because it's the same word in the singular and the plural, especially for someone like you, who clearly hasn't even bothered to do the slightest bit of research about anything you're commenting on. This small fact, however, means that your entire comment is completely wrong, and highlights that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. For the record, Darwin in particular and evolutionary biologists in general never claim to have the answers to where life comes from in the first place. Evolution is part of the theory which describes how species of living things change over time.
References to left and right in Australia are confusing and irrelevant. The people who take issue with the Darwin%u2019s theories in Australia are the young earth creationists (YEC%u2019s). These are basically Christians who believe that the account of creation given in the Bible is a God inspired, literal and factual. In western culture, humanism is a popular and influential ideology. The idea that man is master of his own destiny and that there is no God to whom he is responsible is fundamental to this ideology. Humanists actively promote their agenda in the school curriculum. This creates tension for many Christians. To them the idea than man evolved from a puddle of slime contradicts what the Bible plainly asserts. They find the explanations of how this was supposed to have happened to be highly speculative. They understand that the motivation behind the popularization of evolution is for many an attempt to provide an explanation for origins without reference to God. They note that in the rush to provide this explanation, scientists have made exaggerated and false claims both in the past and today. They repudiate assertions that the science behind the supposed evolution from a slime pond to humanity has the same scientific certainty and integrity of other established theories and laws such as the various formulations of gravity and the laws of motion discovered by Sir Isaac Newton. They note that this theory provided the intellectual justification for the perpetrators of the Nazi war crimes and the various crimes that occurred under the guise of eugenics in the US. They believe that the humanist worldview is responsible a significant amount of the despair, unsociable behaviour and disregard for human life that is witnessed in our society today. They resent that this theory and implied world view are being forced uncritically and without alternative through the science curriculum on their children. They are aware of the discrimination against Christian scientists who reject evolutionary theory and point out its contradictions. The suggestion of Alvaro Vargas Llosa that these people should warm to this theory seems at best naïve.
Kevin of Southern River 10:18am, I've never heard of the biogenisis theory that you mention. As the age of the earth is more or less finite, and life on earth followed sometime after the creation of the earth, it is clear that life on earth has not always existed and it follows therfore that it must have had some non-living antecedent. It's just not clear yet what that may have been, unless you are a creationist. In that case, from what was God created and by what process? Your obfuscation is nearly as amateurish as the symmetry-as-proof-of-creationism theory.
Origin of the Species??? Nowhere in Darwin's book does it explain the origin of the original species, how did life come about in the first place???We are not a result of an accident that happened billions of years ago when non living matter changed into living matter, which then somehow mutated into intelligent bacteria which then became a fish, walked onto the land, developed into a primate and resulted in mankind. The law of biogenesis states that life only comes from pre-existing life. In other words, you don't get something living from something non-living. This is one of the most fundamental laws of biology. It has never been refuted. All of our experience and experiments confirm this law to be true. Worms come from other worms, not from inorganic mud. Green mould on bread comes from pre-existing mould spores in the air. Human babies come from living parents. If the law of biogenesis is confirmed scientifically, then why do Dawkins and other evolutionists insist that life originated from non-living matter? Isn't that a contradiction of well-established scientific law?
To Andrew from Sydney: Examples of assymetrical fauna are as follows: Male fiddler crab, lobsters, flatfish, owls, Wrybill plover, Sperm whales and Narwhal whales. Shall we expect an apology for your spurious apologetics and an admission that evolutionary theory has validity?
To Andrew of Sydney, I believe the common yabbie or even freshwater crayfish have one claw larger than the other. Typically due to it being more dominant with one than the other. Would this not class it as externally asymmetrically? Also the owl has one ear situated higher on their head to help them better distinguish sounds in the vertical plane. And to provide some evidence in support of Darwin's theory early last year cane toads, originally introduced in North Queensland, have been discovered to have larger hind legs in Northern Territory than their brothers back in Queensland. The toads along this advancing front have adapted to penetrating new territory by being born with bigger and more defined muscle legs, thus proving that adaption by animals within a few generations can concede to Darwin's theory of evolution if it was to happen over a few hundred generations. I hope this broadens your spectrum on life just a tad more.
Andrew of Sydney, I'll bite: what about the flounder?
john in Bangkok, can I respectfully suggest you look a little closer at the true gospel of Christ before you make comments like 'there is no conflict between Christianity and evolution'. May I ask just a couple of questions. Firstly, was there a literal Adam and Eve? Secondly, was there a literal fall, turning a once perfect creation into the fallen world we see today? Thirdly, if there was no fall and no literal Adam and Eve from which all mankind today are physically descended, what is sin? And lastly if there is no sin, why do we need Jesus? We do not need to believe in a literal Genesis to be saved, faith alone in Christ alone is all that is ultimately required but the more we compromise on foundational truths the easier it will be for people to justify their rejection of God. God bless.
Andrew of Sydney, Symmetry may give evolutionary advantage because it means you only need 1/2 as much genetic information as otherwise needed to create a living entity.
I do not deny the existence of a Deity in the life of every person%u2019s existence, although I would no doubt differ from what most people mean by %u201CGod%u201D. I have never been able to understand any clash between belief in evolution and a belief in God. If, everyone insists, that God created everything then surely he had to use the physics, chemistry and science that he himself had created to do so. Fundamentalists of course cannot escape from their programming that needs to put their God into some kind of a box by believing that he created the earth and everything in it in seven days by some kind of Captain Marvel magic, which means he would have to have very little faith in the physical means he had created. Why would God, who presumable has eternity at his fingertips, show how clever he is by creating everything in seven days, which is a ridiculous proposition to believe in, when he can take a few billion years on the project? Just who would he (God) be trying to impress?
I'm sorry if I'm repeating other comments. Darwin neither supports the left or right. Darwin's theories of natural selection and evolution do not support collectivism or free market ideology. They are not in any way a judgement on how the world should work, but merely how it does work. In fact in his book, which perhaps Alvaro Vargas Llosa, Matt Ridley and the Leftists that have "adopted Darwin" should read; "On the Origins of Species" Darwin very specifically states that he views the way nature works in some situations as immoral. Claiming that Darwin supports the left or right is as silly a notion as claiming that Newton supports Carlton because he came up with a theory about things falling back to Earth.
Andrew of Sydney 3:21pm, either God is all-powerful and all-knowing and therefore knowingly created Satan. Or, God is only partially-powerful and partially-knowing and therefore really not much of a God. . Also, if there is no such thing as evolution/natural selection, etc, can you say why 98 per cent of human DNA is identical to that of a chimp?
DHC of Sydney - there's a difference? Tell that to the Americans.
Andrew of Sydney, your post reflects clearly the problem believers have when it comes to natural selection and evolution. I don't doubt Jesus was a great man but I do doubt that the God you propose would turn his back on man who bothered to uncover the beauty of evolution and not rely on some ancient rambling from a clearly historically flawed book. The problem for those who choose to believe the Bibles version of creation is that it in no way explains the world we see around us, why fossils appear in the order that they do and why species that are closely related become distinct and some extinct. In the end it is just easier for you to believe in some sort of magic then do the "hard yards" and uncover the real truth of the world around you.
I think this is a very US-centric piece. It confuses political conservatism and religious belief, however in Australia our political conservatism has always been much more secular. These labels, including the conservatives = right-wing and liberals = left-wing, are inaccurate and simplistic. Of course they help with simply ideas and characterisations, but when a whole article is written on these matters then more care should be taken to define and differentiate between religious belief and/or conservatism, economic conservatism and social conservatism.
The 200th anniversary of the birth of Darwin is hell on earth for the religious fundamentalists/evangelicals and their USA wellsprings of this charicature of Christianity. Their whole world view is based on a book full of tenets that have been continuously disproven by science. Yet their strict literal interpretation of the bible%u2019s words as completely and immutably true, requires them to reject scientific inquiry and an increasing part of the modern world. No amount of logical fact based argument will rid a person wedded to this course of unreason for it involves a rejection of the scietific method because of the answer. The dangerous and irrational results of this type of religious thinking will be with us for many years ahead but the scope for dangerous fundamentalist thinking is reducing as its consequences become more and more apparent to the majority.
I don't think definitions of left and right, conservative and liberal are relevant is Australia. The article opening claims are really more about those Christians who don't accept Darwin%u2019s more sweeping generalisations about evolution. I am one such Christian who maintains a very healthy skepticism of the quasi-scientific explanations for how you and I supposedly evolved from a soup of chemicals. Many scientists are miffed by the challenges presented by Creationists who refuse to be bullied into accepting these just so stories as fact. Personally I think the challenge is healthy and very consistent with the scientific method.
An icon of the Left? I'm on the Left. I've been to all the meetings. And I can't say Darwin's name crops up all that often. The idea that Darwin is in any way political strikes me as odd - like the Soviets politicizing science. The Right has some strange ideas of the Left.
The cornerstone of Darwin's theory is 'survival of the fittest'. The application to that in a Human context can allow for tragedies like genocide - one 'fitter' group subduing another 'less' fitter group. Here is the great problem that evolutionary extremists have. They have a belief in the natural process that Darwin advocated yet the values they have towards life interrupts that belief. If man is simply just part of the natural world, why do we react differently to mass murder as opposed to a mass shark feed on fur seals? People's blind trust in evolution does create as many philisophical problems as those who believe in creation.
To Andrew of Sydney (3:38pm). Answer: "The Oyster". Oh, and the entire phyllum of porifera - sea sponges. (Hint: google search "asymmetrical animals") That makes at least two (and I'm sure there have dozens, if not tens of thousands of species of sea sponges evolved since they emerged over 600,000,000 years ago - now that is a LOT of zeros!). Sorry chum, but I win, you lose. Hint: google "conjecture and refutation" and "deductive logic". So, Andrew, what exactly was your point again? Something about pride and conceit? My point is: ignorance is not bliss - it's just sloppy logic. Peace be with you, Bob
Boy Andrew have you been brainwashed. Get a life. Do some reading and thinking.Who told you this fanatstic line about external symmetry and it as proof evolution is wrong. Give us a reference. maybe we need symmetry so we can eg walk properly- no good with one leg shorter, one eye lower, one arm bigger, 3 fingered one side and two the other. Besides the genetics of how we developed is pretty well known. Scientists know that genetic defects and certain drugs damage the development process- if the damage is too great the organism does not survive. What if you had been born an Eskimo or a Zulu or Chinese- you wouldn't have been bought up believing the Bible, which was written by a whole bunch of men.Read a bit of history of the jewish and Christain religions and their developments. Your know the 3 major religions islam, christian, Judaism all developed in the Middle eastern deserts and all have a paradise that is green fertile and running with honey? Wonder why they are all so similar?? You are a victim of your upbringing.Break free live- be happy and embrace the only life you will ever have. In science "theory" means that it is a work in progress , it doesn't mean it has no basis in truth and science.Scientists are supposed to be prepared to adjust the theory if new evidence comes to light. The theory of evolution just keeps getting stronger. The theory of evolution does not say we descended diretly from apes but that we have a common ancestor. We do however have 98.5% of our DNA that is the same as chimpanzees. The less DNA in common the further apart species are in their evolution. i really don't understand why religious people are so afraid of evolution.
The pope did not 'accept his views in the 1990s' as is claimed in this article. The theory of evolution remains just that - a theory. The pope recognised the legitimacy of Darwin's ideas as a postive contribution to the scientific world. There is no conflict between Darwinism and Christianity.
....even the best theories that we have today are simply theories. Time only suffers them for the time that they 'work'. What Darwin's theory has to do with the existance or not of God I'll never understand.
Politics should never be mixed with science. Natural selection is not evidence that capitalism or democracy is good, just as it is not evidence that eugenics is good, or just as the Special Theory of Relativity doesn't tell us whether communism is good or not. Science describes the world, and it is impossible to get from descriptive statements to normative ones. No scientific theory should be part of an ideological or political debate, whether it is used to advance Rightist or Leftist causes, not because the science might be corrupted or misinterpreted, but because it's quite simply incorrect to do so.
Andrew of Sydney you are a completely ignorant person and have obviously not read enough. If you think a "god" made us- how, when, where is this god, where did it come from, why did it come? you are just being silly for no good reason What are you afraid of?
Great article. However, I believe that you may be lumping economic and social conservatives together. Hardcore social conservatives (mostly) reject Darwinian evolution due to religious conflict. Economic conservatives do not have this problem, and in my experience, rarely deny Darwinian evolutionary theory. Your analysis of the similarities between the %u2018invisible hand%u2019 of Adam Smith and the %u2018non-divine%u2019 process of Natural Selection was very enjoyable to read.
Can any supporter of evolution name one single living creature (ie. fauna not flora) that is not externally symmetrical along its length? If you cannot then you are conceding that evolution has not produced one single living creature that is externally asymetrical along its length. Since this is statistically impossible based on the random changes involved in the 'evolution of the species', evolution is proven beyond any doubt to be a lie.
It is intellectual conceit to embrace the lie of the theory of evolution. It is this same pride that causes one to reject the truth about the origin of creation revealed in the Bible by God Himself. Pride led Satan to rebel against God and forfeit his place in heaven. Pride is the cause of many people rejecting the work of Christ suffering, bleeding and dying on the cross on behalf of their sin-stained souls. According to the mercy and patience of God, the door is open for people to humble themselves, repent and accept reconciliation with their Creator through Jesus. He keeps the door open in what seems to be perpetuity because He loves every person so dearly. He wants everyone to become part of the new creation and experience all the joy that will be found there. However, there is a day coming on which the door will be closed and never opened again. God is long-suffering and kind but He is not a door-mat for people to eternally wipe their feet on.
Why bother arguing with the fundamentalist zealots of any religion - especially the christains and the ones that are from the right a little bit more - they have been proven wrong since the Inquisition but still want to force their belief on us all for their own self ish reasons - look at the genocide of the great cukltures of South America - the Indians of the US - the forcing of their little book of stories on others. The bible is a book written by men - I think God and Jesus would even think these people have no right to claim they know their words or thoughts and even more so the Church representing their view in such a droconian and agressive way - I think they will all be sent to hell for complete misinterpretation and for breaking every one of their own rules.. hypocrite nerds justifyinging bigotry with a cross and a book they created...God laughs at them all...Jesus would be dismayed that as he was a revolutionary against imperial authoriatarian power and a religion based on caste that they have taken his life to build a religion and church that are everything he opposed.... wrong since Jesus dies in Kashmir following Alexnader the greats footsteps to the Ghangesand studying other beliefs..whhilst Peter the roman plant built the chruch with Roman backing - a generic religion to re assert their power and keep the masses under the thumb - Wrong since Gallilleo, wrong since Copernicas - Kepler, Newton et al ... persecuted them all as they want ignorant scared little people to boss around and make themselves feel big...ignorant stupid fundamentalists of all religions are why the world is such a damn mess....and the right are not synonomous to being religoius but the closeness of their bigoted selfish stupidity and motives make it highly correlated.... burn em all at the stakes for a ironic touch and the rest of us can get on and have a good time and clean up the planet they have destroyed..
Right, Andrew of Sydney, so humans are created by god because they are symmetrical. Fiddler crabs are not because they have one claw bigger than the other? Sam of Aus, in case you check again. The age of the earth is not found by Carbon dating, that can only go back some few thousand years. Other dating methods are used such as unranium or thorium decay and potassium-argon dating for a start. Search Wikepedia for a fuller answer.
I think that the author has confused "right wing" with "religious fundamentalist". I know quite a number of "right wing" scientists, who have no problem with accepting evolution as fact. I also know several people who are "left wing" and disbelieve evolution because of their religious beliefs. In fact I don't know anyone who disbelieves evolution and who isn't also a religious fundamentalist of one sort, or another. Ultimately, the religious fundamentalist is bound by dogma which demands both a mind closed to contradictory positions and an automatic acceptance of supporting "evidence", irrespective of how dishonest it might be. This is demonstrated by the continual repetition of long refuted arguments against evolution. A classic example is their tragically ceaseless harping on about the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. If any of them actually checked a high school text book, they'd discover that this law only applies only to closed systems (of which there is arguably only one - the universe). Any fool with wit enough to look into the sky should be able to see that Earth is NOT a closed system. However, Creationists seem to be blind to the fact that our sun continually pumps energy into earth's biosphere. This energy allows life to thrive and survive. Natural selection does the rest.
Christian, aethiest, left, right, conservative, liberal, ideologue, pragmatist, scientist, supernaturalist, occidental, oriental etc. etc. What have these superficial, arbitrary social constructs to do with the massive multi-generational, population-scale flow of randomly mutating and accreting chemical biological information? Absolutely nothing. Zip. Nil. Naught. The science of evolution can be learned and appreciated by any person, regardless of the dogmas they hold, based upon the theory, models, and observation and experimental evidence available to all. It seems to me that a lot of confusion occurs when people excessively rely on "inductive reasoning" to perpetuate their dogmas. Perhaps infants (and confused adults) should be taught how and when to apply deductive and inductive reasoning to problem solving. So, I'd rather that Karl Popper was up there high on list of the 20th C's more influential thinkers. Though he's not quite the household name, his style of apolitical logic could cure those silly literal creationists of a great deal of self-imposed ignorance and angst (p.s., Clifton, I'm more inclined to Jung than Freud). (And to Steve of Brizzy, the world's energy budget is not winding down - it is, and always has been, fueled by solar radiation, some of which is captured during photosynthesis and calcification, slowly stored over many millenia and now being far too rapidly released with potentially chaotic destabilising consequences. I also gather that it is solar radiation that contributes most to the fraying of genetic material and the natural mutating dynamic that perpetuates biodiversity). Then again, I could be completely wrong, so I am open to persuasive logical reasoning supported by appropriate evidence. Kind regards to all, Bob
Steve of Brizzie of Brisbane 10:06am today:- According to your argument air could never become warm and rise. You are misrepresenting the seciond law of thermodynamics, a common tactic of creationists. Evolution and molecular biology (which describes the genetic mechanisms of natural seclection:- mutation, transcription and translation) have nothing to do with perpetual motion. Indeed they are reliant on consumption of energy usually via oxidative phosphoralation; that is why organisms eat and / or photosynthesise. Frankly, I doubt you whould know hard science if you saw it.
Great piece. I just want to clarify a common misconception though. Natural selection is far from a random process. What is random are the variations that appear through genetic mutations. The environment then 'selects' the more useful of the those variations. They are deemed to be 'fitter' - can collect food better, or resist disease better, or run/swim/jump/fly better, deemed 'sexier' by the opposite sex and so on. On average, these selected individuals produce more offspring meaning the next generation have a better chance of survival. One of Darwin's innovations was to provide copious ammounts of evidence that it was the environment that did the selecting, not some Sky Man. And Happy Birthday Darwin.
Umm...Chris J, you appear to have missed the point about the labels employed by the author of this piece. They are used on the assumption that the reader has at least a basic grasp of political philosophy. Thus "Left" and "Right", have their origins in the various idealogical positions of the French National Assembly during the French Revolution (Left and Right originally refer to the seating plan). These terms coexist, but mean somewhat different things, to the (originally British) labels of "radical", "liberal" and "conservative", which again have precise definitions, although distinct implications depending on whether you're talking politics or economics. The 19th and 20th Century duels between capitalism and various flavours of communism again added tone and depth to these labels, although US political doscourse has muddied the waters by mis-using all these terms. (Many American commentators say "liberal" when they mean radical and "conservative" when they mean a reactionary right-wing libertarian.) Hence I also disagree strongly with Rob123's comments about "conservatives" and "liberals": his labels, while consistent with American usage, are incompatible with their formal meanings. It is entirely possible to be either a conservative OR a liberal and believe in evolution. It's interesting that Llosa is careful to define his terms (such as "liberal") accurately. By the way, Chris J, the term "progressive" is essentially meaningless. Progress is based on a dialectic between radical and conservative policies, while liberals like to watch and hope nobody gets hurt too badly. Nobody knows in the present tense whether any given policy represents "progress" or is a mistake, hence all three ideological viewpoints retain their validity: see the essays of Edmund Burke, J.S. Mill, George Orwell. I think Llosa made some interesting points here.
Whilst creationists may point to some flaws and lack of scientific certainty regarding darwin's theory of evolution, there have in fact been 2 major scientific discoveries of high certainty that support the central tenet's of Darwin's theory well after he first made them - these 2 discoveries are not questionable at all and are 1. The dscovery of DNA by Watson and Crick (64?) and 2. Carbon Dating using known and measurable/quantifiable breakdonw's in radioactive isotopes. These 2 discoveries provide very strong support to the concept that for evolution we need both (1) a lot of genetic information that can be randomly mixed and passed on as evidenced by the discovery of DNA and (2) sufficient time for evolution to occur as evidenced by Carbon Dating that places the age of the earth at some 4.5billion years old. Now whether aliens came down and did some funny experiments many years ago thus giving rise to the idea that perhaps there is some intelligent design occurring (through good old fashioned Genetic Modificaiton) who knows? But to think the earth was created in 7 days, humans were hand-built with no ancestral ties to the primates, and it all happened from nothing to what we have now in the space of only 10,000 years is bordering on the insane.
I am buoyed up immensely by the evidence we see in this blog that creationists are incapable of writing coherent English. This is probably a sign that, when it comes to survival of the fittest, they (and their crank theories based on nothing more than the writings of an ignorant and superstitious age) are doomed to extinction. Hallelujah!
I think the value of this discussion is wasted because you have confused conservative views with religious views.
I think this author is daydreaming. What have right or left wing politics, whatever you believe they are, have to do with Darwin and the scientific search for facts and evidence? Still, every author has to write SOMETHING to earn a dollar, I suppose.
neither designed by nor beholden to an all powerfull authority. this is the crux of the religious argument, as this is an absolute denial of the original creation by just such an all powerfull authority, in the case of the christian BIBLE believing world, not at all neccessarly the belief of those who call themselves christian yet deny the authority of biblical scripture,the patent system of the world evolution of sienctific discoveries and then the flow-on of new ideas which are originated from a new discovery explains this very well,many of darwins concepts are quite valid Ifor one agree, however being a bible beliver who doesnt go to churh because of the non christian beliefs of doctrines of todays religions Ifor one will never deny the creation as revealed in scripture, sure we may have some interpretation still to do, but then even the best sience ever that stood for centuries has so often been put to the test of new sicence and found wanting, rod qld
Andy from Sydney - that's one of the funniest and definitely flimsiest ideas to refute evolution that I've yet heard - thank you sincerely for that, the day was looking a little glum till I had such a great laugh (at your expense!!). Radial (ie starfish) or bilateral (ie humans, and animals of the phylum chordata) symmetry is a phylogenic trait of an individual, yet a central tenet of Darwin's theory is that evolution (through random gene combinations) doesn't happen with an individual but at the species level (otherwsie it would be Lamarkian evolutionary theory that we all susbscribe to). THAT is the reason why species are differnet, but not a reason as to why an individual superficially appears the same when split down the middle. Furthermore, your are right to some degree that it is probably impossible for a human to be an exact mirror image of itslef when split down the middle and that is why it NEVER happens. if you look at the minute details EVERY human has one eye bigger or a different shape to the other, one foot longer than the other etc etc. Your argument borders on the ridiculous - let alone the fact that it intrinsically refutes itself through a lack of thought beyond the superficial.
The endless stupid political over labelling continues. To all the Andrew Bolt%u2019s, Piers Akerman%u2019s and like minded people to this author, start attempting to discuss politics without the stupid over-resorting to terms like %u201Cthe left%u201D and %u201Cthe right%u201D as if they exist as too tangible polar opposites that everyone recognises and familiarises with. Just because you think in a simplistic black and white, two-tiered manner, doesn%u2019t mean that most other people do as well. The author here is obvious trying to peddle this increasingly predictable polemic that %u201Cthe right%u201D is the recognised defender of individual liberty against big government, and anybody who takes up any position seen as possibly progressive, is against this individual liberty. What a load of garbage. Based on the original context of the terms %u201Cthe left%u201D and %u201Cthe right%u201D most of the virtues you extol about Darwin, would be considered %u201Cleft%u201D influenced ones. And as for all these politician like Alexander Downer arguing that their sort of politics defend individualism, give me a break. Nothing could be further from the truth given Australia%u2019s political history. They only seem to be individuals when it comes to their own freedoms or when it is time to pay taxes.
Andrew of Sydney 3:35am today "The theory of evolution is a fraud as evidenced by the external symmetry of the human body along its length" - What are you smoking?
@Andrew of Sydney, The apparent superficial symmetry of our bodies is a simple sign of simple winning out over complex. A system that produces symmetrical growth is undoubtedly going to be simpler, and thus, more likely to evolve sooner, than a system that is asymmetrical. Look into Evolutionary Development, the science is well established, and accepted.
"The right" doesn't reject science, it sees the conflicts within science. When the laws of thermodynamics state the available energy to do work is always decreasing, in effect that the world is winding down, when the fossil records show a seemingly continuous decline in size and variety of species, Darwin teaches perpetual motion. His ideas on natural selection are clearly plausible and demonstrable, the next step to evolution is a bridge too far. Natural selection reshuffles the gene pool, losing genetic material or at best changing the existing distribution, it doesn't create additional genetic information. The right is so resistant to Darwin, because of the clear contradictions his thoughts have with hard science. The left Clifton, tends to like simple emotive solutions (such as the modern world was made by three giant thinkers), the right tends towards hard fact and a grappling with complexity.
Mr. Llosa, meet Larry Arnhart, author of Darwinian Natural Right and the leading advocate of the integration of Darwin's theory into the conservative defense of self-generating spontaneous social order, in contrast to state control. Check out his darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/. Since political conservatism, particularly in the United States, incorporates millions of Christians who believe that the evolutionary version of human origins is incompatible with their biblical faith, how is that conflict to be overcome? Mr. Llosa and Mr Arnhart deploy evasion tactics that excuse Darwin from the usual blame (his agnosticism) and praise his personal virtues. Thus we're told that "the Pope finally accepted his teachings in the 1990s and the Anglican Church recently apologised to him." Even if that were true (both statements are false), it doesn't address the conflict between the up-from-apes story and the sin and redemption story. As part of his defense of Darwin Mr. Llosa rejects as 'gross distortion' the the use of Darwin's theory to support racial inequality and eugenics. Darwin, he correctly states, opposed slavery. But like Mr Arnhart, he equates rejection of slavery with the assertion of racial equality. Error: like Abe Lincoln, he made many unequivocal assertions of racial inequality. He also supported eugenics. Here are some quotes. "The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world in no more distant date, what an endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. ... The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian [Aborigine] and the gorilla'. %u201CBoth sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realized until the law of inheritance are thoroughly known. All do good service who aid toward this end. When the principles of breeding and of inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining by an easy method whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man. The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for the children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, while the reckless marry, the inferior members will tend to supplant the better members of society.%u201D
It is fitting that Alvaro cites Locke as an advocate of freedom. He clearly stated that his ideas were to benefit the "opulent few" as opposed to the "swinish multitude". 150 years after Locke wrote his tracts, less than one in 20 English people had the vote; those who had the vote, naturally, adored Locke. In short, that is the the right-wing: a loose band of wealthy people who mouth the great slogans extolling freedom in order to subject society to venal scams. "Freedom" for them rarely means more than insider trading, no income tax, no welfare, unlimited rights to fire and mistreat workers, and total rights for landlords over tenants, and no limit to pollution. Preserving advantages for the already advantaged - with endless moral panics to distract the ignorant from seeing how they are being robbed. Hence the alliance of neanderthal evangelicals with corporate swine, hence the strategic distrust of darwin.
Right-wingers are too narrow minded to appreciate Darwin or any other science. They pick on a dogma, usually of the righteous and self-serving variety, and stubbornly stick to it no matter what contrary arguments are thrown their way. Conservative minds are very locked minds and not receptive to bold new ideas.
The modern world was made by three giant thinkers - Einstein, Freud and Darwin. The impact of their insights has moved far beyond their original scope to profoundly influence the way we think, live and work. Darwin's ideas should not be owned by the Right or the Left - they belong to all humanity - but it is bizarre that the Right in the US is so resistant to Darwin. This is no doubt related to the melding of the Right and religion, especially in the US. I think there are plenty of signs to show the pendulum is swinging and religion is now finding the Left more attractive - viz the Left marching arm in arm with Hamas and Hezbollah to condemn Israel, progressives in the Church heavily supporting climate catastrophism, etc Once the Right is freed from the dead hand of religion it can get back to what it does best - supporting the rights of the individual in the face of mob rule. Darwin has plenty to teach us about the relationship between individuals, the group and change/progress.
The right wing rejects science. I suspected that all along.
I don't quite understand why this is directed towards the right side of the political spectrum? I'm a conservative and an athiest. Shoulnd't this article be directed at religious people regarless of their political beliefs?
The theory of evolution is a fraud as evidenced by the external symmetry of the human body along its length, not to mention many other creatures great and small. It is statistically impossible for this external symmetry to have been produced by evolution, which involves purported random changes.
Evolution implies that humans are not the centre or the purpose of life on Earth. Otherwise why did it take so many billions of years for us to arrive ? And why do our bodies and minds have so many flaws ? Given that earth is also not the centre of the Universe, or even of our galaxy, God is looking a bit remote. There may well be one, but you would have to conclude that humans are not high on its list of priorities. We appear to be less than a dewdrop on a vast and puzzling web. Darwin must have realised this.
With your suggestion that the political right should embrace Darwin, you completely miss the distinction between conservatives and liberals - conservatives don't believe in natural selection, but want life to be governed by it; while liberals believe in it, but want to live life without it (as Matt Ridley correctly states, liberal political ideas usually contradict evolutionary theory, while conservative ideas usually match it). But the problem is that conservatives don't just believe in survival of the fittest, they fervently believe that their particular set of individual beliefs and attributes (their brand of religion, their particular cultural habits, their race, their country, etc.) ARE universally and forever the fittest, usually without any good reason to do so except that they personally hold them (whereas liberals are quite willing to admit that their own attributes may not be). It's in these beliefs that conservatives find themselves denying the implications of evolutionary theory (because no one variety stays the fittest forever - what is fit today is unfit tomorrow, hence extinction), and liberals have no problem accepting them. Until you can get a group of people who both believe that life should be guided by the principles of evolution while simultaneously being willing to accept that they are not members of an inherently superior group (something fundamentalist religion DOES allow conservatives to believe), you'll never have a political philosophy that both espouses belief in evolution while also embracing its implications for society.
