Why Are D.C. Conservatives Uncomfortable With Darwinian Evolution?

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? 

Evolution: Not Darwin’s Original Idea?

Even though it is oft linked with the famed naturalist, but did you know that evolution is not Charles Darwin’s original idea? 

By: Ringo Bones 

Believe it or not, “Darwinism” or "Darwinian Evolution" is not synonymous with the principle of evolution, as is sometimes incorrectly stated. Charles Darwin was the first to put forward a really detailed analysis of the evidence of evolution based on his data of comparative anatomy, embryology, the common finding of rudimentary or vestigial structures in many animals, the geographical distribution of different types and – to some extent – on his observations of the fossil records of different types. He developed the hypothesis of natural selection as a mechanism to explain not only how the process of evolution could have occurred, but how it must have occurred, from the observed fact that all living organisms are subject to heritable variations. 

The general idea of evolution or “transformism” as it was commonly termed has been put forward by a number of writers long before Charles Darwin’s time. Even the Classical Greek thinker Aristotle and the Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius presented vague conceptions of a “ladder of nature” which might be interpreted to suggest the idea that lower forms of life passed by a gradational series into higher forms. It has been claimed that Darwin’s own ideas developed more directly from his immediate predecessors such as Jean Baptiste de Lamarck and Robert Chambers, the author of The Vestiges of Creation (1844) that Darwin himself recognized. 

It has even been suggested that Charles Darwin lacked the historical sense in not giving due credit to his predecessors. But the theory of transformism at the time was clouded with perplexities and apparent contradictions. The pioneering attempts to formulate an evolutionary hypothesis were not acceptable to professional biologists of the first half of the 19^th Century. This was partly because the scientific evidence was so freely intermingled with ill-founded and rather fanciful speculations and partly because it could provide no reasonable explanation of the mechanism for an evolutionary process. Since these earlier essays on transformism were not accepted by the biological scientists in general, they aroused no serious opposition from theologians and others who hold the conviction that the different species of living things were separate and distinct entities whose origin was determined by a creative process – either a single act of creation as described in Genesis or successive acts of creation. It is true however that before Darwin’s time, geologists had already recognized the existence in the past of extinct creatures and various attempts had been made to explain this evidence so long as to bring it into conformity with contemporary – as in 19^th Century – ideas based on the Biblical record.  

The Vatican Now Agrees With Darwinian Evolution?

Given that the Catholic Church had always been staunchly sided with the literal Biblical explanation on the origin of life on earth, does its acceptance of Darwinian evolution represents progress? 

By: Ringo Bones 

As one of the few organizations who had purportedly saved Imperial Rome’s organized knowledge from burning into oblivion during the Dark Ages, the Catholic Church / The Vatican seems to have set it ways when it comes to what it believes when it comes to the origin of life on earth – i.e. the literal account provided by the Holy Bible. But does the recent move by Pope Francis in accepting Darwinian Evolution and also the Big Bang Theory represents “scientific progress” in The Vatican? 

As of late, unprecedented moves by the Vatican had been on the rise, remember back in 2008 when Pope Benedict XVI declared that the existence of extraterrestrial biological beings as smart as or smarter than us does not contradict the cosmic genesis story of the Holy Bible?  Forward to October 27, 2014, Pope Francis made an unprecedented declaration that Darwinian Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are not that incompatible with the Biblical Genesis. 

In the Pope’s speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope said: “When we read about creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God as a magician with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Pope Francis said. Pope Francis also added: “God created human beings and let them develop according to the integral laws that He gave to each one so they would reach fulfillment.” The Pope’s stance on Darwinian Evolution and Big Bang cosmology still leaves a room for a divine creator – i.e. the Christian God – but places His or Her role in the time before the birth of the universe as we know it says one Vatican spokesperson. 

The Vatican’s new view, obviously, doesn’t fully align with current scientific thought. Yet Giulio Giorello – a philosopher of science – said that he thinks that this move by the Pope is meant to “reduce the emotion or dispute or presumed disputes between the Catholic Church with the physical sciences that has existed for centuries. As a matter of fact, the Catholic Church has recognized (unofficially) Darwinian Evolution during the past 60 years. According to most Vatican insiders, the unprecedented move was meant by Pope Francis to bring the Church’s stance back in line with its historical position on scientific thought and away from the too literal interpretation of the book of Genesis in the Holy Bible.  

Should Charles Darwin Be An Icon Of Atheism?

Famously known for his various works that eventually cast doubt on the literal interpretation of Biblical Creationism, is Charles Darwin a worthy enough icon for Atheism?


By: Ringo Bones


Ask your typical Joe Public at random about Charles Darwin and 9 out of 10 of them would respond “Darwinian Evolution”. Probably an equal numerical ratio would answer “Icon of Atheism” without a second thought. Given that almost all of us – even fans of “Darwinian Evolution” – tend not to know the biography of Charles Darwin, is it safe to ask whether Charles Darwin is a worthy enough icon for Atheism?

Atheism is often defined as a disbelief in the existence of a deity. Atheism is often seen as a more humane alternative to Organized Christianity - which is often used to persecute non-Christians and darker-skinned ethnic minorities for much of the last millennia. And the Organized Christianity justified persecution even managed to gain a renaissance during the Bush Administration of the start of the 21st Century. Given the “counter-renaissance” of Atheism in the post-Bush Administration era world in order to promulgate a more just and humane global society, should Atheist keep on promoting Charles Darwin as an icon for their cause?

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) gained the ire of Organized Christianity – or other religious groups with a vested interest in the literal interpretation of Biblical Creationism, including the concept of “The Mark of Cain” and “Children of Ham” – when he published The Origin of Species by Natural Selection, which is also known as The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Unbeknown to most of the readers of this particular work, Darwin revised The Origin of Species a number of times just to gain the approval of his wife, Emma Wedgwood, which was well known at the time as a devout and practicing Christian. Even though Charles Darwin’s wife, more or less, eventually found the concept of “evolution” plausible and congruent with Biblical scripture, The Origin of Species was considered by many Victorian era churchmen an affront to the Biblical portrayal of Creation. Given that Charles Darwin “massaged” The Origin of Species to make it more or less congruent with Biblical scripture and “spousal approval”, does this mean that Charles Darwin is not – I repeat not – a worthy icon for Atheism?

The concept of an “Atheist Darwin” was probably a product of seeing the past from the prism of our contemporary society. Charles Darwin fortunately (?) never witnessed the Scopes Monkey Trial, so he probably had never witnessed first hand the inevitable political clout his “Theory of Evolution” had eventually acquired. As time went on – and the more the extremist branches and sects Organized Christianity use Holy Scripture to justify their unjustly illogical prejudices and racism – the more Charles Darwin will be inexplicably linked with Atheism. From what I know about Charles Darwin, he could have been flattered to be labeled as an “Icon of Atheism”. But Atheist should have the burden of responsibility to explain why Charles Darwin deserves such a flattering title.

Pessimism: A Darwinian Survival Strategy?

Dismissed by the extreme conservative right as the root causes of cardiovascular and other psychosomatic disorders, but does pessimism pose a definite evolutionary survival advantage?


By: Ringo Bones


Maybe it was those lucky coincidences in my reading roster that inspired to me to note some “bright-sided” insight about pessimism. Maybe it is one of the – if not the only – trait that allowed us humans to manage to last a few million years. From the 16th Century predictive quatrains of Nostradamus to the contemporary musings of Barbara Ehrenreich, it does seem that the human race as a whole gains much-improved problem solving skills when harboring a generally pessimistic outlook. Genetic science may yet prove the existence of a “pessimism gene” encoded into our DNA through Darwinian evolution, but there’s proof to show that there’s something to pessimism as a survival strategy.

For better or for worse, it seems like the pessimistic-flavored predictions of Nostradamus “might” had been used as a foreign policy tool whenever every Republican Party candidate gets voted into the helm of Capitol Hill. Glaringly so during the Reagan Administration where the indefinite postponement of a global apocalypse had engendered a somewhat minor – yet intransigent – conundrum of casting the Islamic World in a bad light since the 1980s.

While Barbara Erenreich’s more recent work titled Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Pursuit of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America documents how the Wall Street culture of a cavalier attitude towards financial and economic risk assessment had almost engendered a repeat of the Great Depression of the 1930s. The subprime mortgage crisis that came to light near the end of July 2007 which became the global credit crunch of 2008 could have been avoided if Wall Street fat-cats and their minions had a more pragmatic outlook on risk assessment. Especially on the inherent financial risks posed by overly complex credit derivatives. Instead of promoting an LSD-like state of inebriation called the “power of positive thinking” since the Reagan Administration. Even the US Securities and Exchange Commission could have learned a thing or two about pessimism when it comes to hedge fund due diligence. Hedge fund fraudster Bernie Madoff could have been caught early before he managed to swindle thousands of their life-savings.

From a biological perspective, humans are probably the only species of animal on Earth with predictive properties that can form highly intricate abstract mental maps when it comes to day to day survival. There are some challenges – natural or otherwise - that are just too great for the mere hard-wired instincts of lower animals to successfully tackle. Maybe it is high time for humanity to cherish our pessimism instead of burying our heads in the sand through the self-delusion handed down to us by the faulty logic of a number of organized religions.