Darwin's Dismay

"As delighted as he was with his discovery, Darwin was equally horrified because he understood the consequences of his theory." - Newsweek, July 7th - 14th 2008.

Sometimes I wish more scientists would blog, if only to offset the boorish, media-whoring behavior of some of the more prominent names in science blogging. (But then, what is blogging if not pandering to an audience to increase readership?)

It takes no particular talent at all (or courage) to wait until one knows how the wind is blowing with regards to a particular controversy, and then offer a 'civilized' perspective. If you don't know what controversy I'm referring to, I'll spare you the details. I'll spare you my 'civilized' perspective on the particulars of said controversy as well.

I will say this... Every time I see one of those fish symbols that have been mutilated to include feet and the name 'Darwin' in the center, I think 'Darwin would be appalled by that.' One hundred and fifty years after he left us his great legacy of observations and thoughts, his name is now attached to things that mock religion. If you think he would have approved of that, then you clearly have never read any biographical material on Darwin.

Some people seem to think that advancing the cause of science is synonymous with denouncing or attacking religion. Science is not a domain governed by atheists, and it would behoove more of those atheists to remember that fact. Atheism is socially acceptable because of science. Science provides the justification for expressing atheist beliefs. Science permits atheism, for better or worse, not the other way around.

If atheism represents nothing positive (and atheism is not synonymous with secular humanism), then it becomes the ugly barnacle that slows science from making progress in educating future generations in a world dominated by religion. Religion is available to the masses; science is only available to those with an education or a curiosity that hasn't been suppressed. Religion will indoctrinate and use social pressure to perpetuate itself; science is not about the power of the few over the many. Scientists (most of them) are not 'in it' for the social prestige or power. If the goal is to advance the progress of science, then science must be able to coexist with religion until such time as religion is not threatened by what science represents, and science must represent something better than religion. (Think about that the next time you wish to vent your personal frustrations in a high-profile forum where you represent not only yourself, but the scientific establishment as well.)

If science becomes synonymous with atheism, science will lose. The reality of the situation is that religion (with its 'unscientific' beliefs) has been around a lot longer, offers more to the individual, and has claim to more of the population than does science. From a simple strategic standpoint, loud-mouthed atheist arrogance is counterproductive, as it 'coverts' only those who fear bullying and ridicule and causes the rest to hunker down in a defensive mindset.

And science stands to lose for a bigger reason. The next 'Darwinian' step in science will give even more fuel to these loud-mouthed atheists, as well as draw a hailstorm of hatred from religious people who feel even more threatened. That's alot to put on one person. Especially one person who will be able to see what Darwin had to go through and what his legacy has become. 'You would do this? In my name?' 'You would incite people to do this? Because of what I tried to share?'

No thanks.