EcoHearth Environmental Website - Best ecology websites, environmental blogs, news, activism, green jobs, green products

Evolution is considered a fundamental concept within the biological sciences. However, controversy has led to high-spirited arguments as to whether to teach creationism alongside evolution and with equal time in science classes. Creationists propose creationism (aka creation science or intelligent design) as a pseudoscientific alternative to evolution. Nevertheless, support for evolution within academic and scientific groups—particularly within nuclear physics, astronomy, biology, genetics and geology—is predominantly undisputed. Creationism or intelligent design does not belong in a science curriculum.

The Controversy’s Origin
Many consider Charles Darwin as one of the most eminent thinkers of the 19th century. His voyage on the HMS Beagle was significant to his conception of natural selection—also called descent with modification or survival of the fittest—to explain a mechanism of evolutionary change. Darwin didn’t discover evolution; the same interpretation of the process was offered independently by Alfred Russel Wallace. Previous speculations, such as those of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, proposed that species alter over time from characteristics acquired during an individual’s lifetime, eventually becoming a new species. However, Lamarck’s and earlier speculations could not explain the complex features of organisms.

The mechanism of natural selection means that within a particular population, certain hereditary traits allow some individuals to produce more offspring than others. If these progeny also reproduce successfully, then the genetic composition of that population is changed. The flora or fauna best suited to that environment are the ones most likely to survive. Natural selection is comparable to domestic breeding, where desirable characteristics are chosen in breeding stock. Breeders remove undesirable traits over time and, similar to nature, certain individuals do not survive to pass on these unfavorable qualities.

We can observe evolutionary change through natural selection in our time. Bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics, and agricultural pests developing immunity to chemicals, demonstrate that most organisms are killed (i.e., selected against). A resistant few will survive to reproduce and pass on their genes—thus immunity—to their progeny. Therefore, the creatures best adapted—the fittest—will flourish.

Truth or Consequences
When creationism or intelligent design is taught alongside the theory of evolution, we undermine basic scientific principles. The American National Academy of Science characterizes science as based on observations and experimentation that can be thoroughly tested and replicated by others. An explanation not based on verifiable facts is not science.

However, creationism’s promoters often claim evolution is only a theory—defined in the traditional sense as a guess, hypothesis or conjecture. This is a deceptive mistake. The scientific meaning of a theory holds an established, sound principle that can be backed by tested hypotheses, facts and laws. Einstein’s theory of gravitation, also known as the general theory of relativity, illustrates an example within the proper context.

Despite creationist propaganda, academics and scientists internationally emphasize that no scientific controversy in evolution exists. In fact, the UK Royal Society affirms that evolution is the best explanation on species diversity and an important component of each science class. The US National Center for Science Education does state that some evolutionary patterns and processes may be unresolved because science, by definition, is open-ended. Nevertheless, the Center maintains that no scientific doubt remains on the theory of evolution itself, and for creationism to be taught alongside science is irresponsible and unacceptable. Globally, 67 Academies of Science agree that evidence-based facts must be used to teach children science. They also confirm that evolution has never been questioned within numerous scientific disciplines. The Roman Catholic Church, however, states that intelligent design is unscientific and that evolution warrants additional investigation.

Some groups refuse to separate science and religion into their proper categories. The Discovery Institute, the establishment of the intelligent-design movement, asks us to choose a side. They maintain that you can’t be a Christian and also admit evolution as fact. This faction is attempting to replace science with their particular brand of religion and proposing their own high school biology curriculum. These pseudoscientific criticisms are promoted as ‘academic freedom.’

The Discovery Institute’s Wedge Document (pdf) manifesto underscores this propaganda. This wedge strategy is a social, political, religious and academic agenda attempting to sway public opinion of evolution by redefining science while also promoting intelligent design. Highly organized and heavily promoted strategies spread religious (mainly conservative and fundamental Christian) ideology and are a significant threat to biology education. The Discovery Institute’s methodical assault on school boards, media, and state and federal governments stems from their promotion to “Teach the Controversy” between evolution and intelligent design. They play upon anti-intellectualism and distrust of science, and attempt to make scientists appear closed-minded. Regrettably, the general public has only a rudimentary understanding of science, rarely keeps up to date on its advancements, and is unable to reject these claims as illogical.

Using Your Noodle
One intentionally satirical movement offers an illuminating viewpoint as a result of this challenge. The ‘religion’ of Pastafarianism—with a flying spaghetti monster as the intelligent designer of all life—is growing in popularity. The originator of this faith, an unemployed physics graduate, sent a letter to the Kansas School Board to protest the Board’s decision that alternative theories (i.e., intelligent design) be taught in science classes. In this letter, he demanded that classes be taught “one-third time for intelligent design, one-third time for flying spaghetti monsterism, and one-third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

A legitimate science education is critical for a well-informed society capable of making intelligent decisions about ourselves and the natural world. Students can become confused by lack of distinctions between scientific theories and religious beliefs; consequently, this undermines and displaces scholarship and good science. Non-evidence or faith-based theories on evolution could have a place within religious studies or philosophy but not within science. Alchemy would not be taught as an alternative theory to chemistry. Astrology would not be given equal time in astronomy classes. The stork theory would not be taught alongside sex education. For the same reasons, teaching non-factual, superstitious alternatives can only do impressionable young minds a terrible disservice.

Additional resources:
National Science Teachers Association resources on the teaching of evolution
Science Academy endorses statement on teaching evolution

Comments (1)

Show/Hide comments

Write comment