Evolution and the War Against Religion

Evolution is not like other sciences. No other science is on the front lines of a war between secular forces and traditional Judeo Christianity. Being involved in a religious war is not the type of thing that adds to the credibility of a science--no matter what side in the war the scientists in the field support.

Unlike the supporters of the Sun centered Solar System, supporters of evolution decided that they were not just going to take it from the forces of religion--but they were going to fight back. While fighting back might not be a bad thing--it does lead to questions as to whether those who are fighting back might not have a greater commitment to their side of the battle than they do to the truth. For a scientist--that is a bad thing. There are also questions which arise when scientists form alliances with certain groups in society against other groups. Will scientists pursue the truth without regard to who is their ally and who is their enemy, or will scientists play favorites? In the case of evolution, there has been more than enough time for us to look at the record to find answers to these questions.

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Species in the Struggle for Life. This was the title of Darwin's book, first published on November 24, 1859. My copy of Darwin's book was a 1968 Penquin classic reprinted in 1972 and edited by J. W. Barrow. Following the publication the book, according to the preface, "It was greeted with violent and malicious criticism."

Supporters of Evolution love to call Creation Science an oxymoron or contradiction in terms. Here we see a supporter of Evolution using an oxymoron--violent criticism. If a response includes violence it is more than just criticism, and if it is just criticism then it is not violent. But what we see here is not just an innocuous oxymoron. The word "violent" is snuck into the description of a response which was apparently entirely non-violent. I would certainly describe this as malicious if it was done intentionally.

Was the publication of Darwin's work greeted with malicious criticism? It certainly seems reasonable to me that if an 1859 book speaks of the preservation of favoured races in its title, then it could justifiably come in for some harsh criticism on the grounds that it might be used to support racism and quite possibly the institution of slavery, which was certainly alive if not well in 1859. Such criticism is legitimate, not malicious.

On the other hand, I would call Thomas Huxley's declaration that he was willing to go to the stake for Darwin a malicious comment intended to ressurect religiously based hatred from the past to be enlisted in the war against the Creationists. There was no possiblity that anyone would be going to the stake for Darwin. A simple check of the historical record will show that no one did go to the stake for Darwin, while there have been plenty of people who have used Darwin's ideas to promote racism.