Download Evolution: Should It Remain in America`s Public Schools? J. Todd

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.