Comments on: Why is Darwin still controversial? http://blog.oup.com/2011/04/darwin-writer/ Academic insights for the thinking world. Wed, 22 May 2013 15:58:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: David Martin http://blog.oup.com/2011/04/darwin-writer/#comment-220972 David Martin Mon, 09 May 2011 03:08:07 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=15417#comment-220972 Much of conservative America, whether Evangelical or sort-of libertarian, seems to be in revolt against secularism. The New York Times just ran a profile of David Barton, an amateur who wields vast influence over school history curricula involving the Founding Fathers, who he's remade into Evangelicals who designed a Christian government based on Old Testament ideas--and definitely not on the notions of those Englightenment figures in Edinburgh. The revolt against "evolution" is older. Most of the American public seems not to even accept the great age of the earth. I wonder how much longer a prestigious Evangelical college like Wheaton (Illinois) can continue to have an orthodox geology department. Barton is also a big proponent of the idea that God's creation is resilient and doesn't need to be protected against pollution, much less global warming. Climate science is becoming not merely "bad science" but a failure to trust God's promise of an earth suited for people. I'm willing to guess that Darwin perhaps made his greatest headway in the 1960s, when science education was a national priority. In the past decade, as interest and investment in education has declined, what our children learn is being left to aggresive obscurantists. Much of conservative America, whether Evangelical or sort-of libertarian, seems to be in revolt against secularism. The New York Times just ran a profile of David Barton, an amateur who wields vast influence over school history curricula involving the Founding Fathers, who he’s remade into Evangelicals who designed a Christian government based on Old Testament ideas–and definitely not on the notions of those Englightenment figures in Edinburgh.

The revolt against “evolution” is older. Most of the American public seems not to even accept the great age of the earth. I wonder how much longer a prestigious Evangelical college like Wheaton (Illinois) can continue to have an orthodox geology department.

Barton is also a big proponent of the idea that God’s creation is resilient and doesn’t need to be protected against pollution, much less global warming. Climate science is becoming not merely “bad science” but a failure to trust God’s promise of an earth suited for people.

I’m willing to guess that Darwin perhaps made his greatest headway in the 1960s, when science education was a national priority. In the past decade, as interest and investment in education has declined, what our children learn is being left to aggresive obscurantists.

]]> By: Timothy OBrien http://blog.oup.com/2011/04/darwin-writer/#comment-216018 Timothy OBrien Fri, 08 Apr 2011 13:11:53 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=15417#comment-216018 It is in the grand tradition of American anti-intellectualism. I think most people who "don't believe" in any type of science are simply choosing a cultural side. (Almost as they would, say, Yankees vs Red Sox.) It has little or nothing to do with the science involved. Compare Sarah Palin's comments against efforts to prevent childhood obesity, and even to promote breast-feeding! Nothing to do with science or health benefits...she just wants to define herself as "against" Michelle Obama. Goes without saying that they don't understand the science they oppose. No shame in that...the more you read about evolution, the more you realize how little you knew! Thanks Prof Levine, I enjoy reading your work. It is in the grand tradition of American anti-intellectualism. I think most people who “don’t believe” in any type of science are simply choosing a cultural side. (Almost as they would, say, Yankees vs Red Sox.) It has little or nothing to do with the science involved. Compare Sarah Palin’s comments against efforts to prevent childhood obesity, and even to promote breast-feeding! Nothing to do with science or health benefits…she just wants to define herself as “against” Michelle Obama.

Goes without saying that they don’t understand the science they oppose. No shame in that…the more you read about evolution, the more you realize how little you knew! Thanks Prof Levine, I enjoy reading your work.

]]> By: RickK http://blog.oup.com/2011/04/darwin-writer/#comment-215862 RickK Thu, 07 Apr 2011 22:30:26 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=15417#comment-215862 It's scary to think that we may indeed be a cosmic accident. It's scary to face the world without the comfort of an imaginary friend or the comfort of an imaginary afterlife. It's human nature. Evolutionary theory suggests we are the product of natural, unguided processes. It is also human nature to direct our worship or hate at a person rather than an idea, and Darwin is the iconic personification of evolutionary theory. Darwin is controversial because people are afraid. It’s scary to think that we may indeed be a cosmic accident. It’s scary to face the world without the comfort of an imaginary friend or the comfort of an imaginary afterlife. It’s human nature.

Evolutionary theory suggests we are the product of natural, unguided processes. It is also human nature to direct our worship or hate at a person rather than an idea, and Darwin is the iconic personification of evolutionary theory.

Darwin is controversial because people are afraid.

]]> By: Philip Appleman http://blog.oup.com/2011/04/darwin-writer/#comment-215827 Philip Appleman Thu, 07 Apr 2011 19:49:51 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=15417#comment-215827 Excellent discussion, touching all the bases! Philip Appleman Excellent discussion, touching all the bases!
Philip Appleman

]]>