Evolution vs. Intelligent Design - Essay Example

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design The theory of evolution was challenged by religion when first publicly demonstrated by Charles Darwin in the mid-Nineteenth Century. The religiously fervent still rejects the idea of man evolving from ape but over the past 150 opinions have certainly evolved and most religious persons today accept evolution to be true. Those who remain willfully ignorant believe there is a debate to be had regarding the age old question of ‘how we got here.’ They insist the Biblical version and not the scientific theory of evolution holds the true answer. The emotion-charged debate generally centers on which version will be taught in the public schools. Ultimately, even those in State of Kansas which has decided to teach both, all of society will accept that there is no debate but it will likely be a long time in coming because society itself evolves very slowly. Science is the only subject that should be taught in science class. The teaching of creation in public schools simply fulfills the purpose of protecting specific underling religious beliefs. If creation is to be taught, it is solely the responsibility of parents and the church because teaching the religious theories of creation in schools not only violates constitutional precepts. This issue invokes intense passions from those driven by their religious faith and those who would stand up for the Constitution and those that gave the lives of their loved ones to protect it. The First Amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (“The Constitution”) The idea of creation is undeniably religious doctrine. The government, therefore, cannot promote it in classrooms as science without infringing on the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that instructors may not teach that humans were created by God and must present only scientific explanations for the history of life. Creationism can not be presented as scientific fact. In addition, it is also unconstitutional to compel teachers to teach creationism and schools may not refuse to teach evolution in an effort to avoid offending religious individuals. The idea of disclaimers placed in school books such as ‘the teaching of evolution is not intended to influence or dissuade the Biblical version of Creation or any other concept’ has been lawfully established to be unconstitutional. An instructor also has the constructional right to teach evolution (“Epperson v. Arkansas”, 1968). Religious theories of creation may be incorporated into school curriculums as a comparative example of what some religious groups accept as fact. The foundations of scientific and intellectual integrity cannot accept the teaching of the religious theories of creation as an alternative point of view to evolution. This is because science involves the constant attempt to disprove hypotheses while religion simply accepts what has been written to be true. Religion is based on faith that is never questioned while science is based on knowledge that is constantly questioned (“Epperson v. Arkansas”, 1968). Creationism, creation science, and the intelligent design theory are similar terms that religious factions have used to explain origins of the universe that they want inserted into public education. Those that subscribe to creationism believe that God created the universe and then created man according to the explanation of creation offered in the Bible. Creation Science endeavors to provide evidence that the world was created by God by means of disproving the evolutionary theory and by provides ‘evidence’ that creation occurred as was told in the Bible. Intelligent Design theorists argue that because modern science has no positive proof of evolution, this fact undoubtedly demonstrates that divine intervention is the only rational explanation. Intelligent design theorists also believe in divine creation but do not generally refer to the Bible, they instead try to confirm God’s part in the creation of the universe and man. Creationists make much of their case around the claim that evolution has yet to be proven, yet it has been proven in the same way that scientists prove any other profoundly and commonly held scientific theory. Creationists are requiring a high level of verification from evolutionary theorists. Scientists must answer every question, whether reasonable or not, relating to the creation of life down to the tiniest detail to counteract the solid ‘proof’ the Bible provides. Evolution, because of the serious religious implications, is held up to a higher standard of proof. Gravity is universally accepted as true although it is a theory no more positively proved than is the theory of evolution. Many religious people of the 15th century believed the earth was flat while scientists and intellectuals such as Aristotle 2000 years earlier knew that it wasn’t (Jones, 2005). The fact that there is no definite proof of evolution does not make the process any less true although its exact route is the debate of evolutionists. Scientists conduct experiments designed to disprove theories so as to determine credible empirical evidence. The overwhelming evidence collected that supports the evolution of the universe, earth and everything on it is more than adequate to conclude that this theory is the only rational explanation for the origin of man appropriate for public schools. Science class is, after all, intended to teach what man knows of his surroundings, not what religion dictates. Proponents of the intelligent design theory emphasize that their condemnation of evolution is based on science, not religion, but cannot challenge these beliefs by subjecting them to the typical scientific experimentation procedures and debate. Intelligent design is unable to be examined using the methods of science, and therefore can never be a scientific conclusion (WGBH Educational Foundation, 2000 Science observes the forces of nature then processes and analyzes information based on evidence. It develops an initial hypothesis then attempts to disprove assumptions, procedure that continues as new evidence is introduced. Some might say the sky, earth and everything on it is evidence of God’s creation but for evidence to be considered credible by scientific standards, it must be verifiable and offer more than simple conjecture and wishful thinking. Religion sets the bar for credible evidence to conform beliefs much lower. It is concerned only with belief and faith as its means to obtain knowledge, not with attempting to disprove its conclusions as science does but by blindly accepting as true the revelations as written in an ancient book ostensibly from one or more gods. Most religious persons will defiantly assert that their particular religious beliefs are correct and that other religions and science are flawed which causes conflict between differing religions. There are few such conflicts in science. Scientists welcome debate on newly developing hypotheses and generally accept substantiated theories such as evolution. (Robinson, 2003) The teachings of the Bible should be the responsibility of families and their clergy alone and hopefully are based on an understanding of the scientific knowledge. The government can neither promote nor oppose particular religious beliefs or doctrines according to the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court yet religious zealots unconcerned of the American law or its founding principles continue to push for their agenda to be made into law such as prayer and the Biblical version of creation to be taught in schools. For public policy to be dictated by religious belief is nonsensical according to most but what cannot be denied by any rational person is that this practice is un-American, un-patriotic, unlawful and against the essential principles set down by the Founders of the nation. Works Cited “Epperson v. Arkansas.” Supreme Court of the United States. University of Missouri – Kansas City Law School. (November 12, 1968). April 3, 2008 Jones, Arthur. “Workshop: Myth and Fraud in Science Teaching from Copernicus to Darwin in the Textbooks and Popular Literature of Science.” Dordt College. (March 11, 2005). April 3, 2008 < http://center.dordt.edu/bjh_conference/2005/myth%20and%20fraud.htm> Robinson, B.A. “The Conflict between Science and Religion” Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (October 10, 2003). April 3, 2008 “The Constitution of the United States,” Amendment 1, Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. (Ratified December 15, 1791). April 3, 2008 < http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1> WGBH Educational Foundation. “Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution.” Public Broadcasting Systems. (2001). April 3, 2008 < http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat09.html> Read More