Will Dawkins succeed where Gould failed?

And an excellent piece in The Guardian explains that “Above all, [Gould] argues, natural selection works at many levels. Because genetics has come to dominate much of the life sciences, for many biologists organisms have become almost irrelevant, save as instruments serving the purposes of their genes - splendidly encapsulated in Richard Dawkins' famous description of humans as ‘lumbering robots’ - the gene's way of making copies of itself. Evolution itself has come to be defined as a change in gene frequency in a population.

“By contrast, Gould argues for a hierarchical view; that evolution works on genes, genomes, cell lineages and, especially, on species. Ignoring speciation, he says, is like playing Hamlet without the prince. This is the central theoretical issue underlying all the polemics that characterise what have come to be known as the ‘Darwin wars’, pitting Gould against Dawkins as his principal adversary, although in reality - and to the chagrin of creationists - both are children of Darwin, and agree on far more than they disagree.”

While Gould inspired me initially, Dawkins has inspired me more lately and I tend to believe his views on the mechanics of evolution. (For more on the Gould/Dawkins debate read this article in The Guardian or “The Darwin Wars,” by Andrew Brown.)

Sadly, while Gould was perhaps evolution’s best popularizer, from a certain perspective Gould only had limited success. Although millions have read his books and articles, and certainly many were influenced as I was, still only a fraction of Americans believe him. A recent Gallup poll shows that only 10% of Americans believe in evolution not directed by God, while 40% believe in evolution directed by God and 44% don’t believe in evolution at all. Clearly it is not really Gould’s personal failure that so many people reject science fact—it wasn’t his responsibility to change the world—but it does demonstrate what I view as a massive problem in America.

The Gallup Poll, as reported by ABC News, taken after the Kansas Board of Education decision to drop evolution as a necessary topic in the state’s science classes, shows that 40% of American don’t think evolution should even be taught in schools at all. 68% seem to support the “compromise” that evolution and creationism be given equal weight and taught side by side. The recent “no child left behind” education bill, championed by Bush and Kennedy alike, requires that schools teach both. John Boehner, the congressman from Ohio who chairs the Education and the Workforce Committee and championed the bill in the house, told me that the government was essentially not going take sides on the issue.

But I don’t believe this is an option. There is no more logic in carving out the evolution branch of science and declaring it “theory” and giving it equal footing with religious belief, than there is in carving out any other branch of science—chemistry, physics, biology, computer science, astronomy, medicine—and declaring that the facts in those disciplines, if challenged by religious beliefs, are no longer facts. Perhaps the sun won’t rise tomorrow, or the apple will fall up from the tree, or antibiotics won’t cure maladies, or 2 plus 2 equals 5. Evolution, the fact, is derived from the same method of scientific inquiry as the rest of science that we often take for granted to live our lives, so to reject that method means rejecting other findings as well.

If I am being rude, it is probably because I have been listening to and reading Richard Dawkins. At this year’s TED 12, Dawkins urged those that were not religious to "stop being so damned respectful" to those that were. Dawkins contends that US biologists are in a state of war with creationists (many of whom call now call creationism "Intelligent Design"). While there are 30 million atheists in the US (many time the size of the Jewish vote, he points out), they remain in political oblivion—and in fact are political targets (George H.W. Bush has said that atheists aren't citizens or patriots!) and pariahs. Since at a practical level you need to be religious to hold political office in America, the only option for those in the 30 million with political ambition is to lie or not run for office. Hence, Dawkins declared, political opportunities are barred from those who are atheists and honest.

And those 30 million may have something to add to government. Scientists in US are overwhelmingly atheists and, according to Dawkins, studies show a negative correlation between intelligence and religion.

Dawkins rejects the idea that creationism and evolution can co-exist harmoniously. Religion is corrosive of science since it teaches people to accept the simple answers and ignore the real ones; and because creationists can't attack evolutionary science, according to Dawkins, they attack evolutionists as atheists bent on undermining religion. And they are right: evolution IS truly undermining of religion. Darwinism IS corrosive to religious faith.

So, to achieve peaceful co-existence, evolution lobbies, such as the National Center for Science Education, are too polite. But Dawkins feels that the way to attack creationism is to attack religion itself: militant atheism.

He points out that the standard creationist arguments all boil down to the idea that living creatures are too complex to have happened by chance is flawed because a designer must me even more complex. He also points out that most people are atheists when it comes to the thousands of gods that mankind has believed in in the past (how many of us believe in Zeus?). Modern day atheists just add one more god to the list.

Dawkins calls himself an atheist—though he realizes that to reject something that you cannot absolutely disprove requires a sort of faith in and of itself. But “agnostic” is too weak of a term for him, since he “despises religion,” as it gives equal weight to the chance that God exists as to the chance that he does not. Others who share this hesitancy about the “agnostic” label, but reject the absolutism of “atheist,” call themselves “tooth fairy agnostics.” The idea is that they believe God could exist—but for that matter so could the tooth fairy, and the likelihood is about as great. As Bertrand Russell wrote about the possibility of a teapot orbiting Mars—you can't disprove it, but it isn't very likely. Other labels are "humanist," "naturalist," and "non-theist," but Dawkins prefers the taboo and zing of “atheist.”

Dawkins wants a coming out party for atheists and believes that the scientific world view is so much more exciting, poetic, and beautiful than the religious view of the world. Dawkins makes this case wonderfully in his book “Unweaving the Rainbow,” something I highly recommend to all readers. Is the rainbow more or less beautiful once we understand how it works? Is the wonder to be found in ignorance or knowledge?

Dawkins goes further. It is not just that science is more beautiful than religion, but religion is dangerous. Many religious folk ask how those who do not believe in god can have a moral framework and don’t just walk around shooting people. But of course we have punishment here on earth for that activity. Dawkins turns the question around: look at the danger that happens when “religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.” He is, of course, referring to September 11 in this provocative article.

Dawkins may miss many of the great things religion brings to humanity, but his case that science is beautiful in and of itself and ought not be corroded by religion is powerful.

Read Edge’s tribute to Gould.
Read Salon’s Q&A with Gould.