Not the Year of Our Lord

Fans of evolution have reason to celebrate. The year 2009 is both the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species, which formally laid out his theory of evolution. Darwin’s discovery revolutionized the field of biology and laid the groundwork for countless future discoveries in anthropology, psychology, and medicine. Chances are, you found out about Darwin’s birthday well before reading this, because his face has been everywhere this winter, from the cover of National Geographic to the Queen’s Head Pub last month, where drinks were served and gorilla costumes worn in honor of the bicentennial.

But evolution skeptics have reason to cheer as well, because the celebration of Darwin’s work among scientists and in the media will likely reignite the debate over whether evolution or creationism should be taught in schools. Creationists will point out that the Darwin love-fest among scientists amounts to little more than devotion to a religious leader, reinforcing the views of the nearly half of Americans who don’t believe in evolution anyway. The display in the Science Center prepared by the UK-based Darwin 200 in February seemed to anticipate this debate, as one of the panels debunks a list of creationist myths about evolution. [See correction below.]

Why would so many ordinary Americans reject something that is so overwhelmingly accepted by the people who study it? A simple clash between religion and science has often been posited as the answer, but the reality is more complicated, as evidenced by the large number of scientists who believe in both God and in evolution.

Evolution gets singled out because of its implications about the origin of human life. It is unintuitive, even for scientists, to accept that our species, which is unique in so many ways, has the same origins as a shark or a sequoia. But this does not account for why every single European country except Turkey is more willing than the U.S. to accept evolution as a fact. Presumably people in the EU care about what it means to be human, too.

One answer is that creationists in the United States are better organized and more effective at controlling the debate, taking advantage of some admittedly confusing aspects of evolution to cast a shadow of doubt over the whole field.

Take the typical American creationist’s sneer: discrediting evolution by calling it “only a theory.” This misrepresents the concept of a theory in scientific discourse, which simply means an explanation. Plate tectonics, geometry, and even gravity are considered scientific theories. Calling evolution “only a theory” is also highly misleading because evolution is not only a theory but also a fact, in the words of the late Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould. We can observe the fact of evolution in populations of animals or plants that change even over a human lifetime, just as we can observe that bricks of different weights all hit the ground at the same time when chucked over the side of the leaning tower of Pisa.

Many American creationists also use other acts of verbal obfuscation. For instance, some attempt to spread the notion that there is a real debate among scientists between evolution and intelligent design and then encourage public schools to “teach the debate.” But among the most damaging tactics is to refer to those who accept evolution as Darwinists, because it feeds off the sense of awe many scientists genuinely feel toward Darwin. American creationists use it to imply that believers in evolution form little more than a religious sect, owing irrational fealty to a charismatic spiritual leader. It doesn’t help that the term Darwinism is actually used by scientists, although only to differentiate between early evolutionary hypotheses.

The idea that scientists have an irrational reverence for Darwin is false. His work is seen as incomplete at best: Darwin knew nothing about genes or DNA, and yet today it would be impossible to teach evolution without discussing them. Further, although Darwin developed his theory first, it was Alfred Wallace’s independent conclusions that finally spurred Darwin to publish his findings.

Still, many scientists continue to honor Darwin, certainly out of honest admiration but perhaps also to reinforce the significance of his findings on evolution. But too much praise gives the general public the impression that scientists are all a bunch of Darwin-worshippers. It’s bad enough that books have just been published with titles like Darwin’s Sacred Cause by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, assessing Darwin’s abolitionist tendencies, or Angels and Ages, by Adam Gopnik, which compares Darwin to Lincoln. Worse, these views are often evangelized in the popular press. Even something as seemingly innocuous as putting a fish on your car with the word “Darwin” written inside it may suggest to the uniformed that Darwin is somehow the Jesus of atheism.

So how can you honor Darwin’s legacy without attracting the whiff of religious fanaticism? Point out simple inconsistencies in dinner-table debate. (Individuals don’t evolve, populations do.) Remind others that evolution is overwhelmingly uncontroversial among scientists. But, for crying out loud, don’t wax poetic about the genius of Charles Darwin or his noble purpose. You’d be doing your entire species a disservice.


Adam R. Gold ’11, a Crimson editorial writer, is a physics concentrator in Adams House. His column appears on alternate Mondays.

This column incorrectly stated that the UK-based organization Darwin 200 had prepared an educational evolution display in the Science Center in February. In fact, the panels were put together by students from the Harvard Undergraduate Biological Sciences Society and the Organismic and Evolutionary Undergraduate Group. The Crimson regrets the error.