Darwinian Fundamentalism - Term Paper Example

? Darwinian Fundamentalism Introduction The scientific world christened 2009 as the “year of Darwin” to celebrate the 200th birth anniversary of Charles Darwin and the 150th year of the publication of his book, On the Origin of Species. This century and a half also represents the excruciating period of conflict between the scientific and the religious communities over a large number of issues. In fact, the very title of Darwin’s book was considered to be extremely controversial and was kept conspicuous from public scrutiny. On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, clearly has an express racial connotation. However, this was not the crux of the battle that ensued between scientists and the church. Christians have traditionally believed that the origin of life traces back to the creation of Earth along with all the life forms by God, roughly 6000 years ago. Meanwhile, the scientists argue that the origin of life can be dated to millions of years ago, when life began to evolve by the process of natural selection. Besides the age of life-forms on earth, the most important clash between the two groups have been over the fact that according to the theory of evolution, life originated from completely inorganic sources, so to speak, from some complex chemical reaction of sorts, millions of years ago. In the course of this paper, I would like to examine the fundamental principles of both the sides also look into a rather interesting battle that has arisen amongst the scientists themselves. This concerns a Harvard Professor’s criticism certain supporters of the theory of evolution and his attempt to bring religion and science into coexsitance. Creationism ‘Creationism’ can be described in the simplest words as, a Doctrine or Theory holding that matter, the various forms of life and the world were created by god out of nothing, in the manner mentioned in the Genesis.1 The theory also stresses upon the centrality of God as the controller of everything. It describes God as omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. This is by far one of the few concurring ideas across different faiths which have represented God and his identity in different forms. They all subscribe to the belief that God has power over everything. They view him as the ‘Supreme Power’ who is both the creator and destroyer. According to the King James Bible, the Genesis, God created heaven and earth in the beginning, in a period of six days. Day 1: God said “let there be light”, and there was light. Day 2: God sad, let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. Day 3: And God said, let the earth bring forth grass and the fruit tree yield fruit. Day 4: And God created great every living creature. Day 5: And God said, Go forth and multiply each living creature after his kind: and it was so. Day 6: And God said, Let us make man in our image and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air and every other thing that moved on earth. Creationists also stress on the divine nature of the Genesis and therefore place it on higher merit than Science. Some Creationists have gone to the extent of denouncing all forms of science and blatantly disregard all scientific evidences. The primary reason behind this strong dichotomy is the fact that Science in itself questions the existence of god for want of evidence and proof. Therefore, in most circumstances, there is a logical deduction that science and atheism are on the same page, so to speak. Creationists strongly back faith over the reasons given by science, stating that if it is in the bible then it must be true. This strong belief system has over time ‘evolved’ into a cult of sorts, which has adapted with the changing arguments of the evolutionists. For instance, by 1920, some of the creationists had managed to ban the teaching of Darwinism in schools, which gave rise to the famous ‘Monkey Trials’. Creationists are also blamed for ensuring that there is strong opposition from the church against the learning of any form of Darwinism or evolutionism. Due to these conservative approaches, the creationists have also been christened as Christian Fundamentalists or simply Fundamentalists. They are viewed in the same manner as fundamentalists of other religions. They are blamed of having strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction to modernism.2 In the instant case, the science of evolutionism. Darwinism The terms Darwinism and Evolutionism have been used interchangeably over the years. However, there is a significant difference between the two. Evolutionism is a concept that pre-dates Charles Darwin and his work, On the Origin of Species. Evolution is a term used to refer to an orderly sequence of events with the outcome which was contained at the start. It denotes a gradual change in the outcome in a step by step process. It also denotes the belief which was prevalent within the scientific community during the 19th Century that organisms began at a simple singular level and intrinsically increased their complexity.3 However, there was no conclusive scientific proof. Darwin himself never used the term ‘evolution’ until his sixth edition in 1872. Although earlier editions did contain the term ‘evolved’, but it was never recognised in its true sense. Darwinism, however, represents a completely different sphere of scientific thought. Darwinism is in itself a movement of sorts relating to the ideas of transformation of species or evolution. In some cases, it has no connections with the original work of Darwin. Darwinism is viewed differently in different countries and by different communities. For instance, in the USA, it is often used as a pejorative term by the Creationists to refer to atheists. However, in the UK, it only represents those group of scientists who profess evolutionism. In simpler terms, one can conclude that it is a term used for those who promote the conclusions drawn by Darwin with respect to the evolution of species. In the year 1864, soon after the publication of On the Origin of Species, philosopher Herbert Spencer summarized the entire theory of evolution as “the survival of the fittest”. This phrase denoted in simple terms that the evolution of life form took place in such a manner so as to facilitate the longer propagation of a species which was the fittest amongst other species. Another famous interpretation is the one given by one of Darwin’s cousins, Francis Galton. According to him, Darwinism implied that evolution was taking place on the basis of Natural Selection. This term means that there is a nonrandom process by which certain biological traits become more prominent than the others due to different rates of propagation.4 For instance, some crops with certain traits are preferred more by humans and hence have a higher rate of being propagated. But the most interesting aspect of Darwinism lies in the myriad debates and interpretations that have taken place within the scientific community itself. This does not imply that there aren’t any disagreements and difference in interpretations of Creationists. The Old Earth Creationists, Young Earth Creationists, Intelligent Design Creationists, all represent divergent views within the Creationist community. However, what sets Darwinian Fundamentalism aside as a more prominent topic of discussion is that the dissenting Darwinists have alleged that it has tendencies or traits similar to that of creationists. Darwinian Fundamentalism The term Darwinian Fundamentalism was first used by Professor Stephen Gould of the Harvard University in the article titled “Darwinian Fundamentalism”. In this article, Gould attributes unscientific traits to some of the most prominent evolutionists, accusing them of practicing a very harsh form of Darwinism. He calls this a “self-styled form of Darwinian fundamentalism”, in professing their arguments with an almost theological fervor.5 As discussed above, the term fundamentalism in the religious context refers to “strict and literal adherence to divinely revealed principles.” This essentially means that the divine nature of the information is its primary basis for belief. However, Prof. Gould argues that scientific knowledge is based upon reason and not divine revelation, and finds it unnecessary to profess it with the same extremity that is used by theologists in support of creationism. Thus the term fundamentalism applied to a scientist indicates an unwillingness to accept scientific facts and uncompromising advocacy of preconceived notions. Prof. Gould wryly writes that “Darwin has sainthood (if not divinity) among many evolutionary biologists.”6 Prof. Gould uses the words Darwinian Fundamentalism to denote a complete lack of scientific objectivity regarding evolutionary biology, as well as a serious distortion of Darwin’s writings. The Darwinists who have resorted to this extremity, according to him are, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. His article Darwinian Fundamentalism is a special reply to Dennett’s book entitled Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. According to Prof. Gould, what is being presented to the public as the “science of religion” would be more accurately described as the “religion of evolution”. It is important to note that Prof. Gould is not the first to criticize the prevalence of fundamentalism in evolutionary biology. Similar criticisms have been made by many other prominent evolutionists such as Prof. Niles Eldredge, who is the curator at the American Museum of Natural History, New York. He uses the term “ultra-Darwinian” o describe the fundamentalist Darwinians. The debate between the two sides can be put into perspective if we examine the principle stance of either side. To summarize the view point of Darwinian Fundamentalists, some of their primary principles are as follows: 1. There is no God, or he is scientifically irrelevant. 2. Thus, life formed from non-life by natural processes. 3. Life evolved from simple to complex by natural processes. 4. Morality and law are human inventions, not divine. They evolved because they somehow are helpful in producing more offspring. Meanwhile, the crux of Prof. Gould contends that the purpose of Darwinism is twofold. First, to demonstrate the fact of evolution. Second, to advance the theory of natural selection as the most important mechanism of evolution. Prof. Gould argues that Darwin has not been successful in successfully demonstrating that natural selection was the most important mechanism of evolution, although he submits that the first objective has been fulfilled. On this ground he argues that science and religion should be considered as two separate categories whose authorities do not overlap. Conclusion It would not be an exaggeration to claim that the debate between the creationists and evolutionists has reached its peak. In a quest to seek more prominence, each side has further mutated into subsets, which are now directly in conflict with each other. This principled battle that has ensued inter-se, according to me, is both detrimental to both science and religion at large. As discussed earlier, plurality within these bodies is not necessarily contributing to more clarity as much as it has created confusion. For instance, any person who has tried to subscribe to the creationist view would have to first make a choice between Old Earth and Young Earth Creationism. Then there is the final frontier of the Intelligent Design theory. Same holds true in the case of the Darwinists. In my opinion, Prof. Gould’s submissions regarding the fundamentalist fervor in Darwinism shows a disturbing trend of scientists resorting to fire fighting. I largely agree with him with respect to his submissions about considering science and religion as two separate fields. In today’s world, religion is no longer seen as an area of knowledge but it is perceived more as a way of life. Religion has serves the very important purpose of filling legal voids by creating a norm of morality. This is by far the most important purpose of religion in the present circumstances. Creating a dichotomy between science and religion might let the two function in peace. Moreover, it is accepted worldwide that anything that resorts to fundamentalists tendencies represents an underlying weakness. Be it weakness in faith in the case of religion, or weakness in reason in the case of science. Darwinian fundamentalism is an undesirable spin off of by far the most remarkable scientific work of the 19th Century. Bibliography 1. George M. Marsden, “Fundamentalism and American Culture”, (1980) pp 4-2. 2. Carneiro, Robert Leonard, “Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology: A Critical History” (2003), pp 1-3. 3. R. A. Fisher, “The General Theory of Natural Selection”, (1930), pp 6-8. 4. Stephen J Gould, “Darwinian Fundamentalism”. 5. Daniel Dennett, “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life”. Read More