As the world celebrates two Charles Darwin anniversaries – 200 years since his birth and 150 years since the publication of The Origin of Species – it is sad to reflect how far we still are from the scientific enlightenment he promised. By the early 20th century almost every biologist accepted that life evolved over time through natural selection.
Yet at the beginning of the 21st century, evolution is under sustained attack from creationist theories inspired by fundamentalist religion – sometimes dressed in scientific clothing as “intelligent design”. Opinion polls show that more Americans believe in Biblical creation than evolution, and even in Europe’s relatively secular societies a growing minority rejects Darwin.
Many scientists and liberal politicians regard the rising creationist tide as a side-show that they can safely ignore. They are wrong, for several reasons. Wide areas of research, from biology to cosmology, would suffer directly if it became politically difficult for governments to fund fields that depend on such a basic a part of science as evolution. The cost would be economic as well as intellectual.
But Darwin is also worth defending because attacks on evolution symbolise a wider and more varied assault on policies based on evidence rather than prejudice. Some of this assault comes from the same religious forces as creationism – think, for example, of those ranged against embryonic stem cell research. Sheer ignorance plays a role too and so do the mass media.
The campaign against the MMR vaccine, which has cost many lives by delaying the elimination of measles from Europe, demonstrates the harm that can come from ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence. A faulty study suggesting a possible link between MMR and autism was quickly picked up by anti-vaccine campaigners and amplified by the media. Scientists could have limited the damage with a quick response, pointing out the defects in the study and the evidence for the safety of MMR – but, as so often happens, they reacted slowly and reluctantly.
Mavericks are occasionally right: the few who warned in the 1980s that mad cow disease might affect humans come to mind. But any extraordinary claim must receive extraordinary scrutiny – and be weighed against all the evidence.
We need far more scientists than are available today to speak out quickly and firmly when reason is under attack. And in the long run we need a scientifically literate population, better educated about what constitutes valid evidence to support a particular viewpoint.
A hopeful sign in the short term is the attitude of the next US president. Barack Obama has named several of his country’s most respected scientists to senior posts and stated: “Promoting science is about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.” Amen.
