On February 9, 2011, U.S. Rep. Pete Stark of California’s 9th district introduced H. Res 81 to the 112 Congress, which recognized Charles Darwin’s accomplishments in evolutionary biology. Immediately on that same day, Mr. Stark’s bill was sent to the House Committee on Space, Science, and Technology where it eventually died.

           On January 29th of this year, U.S. Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey’s 12th district introduced H. Res. 467 to the 113th Congress which “Express[ed] support for designation of February 12, 2014, as Darwin Day and recognizing the importance of science in the betterment of humanity.” After his one minute statement on the house floor, Mr. Holt’s bill, like Mr. Stark’s bill, was immediately referred to the House Committee on Space, Science, and Technology and according to Govtrack.us, a government transparency website, H. Res. 467 will likely face the same fate.

           There are two profound reasons for why these bills died in committee and for why Charles Darwin’s natural selection continues to be questioned and challenged in an unscientific manner in the United States. First, it is because natural selection is a deceptively complex scientific theory with simple and misunderstood undertones. And there are two things that natural selection is not. It is not the “Survival of the Fittest” as Herbert Spencer conjectured, nor is it easy to understand or conceptualize.

This is because a person is expected to comprehend and attempt to visualize gradual changes of organisms, say Homo sapiens, over the course of thousands of generations. This thought experiment does not include thinking about the hundreds of thousands of years of time that it took for our ancestors to transition from one form of bipedal primate to another form of bipedal primate nor does it involve thinking about the environmental pressures that our human ancestors incurred. Hence, these additional variables add complexity to an already frustrating task without even mentioning that some species are constantly transitioning at rates of hundreds of thousands of years. It is very perplexing.

The second reason why the bill died and Charles Darwin and natural selection are so vehemently opposed by some elected officials is because there are those in the Christian right that see Charles Darwin and evolutionary biology as antithetical to the Bible and their version of the Christian God. Their position sets up a confrontation of the biological self. In other words, for those who believe the world is 6,000 years old, natural selection and all of its subsequent scientific support is in direct conflict with their literalist teachings. For example, in Genesis 1:27 of the English Standard Version of the Holy Bible “…God created man in his own image…”

This simple clause is so powerful that it can imply in a very anthropocentric way that man is royalty and he is exalted above all other living things on this planet. But it should be noted that not all Christians accept this biblical interpretation. In fact, there are scientists and thinkers who are practicing Christians that gladly accept natural selection and biological evolution and have no problem with the current scientific evidence and support for human origins. It is simply not an obstacle for them.

The neglect by the 112th Congress and the potential neglect by the 113th Congress for recognizing Charles Darwin’s scientific contributions to humanity are in staunch contrast to what the founders put forth in the U.S. Constitution. To be repetitive from previous opinion pieces, Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution is very clear. It states that Congress, among other things, shall “promote the Progress of Science.”

On January 29th when Rep. Holt stood before his fellow legislators on the house floor and presented his proclamation, H. Res. 467, to recognize Charles Darwin, he had the full force of the scientific endeavor and the U.S. Constitution to support his declaration, but his resolution was sent to the House Committee on Space, Science, and Technology without conversation. Thus, if history proves correct, H. Res. 467 will die. Unfortunately it appears the ignorance, lack of leadership, and the lack of adherence to the U.S. Constitution by the 113th Congress will not.