Kirk Cameron is headed towards a college campus near you.

Cameron, the one-time star of television’s Growing Pains, has planned a rather unique commemoration of the upcoming 150th anniversary of the printing of Darwin’s The Origin of the Species. Along with of a cadre of volunteers, Cameron plans to distribute 50,000 copies of a “special edition” of the Origin on the campuses of the “top 50 universities.” Its “specialness” is due to its introduction, that details, among other things, “Adolf Hitler’s undeniable connection to the theory” and Darwin’s “racism,” “disdain for women” and “thoughts on the existence of God.”

As self-proclaimed “moderns,” we often immediately brand the claims attempting to “debunk” evolution as sheer lunacy, the work of fundamentalists whose world view is entirely incommensurable with our own.

However, is this completely true? Can we ascertain anything meaningful within these statements, or, more precisely, anything with which we can identify?

The argument made by these “debunkers,” while cloaked with the religious jargon of Genesis and the Gospels, is, I believe, quite straightforward. It is the idea that evolution, or “survival of the fittest,” is inherently dangerous, as it generates notions both of nature as a neutral, uncaring process, as well as the existence of a “natural” hierarchy.

Such explains Cameron’s reference to both racism and Nazism; indeed, he presumably believes that these two strains of thought derived some inspiration from Darwin’s theories. It is not difficult to see why: Both Hitler and other racists pointed to the “objective” scientific principle of genetic inferiority as justification for their misdeeds.

The same concern was apparent throughout the Scopes Monkey Trial. Indeed, William Jennings Bryan, the noted political figure who served as the prosecution, objected to the teaching of evolution not only because it contravened what he believed to be the word of God, but also because he feared that establishing it as normative would legitimate a complete dismissal of the needs of the downtrodden, or, worse, the practice of eugenics.

Can we blame this interpretation? Take, for instance, this quote from A Civic Biology — the textbook used by John Scopes — describing those with “mental and moral defects”: “hundreds of families such as those […] exist to-day, spreading disease, immorality and crime to all parts of this country […] these families have become parasitic on society […] we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race.”

It is clear why Bryan, the ardent populist, would react so virulently to such a theory. It is also clear why evangelical Christians, who strongly believe in the sanctity of every human being — no matter how “defective” or “unproductive” — would unquestioningly reject such.

Interestingly (or ironically) enough, these concerns are remarkably similar to those espoused by political “liberals,” the group most antagonistic towards these “debunkers.” Indeed, are not “liberals” said to be at the forefront of ensuring rights for the mentally disabled, the criminally insane and so on? Is this deep sensitivity for those “on the bottom” not then a shared value?

Perhaps, the more difficult claim to reconcile is their rejection of evolution on Biblical grounds. However, what do “debunkers” actually indicate by claiming God created the world?

If we look beyond the trappings of their religious language, it seems as if they are affirming belief in the rational, ordered, development of life and, therefore, that our existence is non-arbitrary. Thus, existence assumes some purpose. Evolution, with its notion of life developing from random mutations, seems then as synonymous with nihilism.

Is this an idea held exclusively by the “debunkers”? Is it so alien that we can claim with it no identification? Certainly not. Indeed, is not American political rhetoric saturated with the notion of a “common purpose”? Is it not for many intuitively obvious?

Let me clarify, in case there is any misconception: I do not believe that biologists actually subscribe to the ideas of A Civic Biology, or, for that matter, the notion that our existence is entirely meaningless. Furthermore, I do believe that there are meaningful values embedded within the theory of evolution, such as the recognition of both the connectedness of nature and the existence of forces beyond our control.

However, I have given primacy to understanding the values of the “debunkers” because we so rarely do so. This undertaking, I believe, has great significance. By locating our cherished values within the jargon of the “debunkers,” we can not only reaffirm the legitimacy of those values, but also recognize that, when it comes to our basic concerns, we are not nearly as different from the “debunkers” as we would like to think.

Judah Bellin is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He may be reached at

judahbellin@cornellsun.com. For Whom the Bellin Tolls appears alternate Mondays this semester.