Darwin's giant leap

February 12th will be the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin. Since he's one of the saints in the humanist pantheon, naturally there will be plenty of commemorations of the day. Even some churches will join the tribute to the man who, in the words of Richard Dawkins, "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

And yet, biologists today, who know so much more about the subject than Darwin could have imagined, have to be urged by the likes of Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, to "constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." This is fulfilling? To close off obvious avenues of inquiry?

The simple fact is that Darwin overreached. He did indeed note variations within kinds, but there is nothing within that observation that would overturn scripture (which is the real philosophical 'fulfillment' of evolution to its most fanatical adherents). After measuring the length of bills on finches and supposing they had a common ancestor, it was a leap of faith to suppose ALL life must then have a common ancestor:

Here’s an analogy. Let’s say upon Shakespeare’s death, historians discovered in his estate a large box containing all his manuscripts. Now, some of the manuscripts are nearly identical with the exception of a few minor differences—these are actually manuscripts for the same play, but in different stages of editing—such as several copies of Romeo and Juliet with a few words changed in various places, or perhaps two scenes reversed. These are all descendants, in a sense, of the original rough draft (the “common ancestor”) of the play, and they “evolved” over time into the final product.

In fact, several manuscripts for each of Shakespeare’s plays and poems are discovered. The historians organize them in piles—for instance, a pile of variants of Hamlet, and a pile of versions of Macbeth. Now what if one historian comes along, picks up two versions of Julius Caesar, and—based on the similarities between those two manuscripts—claims every single manuscript of play and poem in the collection are all variants of one original short story? Is it any less reasonable to think that King Lear and Shakespeare’s sonnets are variations on the same work than it is to think that fir trees and turkey vultures share a common ancestor?

Absurd as it seems, that was the logic and evidence behind Darwin’s idea: these two mockingbirds share a common ancestor despite their differences; thus, all forms of life must share a common ancestor despite their differences.

If biologists must constantly remind themselves "this only appears to have been designed," evolution is not really intellectually fulfilling. It's merely a balm on the self-inflicted doubt that comes from denying the existence of the Designer.