1-30-06, 8:49 am
Ordinary, non-academically trained admirers of Charles Darwin probably do not fully understand the enormous scope of the contribution to life sciences made by the founder of evolutionary theory. On the other hand, in the view of that fountainhead of religious fanaticism and extremist pronouncements, Pat Robertson, Charles Darwin, in his discoveries, was more likely inspired by demonic forces than by a brilliant mind devoted to scientific method, agonizingly detailed study, and years of philosophical and spiritual soul-searching.
A new biography by American Museum of Natural History curator and trained biologist Niles Eldredge is an excellent source of information about the biographical details of the scientist's life, as well as a careful and not too arcane account of the basic theories at which Darwin arrived. Additionally, Eldredge brings Darwin's work up to date, examining his influence on modern scientists and the contemporary debates raging around questions posed by religiously motivated critics of Darwin.
People of any political or religious orientation who have concerns about evolutionary theory – what it is, what scientists say about it, and what the evidence shows – should read this book.
Of particular interest to this reviewer was Eldredge's final chapter, 'Darwin as Anti-Christ: Creationism in the Twenty-first Century.' Throughout the book, Eldredge reminds us that Darwin, prior to his discoveries and the synthesis of his own thoughts about them, was a devout creationist, much like most of the scientists and thinkers of his time. In fact, he hesitated to publish his findings for more than a decade because of his personal struggle over what they meant.
Contrary to the received wisdom of his time, Darwin came to believe, based on decades of observation and research, that all life has descended from a single common ancestor in the remote geological past and that it has evolved. Since Darwin, as Eldredge writes, all we have learned about molecular biology, the existing fossil record and new fossil discoveries, as well as studies of living species, has corroborated Darwin's theories and predictions.
Eldredge also notes that while most people of faith insist on keeping religious interpretations separate from scientific ones, some fundamentalist religious groups have continued to push creationist ideas as science. Creationist ideas are based on two principle assumptions. First, the biblical account of the origins of life must be true and infallible because it is believed to be the word of God (ignoring the fact that there are two contradictory creation accounts in Genesis, one saying that humans were created before animals, another after them). Secondly, creationist ideas allow their proponents to view humans as distinct from the rest of nature.
Eldredge rejects the creationists' claim that evolution has not been proven and that life is too complex to have been an accident. (He also points out the creationism is the real basis of current ideas about intelligent design, although disguised with new rhetoric.) He points out, as genetic discoveries have shown us, that all life is connected by DNA and RNA, since this genetic material can be found in every living thing. Also, the development of life from simple to complex organisms, as evidenced by the fossil record, corroborates evolutionary theory. And, for humans especially, genetic studies as well as the fossil record show a strong kinship with apes and a concrete lineage linking both humans and apes to a common ancestor, facts that completely undermine creationist/intelligent design criticisms of evolutionary theory.
There is no doubt, Eldredge writes, that 'all the evidence puts us squarely within the ranks of apes, which are primates, which are mammals, which are animals, which are eukaryotes, which are a segment of all life. This is what we would expect if we evolved. This is what we see. We evolved.... Darwin was right.'
As for the question of complexity, Eldredge points out that as the fossil record and our knowledge of genetics and numerous branches of chemistry and biology show, complexity is the outcome of several billion years of evolutionary change. One should expect complexity under such conditions.
Meanwhile, intelligent design concepts are 'conveniently untestable.' These concepts lack the claim to science that evolutionary theory has. Unlike creationism/intelligent design, evolution can be observed in the fossil record and predictions can be made and re-tested. Intelligent design, on the other hand, relies on simple belief and ignores, in fact rejects, the scientific requirement that it be tested. It boils down to rhetoric: life is too complex to be an accident; therefore it must have been designed. End of debate.
On another point, Eldredge argues that creationist/intelligent design advocates who demand their religious views be taught in science classrooms and try to discredit real science in the court of public opinion, are on the verge of undermining the leading role of the US in scientific research. At bottom, creationism/intelligent design proponents rely on lack of knowledge about science to convince their followers and convert new believers. In the process they misrepresent evolutionary theory in order to discredit scientific work and the scientific method.
In fact, it is not too wild to predict that if creationists and their right-wing political allies continue to dominate politics in general in the US, as they presently do, the dark night of superstition, ignorance and fear will return. In the context of right-wing views on the environment, health care and disease, their preference for using science for military purposes, and their entire political and economic strategy for the privatization and corporatization of knowledge and resources, the political and educational impact of creationism points to dangerous prospects for democracy and the possibility for a better world that genuine science offers us.
