Dinosaurs and Darwinists
Capt. Fogg’s post about that Charlie Darwin movie’s travails leads me to offer a post of my own as an extended comment. Yes, I saw the article – the depths of ignorance on this issue are so profound as to invite comparisons to the Kantian sublime. One hears again and again from the fundamentalist crazies that eee-volushun is “only a theory.” Which statement of course proves they have no idea what the word “theory” means in a properly scientific context. They seem to think it means something like “a wild guess,” whereas by the time something sciency gets itself labelled a theory, it’s already been used to make medicines or send rocket ships to the moon. The details may be subject to revision, but in the main the theory will hold true.
What to make of the fact that despite this battle’s having been waged and won decisively by the supporters of science about a century and a half ago in Great Britain, we still see such poll numbers in our own country? Well, for one thing, they invalidate any notion of “progress” whatsoever – if in fact the notion still needed invalidating, which it really doesn’t thanks to a number of cataclysmic human events during the last century. But more interesting is that the continuing refusal to deal with the cosmic “facts of life” may stem from the inflection in uneducated minds of a struggle over one of the great human questions: how to live, or, more particularly, how to abide in this life with some purpose and at least guarded optimism. The question itself is entirely legitimate even if we reject any notions of the inner purposiveness of the cosmos, but its inflection in the minds of the ignorant is most unfortunate and has led to a decades-long pogrom against reason, science, and even sanity.
I put the matter this way because I am not sympathetic to today’s worshipers of reason and all things merely human: they reduce great questions to triviality, and miss altogether the moral eloquence and even beauty with which certain texts in Scripture address human suffering and aspirations. We have met with them before, along with our hopelessly misguided and sometimes vicious religious fanatics – the latter, I think, assisted by a fair number of tortured souls who don’t really believe in talking snakes and six-day
ex nihilo creation extravaganzas but whose need to believe leads them to assert (with all the bitterness and ferocity of bad faith) the absolute and literal truth of statements they know, deep down, can’t be
literally true. Comparatively few people, I suggest, are now capable of what Alfred Tennyson called the “simple faith” of their agrarian forebears, men and women who lived before the full development of modernity. Refusal to deal with the basic fact of evolution stems from an abnegation of the religious spirit as it has been articulated by intelligent people for many centuries now: was it not the devoutly Protestant John Milton who wrote, “I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue” and who railed at those who would impose censorship upon the free discussion of ideas? And doesn’t the Catholic Church now profess that it’s by no means impious to accept the scientific evidence in favor of evolution?
To rely solely upon the compulsory ignorance of others as one’s best defense against anything that might threaten faith is to dishonor oneself and one’s religion. If one wants to claim that a God has imbued humanity with some measure, however limited, of the divine intelligence and integrity, the willful stupidity that would ban a science textbook or a film dealing with evolution degrades that claim beyond recognition. Augustine and Aquinas tell us we can know God best by that which he is not – and one of the things we had better hope God is not is
bloody stupid.