Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Digg
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
The majority of Doulos Magazine’s treatment of evolution, coming at a time when animosity between science and religion is at a record high, is remarkably level-headed and even handed. However, there is at least one exception. Within the most recent issue of the University of Maine’s Christian student publication lurks a polemic by apostate biology student John Knight, which egregiously chooses to repeat many of the half-truths and misrepresentations that keep the atmosphere of the debate between skeptical believers and scientists in its famously uncongenial state.
First, the piece suggests there is a “taboo on questioning evolution,” as though the scientific community is a shadowy faction of dogmatic ideologues ruthlessly repressing anything that does not fit its twisted worldview. This commonly promulgated belief is used to hold evolution to the same standard as politics: “Let us debate this and choose the view that best pleases everyone.”
Alas, things do not work this way. As Ken Miller, the eminent biologist at Brown University, explains in an interview printed in this very same issue, evolution — besides being a theory — is also a fact. The fact of evolution, like all facts, cannot be decided by a vote. Populations evolve, not because scientists want them to, but because they do.
Furthermore, this phenomenon is measurable; biologists use a unit called the Haldane. This is settled and indisputable. If there is a “taboo” on questioning evolution, then there is also a taboo on questioning gravity. Question all you want, but expect the same answer every time.
As for the theory of natural selection, its veracity is borne by the weight of evidence. If someone demanded to debate a biologist about cell theory, saying it was a conspiracy and people are actually made of phlogiston, who would decry the resulting mockery? Though cell theory and natural selection are both scientific theories with similarly high levels of acceptance in the scientific community, they are treated differently by the public.
The reason for these varied levels of respect can be found in Mr. Knight’s reprehensible portrayal of a straw man evolutionist. As Knight writes, “[O]ne could shoot an evolutionist’s wife, and he should make no accusations about it. To him, [her death can be] explained by chance … with no moral law saying killing is wrong … It was bound to happen by accident, with no motive and directed process from an intelligent being.”
The key phrase here is “moral law.” The problem is evolutionary theory is not meant to establish a moral code. It explains a natural phenomenon — that organisms change over time — not murderers. It is not designed to supplant the rule of law.
Biologists “follow” evolution in the same way that carpenters worship circular saws. It is a tool, not a route to salvation. And although any reputable scientist would agree science makes no claims to moral authority — as Dr. Miller, also a Roman Catholic, explains in his interview — the anti-evolutionists frequently try to depict biologists as immoral, nihilistic, thoroughly odious subhuman monstrosities, not to mention bad lovers.
This is what makes it hard to have an honest debate about evolution. Evolution’s opponents misrepresent facts, tell outright lies and, when that isn’t enough, demonize the people who have the gall to defend a theory that makes no claim to moral authority because it doesn’t have to and, what’s more, isn’t supposed to. Then they try to suggest biologists are using it to subvert the role of religion and the rule of law in society.
It’s a stand as insulting as it is hyperbolic. Why must I choose between evolution and love? Science and religion? And why must discourse be dragged through the mud?
Andrew Tomes is a sophomore botany student.
