Evolutionary Matters

somebody better call the kansas state board of education. intelligent design proponents have a new adversary in addition to evolutionary biologists and paleontologists -- geneticists. humans and chimpanzees are between 95 and 98.5 percent genetically identical, so some biologists want to include them in the genus homo. currently, homo sapiens is the only living species in that genus:

Chimps Belong on Human Branch of Family Tree, Study Says
John Pickrell in England
National Geographic
May 20, 2003

A new report argues that chimpanzees are so closely related to humans that they should be included in our branch of the tree of life. [...]

Now, biologists at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit, Michigan, provide new genetic evidence that lineages of chimps (currently Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens) diverged so recently that chimps should be reclassed as Homo troglodytes. The move would make chimps full members of our genus Homo, along with Neandertals, and all other human-like fossil species. "We humans appear as only slightly remodeled chimpanzee-like apes," says the study. [...]

However, experts say many scientists are likely to resist the reclassification, especially in the emotionally-charged and often disputed field of anthropology.

... more ...

i'm beginning to wonder if biblical literalists are going to mount an organized campaign to ban the study and teaching of biology entirely. the field of biology has done more than challenge faith-based narratives of human origins. it's responsible for the invention of hormonal birth control with devastating consequences for the patriarchy. that alone is enough to condemn this branch of science in the eyes of reactionary social conservatives everywhere. you'd think they'd be happy that the pill allowed them to get laid more often with more enthusiasm because the wife in holy matrimony wouldn't be afraid of getting pregnant.

it was inevitable that advances in the field of genetics would upset the system of scientific naming. prior to the development of genetics, physical characteristics served as the primary means of classifying different forms of life. there will be more than 'resistance' to this reshuffling of the human portion of the earth's family tree. i dare say that spinning blades will commence chopping chunks of feces when the first printing press churns out high school biology textbooks with chimpanzees included in the human branch of the family tree. this new development will be greeted with as much enthusiasm as a commune of atheist, transgender, lesbian porn stars sporting 'Fuck Jesus' tattoos in alabama.

i have to confess that i'm looking forward to the conflagration. if i weren't so ungodly busy i'd probably collect video clips of the spittle-filled invective of outraged religious fundamentalists so that i could intermingle them with clips of chimps wigging out as they rip apart another chimpanzee to eat it. it be unfair, but really fun nonetheless. i wonder what 'alternative theory' of genetics will be offered to address the horror of knowing someone can buy a biology textbook that includes chimps in the genus homo? that's going to be a tough one because reactionaries have a special affection for the field of genetics; it can be easily manipulated to lend an aura of intellectual legitimacy to their bigotry.

there is a colossal irony in all of this. Creationism sets religious truth in direct opposition to scientific truth and never the twain shall meet. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, pretends to be part of a scientific discourse about the origins of the universe. it's a weakly disguised trojan horse, but it represents a turning point in the culture war originating in the Enlightenment. the nature of the arguments set forth by ID supporters betray a profound crisis of faith. proponents of ID have already conceded the discursive authority to science. the adoption of the language and the rhetorical structure of a scientific argument for the divine creation of the universe indicates they have accepted that a scientific theory is 'fitter' than a religious theory.

a couple of years ago, while taking one of the chinatown bus lines to new york to visit emily2, i was forced to listen to a religious fundamentalist yammer on to the unlucky bastard sitting next to him about the superiority of christianity over all other modes of belief. in his eagerness to prove his religion 'fittest' above all others, he declared that many unbelievable events in the bible had been scientifically proven! scientists had determined that the earth actually did stand still for one whole day! without even comprehending it, he appealed to science as the higher authority to 'prove' the superiority of christian theology.