Evolution Should be Accepted - Essay Example

Evolution Should be Accepted The theory of evolution was challenged by religion when first publicly demonstrated by Charles Darwin in the mid-Nineteenth Century. From the publication of his Theory of Evolution to the present, these theories have been hotly debated, largely between the scientific community on the one side and the religious community on the other. The religiously fervent still rejects the idea of man evolving from ape but over the past 150 years opinions have certainly evolved and many official religious persons today accept evolution to be true. According to David Quammen (2004), even the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges that there is room for both God and Darwin within our concepts of the origin of species, yet “no less than 45 percent of responding US adults agreed that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last ten thousand years or so” (3). 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, all of society will accept that there is no debate regarding whether evolution should be recognized as a natural process, but it will likely be a long time in coming because society itself evolves very slowly. Creationism can not be presented as scientific fact because there are no scientifically developed proofs that illustrate the creatures of the world were created all at once exactly as they exist today. 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 the origins of the universe. 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 providing ‘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 that meets the burden of proof satisfactorily to date (Quammen, 2004). “Truth in science is not determined democratically,” Michael Shermer wrote in Scientific American Magazine. “It does not matter what percentage of the public believes a theory. It must stand or fall on the evidence and there are few theories in science that are more robust than the theory of evolution” (Shermer, 2002). The exact method by which evolution occurred and continues to occur is argued among scientists. Some scientists suggest that mutations are responsible for evolution. An animal is born with a specialized new trait that happens to be beneficial for its survival such as a longer neck, larger teeth, thicker fur, higher developed senses, etc. This animal thrives and produces offspring that carries the same inherited trait therefore live longer and produce more offspring than others of its species. Eventually the new type ‘wins out’ over the original species and a new species has born. Darwin proposed that animals adapt to a new environment over long periods of time, millions of years, which he named natural selection (Quammen, 2004). On his famous trip to the Galapagos Islands in the mid-1800’s, Darwin witnessed tangible evidence for his theory regarding the origin of all species. The 13 islands are relatively close in proximity but are vastly different geographically, some had desert-like conditions, others more tropical, some sandy, some rocky for example. Darwin noticed the variations of the same species which had adapted to the different conditions on different islands over time and eventually evolved into a new species. His conclusions were based on years of research, meticulous gathering of evidence and rational, logical reasoning plus have been the subject of scientific scrutiny for more than a century and a half in a highly technological period in history. This gives the theory credibility unlike the mythical ‘evidence’ provided by creationists. Finally, in making a concession that the processes of evolution may, for instance, be the process by which God created and continues to create the world we live in, religious people are not making any new moves toward science that haven’t been made in the past. In today’s modern society, we are often willing to give credit to science for providing us with the great knowledge we have regarding how things work and our position in the universe. It is science that has led to the developments that make our lives easier and more productive, enabling us to reach even further in our pursuit for knowledge. Even those who consider themselves quite religious generally realize that there are specific scientific reasons why people become ill and acknowledge that God is not punishing someone by giving them a disease. They believe the Earth is round and revolves around the Sun as opposed to what they have determined the Bible teaches, in which the sun is supposed to revolve around the Earth. In the time of Christopher Columbus, enlightened people knew the Earth was round but dared not admit it from fear of being accused of heresy, a capital offense in medieval Europe. After the 1492 voyage, though, the Church could no longer suppress what had been scientific evidence because it was now an undeniable truth. Science is based on credible evidence such as the trip that Columbus made, returning in order to inform the populace that he had not fallen off the edge of the world after all, but had instead discovered a new continent ready for exploration. These earlier examples prove that scientific knowledge will triumph over religion eventually. “There are still many points of major conflict between science and religion. In each case, only one will eventually win public support. The historical record indicates that religion wins very few of these disputes” (Robinson, 2003) because they are often confronted with irrefutable proofs to the contrary. The common sense approach of science ultimately prevails over religion as the accepted truth. Evolution is a theory as is gravity, meaning no one knows for sure just how gravity works but all agree that is a fact of life, a truth, as is evolution. The majority of people who oppose the concept of evolution do so based on religious dogma rather than any scientific evidence or logical reasoning. However, creation theories fail to present any kind of believable evidence that would satisfactorily answer the questions brought forward against evolution, which evolution is able, in many cases, to explain. Although there remain many unanswered questions regarding how the process of evolution occurs, understanding Darwin’s process reveals a great deal of research and constant questioning led to the development of the theory as well as the widespread acceptance of it within the scientific community. Religious people have been able to accept the teachings of science in the past, such as accepting that disease is caused by germs rather than God’s divine retribution or that the world is round rather than flat. With these kinds of theories now proved in various ways, it would seem that the religious community would be more willing to consider the evidence collected thus far. Like these other innovative concepts, however, the idea of evolution will require time before it becomes accepted to a greater degree among the general and religious population. Works Cited “Epperson v. Arkansas.” Supreme Court of the United States. University of Missouri – Kansas City Law School. (November 12, 1968). February 4, 2009 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). February 4, 2009 Quammen, David. “Was Darwin Wrong?” National Geographic Magazine. (November 2004). Robinson, B.A. “The Conflict between Science and Religion” Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (October 10, 2003). February 4, 2009 Shermer, Michael. “Skeptic: The Gradual Illumination of the Mind.” Scientific American. (February 2002). Read More