Darwinism Vs. Creationism: A Fair Fight?
Darwinism vs. Creationism: A Fair Fight?
Charles Darwin published his ground breaking work, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859, and at first it seems to have been met with equal parts enthusiasm and criticism from his scientific contemporaries and their theologian counterparts. However, the creationist movement that we see today owes its existence to the publishing of this volume (for it gave a rational, observable explanation that really hadn’t been addressed before outside religious mythological folklore). Darwin’s Theories of evolution and natural selection made some grand, yet elegantly simple claims about the biological history of all species to which the planet has ever played host. However, like many scientific breakthroughs, it caused quite a stir amongst theologians (and still does, depending on who is asked). Creationism was the response to that stir, designed to explain the diverse biology of the earth within the context of the story put forth in the bible. With creationism on the rise in the ‘bible belt’ states of America, the constitutional requirement of the separation of church and state is being called into question, as a new wave of theologian-scientists attempt to re-brand creationism (or ID, intelligent design) into another scientific theory to be treated equally with the theory of evolution. Should schools be allowed to teach creationism? Is it a theory? Who is right? Let’s start at the beginning.
As mentioned above, Charles Robert Darwin published ‘Origin of Species’ in 1859 after his legendary trip to the Galapagos islands where he notably gained inspiration from the variety of finches (and other animals) that he used to develop and expand on what would become his revolutionary theory of evolution. In fact, these memorable expeditions saw the rise of a group of evolutionary theories proposed by Darwin, including;
· Evolution -organisms are steadily transformed over time
· Common decent -every group of organisms is descendant from a common ancestor, traceable back through microorganisms, ultimately to a single origin of life.
· Multiplication of species -species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isolated founder populations that evolve into new species.
· Gradualism -evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltation) production of new individuals
· Natural selection -individuals whose genetic variation allows them to outcompete allows them live, while others of the species die. Thus those individuals are ‘selected’ by nature to breed and pass on their genes.
[Hanes]
In most discussions, Darwinism or evolution theory are interchangeably used to describe this collection of theories, however the focus of the debate between creationists and evolutionists centers mainly on evolution and common decent (creationists seem to be offended at the idea of evolving from apes), while natural selection is almost widely accepted (as it is practically visible to the naked eye, and therefore much harder to dispute.
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986 [Hanes]
Initially, evolution seemed to overtake the creation theory completely, even within the walls of the church. However throughout the rise of evolutions popularity, devout Christians (especially in the US) maintained that the story put forth in genesis where a god creates everything around us throughout the course of 6 days, followed by a day of rest (which is partially responsible for our seven day calendar weeks), the earth is under 10,000 years old, and a giant flood almost eradicated all life on the planet. Groups of these Christians, beginning around the 1920’s and continuing through today, actively campaign to “contain the spread of evolutionary theory” [Numbers, ix].
So what makes evolution so strong that it nearly wiped out creationism? It is a simple, elegant solution that is based on observation and, perhaps most importantly, seems intuitively correct. Evolution refers to the changes that occur through genetic mutations that are passed on through generations. Through natural selection, which occurs when such genetic mutations cause changes to the organism that create an advantage over competing organisms. Such an advantage may mean the mutated organism will switch to occupy a different niche in the ecosystem, or it will simply outcompete for the same resources as the original organism, leading to its extinction and ultimately a natural selection of what species survives (it is also fair to say that there would be an approximately equal number of disadvantageous mutations, however they would not be noticed as easily since they would inherently die out quickly as they could not compete). Over extremely long periods of time, period’s not immediately obvious or noticeable, natural selection allows advantageous mutations to proliferate until an organism has changed so much that it no longer resembles its ancestor. Using this model one could theoretically (if armed with a full fossil record containing every species), track humans, chimps and hamsters all back to one shrew like mammal from around the time of the dinosaurs, or indeed all life on the planet back to a single species of life form, most likely billions of years ago. [PBS.org]
If evolution is so convincing, why does creationism persist? Creationism extends from a branch of Christianity that is almost fundamentalist. They vehemently believe that the book of Genesis (the beginning of the old testament of the bible) is a historical account of the beginning of the earth, the union of the first human couple (from who all humans descend), and a giant flood which wiped out most species. A distinct brand of creationism known as “scientific creationism” specifically makes these claims while intentionally leaving out any mention of god or a higher power, which allows them to portray these ideas as a “scientific theory” and equally valid as a theory for the origin of life on earth. They make many claims to support their case; that there is a direct, traceable lineage from Adam to Jesus, that it literally took 6-24 hour periods to make everything there is, that a global flood overtook the earth and killed a large portion of the species. They even state that radiometric dating is like reading a clock, which can be read wrong if you do not know “where the clock is set in the beginning” and compares it to “making sure that an hourglass clock was set with all the sand in the top bowl”. They also claim that we cannot know if “the clock has ticked at the same rate from the beginning until now” [10 basics]
Unfortunately for the creationists, there are some major holes in their logic and reasoning, and some of the blame rests on the English language itself. Creationists lambast evolution as being ‘just a theory’ and ‘unproved’, while presenting their views as a competing theory. However there are two definitions of the word theory, one where a theory is a synonym for hypothesis, the other where a theory is a group of ideas accepted as accounting for the known facts. Evolution is an undisputed theory, and the longer a scientific theory stays around, the more it has withstood the barrage of scientific scrutiny and is therefore an accepted fact. When evolution is said to ‘not be proved’ is misleading because scientists can never truly prove anything. The best they can do is fail to disprove something. [Dawkins, 14] This does not make it any less a reality. Put into perspective, the evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. [16] Even more damaging to the creationist case, when you see that among the Christian clergy, from the pope down through to nearly every priest, although they may feel a higher power is responsible somewhere down the line, evolution is accepted as a fact. [17] However, poll data shows upwards of 40 of Americans deny that humans “evolved from other animals and think that we – and by implication all of life – were created by god within the last 10,000 years.” [15] The problem there is that, although the priest may concede that evolution is a fact, Adam and Eve never existed, and that these stories they preach are symbolic, they often not only fail to mention they are speaking in metaphors, but they allow their congregation to take the bible as literally as they wish and do nothing to prevent it.
What should it matter that 40 percent of Americans choose to believe that the world is only a few thousand years old? The United States prides itself on its religious diversity, and such beliefs don’t prevent a person from being a functional member of society, right? These creationists often insist on passing their beliefs onto their children and Sunday schools or home-teaching creationism is perfectly legal. Sadly, many of these parents are not content with just confusing their own children with claims of pseudo-science, they want all the children to learn about creationism, right along with evolution in class. They present this scientific creationist ‘theory’ as a valid alternative to evolution, but to even entertain the notion of something as ridiculous and obviously false as creationism is to call practically all other areas of science into question. Think of the implications this theory has on paleontology. All fossil records get wiped. The accretion disc theory of the solar system falls apart. Entire established areas of scientific study would need to be adjusted to meet such a ‘theory’. When you look at the facts it becomes quite clear there is no place for creationism within the strict framework of science. Unlike in the past, when science was in its infancy or before it even existed, when god was as close to an explanation our ancestors could get when faced with an unknown phenomenon. However, we have progressed as a civilization and created a fantastically accurate guide to the world around us called the scientific method. The rigorous procedure insists that every idea withstand any possible scrutiny, and takes nothing for granted. The burden of proof now lies with the hypothesis, and ‘creation theory’ leaves too many holes for it to even begin to resemble a sound theory. That does not mean its potential invasion into the school curriculum isn’t a serious issue. It represents a threat to education of millions of children, as it promotes lazy, uninspired thinking, and it would almost certainly contribute to a drastic decrease in test scores in science and science majors, as it creates a confusing world where nothing is certain. Therefore, Darwinism vs. Creationism isn’t even a fair fight, which is the reason it has yet to be approved into any schools lessons; despite the best efforts on the part of the creationists, logic and reason has prevailed. That does not mean the fight is over, or any less serious, for the threat is there, and if allowed to spread would surely be a detriment to the scientific community and civilization as a whole.
References:
Hanes, J. (n.d.). What is darwinism?. Retrieved from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html
Numbers, R. (1992). The creationists: The evolution of scientific creationism. New York: Knopf.
Pbs.org. Frequently asked questions about evolution. In (2001).WGBH Educational Foundation and Clear Blue Sky Productions, Inc. . Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html
Answers. (04, Feb 28). 10 basics every creationist must know to boldly proclaim a biblical worldview. Retrieved from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n2/basics
Dawkins, R. (2009). The greatest show on earth - the evidence for evolution. New York: Free Press.
