What Would Darwin Do?

The other day I wrote quite a bit about science popularization (most of it as a result of being aggravated), but one point that I forgot to mention was how Darwin approached the problem of creationism in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Natural theology, especially of the kind popularized by Paley, was a bit of the elephant in the room; even though science was moving towards secularization and had rejected a strict Mosaic account of the formation of the world decades earlier, it was still a touchy subject. What was "the reluctant Mr. Darwin" to do?

As is well-known, Paley's book had a huge influence on Darwin, and much of Darwin's contemplations about adaptation were at least influenced by Paley's more theological considerations of the same topic. When Darwin ultimately started to formulate his theory of evolution by natural selection, his solid background in the Paley's arguments allowed Darwin to undercut them while at the same time supporting his own ideas about evolution. If Darwin attacked natural theology directly he probably would have sparked a furor among a number of scientists and the public; writing a long refutation of natural theology would serve to inflame the issue and possibly prevent people from listening to his thoughts on evolution. Instead, Darwin chose some of the same examples that Paley used to illustrate God's hand in nature (most famously the eye) to instead show how evolution occurred, proverbially killing two birds with one stone.

The question of what to do about creationism has been vexing in the process of writing my own book, as well. Whenever I start to write about it in a more structured, book format I either feel like I'm being condescending or going on something of a rant. It's difficult not to get incensed when discussing the subject, but I'm still considering leaving out overt acknowledgment of it altogether. This isn't to say that I would want to ignore it, but rather that it might be better to do as Darwin did and cut down creationist arguments with positive arguments about science rather than direct confrontation. I would almost rather keep the first book just to science and later write a second book directly dealing with creationism, but given the high profile of creationism these days it might be worse to ignore it in a popular book.

My own dilemmas aside, I think it would be a good thing if people kept creationist arguments in mind as they write books, articles, and essays. Refuting creationism more obliquely might take the edge off a bit for people who feel a bit threatened at the moment (as many science books that sell well are those that seem to edify certain religious beliefs), but at the same time popularizers can't tip-toe around divisive issues, acting as if they do not exist. There would still be a place for direct refutations, but I think it's equally important to have good books that put the promotion of interesting science first and aren't so much concerned with directly tearing down pseudoscience (even if it's desired that they'll have that effect). It's definitely a bit of a tightrope act, but the fortunate thing is that there is no one person who speaks for science, and I think we're in a time when the next crop of "great popularizers" are emerging. At least, I hope so.