What should we teach our kids



Are you there God? It’s me, school

[pic]

Evolution v. Creation

By Stacie Cottrell

Charles Darwin shook the foundation of religious beliefs when he published his very controversial books on evolution, The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man. For the last 150 years, people have felt as though they must choose between their life-long beliefs in Christianity or the scientific discovery of evolution. As time passes, and evidence of evolution mounts, many creationists – but certainly not all – have come to accept the possibility of at least small-scale or microevolution. Since the early 1900s Americans have been engaged in heavy debate regarding the curriculum taught in science and biology classes: evolution – which conflicts with religious beliefs, or creationism – which supports religious beliefs but conflicts with science. Even after 100 years of debate, we still ask ourselves, what should we teach our children in school? It is my opinion that the only appropriate material for a science classroom is that which has been proven using the scientific method and accepted by the scientific community; as of right now, creationism does meet that standard.

To adequately explain the justification for my position, I will discuss the basic points of both evolution and creationism, as well as the key issues in the debate. I will start first with creationism. According to American Biologist Eugene Scott, there are approximately five schools of creationist thought: Flat-Earth, Young-Earth, Old-Earth, Theistic Evolution, and Intelligent Design (ID) (cited in Pigliucci, 2005).

• Flat-Earth: Proponents of this philosophy are a minority but they are out there. They have a very literal acceptance of the book of Genesis in the Holy Bible. For this group of people the world is flat, 6,000 years old, and the center of the universe. Scott mentions a subsection of people he calls Geocentric – they believe the world was once flat, but then rounded by the movement of the land during the great flood of Noah’s time.

• Young-Earth: The majority of Americans believe this philosophy. For them the Bible is a scientific resource as well as a religious one. They accept that the earth is round and not the center of the universe; however; they do believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years, and most animals and humans were wiped out by a world-wide flood around 4,000 years ago.

• Old-Earth: This differs from the others because believers in the Old-Earth philosophy agree that our planet is an estimated 4.5 billion years of age. The problem with this theory is a resulting gap in time between the first and second chapters of Genesis. Supporters of the Old-Earth say there is a missing chapter in which God destroyed the existing earth and replaced it with the one that Adam and Eve populated.

• Theistic Evolution: This theory states that God created the natural laws of science and worked through those laws to create the universe, earth, and the life that populates it. Pope John Paul II acknowledged an agreement with this type of creation in a letter to the Pontific Academy of Science in which he says, “new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.” (cited in Pigliucci, 2005). One Roman Catholic Cardinal, Christopher Schönborn, calls this letter “vague and unimportant” – to which I reply: Since when is anything the Pope says in an official capacity considered unimportant? (2007).

• Intelligent Design: Of all the creationist beliefs, this is the most accepting of evolution and has been more successful in making its way into the classroom than any of the others. Essentially, supporters of ID are willing to accept all the laws of science including evolution, but say that an ultimate Designer guided the process and stepped in to handle the more complex evolutionary steps. They use the term irreducible complexity to identify the aspects of development that are so remarkable they cannot be explained by natural science, such as the eye.

So now, what is evolution? Evolution is nothing more than “a change in gene frequencies over time” (Pigliucci, 2005). Biologist Charles Darwin hypothesized that all life on earth evolved from the same single-cell organism in the bottom of the ocean. Multiple species developed through genetic mutations, and natural selection (or survival of the fittest), gene duplication, migration, and genetic drift (Selman v. Cobb County SD, 2008). The concept of evolution has been thoroughly tested over the last 150 years and is now accepted as scientific fact by the most respected biologists in the world.

The most common misconception regarding evolution is found in the very simple and all too often used phrase origin of life. Evolution in no way attempts to explain the origin of life. This simple misunderstanding is the root of much of the evolution/creation debate. Many creationists feel threatened by evolution because they believe evolution tries to disprove God by explaining the origin of life. Evolution concerns itself with the series of changes that occur only after the origination of life; it is impossible to study changes in life forms before life comes to exist. In fact, Darwin himself expresses his disinterest in the origins of life in his book The Origin of Species when he says, “How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated” (Darwin, 1952; originally published in 1859).

Evolutionists don’t want Intelligent Design taught in school and creationists don’t want evolution taught as the only explanation for the development of life. Immediately following the release of The Origin of Species, teaching evolution in school was illegal in almost every city, town, or county in America. One of the most famous evolution trials is the John Scopes trial of 1925 where a school teacher in a small town in Tennessee was arrested for violating a law preventing Darwinian teaching.

Supreme Court rulings have forced creationists to evolve over the last 75 years by making the teaching of creationism illegal in public schools due to the violation of the establishment clause. The birth of the Intelligent Design theory resulted from these rulings. Creationists are now trying to prove the possibility of an intelligent designer using purported scientific methods; if they are successful, ID could be taught in science classes with constitutional protection. In the mean time they are pushing for both concepts to be presented to students as possibilities.

There are two basic problems with teaching ID in schools: it is fundamentally religious and it is not a science. The backbone of the ID argument is that it is not religious – I disagree. The district court established an objective test to determine whether a subject can be considered a religion; it is commonly known as the Parallel Position Test (PPT). To be considered a religion it must meet the following three criteria: (1) it must address fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters; (2) it must be comprehensive, usually including some form of creation theory or supreme being; and (3) it must have external signs and symbols by which it can be recognized (Schultz, West, & Maclean, 1999). Intelligent Design theory passes each of the three criteria.

1. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, if something is imponderable, “[it] is incapable of being weighed or evaluated with exactness” (Merriam-, 2009). Asking how something evolves is not the same as asking whether or not there is a Designer guiding the evolution. As the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science says, “Whether there is an intelligent designer is not an empirically testable question” (cited in Munro, 2007).

2. A belief in Intelligent Design, or any other creationist perspective, by necessity requires a belief in an ultimate Designer, or a supreme being, and therefore is part of an all-encompassing view of existence.

3. The single largest organization for the advancement of Intelligent Design, Discovery Institute, drafted a 20-year plan called “The Wedge Strategy” or “Wedge Document” for the purpose of “replac[ing] materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God” (; ). The cover of the original document contains the picture of The Creation of Adam by Michelangelo. The “Wedge Document” also identifies its “natural constituency” as Christians (Forrest, 2007).

Lastly, ID is NOT a science and cannot be proven via the scientific method: ask a specific question, answer the question through observation and testing, create a hypothesis based on the answer, test the hypothesis, and analyze the results. For the last 150 years evolution has been exhaustively studied and examined using the scientific theory and has proven accurate. In direct opposition, creationists (of all types) begin with a conclusion based on an unfounded hypothesis and then work backwards to find data that supports their hypothesis. Following this system qualifies ID as a pseudoscience. In fact, Paul Nelson, a Wedge founder, reported in 2005 (thirteen years into the 20-year plan) that “we have a bag full of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions…but, as of yet, no general theory of biological design” (Forrest, 2007).

In my opinion, the idea of irreducible complexity is nothing more than a copout; if it is beyond our current understanding, it must be God. If all scientists had thought that way we would still believe that the world is flat and the center of the universe; there would be no Newtonian Physics; and we never would have made it to the moon.

Evolutionary scientists are often thought of as atheists, but in reality there are thousands of Christian scientists who believe firmly in evolution; science and religion are not incompatible. I myself believe in some sort of intelligent design, but I am able to identify that as a spiritual belief. Science provides facts and information – it proves evolution. Religion doesn’t change science; it explains it. I believe that Evolution and Creationism can both be taught in school, just not in the same class. Theology, comparative religion, or philosophy classes are all very appropriate forums for creationist discussions, but the only theory that has earned a place in biology class is Evolution.

References

Darwin, C. (1952). The Origin of Species. Encyclopedia Britannica collection, Great Books of the Western World: Vol. 49. Darwin. (Original work published in 1859).

Forrest, B.C. (2007). Design Movement Undermines the Separation of Church and State. At Issue: Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center.

Merriem-Webster (2009, February 28). Imponderable. Retrieved February 28, 2009 from .

Munro, N. (2007). The Intelligent Design Versus Evolution Debate: An Overview. At Issue: Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center.

Pigliucci, M. (2005). Evolution Alone Explains Life on Earth. At Issue: Creationism Versus Evolution. Retrieved February 17, 2009, from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center.

Schönborn, C. (2007). The Theory of Evolution Is Ideology, Not Science. At Issue: Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center.

Schultz, J. D., West, J. G., & Maclean, I. (Ed.)(1999). Encyclopedia of Religion in American Politics: the American Political Landscape Series. Arizona: Phoenix.

Selman v. Cobb County School District. (2008). Science Classes Do Not Need Disclaimers that Evolution Is Only a Theory. Opposing Viewpoints: School Policies. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download