Charles Darwin in the 21st Century: Evolution Still Matters, Naturally

Charles Darwin was a British scientist who laid the foundations of the theory of evolution that transformed the way we look at the natural world. But what if the author of The Origin of Species, who died in 1882, were, by some miracle, alive today? What would his reaction be to the controversy still surrounding his theories to this day? If a journalist sat down with “The Father of Evolutionary Biology” for an up-close-and-personal talk, this is what the interview might look like:

Q: Mr. Darwin, you lived in Victorian times, when the prevailing mores were very strict. The first reaction to the publication of The Origin of Species was critical. Were you surprised?

A: Not at all. I expected the criticism from the non-scientific community and the initial responses were indeed quite harsh, such as a demand that I should be tried "in the Divinity Hall, the College, the Lecture Room and the Museum." Interestingly enough, Her Majesty the Queen Victoria never made any comment about my book or the theory of evolution. However, given her position as the nominal head of the Church of England, it is quite reasonable to assume that she could not comment on what was already in my time a controversial topic.

I do know that the Queen once remarked that orangutans were “frightful, and painfully and disagreeably human,” which I thought was quite a clever observation, really. That comment does not tell us whether Her Majesty believed or did not believe in the concept of evolution, but it reflects her – and many other people’s -- confusion about human origins.

Q: Sir, it is now the 21st century and your theory of evolution, as well as your book, remains controversial. What is your reaction?

A: I have always thought that people who do not possess scientific background or knowledge should not enter into discussions on questions of nature. I shall again cite the quote I have been quite fond of and which befits this situation splendidly: “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. It is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” It is quite amazing, really, that after 150 years of accumulated body of evidence proving the veracity of my theory, religious people are still dismissive of it, and quite fiercely, at that.

Q: What surprises you the most about the on-going debate?

A: It is that educational institutions in the most scientifically developed nation on earth, the United States, cannot uncouple themselves from wanting to teach the creationist theory and that they even bring this matter before courts. However, I am quite accustomed to diverging views of my work; as a matter of fact, I have had quite a few critics in my time already and I can recall many disputes that erupted in public forums between myself or my colleagues speaking on my behalf, and the religious folk who never tired of attacking The Origin of Species every way they knew how, usually by vigorously waving their Bibles at me.

Q: What do you think of an idea advanced by some educators and other interested parties that evolution and creationism should be taught in schools hand-in-hand?

A: I believe this is what is called today “political correctness,” which was not a notion we ever practiced – or, for that matter, entertained -- in my time.

I understand that there is a big debate presently going on, and that even the American President himself weighed in saying that both evolution and creationism – which I think is referred to as “Intelligent Design” – should be taught, so that pupils are informed of a disparity of opinions in this matter. In my view, creationism is a philosophy, not a science, and it should best be instructed in churches. Evolution, on the other hand, is based on rigorous scientific evidence and thus should be taught in schools.

I hasten to add that I am not opposed to the principle of a healthy debate per se. However, as in my lifetime, I shall not care what unscientific people think of my views.

Q: One question that remains unanswered to this day surrounds your religious views. Were you a man of faith or an atheist?

A: In my lifetime, I felt strongly that a man's religion is essentially a private matter, and had said many times that my own belief is of no consequence to anyone but myself. I shall persist in this stance, except perhaps for stating that an “agnostic” would be the more correct description of my state of mind than an “atheist.” That, however, is as much as I will say about this subject.

Q: Which modern scientific discoveries amaze you the most?

A: My theory of human evolution was published long before the knowledge of genetics was available. So naturally I find the discovery of the structure of DNA and the entire field of genetics and heredity very fascinating. I didn’t know how heredity really worked but I did realise that what is passed on in reproduction is essentially a whole lot of parcels of information or coded instructions, although the word “genes” was not in our vocabulary.

Of course, some may argue that genetics – as advanced by my contemporary, Gregor Mendel -- and my theory of evolution have been at odds since the inception of both concepts. That does not diminish either my belief in the truth of my own work, nor my interest in the field of genetics.

Q: If you were living in the 21st century, what work would you be doing?

A: As a naturalist, I believe I would be an ardent ecologist today, working towards protecting our environment’s natural resources.

When the Beagle anchored in the Galapagos Islands in 1835, I came ashore to the primitive and unspoiled archipelago, resplendent in its natural beauty and unique wildlife. I understand it is now a prized tourist destination, which may be jolly good for the economy but frightfully damaging for the eco-system.

It pains me to think of the havoc wreaked by ignorant tourists who are rudely trampling nesting sites and harassing wildlife just to snap a photograph.

If we mismanage our natural resources we will lose something precious and irreplaceable, and future generations will be wondering, as I am presently, what in the world are we thinking?

So I would be speaking forcefully on behalf of the reason rather than greed. And given the polemics still surrounding my work, I would also continue to defend my theory of evolution, if need be.