Today we honour the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Robert Darwin, one of the giants of the scientific world. Natural Selection, Darwin’s theory of Evolution, is one of the most famous and beautifully written scientific theories the world has ever known.
But Darwin’s theory, over the centuries, has been the target of one of the most prolonged and persistent counterknowledge campaigns in history.
The Church of England were the first opponents to Darwin’s revolutionary new theories. The British press leapt on the idea of man’s ascension from the ape, and the cartoonists went to town. Darwin’s supporters, undeterred, continued to press his theory.
Thomas Henry Huxley, the man known as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’, clashed with the bombastic Bishop of Oxford, ‘Soapy’ Samuel Wilberforce, in Oxford in 1860. Wilberforce, at the height of the argument, demanded to know if Huxley was descended from an ape “on his mother’s or his father’s side”. At this insult Huxley, turning to another Darwin ally, the surgeon Benjamin Brodie, muttered: “The Lord hath delivered him into mine hands”, then delivered a withering riposte. According to Macmillan’s Magazine:
“On this Mr Huxley slowly and deliberately arose. A slight tall figure stern and pale, very quiet and very grave, he stood before us, and spoke those tremendous words - words which no one seems sure of now, nor I think, could remember just after they were spoken, for their meaning took away our breath, though it left us in no doubt as to what it was. He was not ashamed to have a monkey for his ancestor; but he would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used great gifts to obscure the truth. No one doubted his meaning and the effect was tremendous. One lady fainted and had to be carried out: I, for one, jumped out of my seat; and when in the evening we met at Dr Daubeney’s, every one was eager to congratulate the hero of the day.”
In 1878, four years before Darwin’s death, American Presbyterians at the Niagara Bible Conference founded the Christian Fundamentalist Movement. At this early stage the relatively moderate founders were, for the most part, not diametrically opposed to the idea of Natural Selection. Christian Creationism was not to take shape until after the First World War.
By the 1920’s, Creationism had found a figurehead in Democrat politician William Jennings Bryan. A powerful speaker, Bryan ran for President no less than three times, and later became Woodrow Wilson’s Secretary of State. By 1925, the year of his death, he had published several books and lectured extensively on the subject. One of his books was entitled “The Menace of the Theory of Evolution”.
Bryan was to meet his match, however, in the famous agnostic lawyer Clarence Darrow, and their field of battle was to be the famous Scopes ‘Monkey’ trial of 1925.
24-year-old school football coach John Scopes had, while filling in for a friend, approached the subject of Evolution in a biology class, violating as he did so Tennessee’s Butler Act, which made it unlawful: “to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.”
Darrow and Bryan squared up in the courthouse of Dayton, Tennessee, and with the world’s press watching, went to war. This was the second of the titanic clashes between Darwin’s supporters and his critics.
The results, as at the Oxford debate, were mixed. Scopes was convicted, and though he was only lightly sentenced, the state legislatures of Mississippi and Arkansas passed antievolutionary laws copying the Butler act.
But Bryan, technically the victor, was lampooned in the Northern liberal media as being part of an ignorant and backwards South. The famous journalist H. L. Mencken published a barrage of stinging attacks on both Bryan personally and Tennessee residents in general, calling them “Neanderthals” and “morons”.
Darrow became a media darling in the North, and his speeches in Scopes’ defence were widely published. Bryan died soon after the trial ended.
The Scopes trial served only to energise both sides of the Christian Creationism debate. The 20th Century saw Creationism split into several sections, including the hard-line Young Earth Creationists, who take as literal fact every word of the New Testament, and believe that the Earth was created between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago.
Progress has been made since, though perhaps not as much as Darwin, Brodie, Huxley and his other allies might have hoped in 1860. There are still places in America where Evolution must be taught as a theory alongside Creationism, and there are still hard-line fundamentalists who fight to have Natural Selection discredited.
Darwin’s theory, perhaps fittingly, has always had to fight for its survival, and is fighting still. But while the battlegrounds used to be in the Southern states of America, and the main opponents Christians, a new enemy to Natural Selection is beginning to emerge from the shadows in the Middle East.
A worryingly low number of people across the Islamic world, when polled, agree that Darwin’s theory is “probably or most certainly true.” A troublingly low 60% of Americans agree with Natural Selection, but this is eclipsed by Egypt’s 8%, Pakistan’s 14%, Indonesia’s 16% and Turkey’s 22%.
Islamic scholars are divided on the subject of Creation. Some argue that the Qur’an, unlike the Bible, contains no specific timeframe with which to take up arms against scientific fact. These moderate scholars, such as the author Yahiya Emerick, see no conflict between Islam and evolution, saying:
“Because we do not reject the evidence presented to us by Paleontologists (fossil hunters) and other scientists, we can accept some of what they say, also, about the origins of life on Earth and the existence of dinosaurs and other creatures in the fossil record. However, we read in Allah’s book that He caused it to happen and that by studying it we increase our faith in Him. Therefore, we disagree with those who say everything happened without Allah, by mere chance only.”
However, fundamentalist scholars like Nuh Ha Mim Keller, an American convert now living in Jordan, argue that:
“As for claim that man has evolved from a non-human species, this is unbelief (kufr) no matter if we ascribe the process to Allah or to “nature,” because it negates the truth of Adam’s special creation that Allah has revealed in the Qur’an.”
Worryingly, it seems that the latter view is gaining strength. The vicious anti-Evolutionary sentiment in Adnan Oktar’s book “The Evolution Deceit”, circulated for free in Turkey, seems to have become the prevailing view there. Oktar, writing as Harun Yahya, continues to write against Evolution, and to send unsolicited copies to scholars like Richard Dawkins, as well as distributing them in Turkey.
As we celebrate the 200th birthday of the father of Evolution, we must also be aware that this most critical of scientific theories continues to fight for its survival.
If you enjoyed this post, why not subscribe to our RSS feed or follow us on Twitter? You might also consider making a donation to the Counterknowledge.com fighting fund.
Click here to sign up for free RSS updates.
Download the free 
Join 
6 responses
“There are still places in America where Evolution must be taught as a theory alongside Creationism . . .”
I’m not aware of any state public school where evolution must be taught alongside creationism. Teaching creationism in a public school science class (as opposed to say, an ethics class) is unconstitutional. In whatever form the teaching of creationism has evolved i.e. creation science or intelligent design, the courts have slapped it down.
** What is empirically true? How do we know that? And so what? **
Fundies don’t ask Do you *believe that* evolution is true? They ask Do you *believe in* evolution? I’m not being pedantic here. When asked “Do you *believe in* evolution?” My answer No, I do not believe in evolution, I *know that modern evolutionary theory is true*.
The difference is not *mere* semantics. But, if you find explanation too pedantic, stop now.
1. Fundies speak from an irrational, non-empirical context: faith-based supernaturalism
History matters. Distinctions in concepts matter. ‘Belief in’ or ‘Faith’ needs to be traced back to New Testament Greek before making sense of it. ‘Faith’ in English translates ‘fides’ in Latin. Biblical translators used ‘fides’ for ‘pistis’ in koine Greek, “common Greek” of canonic xian texts. A direct translation of ‘pistis’ into English is ‘trust.’ For skeptical Greeks, pistis was lowest on the scale of trustworthiness for claiming a statement to be true.
Having faith means my trusting that some belief is true. I trust not because I have any reliable evidence for that statement (of belief). I trust because I am someone who regards as authoritative some other person or written source who has said that it is true.
The so-called great monotheisms (judaism, xianity, and islam) are authoritarian — authoritarian in power (as in Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Ameristan). They are also authoritarian in matters of faith and morals (from infallible Benny16 to other moral monsters like James Dobson and Sarah Palin).
Having faith *especially when contradicted by evidence far beyond a reasonable doubt* still marks the inverted elitism among xians. Or, as early church “father” Tertullian says, “I believe because it is absurd.”
2. Empirical knowledge organized and refined is the sole domain of scientific inquiry
With respect to science vs. near-eastern monotheisms, the *relationship lies beyond any rational doubt in favor of science.* When talking about nature mythological discourse which may be psychologically comforting gives way to empirico-conceptual discourse, setting comfort aside in order to determine what can be known to be empirically true.
Science arbitrates which statements about the world, empirical statements, are or are not “known” — that is, are properly given the metalinguistic accolade, ‘is [empirically] true.’ (See: Tarski’s semantic theory of truth)
Such statements are ‘methodologically fit’ according to the relevant testing procedures *within science itself*. (Repeatability is neither a necessary nor sufficient requirement.)
Methodological fitness belongs to the import of a yet unfinished shift — the scientific revolution. In whom is evaluative power vested? Who shall decide what is true about nature? And by what criteria is truth ascertained?
Neither *ethical fitness* as in Heraclitus and his Stoic followers nor *theological fitness* as in Plato and his xian followers is any longer considered a viable principle for assessing the truth of an empirical statement.
Methodologically, whenever so-called sacred writings make claims about the natural world, they are subject to exactly the same forces of potential refutation as any other empirical claim. There is no *Executive Privilege* for God.
3. Know your opposition. “Christianity is the practice of nihilism.” — Nietzsche
Of course, fundies disagree. And these bible worshipers say so. They deliberately lie in their pseudo-scientific textbooks and they demand equal time for their lies in public education.
For 2,000 years one vile hallmark of xianity has remained its hatred of natural knowledge and skeptical philosophy. The Stoics and Epicureans of Athens laughed Paul of Tarsus off the Areopagus when he proclaimed Christ’s resurrection. Paul’s quintessential, nihilistic rejoinder remains holy writ:
27-But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28-He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are …
(1st Corinthians: Chapter 1: verses 26-28 New International Version of the New Testament.)
In his “On the genealogy of morals” (1886), Nietzsche cites Paul’s verses as the non plus ultra of xian resentment giving birth to values completely antithetical to those of Greco-Roman thought. It took 500 years of very lucky breaks and imperial anti-pagan mandates before xianity finally destroyed every vestige of humanism for the next 1,000 years.
Xianity still appeals to those who believe themselves mistreated. To those in whom resentment surges. To those masochists who must punish their guilty selves. To those sadists who must project that guilt onto others and into nature. (The whole of 1Cor1 deserves reading.)
Their death impulse directed inward, engenders hatred of self. Directed outward, hatred of others and the world. Know them by their “fruits” — they are revenge seekers acting on their fideistic falsehoods “believed in” as absolute truths.
anti-supernaturalist ©2009
I agree. I don’t know of any public school that teaches creationism…
Happy Birthday darwin! here is my birthday present to the great man!
YouTube Darwin v Adam & Eve http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbucnNX5t2g
This was made for all those who have no idea what the fuss is all about!
Enjoy!
This site is amaingly helpful for my progect on charles darwin found lots of info
Hats off to Darwin for braving the world with his published ideas that have scientific validity.
It benefits the scientific community to study valid theories, most significantly, delineating between theory and fact. Currently the most advanced scientists are gradually bringing to a halt the established dogma that repudiates evidence in favor of the chosen invested theory. As Darwin has become idolized, though, his theory as taught has limited the benefit to scientific research attempting to further knowledge rather than merely gloss the embraced dogma with another coat of polish. After all, dogma does not require facts, but simply projects its own legitimacy, valid or not in the empirical sense. It is not necessarily that Darwin was mistaken, but that those who advanced the Darwin Law included opportunists seeking their own agenda for power.
Leading scientists do seek thorough scientific approaches to understanding the creative energy of life that embraces evolution with experience. There are those like Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., “fascinated with universes, zero-point fields, and what’s behind it all” having written The God Theory (Weiser Books, 2006), whose international scientific contributions to advanced astrophysics and technology are impeccable. For those unfamiliar, Dr. Haisch embraces evolution, and finds “no need for Intelligent Design” as his God Theory is consistent with the ‘Big Bang’ theory and Darwin’s Law. I found his line of thought fascinating.
I paused to consider the comment by anti-supernaturalist that “Empirical knowledge organized and refined is the sole domain of scientific inquiry.”
If one defines scientific inquiry to only consist of empirical knowledge, then I disagree with that inquiry “sole domain” statement. In that sense, it would confine awareness, denying Verstehen’s complete comprehension of the entire faculty of the mind which as yet is not totally empirically understood. There is nothing inappropriate in recognizing the energy of life that is both metaphysically and physically manifested.
Thought is metaphysical. And without experience, itself metaphysical, thought and further inquiry would lack form. The scientific inquiry begins in the metaphysical realm of thought, exposed to the physical realm and sifted through empirical experiments in order to direct into theory, and from theory possibly into fact via knowledge that requires practiced experience in order to be valued.
Of course evolution occurred. But to denounce the existence of metaphysics because it is the INITIAL motivation for experiment rather than the END RESULT of materialism and is ignorance that denies origination itself, the supposed point for studying evolution. Seek to understand what it is that creates life, the creative energy, the “intelligence” within elemental components that do not randomly choose attractions. To claim that unless you can hold something in your hand, it does not exist is to deny THOUGHT and the value of experience.
Biology is the study of life. Prior to the late 19th Century when coincidentally the ideology of Marxism roused intellectuals to abuse the masses in order to attain more power over the individual’s liberty to think. Chronicle Europe’s syncronized scientific ideologies of Empiricism and Marxism, meshing to constrict and limit thought in the same authoritarian fashion that the Medieval Holy Roman Empire manipulated to grip all power, stifling knowledge and the liberty of experience. When isolated as the politically correct ONLY ACCEPTABLE theory, then all intellectual effort concerts towards convolution of the thought process. This confluence of ideologies espoused by the same elitists should not be dismissed as invalid because of unique features. Though the ideologies regard different specifics, they were both used by the same social class seeking their own power base politically to concert efforts towards a power shift to destroy the upwardly mobile lower classes of society, reasserting a neo-feudal system in which the empirical Marxists would rule the world.
The irony is that Darwinists have evolved interpretation of the Darwin Law, substituted as the “beautifully written” modern gospel of truth, as if Darwin thoroughly and perfectly explicated all knowledge, as if no one else had previously been discussing this evolution of species, and no one else would ever discover more than Darwin could imagine or find through exploration.
My contention with purists of any ideology, whether fundamentalist Christians or Darwinists trumping the sole existence within an Empirical World as if to own the universe, is that both of their supposed enlightened states ignore the authenticity preceding all that is within the ur-cell, and deny the value of imagination to think and ponder for solutions to problems, how to INITIATE through the mind a new search for scientific knowledge.
This metaphysical direction that promoted scientific empiricism should not be discarded as if original thought is no longer useful, no longer relevant, no longer applicable in life and the study of life, biology. For the scientific community to have excommunicated any reference to the metaphysical is a hindrance to further exploration, blinded to a dimension that exists in the mind and senses. That is simply another mean spirited authoritarian ignorance manifested opposite the other fundamentalism on the spectrum representing all search for understanding.
I value scholarly research, open investigation towards complete comprehension for the useful powerful knowledge that we explore scientifically, while holding as sacred the value of creative energy not to be abused. I believe that Darwin thought likewise, and would imagine that those who admire him most do as well.