IDD is about the enormous scientific achievement of the freethinker, Darwin 🐵🦧🦍🐒🐻🧍🧍♀️🧍♂️as well as encouraging interest in science.🧬🧫🧪⚗️🔭🔬
Although the day is mainly promoted by humanists it's, nevertheless, a day that marks an historical break from the religiously founded belief that everything in the world was created, in one go, by a superior being called a Creator. This is an issue which is, and always has been, a hot potato. At one end of the spectrum, religious fundamentalists go so far as wanting to ban the teaching of Darwin in schools. I'm not sure how they expect these children to grow up and take their place in the outside world where Darwin's evolutionary theory is common knowledge. Even George W Bush waded in on the debate (2005) when Intelligent Design became a fad to be taught in US schools as an alternative to teaching Darwin and his scientific theories. Bush wanted both sides to be taught but a judge threw this out as against the American Constitution which forbids 'the establishment of religion'. Quite right too! Religion has no place in the public arena. Freedom of religion means all can worship wherever they wish and hold whatever beliefs they wish but they mustn't impose those beliefs on others, especially if it's to the other's detriment.
Some have continued trying to prove Darwin wrong but with little success. Even, surprisingly enough, some philosophers, for example, the 20th century Austrian born Czech-Hungarian/Sicilian British Jewish (Sir) Karl Popper (1902-1994). Popper originally thought Darwin's theory of natural selection was untestable and unscientific. However, he later backtracked as evidence from biologists showed that natural selection wasn't a tautology, in other words, it wasn't just stating the obvious. Nevertheless, Popper is right to argue that, even though science has much to contribute to our understanding of the world, it doesn't provide unfalsifiable knowledge. (His library is at Klagenfurt Uni, Austria). At the other end of the spectrum, recent research in genetics shows Darwin to be along the right lines.
I learned about Darwin almost by the by. It was just there on the wall chart. My mother studied Darwin and people's reaction to it, especially the response of ecclesiastical authorities (who most likely never read Darwin), during her B.D degree when she chose the history option which focused on this era, in an unbiased way. Therefore, being knowledgeable about it she inserted Darwin with ease and without any religious overtones. I also went to science museums and science played a large role in my education. I was used to handling science equipment and having a hands-on approach to the subject. Since I was not taught any religious beliefs at home I didn't have the usual conflict of Genesis (Old Testament) v Darwin.
However, it never occurred to me that I would be needing this knowledge on Darwin when studying Philosophy even down to Darwin's last book on worms, something Spinoza also wrote about in some of his letters. I refer to the latter in my volume 2 on Spinoza. Thus, writing a paper on Spinoza as a forerunner to Darwin happened by chance when responding to a CFP's on Spinoza, which included everything from Aristotle to Darwin, if one wished to go there. I always like to draw upon acquired past knowledge and further it. Here was my chance. Feeling I needed to be more up-to-date and at a higher level to fend off science specialists, I studied a module on Genetics (MA level). This clearly showed how Darwin was right. Enthused, I decided that this would help to understand Spinoza's conatus theory. Not that 17th century Spinoza could be influenced by 19th century Darwin but they may well have both read the same earlier source in the pre-Socratics. This is not to argue that Spinoza's conatus is an evolutionary theory. Neither is to argue that, therefore, Spinoza was an agnostic/atheist which he wasn't. But it lends credence to the notion that Darwin's evolutionary theory had its seed way back in history and was not as revolutionary as many tried to pretend. It perhaps also indicates that Spinoza's conatus is very much a scientific concept. This is not surprising given he was a scientist, albeit in physics (lenses, telescopes) but he did correspond with scientists about chemistry and biology.
It follows, therefore, I think, that an interest and ability in one of the sciences usually means an interest in science, generally. The 17th century was the era of scientific awakening so any erudite individual would need to be versed in it. Thus, even if Spinoza had not engaged in science and earned his living from it, he would still have had to understand what was going on around him. This also applied to Spinoza's awareness of political and religious views around him which were different from his, for example, Christianity. Just because he debated with Christians, it doesn't mean that he became one; that he was influenced by them; that he expounded or advocated Christian theology in his works. However, there was a tension between science and religion in the 17th century. A tension that still exists today. This tension came to a head, for Spinoza, at his own synagogue and probably led to his expulsion by the more orthodox of the two rabbis there. The other rabbi, at the time, was in England, and being the more scholarly of the two and liberal-minded he would not have allowed things to turn out so badly for the now orphaned Spinoza who, still in his early twenties, was mourning and missing his father. Had this liberal rabbi, who greatly influenced Spinoza, been present at the time, it's unlikely Spinoza would have been banned from his synagogue which was like home to him, not only because his father had been a warden there, but also because all his education had taken place there too. Hence, I do not take his expulsion from his synagogue seriously. This idea he was some infamous heretic is an exaggeration and unnecessarily paints Spinoza in a negative light which people still feed off today. This negative attitude then reflects on his works and encourages harsh, unwarranted criticism. Small wonder Spinoza said don't look at my life but my treatises. Spinoza was just a freethinker like Darwin, and his father Robert and brother Erasmus. Simplistically, that means he wanted to think freely without constraints or limits to his thoughts. Progress can never be made if we keep imposing dogmas of one kind or another on people, restricting freedom of thought.
But, some say, he could have returned to his synagogue, surely? Others did. Yes, in theory he could, but that would have been as effective as 'conversion therapy' and as damaging! Spinoza's ban was also more final than others so we can't be sure he would have been able to reverse it. Even today, scholars can't seem to manage to reverse the ban for him despite it being nearly four centuries later! Besides, Judaism can be practised away from the strictures of a synagogue which all too often depends on which rabbi holds sway, or who the wardens are and even who sits on the council. Spinoza believed that religion is a private matter. And, unlike Christianity, it can be practised at home because rabbis are not priests. They do not act as intermediaries between God and the individual. Blessings are recited in the home. After all his mother died when he was very young so he would have seen his sister take over her role. In this way, Spinoza may have learned many of the rituals women undertake in an Orthodox home. All Jewish rituals can be conducted at home, even the blowing of the shofar, if you can buy one, or these days, you can even watch wonderful videos of shofar blowing on the internet! However, Spinoza may well have attended a synagogue far from home for high holy days or other days. I doubt he would have been recognised.
So, part of my reason for researching the Early Modern period is not only an interest in History, engendered by my mother's excellent teaching, but also because it's a time when there was much progress, especially in the realm of science. Although not all the science is valid today. For example, vitalism has been superseded. Nevertheless, it takes one back to the time when religion was challenged as the main source of knowledge. This is important because this religion versus science debate rages on and is one which must confuse children who are brought up in a strict religious environment. Hence, the importance of education which ensures that children, teenagers, and young adults have access to up-to-date knowledge, devoid of bias. It is then up to them what they choose to think or believe. Therefore, I think it is very important that pupils in schools learn all the various scientific disciplines as separate disciplines, including those studied less often, such as, astronomy. I find it unbelievable that given that space exploration and travel is something going on here and now, it seems not to appear on the school curriculum. How can it not?
This is why I think a day devoted to Darwin and science is a helpful way to engender and foster an awareness of all things scientific for everybody, not just those in educational establishments.
Having said that, I don't agree with the government's over emphasis on and financial bias for STEM subjects for pupils and students. The humanities, social sciences, philosophy, languages, creative arts and music are vital too. Is not Einstein one of, if not the, most influential scientist in history? Yet he credited his scientific inspiration and discoveries to his daily violin playing. 🎻 Science needs creative minds! It needs passion! It's not all rational thinking, test tube in hand!👩🔬🧪🥽
