Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
1 Evolution: Should It Remain in America’s Public Schools? J. Todd Pigg October 1, 2012 University of Colorado at Denver In partial fulfillment of the requirements of Dr. Giullian’s FNDS 5050 E01 Issues in Education Course Fall 2012 2 Introduction “As measured by public fuss, the debate about human origins boils down to whether life on Earth evolved over hundreds of millions of years, or whether an all powerful prankster deity spent a week creating a world that just looks like a product of evolution” (Gibson, 2012, p. 40). While we could build on this statement, such as adding that a deity, a “powerful prankster,” set into motion the mechanism of evolution, the purpose of the following pages is to present evolution, its facts and fictions, and to answer the question: Should evolution be taught in American public schools? Religious and private schools will be left out of the discussion as most are not funded by parents’ and other taxpayers’ money. Since 1925, when the Scope’s Monkey Trial ruled that a public school teacher, Mr. Scope, who taught evolution in a small, Tennessee school, which was illegal there at the time, broke the law, evolution has been at the forefront of controversial, education issues (Kingston, 2000). William Jennings Bryant came to prosecute Scope. It did not matter Bryant’s stance on the issue, all that mattered was, “The right of the people speaking through the legislature, to control the schools which they create and support is the real issue as I see it” (quoted in Kingston). In an era when state’s rights ruled over federal rights, many Southern states had been passing laws striking down the teaching of evolution in public schools and reincorporating creationism (not to be confused with intelligent design) in the curriculum. The debate raged throughout America, but creationism was most staunchly defended by the Southern states. Finally, however, as state’s right eroded and a larger federal presence desired more uniformity across the country, the teaching of creationism disappeared and the “Theory of Evolution” became the only “bible” found in public schools. Thus, our defined 3 notion of the separation of church and state was challenged and ultimately upheld. The allegedly more “scientific” theory won the day and would profoundly contribute to America’s changing, religious landscape. Now, to examine several instances of 160 years of debate; starting almost immediately after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution” “Darwin's ‘Theory of Evolution’ is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related” (Denton, 2012). What is now popularly dubbed “the primordial ooze,” is where all life originally sprouted and then evolved from the same lifeless mass. From his original theory on life’s origins, Darwin published numerous articles and books, each one evolving, so to speak, from his first theory. His theory on natural selection and the survival of the fittest are still widely quoted and studied today as well. Darwin’s publications have given atheists reasons to believe that science alone can explain the existence of life, where it gives some Christians the belief that “’evolutionary creationism’ claims that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit created the universe and life, including human life, through an ordained, sustained, and design-reflecting evolutionary process” (Lamoureaux, 2012, p. 108). It is apparent that different scientific and religious minds and movements have read Darwin’s works and gleaned precisely what they needed to devise their own system of or addendum to their beliefs. However, who is to say this is wrong? The Flaws of Evolution In Henderson’s 2012 article detailing the current debate on Darwinism, he states, “Some critics of Darwin advocate the teaching of intelligent design theory along with Darwin's theory, and others seek to eliminate even the mention of evolution from science classes altogether” (p. 4 1139). He continues to expound by giving the main argument against Darwin’s theory: “Many of these critics base their objections on the claim that non-living matter cannot give rise to living matter.” As mentioned above, this is most glaring flaw to surface in modern times. In an 1860 letter to Asa Gray, a “leading scientific colleague of the day,” Darwin writes: I grieve to say that I cannot honestly go as far as you do about Design. I am conscious that I am in an utterly hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the result of chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the result of Design ... Again, I say I am, and shall ever remain, in a hopeless muddle. (quoted in Lamoureaux, p. 108) This is just one example of numerous letters to his colleagues doubting the overall validity of the completeness of his own theory, which many people today still take as gospel. In another letter from 1870 to botanist J. D. Hooker, Darwin reiterates his confusion about the existence of intelligent design at every level of biological life: [B]ut how difficult not to speculate! My theology is a simple muddle; I cannot look at the universe as the result of blind chance, yet I can see no evidence of beneficent design, or indeed of design of any kind, in the details. As for each variation that has ever occurred having been preordained for a special end, I can no more believe in it than that the spot on which each drop of rain falls has been specially ordained. (ibid) In another example, when discussing the eye, Darwin states in his own, first publication: To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the 5 correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. (Darwin, 1859, p. 155) So how can his theory be scientifically acceptable if it is, by his own admission, flawed? It might be easier to overlook this particular flaw if only one or two organisms had eyes. However, a large majority of non-microscopic living creatures have eyes. Have some scientists simply had tunnel vision as they have worshipped the “Theory of Evolution” since its first publication? Finally, in 1876, Darwin writes in his autobiography: In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, "it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, astonishment, and devotion, which fill and elevate the mind." I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. (ibid) While this is open to interpretation, Darwin seemingly alludes to the existence of a soul, or in the very least, a higher purpose for humans. Like Darwin’s theory and like the man himself, all humans are flawed. One must glean the good, the factual, the beneficial points of his work to understand the value of his work. After all, Darwin published his theory in 1859, and scientific and religious scholars are still debating its merits in the 21st century. The Facts of Evolution Amid the previously mentioned flaws in Darwin’s theory, there are concurrently numerous facts that have shaped biology, economics, and even who is allowed to play sports and who sits on the bench. 6 First, receiving the most research from scholars, microevolution certainly takes place in virtually every species. That is, species slowly adapt to survive the elements, hide from predators, or they will inevitably go extinct, being replaced by a stronger species. When looking at human remains, scientists have been able to piece together most of the human evolutionary chain. Neanderthals, slowly died out or were killed off by predators, an ice age, or more intelligent species of humanity. Survival of the fittest can be witnessed in individual humans, animals, corporations, plants, and so forth. Evolving to survive is accepted by most scientists, across all fields. Seemingly every night on the news, reporters are telling the public how certain illnesses are becoming immune to current vaccines. These tiny, apparently unintelligent viruses and microorganisms are somehow mutating (evolving) to survive. Gelbert, in 1987, described influenza as “the mutating assassin waiting to strike” (p. 52). This, as it turns out, was a predictive statement. Now, look at the new variations of influenza the medical field is able to diagnose, such as swine and avian flu; this virus evolution dictates that there will be another influenza strain, mutated and ready to attack soon. After all, these microscopic and sometimes dangerous thorns in humanity’s side are just simply trying to survive and avoid extinction. Furthermore, according to evolution and scientific studies, these microorganisms are among the oldest living forms on Earth, so they will most likely continue to succeed in their fight for survival. In 2007, Herron and Michod studied volvocine algae and found a very unique occurrence in Darwinian evolution: “the transition from unicellular to differentiated multicellular organisms [which] constitutes an increase in the level complexity” (p. 436). According to the study, only a “few dozen examples are known in which such changes have led to the reorganization of the 7 very units of adaptation and evolution” (ibid). Here, in layman’s terms, a group of simple individuals came together to form a singular, complex individual capable of more biological processes and growing beyond what its species was capable of before. Does this rarity happen by happenstance or is there a guiding principle behind it? Scientists are working on this issue but have no feasible answer yet. However, there is no doubt that the volvocine algae evolved to the highest possible plane of Darwinian evolution. Conclusion The origin of life may be something that scientists and theologians never fully unearth. In Hewlett and Peters’ 2006 article, the authors, who are both religious professors and one is also a virologist, surmise that “Darwin’s concept of random variation as exemplified in genetic mutations” can indirectly lead “to the saving of human lives” (p. 106). They put forth that America’s public school students should be taught the “best science” possible and scientific creationism or intelligent design do not constitute the best possible scientific explanations for how life emerged and evolves. They continue to argue that “it would be tragic to take away a demonstrably successful science and replace it with inferior one just to satisfy religious expectations” (ibid). Pope John Paul II said in 1996: “Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish” (ibid). Unlike mathematics and most sciences, the origin of life is certainly not a black and white issue with one correct answer to every question. Evolution and how life emerged require a unique combination of evidence and faith. Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution” should be taught in public schools, but not as an absolute. It should be taught with its facts and flaws, allowing students the opportunity to develop and hone critical problem-solving skills. In contrast to 8 simply memorizing material, the ability to think in a reasonable way will help them become more successful contributors to society. 9 References Darwin, Charles. "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155. Denton, Michael. “Darwin’s theory of evolution, a theory in crisis. All about science. 1986. Web. 2012. ‹http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/›. Gelbart, M (1999). "Influenza: the mutating assassin waiting to strike." Nursing times (1987) (0954-7762), 95 (45), p. 52. Gibson, Robert. "Evolution: the nature of human origins is less important than the origins of human nature." Alternatives Journal 37.4 (2011): 40. Academic OneFile. Web. 8 Oct. 2012. Henderson, James. "Vitalism and the Darwin Debate." Science & Education 21.8 (2012): 1139+. Academic OneFile. Web. 8 Oct. 2012. Herron, Matthew and Michod, Richard. “Evolution of Complexity in the Volvocine Algae: Transitions in Individuality through Darwin's Eye.” Evolution Vol. 62, No. 2 (Feb., 2008), pp. 436-451. Hewlett, M. and Peters, T. (2006), Evolution in Our Schools: What Should We Teach? Dialog, 45: 106–109. doi: 10.1111/j.0012-2033.2006.00300.x. Lamoureux, Denis O. "Darwinian theological insights: toward an intellectually fulfilled Christian theism--Part I: divine creative action and intelligent design in nature." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 64.2 (2012): 108+. Academic OneFile. Web. 8 Oct. 2012. Pierce, Kingston. “Scopes Trail.” American History Magazine. (2000): Historynet.com. 12 June, 2000.