The misinterpretation of Darwin might be one of the greatest oversights in our society’s history.
The Darwin taught in textbooks portrays him as having a flawless logic and intellect and whose findings about the origins of life are to be accepted without question. Although his work was careful, thorough and meticulous, it was not perfect and still requires scrutiny if we are truly to understand the science behind biological diversity.
Consequently, when learning about “the father of evolution,” there are two actions that should be taken: first, to understand Darwin’s findings and why they have come to be accepted by many, and secondly, why we must not stop there.
When we refer to Darwin we are referring to a person who shared revolutionary ideas with many other scientists of his day.
The findings of these scientists can’t be ignored. These findings explain a lot about the nature of life, and many of them have been corroborated by studies in molecular genetics over the last half of the 20th century, starting with the famed discovery of DNA by Watson and Crick.
Darwin, as well as his contemporaries (Wallace, Hooker and other big names), needed more than a simple answer for understanding the complexities of organisms. Currently though, most people take one of two stances on evolution. They’re either firmly against it for its blasphemous implications, or they casually accept it with or without an understanding of the science behind it.
Very few people outside the biological realms understand the findings that support the theory of evolution, but accept it because they want to be current, progressive and intellectual; fearing the greatest ignorance of all is to believe some mind-numbing moral code without data to support it.
It’s ironic that some self-proclaimed Darwinists don’t think it’s necessary to continue to look at all scientific findings questionably, always asking “Why?” We should continue to question our understanding of life and its origins because many things can’t be explained with our present knowledge alone.
Even Darwin understood that life in all its complexity could not just appear in its present form, which is how he came to his conclusions in the first place. Science must continue to be looked upon objectively, with as little bias for or against one finding over another.
Because of our advanced communication systems, science is no longer reserved for the elite or highly educated. Every person can observe, theorize and draw conclusions. Many of the hot-button issues today, including abortion, stem cell research and the roles of faith and morality in our society, partly fall back on what we believe or don’t believe about Darwin’s discoveries.
During his life, Darwin suffered from a host of chronic diseases that diminished his quality of life as well as his ability to research. Sick but resolute, convulsive but brilliant, he endeavored to produce his life’s work.
However, near the end of his life, he began to re-evaluate some of his views, in particular his view on religion. In contrast to his religious views as presented in his 1871 publication of “The Descent of Man,” seeing religion as having evolved out of primitive traits apparent in lower animals, Darwin expressed his agnostic view, stating “the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. It is however impossible, as we have seen, to maintain that this belief is innate or instinctive in man.”
Almost 10 years later Darwin would admit to a dinner table of atheists that he “never gave up Christianity until 40 years of age,” a date corresponding to the loss of his only daughter Annie when she was just 9 years old. Her painful illness and death lead Darwin to the conclusion that Christianity was futile, and he consequentially lost faith in a benevolent God.
The fact that even Darwin held on to ideas about a deity-despite his chronic illnesses, heartbreak and intensive work that could easily steer him in another direction-is something left unmentioned to students who may also struggle with this dichotomy.
Although Darwin is clear and steadfast in his belief about the origins of life, just the suggestion of his questioning his own findings and beliefs may have raised enough doubt to hamper the advancement of his ideas, and so is hardly ever acknowledged or pointed out.
Funny thing is, Darwin wasn’t interested in perpetuating his findings from the rooftops, as if trying to smash prevailing doctrine. In his discretion, Darwin published his works in a timely fashion, showing sensitivity to his readers who would undoubtedly recognize the gravity of his claims.
Ever since the general acceptance of Darwin’s theories by the scientific community, his findings have been used to try and dispel established belief systems and blot out the relevance of morality. This seems preposterous in light of his real goals and attributes. Darwin did not seek to unify or purposely split the areas of science and faith, seeing “no prospect of any benefit arising” from it.
“Freedom of thought,” he said, “is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds.”