Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Tuesday, February 12, 2008 | Reason : Evolution and Biology | print version Print | Comments

Document Cal scientist reflects on Darwin's genius

by SF Gate

Thanks to Richard Prins for the link.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/11/BAGBUSGBL.DTL&type=science

Cal scientist reflects on Darwin's genius
David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor

Exactly one year shy of Charles Darwin's 200th birthday, scientists are looking ahead to the anniversary to call for renewed understanding of the scientist's powerful impact on Western civilization.

None of modern biology, no advances in medical research, nor success for the Human Genome Project, nor the achievements of biotechnology could exist today without the insights first advanced by that reclusive genius of the Victorian era, the scientists agree.

Now, a UC Berkeley paleontologist named Kevin Padian argues that the coming bicentennial is the ideal time "to reflect on just what constitutes Darwin's enduring greatness in Western thought."

And this week, the 199th anniversary of Darwin's birth on Feb. 12, 1809, hundreds of public meetings reflecting on his discoveries will be held at "Darwin Day" celebrations around the world.

In a seminal essay published in this week's issue of the international journal Nature, Padian says of the great Victorian scientist, explorer and meticulous researcher: "Perhaps no individual has had such a sweeping influence on so many facets of social and intellectual life" as Darwin.

At the same time, Padian notes, "Darwin has been invoked as the demon responsible for a variety of heartless ills of society." Among them, he Padian lists "atheism, Nazism, communism, abortion, homosexuality, stem cell research, same-sex marriage, and the abridgment of all our natural freedoms."

Indeed, Darwin has been demonized by many, and his findings contradicted by those who deny the facts of evolution.

His opponents argue that Darwin's concept of evolution is still merely an untested theory, but hold conflicting views on how life began and humanity arrived on Earth. There are the creationists, who insist that the Bible's descriptions of the world's beginning and the first humans are literally true. Then, there are more than a few rebel scientists who argue that the infinite varieties of life forms are so complex that they must be the product of some kind of intelligent design. Padian, a professor of integrative biology at Berkeley, is also president of the Oakland-based National Center for Science Education, a watchdog group that monitors controversies over evolution in the schools and promotes curricula based on the latest science.

Two years ago, he provided key testimony during the widely watched trial against the Dover, Pa., school board, which ended when a federal judge ruled that promoting intelligent design as science in a public school - as board members sought - was unconstitutional. The judge concluded that the idea of "design" is not science but merely "an untested alternative hypothesis grounded in religion" and could not be presented in science classrooms as it violated the separation of church and state.

Advocates of intelligent design are the loudest voices today in the attacks on Darwin's most influential work, "On the Origin of Species," subtitled "By Means of Natural Selection," which was published 150 years ago. A stormy debate over that subtitle began at once and has never stopped.

Believers in intelligent design insist that the tenets of evolutionary theory are deeply flawed and that humans and other animals could never have evolved from more primitive species.

The advocates of intelligent design, or ID, cite the human eye, for example, as an organ so incredibly complex that it could not possibly have evolved step-by-step over millions of years. Each separate part of an eye must function together in concert, the ID advocates insist, and so the organ must have been assembled fully and completely, like a machine, by some unknown and as-yet-unidentified Designer.

In Padian's Nature article, the Berkeley scientist notes that Darwin was already well aware of what paleontologists and other scientists call deep time - the "incredible stretch of time" that was needed for major environmental changes to influence the survival of plants and animals so the hardiest could pass on their characteristics, while the least fit would not survive.

"It was no longer possible," Padian says of Darwin and his day, "to accept that Earth was 6,000 years old, as some biblical scholars estimated."

Based on Darwin's discoveries during his five-year voyage around the world as a naturalist aboard the British ship HMS Beagle, and on his research in England, where he scoured the countryside recording the experiences of animal and plant breeders, Darwin also wrote an equally important volume, "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex."

As Padian puts it: "Differences between sexes could now be explained as the result of processes of mate choice and territorial competition, not merely of divine design."

High school students in biology classes whose teachers describe Darwin's work often recommend his informal and absorbing book, "The Voyage of the Beagle," in which the young naturalist recalled the varied finches he observed when the Beagle stopped in the Galapagos Islands. By no means irreligious, the scientist also wrote of the life that arose after the volcanic islands' emergence from the sea. "Hence, both in space and time, we seem to be brought somewhat near to that great fact - that mystery of mysteries - the first appearance of new beings on this earth."

Says Padian in his Nature essay on Darwin's work, "Today we can identify groups of plants and their insect predators, vertebrates and their parasites, lichens composed of an alga and a fungus, and many other associations that can only be reasonably explained by co-evolution through diversification over millions of years."

Genes were unknown in Darwin's time, so the precise genetic details of how plants and animals changed and evolved were still a mystery. But today, the genes that regulate the development of animals and humans have been decoded in detail, Padian noted in an interview, and, remarkably, they turn out to be exactly the same in all organisms.

"Finding the genetic basis of evolutionary development is really amazing," Padian said, "and it vindicates Darwin's view of the tree of life completely."
Celebrating Darwin

As Charles Darwin's 200th birthday approaches, public meetings reflecting on his discoveries will be held around the world.

On the Web go to

links.sfgate.com/ZCJR

links.sfgate.com/ZCJQ

To hear a podcast with UC Berkeley paleontologist Kevin Padian, go to sfgate.com/podcasts

E-mail David Perlman at dperlman@sfchronicle.com.

Comments 1 - 17 of 17 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #125952 by clunkclickeverytrip on February 12, 2008 at 10:14 am

If schools acknowledge Ramadan, Christmas, and other religious dates, they should also be made to recognize Darwin Day.
The delusional should not have more rights than the sane, especially when it comes to children's education.

Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip

2. Comment #125954 by bamafreethinker on February 12, 2008 at 10:23 am

 avatar150 years… still plenty of mysteries, yet not one shred of evidence that opposes evolution... beautiful!!!

Other Comments by bamafreethinker

3. Comment #125973 by Opisthokont on February 12, 2008 at 10:42 am

Three things irritate me about this piece.

First, atheism is listed as one of the "heartless ills of society", without any further attention. This passing mention reinforces the public perception of atheism as an undesirable position, and should not go unchallenged.

Second, nothing is made of how absurdly and provably false is the connection between Darwin's work and atheism or the rest of those "ills". People need to be aware of this.

Third, the writer has bought into the Discovery Institute's hype about there being "more than a few rebel scientists" who advocate Intelligent Design. I am a bit surprised that this was not caught, but of course catching that would imply that someone with more than a high-school science education had read this and cared.

I am e-mailing the author about this (in more tactful language) but doubt that there will be much effect. Call me cynical....

Other Comments by Opisthokont

4. Comment #126112 by Gustaf Sjoblom on February 12, 2008 at 1:18 pm

I would personally feel better about celebrating dates of discovery rather than days of birth. Even if Darwin was the man who had the ideas it is the ideas and the process and not the person that should be celebrated.

I'm probably in the minority here, and I don't really care that much, but I think that it sends the wrong message and can easily be misunderstood.

Other Comments by Gustaf Sjoblom

5. Comment #126131 by Epinephrine on February 12, 2008 at 1:36 pm

 avatarI somewhat agree with you (Gustaf) that celebrating the discovery/idea is more important than the birth of a person, but ideas are much harder to date. After all, he had the idea long before publishing it.

Other Comments by Epinephrine

6. Comment #126133 by al-rawandi on February 12, 2008 at 1:38 pm

 avatarGo Bears!

Other Comments by al-rawandi

7. Comment #126143 by Gustaf Sjoblom on February 12, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Epinephine you are obviously correct, and as I said I don't care very deeply about this and I'm far from sure that my approach would be fundamentally better.

That beeing said would personally prefer an arbitrary date or the date of the first publication of The Origin of Spieces. And I would prefer to call it Natural Selection Day (on principle, Darwin day sounds alot better). :P

I would just prefer to steer away from individuals since it creates problems. For example Darwin day makes it a little bit to easy for ID to make the disgusting point to people that Darwin got this and that wrong and therefor we should throw the entire Theory of Evolution out the window. While its not a good argumentation, not even an argumentation at all, it sadly works on some people. :(

Other Comments by Gustaf Sjoblom

8. Comment #126219 by sarah95 on February 12, 2008 at 4:10 pm

 avatarGrr!

WHY is it that atheism is listed as one of the "heartless ills of society"? Does this man not know of the atheists that helped establish a young United States, who made countless scientific discoveries, and who fought real social ills like bible-justified slavery and segregation? It is SO typical of the current American consciousness to assume that if anyone in our past did something honourable it was because he/she was religious or at least religiously inspired. What tripe.

And even worse he actually attempts to make a distinction between creationists and "rebel scientist" IDers. SO stupid. I really wish my fellow Americans would just stop pretending that these are separate groups, and that just because there may be a few whackos with PhDs who don't accept evolution, that doesn't make them "rebels". That's just romanticizing stupidity. And yet, the romanticizing of stupidity is exactly what I've come to expect from apologists and media-folk in the US.

Other Comments by sarah95

9. Comment #126263 by Cartomancer on February 12, 2008 at 8:30 pm

 avatarThe article does seem subtly biased in favour of the religious crowd doesn't it? The first bit on the massive impact of Darwin's ideas is good, but I fear that the "other side" angle was put in purely out of journalistic desire to talk up a conflict and a misguided attempt to give equal time to both sides of the debate. Obviously there is nothing like parity between the arguments of science and the arguments of rabid crackpottery, and any sensible journalist worth his salt ought to recognise that fact and communicate the true situation accordingly.

Actually, I would be willing to let it go if it were just a misrepresentation of the feebleness of the creationist position and an attempt to suggest through omission that evolution by natural selection is on a less firm footing than it is. The paragraph on the "heartless ills of society", however, borders on the deeply irresponsible. Technically it does not state outright that the list of ills actually are ills, merely that they are demonised as being such. Nevertheless there is nothing by way of correction to point out which phenomena are terrible societal afflictions and which ones are the undeserving victims of vile immoral oppression. For my money, any list that lumps together atheism, homosexuality, and stem cell research on the one hand, with Nazism, Communism and the curtailment of freedom on the other, is at best supremely disingenuous and at worst outright discriminatory.

The bottom line is that it is perfectly possible to read the passage as an endorsement of the position of the demonisers - a dangerous and ignorant position that we all have a responsibility to oppose. It is not enough in situations like this that both sides are presented impartially - some issues are so important that failure to condemn a position is simply too much endorsement to give it. In my opinion, this is one of those issues.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

10. Comment #126323 by bugaboo on February 13, 2008 at 1:38 am

"Believers in intelligent design insist that the tenets of evolutionary theory are deeply flawed and that humans and other animals could never have evolved from more primitive species". Is this really what they beleive. Have i totally misunderstood what Behe et al have been saying? ID is deeply flawed but i'm not sure its proponents would deny evolution has actually occurred.

Other Comments by bugaboo

11. Comment #126415 by rod-the-farmer on February 13, 2008 at 7:33 am

 avatarResponse to bugaboo in comment #10

I am afraid the ID supporters often DO deny evolution has occurred. They sometimes agree in micro-evolution, but stop sharp at the idea of macro-evolution. Tiny steps are OK. Big ones that result in a change of species are not. The idea of repeated, successive small steps accumulating until there is a big step, is not one they can comprehend. I have often thought their problem stems from a complete inability to grasp the time scales involved. But if your brain is unable to get past the young earth premise, then scores of thousands of years, let alone millions of years, are beyond your imagining. These people inhabit a very small mental neighbourhood. The idea of vast distances in time & space is outside their scope. IMO this is the major reason why evolution supporters have such difficulty convincing faith-heads of the validity of evolution. Faith-heads can understand Gravity (they can see it) and some Optics (also visible). But something that happens over extremely long periods (species to species change) which they CAN'T see, has to be false. I wonder - suppose we took time lapse underwater photos of the mid-Atlantic ridge, slowly splitting apart, and secondly showed them the close match at the continental shelf level, between Africa and South America. This might help them discard the young earth concept. Once THAT is out of the way, maybe they can start to see that with Time, many things are possible. But I am sure there are some evolution-deniers who DO agree with the old-earth concept. They just can't accept the macro-evolution part.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

12. Comment #126418 by Venice on February 13, 2008 at 7:56 am

Really good essay. I think one of the few people who gives Darwin the credit he deserves and really drives home the real importance of his idea is Daniel C. Dennett. I'm sure this link is on this website somewhere, but its worth reposting.

He is such a good lecturer. It's a damn shame you can't adopt grandparents, I can only imagine what conversations his family has at dinner table.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2393547403945995297

In addition; his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea is an awesome read.

Other Comments by Venice

13. Comment #126437 by George Lennan on February 13, 2008 at 8:51 am

"150 years, still plenty of mysteries, yet not one shred of evidence that opposes evolution... beautiful!!!

Hang on... hang on... not a shred? How about the the human eye - it can't possibly have just formed by random chance... it would have taken billions of lucky breaks just to make a horse... let alone a human brain... are we supposed to believe that a fish just 'transformed' into a human? Did the moon just'happen' to be in the right place to make fossils? I don't think so blather babble chatter gabble jabber prattle squeal yackety-yak yak.
By the way why does Dawkins have to be so SHRILL?

Other Comments by George Lennan

14. Comment #126471 by RickM on February 13, 2008 at 10:03 am

 avatarComments on the article are at:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2008/02/11/BAGBUSGBL.DTL

Other Comments by RickM

15. Comment #126486 by discipline on February 13, 2008 at 10:58 am

George Lennan;

You almost had me fooled there -- a nice example of Poe's Law.

Cheers, Tim

Other Comments by discipline

16. Comment #126726 by bugaboo on February 14, 2008 at 3:38 am

Thanks Rod the farmer. I was under the impression that they accepted evolution on a large scale but had tried to slip creationism in by rejecting the evolution of eg molecular motors or biosynthetic pathways or the whole cell, since they see this kind of machinery as "irreducibly complex" This is what I understood as Behe's "Darwins black box".( I havnt read it!)An attempt to present certain biological systems as unexplainable by natural selection (therefore god did it)

Other Comments by bugaboo

17. Comment #126743 by Jonathan Dore on February 14, 2008 at 5:29 am

Gustaf wrote:
I would personally feel better about celebrating dates of discovery rather than days of birth. Even if Darwin was the man who had the ideas it is the ideas and the process and not the person that should be celebrated.


Yes, I think this is a serious issue worth considering, though it's sad that a defensive concern not to be misunderstood is compromising our ability to pay tribute to the man as well as the work.

Fortunately, next year is also the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species, so we get to do both.

Other Comments by Jonathan Dore
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: