Happy Darwin Day!

Today is Charles Darwin's 197th Birthday. It's not actually a big deal, even for HPS folk, but I wish it were celebrated more enthusiastically. Today I'm going to watch Inherit the Wind with a few dept friends and a few drinks. I did suggest that doing this on Darwin's birthday is as perverse as having a debate on the existence of god on 25th December but this is the USA and the unequivocal science is not separable from the social debate.

Evolution has been on my mind of late because we've just read a couple of relevant books in my history of science class (Desmond & Moore's Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist and Numbers's Darwinism Comes to America -- the fat Darwin bio was far more interesting than the shorter academic text). This is good because next semester (starting September) I'll be teaching assistant for the undergrad class "Evolution, Religion and Society", which I'm sure I'll enjoy. I did bring my copy of Darwin and a few other evolution books with me and have bought a few more to read over summer just so I can live and breathe the debate (Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Darwinism and the Divine in America: Protestant Intellectuals and Organic Evolution and Trial and Error: The American Controversy Over Creation and Evolution). In fact, I'm starting to think if I can become a quasi-expert on this I would then be in a good position to eventually write something on creationism in other countries. As much as I'd like to simply ignore the few creationists Australia has, I'm starting to realise that it's going to get much worse before it gets any better. Of course that is a distant project and I'll have to be careful because something like that is guaranteed to make my bloodpressure skyrocket!

Despite this deplorable situation where archaic superstitions are being pushed in the 21st century, the professor in our dept who knows the most about this is relatively optimistic. He points out that the Scopes Trial (1925) tried to ban evolution altogether; in the '70s and '80s Creation "Science" claimed to be an alternative to science; and now Intelligent Design theorists claim that they are not an alternative science but an alternative to evolution and just as much a part of science. I'm not entirely sure that this is a good thing. If it becomes too prevalent (45% of Americans believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old) then it could taint the good science, whereas a fringe movement is less threatening. I have to say I have just a little more respect for creationists who admit that be believing what they do they are rejecting science, it's far more intellectually honest than deluding oneself, manipulating arguments and telling downright lies in order to convert others. (Actually, that reminds me of Fred Nile's tactics. But that's another rant for another day.)