Featured

Darwin’s War

Neil Kelty, Eric Noga
Mrs. Pickett – Per. 3
14 December 2007
Final Draft

Darwin’s War

Recent history suggests that the desire for truth has become more prevalent than ever before. The clash between creationism and the theory of evolution is more than just a hot-button topic in the political realm. In the beginning of the debate, Charles Darwin was not the first to develop a so-called theory of evolution; however, Darwin’s theory was by far the most complex and thoroughly supported. “He did much more than simply flash out his old convictions that humans had evolved from animals” (Browne 325). Through his development of the theory of evolution British naturalist Charles Darwin created one of the most controversial subjects of discussion that has not only changed the direction of science, but has also started one of the most influential ideological wars known to man.

Darwin utilized his theory of natural selection as a foundation to develop the concept of evolution. “Darwin did not look upon natural selection simply as a casual force for evolution. It was a force for evolution of a particular kind” (Ruse 23). Therefore, Darwin did not create this idea of evolution through observation of many animal species; it was based more on his theological background than anything. It originally had nothing to do with the development of humans from primates. He did have thoughts on the subject but rather those were implicit rather than actually expressed (Ruse 18). Natural selection is the force that brings about such functioning of the origin of the human species in evolutionists. A strong part of Darwin’s argument was that there was a struggle for existence and this was evident in the way he presented his idea of natural selection.

This idea of “sexual selection” is a mechanism supposedly brought on less by the brute struggle for existence and more by within-group competition for mates (Ruse 24). Sexual selection is a specific example of natural selection proposed by Darwin himself claiming that this particularly applies to humans. The invocation of sexual selection serves as Darwin’s way of saying that a human’s way of thinking is all about the individual more than it is about the group. Darwin saw survival of the fittest as a battle between one individual and another rather than a species fighting against a species for sexual pleasure.

Despite strong convictions from much of the world in regard to the Christian belief of creation, Darwin developed a theory of evolution. “I believe true to consider [man to be] created from animals” (Keynes 44). Darwin’s theory of evolution suggests that all beings descended linearly from one, which would force a “family tree-like” application. Furthermore, evolution brings slow and gradual change to the table as one of its proponents. “Evolution is a seamless strand devoid of major changes in any brief span of time.” (Moore 97). Creationism develops a quick change over a period of 7 days, while evolution develops over millions of years. Finally, Darwin’s development in the scientific world did not completely diminish his Christian beliefs, he often mentioned God during letters, especially after the death of his son (Keynes 248).

Supporters of evolution rely on attacking the credibility of the Bible in order to support their theory. “The Bible may be the word of God, but it is certainly not the simple, straightforward word of God” (Ruse 43). This is implying that God really did not intend to be honest with His creation, rather it was all just mere chance that humans were even created. Due to the fact that humans wrote The Bible it must therefore be read in its corrupt literal form (43). Such an outrageous claim cannot even be validated through the charismatic speech of these supporters. It is one thing to voice an opinion, it is another to back it up with credible facts. Also, it is very important to notice that the people supporting the theory of evolution cannot come up with their own facts to convince someone, rather they would prefer ridicule someone else than propose an alternate solution. Perhaps the biggest problem on this question of evolution is that even though scientific data has increased almost geometrically in volume, many scientists uncritically accept Darwinism as the only way of interpreting the data (Deloria 21). This further proves the point that supporters of the theory of evolution are so close-minded they will refuse to accept any other way than their own.

Although many adopted Darwin’s theory, the creationist theory, which has transcended time, continues to embark upon a clash with evolution. Creationism is the idea that is derived literally from the book of Genesis of The Holy Bible. The Creationist theory states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and all of its inhabitants through his own immeasurable powers. Logically, one would think that this is not a hard concept to reject or debate. However, due to the questioning abilities of the human mind it is somewhat necessary to ensure the validity of such an amazing claim. In reality the creationist theory has such a divine nature to it that often at first glance it is seen as something “too good to be true”. However that may seem it really is the case that has stood the test of time, receiving more debate than any other topic throughout British history as well as the rest of the world.

Meanwhile, creationists rely on attacking the viability of the evolutionist view while continuing to place unwavering faith in the Bible. Humans have a very unique beginning in which Darwinians neglect to even acknowledge in their interpretation of when life began because the supposed data already collected is as factual as it will ever get. Being open in the discussion of the realm of possibility that maybe there are other facts out there that could help solve this whole debate together: evolutionists do not want to even admit this is so.

Creationists just want a fair chance at proposing that there is other evidence out there supporting their cause, rather than basing all source of truth and knowledge, upon which is derived from the age of rocks. Eldredge himself has been quoted in saying “We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not” (Deloria 19). Even an evolutionist within his own prospective group of likeminded people has said that the cause he defends is in a sense meaningless. Evolution covers a multitude of scientific sins, but does not really explain anything (Deloria 19).

The nature of the Christian religion states that God is the creator of the beginning of the earth and all of human life, and once that is said no other discussion is necessary (Deloria 113). Basically when one claims that something is from God, there is no debate that it came from God. So in essence when The Holy Bible is read literally from Genesis to Revelation it is completely from God no question about it. Therefore, the entire theory of evolution would need to be thrown out of the picture if all considered God’s word ultimate. However, there are those who do not posses this unwavering faith in Him, which naturally leads their human instincts to question the viability of God and His word.

There are several claims for the big bang theory and all of these signs from geological factors yet there are no significant changes in the educational systems today (Deloria 203). All of this stems from an evolutionist argument about how life began and yet nothing has been done about it. A good question is if other civilizations have lived before us, what credence does one give to the story of Genesis? If cosmic collisions have occurred when is the next one due? All of this scientific data is presented time and again from an evolutionist who claims man descended from ape yet none of it adds up. Not a single iota makes any sense and still they cannot say when the next cosmic collision will happen.

Application of natural selection to the human population, which would prove evolution to be true, would mean many different species of humans would have to exist. Classifying humans based on techniques proven to be inaccurate long ago, evolutionists still continue to cling to such methods just to hold on to their idea that they are right. Evidence and examination techniques used by evolutionary theorists are based more on conjecture rather than solid facts that everyone can agree on (Deloria 75).

The logic of evolution is based more upon an attitude rather than a factual science that it claims to be (Deloria 67). Data that is often used to support the theory of evolution is often the product of data from a predetermined storyline. Natural selection never makes any unique prediction towards the advancement of science; rather it is used to explain things within its own claiming science, which in a sense explains nothing (69).

Science is the religious doctrine of this age. Not searching the depths of the Creator is a deep problem with today’s world. So readily accepting this scientific culture in which religion has lost all authority in both the educational system and the workplace poses a problem for furthering the vision in which humans advance in the physical world (Deloria 46, 47). Conforming to the norm and going with the flow of what happens in science is becoming an unacceptable practice that needs to end. It is very evident through many sources that the advancement of science has done nothing in disproving the works of Bible. So why is it that humans are so much more accepting of what science has to offer rather than anything else? Do they not know that evolutionary classification, then, is not exact, nor is it a science; it exists primarily in the minds of its practitioners. The way evolutionists’ function within science is when two authorities clash the senior and more prestigious scholar’s views are considered orthodox until the younger scholar can gather more data or the senior dies (71).

There is a clear contradiction between the beginning of life and the beginning of the earth that amounts to a difference of 800 million years. Evolutionists state that the Earth began 4.5 billion years ago, but life did not begin until 3.7 billion years ago. (Ruse 18). Was there a time lapse during this period? Clearly, if this were to be true it would not take humans 800 million years to develop from a primate. “Gaps, to creationists, are the Achilles’ heel, the fatal flaw, of biological evolution” (Eldredge 124) This missing 800 million years is often a major touching point in creationists to fault the theory of evolution. Furthermore, today’s world if that statistic would be true how come humans have not adapted and evolved way beyond what exists today? To make this even more of a statement worthy of critique many evolutionists cannot agree on this statement collectively. There must be a deeper issue within the theory of evolution if evolutionists cannot agree, and how come they have not shared it with the public?

Despite the bickering presented within evolution there are many court cases, which the government has had to step in and play a crucial part in mediating between the theory of creationism and evolution. Following a January mandate by the state legislature that prohibited the teaching of any doctrine other than that which is promoted in The Bible, schoolteacher John Scopes was accused of teaching evolution in a public school. The legislature had declared it illegal to teach creationism. Therefore, when Scopes admitted to teaching evolution, he was subject to violating the law. His defense set out to disprove the constitutionality of the law; however, the presiding judge declared that the constitutionality of the case could not be determined during the criminal phase as this was a case of whether scopes violated the current law (Moore 148, 160-162). Due to this controversial battle, the guilty verdict was later overturned on appeal. Therefore, evolutionists declared a “major moral victory” as believed they had defeated the law. After the trial the law was rarely enforced, and even repealed just a short time later (Berra 133).

Following the completion of the Scopes trial, Scopes confessed to a newspaper reporter, that he had actually not been present the day evolution was taught in his classroom. Instead, a substitute teacher delivered the lesson. (Moore 161) Therefore, the high-profile Scopes trial was merely a rigged piece of justice in attempt to achieve a political agenda. The American Civil Liberties Union abused and took advantage of the justice system in hopes of achieving its goal of proving the Tennessee law unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the ACLU failed in its attempt to spite creationism.

The Scopes trial, while staged, would not be the last time the evolution-creation debate would be battled in court. In a 1968 Supreme Court case, it was decided that an Arkansas statute prohibiting evolution was unconstitutional. The decision was made on the basis that the First Amendment does not allow for the free spread of particular religions. Therefore, Christian teachings cannot be placed into the law as this violates the rights of those who do not agree with the creationist doctrine (Eldredge 182). If public schools teach Christian beliefs then the government would have to require teaching of every possible doctrine. Therefore, because it cannot feasibly teach every single religious theory, it must outlaw them all. Then about twenty years later, a California Court found that teaching evolution in schools does not infringe upon the right to free exercise of religion. The court decided that a person does not lose his or her ability to believe in their religion just through the teachings of alternate decisions. Then just one year later, a federal court found that an Arkansas statue requiring the teaching of both theories was not necessary because the law served no worldly purpose and stood to promote a religious ideal (Eldredge 183) . The courts have repeatedly struck down the argument that creationism must be taught in schools alongside the theory of evolution.

While creationism continues to garner respect among Christians, the courts have continued to reject the idea that creationism should be taught in schools. Following a 1987 Supreme Court case, the ability to teach evolution without teaching creationism was reaffirmed (Eldredge 183). Then, most recently in 1997 a U.S. District Court rules that Louisiana teachers should not be required to read a disclaimer while teaching evolution. This reading pushes forward a sense of doubt in the theory of evolution. This doubt subtly promotes Christianity, which is a violation of some students’ First Amendment rights (Eldredge 184).

Furthermore, the courts have also ruled on the rights of teachers with regards to evolution and creation. More than a decade ago in 1990, a federal court of appeals ruled that prohibiting a teacher from teaching creation science is not a violation of those teachers’ First Amendment rights. The court held that simply requiring a teacher to carry out his or her required duties of teaching a scientific theory is not a violation of rights. (Eldredge 183). Then in 1994 a U.S. District Court ruled that requiring a teacher to teach evolution does not violate their right of free exercise of religion marking evolution as a science theory. The teacher does not have to believe in what they teach, but they must simply present the facts as noted by scientists (Eldredge 184). The courts continue to hold the position that teaching evolution is a part of normal education, not an ideal being forced upon people.

Two profound questions drive the discussion with respect to the change in science curriculum. “Whose view of science is it that is being promoted in the school curriculum?” “Whose interests are being promoted by the particular view of science that is finally adopted?” (Allgaier, Holliman 267). These two questions define the debate within the academic world with the continual debate between creationism and evolution. The first question asks if a particular religious view is being promoted by teaching one theory or another, then by not teaching a particular view promoting another theory. If Christian beliefs are not taught, are atheist views being taught? Furthermore, if one group’s ideals are not being promoted than another group’s ideals are being promoted. Therefore, these fundamental questions exhibit that people will always have controversy regarding the specific education of the youthful population of the world.

The debate between evolution and creation has been raging for years and has evolved into one of the most controversial issues in the world. Presidential candidates are being weighed on their position on the issues. This controversy has all erupted because of the late Charles Darwin and his discovery of the theory of evolution. Furthermore, Darwin’s theory resulted in an entire new field and many new jobs in the science industry. Nevertheless, the most influential change has been its effect on the science curriculum and the thoughts of schools around the United States, Great Britain, France, and countless other countries throughout the world.

Works Cited

Allgaier, Joachim, and Richard Holliman. “The emergence of the controversy around the theory of evolution and creationism in UK newspaper reports.” Curriculum Journal 17.3 (Sep. 2006): 263-279. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 1 December 2007.
.
Berra, Tim M.. Evolution and the Myth of Creationism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990.

Browne, Janet. The Power of Place. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002.

Deloria Jr., Vine. Evolution, Creationism, And Other Modern Myths. Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing, 2002

Eldredge, Niles. The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 2000.

Keynes, Randal. Darwin, His Daughter & Human Evolution. New York: Riverhead Books, 2002.

Moore, John. From Genesis to Genetics. London: University of California Press, Ltd., 2002.

Ruse, Michael. Can a Darwinian be a Christian?. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

© 2008 adjacentReality.