The 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial and their inherently literal interpretation of the Holy Bible may have played a part, but why are D.C. conservatives uncomfortable with Darwinian Evolution?
By: Ringo Bones
Even though they are already laboratory procedures proving that Darwinian Evolution is more than just a theory, many in the United States – especially Washington D.C. conservatives – are still uncomfortable with the term “Darwinian Evolution”. Unfortunately, their so-called “discomfort” over a proven science principle has since disadvantaged public policy that shapes the teaching of the biological sciences in the American public education system.
The Washington D.C. conservatives over the years may seem to have softened their hardcore stance on their literal interpretation of the Holy Bible but their public policy that shapes the American public education system since the Reagan Administration may seem to have been shaped by the legacy of the statutes that had brought William Jennings Bryant and Clarence Darrow to legal blows at Tennessee’s trial of John Scopes in 1925. In the grand scheme of things, Washington D.C. conservatives seem to continue to harbor the impression that the biological science of Darwinian Evolution has been – and is still is – a speculative, philosophical endeavor – not a field of quantitative reasoning.
Strange as it may seem, Charles Darwin himself never used the word “evolution” in his epochal book of 1859 titled Origin of Species. In the book Origin of Species, Darwin calls this fundamental biological process “descent with modification”. Darwin, needles to say, did not shun the word “evolution” from motives of fear, conciliation, or political savvy but rather for an opposite and principled reason that can help us appreciate the depth of the intellectual revolution that Darwin inspired and some of the reasons – understandable if indefensible – for the current persistent conservative unease. But will the election of Donald J. Trump into the White House and the rise of the so-called alt-right put this intellectual debate into further disarray?