Not one in a thousand of those who reject Darwinism today do so because they have made a close study of the theory (as laid out, for instance, in any of the standard university textbooks on Darwinian evolution). On the contrary, their rejection has its roots in a highly emotional reaction to the thought that human beings are truly animals, answering to principles that govern all animals. Yet this assumption is the foundation of all biological research into the nature of Homo sapiens. The contrary assumption, as expressed by cardinal Wiseman and the anonymous Victorian lady, can be called the hypothesis of human exemptionism, or exemptionism for short (Catton and Dunlap, 1978). The exemptionist assumes, without proof, that men (and women) are exempt from important laws that govern the behavior of other animals. Darwinians do not deny that there are some aspects in which human beings are unique among animalsfor instance, in being able to argue about evolution! But Darwinians put the burden of proof on those who make any particular claim of the uniqueness of man. At various times in the past man was said to be the only animal that could use tools, make tools, communicate with others of his kind, or conceptualize.
Gov - library of Congress
Darwin's acute awareness of the opposition awaiting his theory no doubt accounted for much of his long delay in publishing the Origin. How vigorously that opposition expressed itself is well shown by the oft-told story of the huxley-wilber-force debate (see, interalia, hardin 1959 and Brent 1981). Less essays spectacular, but no doubt more typical, was the reaction of the victorian lady who, on hearing about Darwin's theory, expostulated: "Descended from the apes! My dear, we will hope that is not true. But if it is, let us pray that it may not become generally known!" (Dobzhansky 1955). It is natural that people committed less to truth than to the stability of society should prefer taboo to confrontation (Hardin 1978). In what follows, i shall use the term man in the generic sense, to apply to any and all members of the human species regardless of sex. When so used, man is equivalent to the latin homo rather than vir. This usage is old-fashioned but, i think, aesthetically preferable to expository hybrids of person(as in personholes, an unhappy substitution for manholes). Even the most casual reading of the bible shows that man occupies a very special place in the judeo-christian view of the world. Simply put, darwin's great contribution to public thought was the idea that man is an animal.
For more than a century, we biologists failed to do our civic duty by bringing home to the general public the human significance of summary evolution through natural selection. That which we sowed by a century's near total neglect of public education, we richly reaped in the form of widespread anti-intellectualism fostered by bible-worshipping fundamentalists. Biology abounds in insights that call for a massive restructuring of popular opinions. If the sad history of Darwinism in the agora is not to be repeated again and again, biologists must accept the responsibility of bringing their insights to the public. Among the more important biological concepts crying out for public explication today is the idea of "carrying capacity." Resistance to exploring its implications arises in part from the same source as resistance to darwinism, as illustrated by the following"tions, one of which predates. From the beginning of the nineteenth century, evolution (though not natural selection) was "in the air." In 1837 Cardinal Nicholas Wiseman, perhaps the most influential Roman Catholic in England, disposed of human evolution with these words: "It is revolting to think that our noble nature. Obviously the ground was well prepared for the rejection of Darwin's ideas long before he wrote his great book.
On the centenary of the Origin of Species. Muller thundered, "One hundred years without Darwinism are enough!" (Muller 1959). The next quarter of a century showed that Muller was no mere viewer-with-alarm (Nelkin 1977). During this period the "scientific creation" movement was born. Subsequent successes of the creationists were due in equal measure to their political skill and to the relative apathy of professional biologists. Finally biologists became sufficiently disturbed by what was happening to public education to fight creationists in the courts. Overton's detailed and thoughtful judgement against the creationists in Arkansas on foretold the end of the creationists' dominance of the public debate (Montagu 1984). That is history; but history should never be regarded as mere "water under the bridge." As Santayana said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (Santayana 1905).
Grasshopper, a fable by aesop
In December of the essay same year, with Einstein's blessing, the bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded to explore the human implications of scientific discoveries. From the day of its founding, this bulletin has, in the best and truest sense, been a controversial journal. Never again would the escapism of a schopenhauer be for quite so attractive to scientists. Biologists preceded the physicists in discovering the social perils of pursuing science wherever it might lead. By mid-nineteenth century it was obvious that there were overlaps between the territories claimed by biologists and theologians. Peace-lovers tried to establish a demilitarized zone between two tribes, but it didn't work.
In 1925 ideological warfare broke out in dayton, tennessee. The legal outcome of the Scopes trial was ambiguous, though one philosopher, as late as 1982, maintained that "the evolutionists won a great moral victory" (Ruse 1982). A different conclusion was reached by the biologist and evolutionist,. Thirty-four years after the trial, this Nobel laureate noted that the subject of evolution was almost entirely missing from high school biology textbooks. He concluded that, practically speaking, biologists had lost the battle in dayton.
But he soon remembered the hard-working ant he had made fun of during the summer. The grasshopper went to the ant's nest and asked for food. The ant, who was still busy keeping the food clean and dry, said, "I toiled to save food for the winter freeze, while you spent the summer playing in ease. I stored just enough food for the winter, it's true, but I can't feed you all winter, or I'll starve too." The ant gave the grasshopper a few crumbs, but the grasshopper was cold, miserable, and hungry all winter. The next summer, the grasshopper worked hard to store food for the upcoming winter. That next winter, grasshopper was well fed and happy!
He had learned to think ahead and plan for the future. And that is the end of the story. The moral of the story: prepare today for the needs that you will have tomorrow. Cultural carrying capacity click here, science, like all human institutions, evolves. Earlier in this century einstein probably spoke for most of the scientists of his day when he identified the inner force that drew him to scientific work: "I believe with Schopenhauer that one of the strongest motives that lead men to art and science. A finely tempered nature longs to escape from personal life into the world of objective perception and thought" (Einstein 1935). Then came the second World War and the manhattan Project, culminating on with the announcement of the bombing of Hiroshima. Almost overnight scientists realized they could no longer escape becoming involved with the "crudities" of the world.
Folktexts: A library of folktales, folklore, fairy tales, and
What will you eat when the weather gets cold? How will you feed your hungry household?". The grasshopper laughed, "All you ants do is work and worry. Slow down, don't fuller be in such a hurry. Just look around, there's plenty of food, don't give me advice, that's just plain rude.". The ant kept working, the grasshopper kept playing, and winter soon came. The ant had prepared for the winter and had just enough food stored in the nest to last through the cold, harsh weather. Now that winter had arrived, the grasshopper couldn't find any food, and soon became very hungry.
The the Dream of the zirl Bridge (Austria). The Church at Erritsø (Denmark). One beautiful summer day, a lazy grasshopper was chirping and sitting and playing games, just as he did every day. A hard-working ant passed by, carrying a huge leaf that he was taking back to the ant's nest. The grasshopper said to the ant, "All you ants do is work all day. You should be more like me and play, play, play!". The ant replied, "I'm storing food for the winter season. You should be working, for just the same reason.
Bridge at Limerick (Ireland). The Dream of the Treasure on the Bridge (Germany). The Dream of Treasure (Austria).
The Three travelers and the load (W. Dream Treasure turns to filth. Tales of type 1645b. A man Who found Gold During His Sleep (Poggio bracciolini). The hodja Dreams That he had found a treasure (Attributed to nasreddin Hodja). The man Who became rich through a dream and other tales of type 1645 in which dreamers seek treasure abroad book but find it at home. The ruined Man Who became rich Again Through a dream (. The 1001 Nights ). A man of Baghdad (Persia).
An, essay, concerning, human, understanding by john Locke
Tales of type 1626. The Three dreams (Petrus Alphonsi). The Three travelers (The, masnavi ). Jesus, peter, and Judas (The, toledot Yeshu ). Of the deceits of the devil (. Comical History of Three dreamers. The "Dream-Bread" Story about Once more (USA).