Evolution vs. Religious Dogma - Essay Example

Evolution vs. Religious Dogma 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. 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 (Dorman, 2005). 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 (“Freiler”, 2000). 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). Only scientific methodologies produce science, beliefs do not, a matter that is a fact and not subject to political maneuverings or majority vote. “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 Supreme Court agreed in its ruling in the case Santa Fe v. Doe. “Fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections” (“Oyez”, 2000). The Constitution guarantees each citizen the right to be free from a government which supports and teaches religion. It is not a matter subject to the majority opinion at a given time. 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. 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 evidence and reason 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. 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) 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 the Bible teaches. 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, the Church could no longer suppress what had been scientific evidence because it was now an undeniable truth. Science is based on credible evidence therefore 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). The common sense approach of science ultimately prevails over religion as the accepted truth. 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. Rational is the key word when discussing evolution in a society where some still refuses to think critically, to challenge their own beliefs or investigate the questions all us have. Evolution is a theory as is gravity. No one knows for sure just how gravity works but all agree that is a fact of life, a truth, as is evolution. Works Cited Black, Justice. “Engel et al v. Vitale et al.” This Nation.com. 370 U.S. 421 (1962). March 10, 2008 Dorman, Clark. “Edwards v. Aguillard: US Supreme Court Decision.” The Talk Origins Archive. (November 6, 2005). March 10, 2008 < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html> “Epperson v. Arkansas.” Supreme Court of the United States. University of Missouri – Kansas City Law School. (November 12, 1968). March 10, 2008 “Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education.” Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. FindLaw: Thomson Publishing. (January 24, 2000). March 10, 2008 < http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/5th/9830132cv1.html> 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). March 10, 2008 < http://center.dordt.edu/bjh_conference/2005/myth%20and%20fraud.htm> “Oyez: Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe.” The Oyez Project. Ed. Jerry Goldman. 530 U.S. 290 (2000). March 10, 2008 . Robinson, B.A. “The Conflict between Science and Religion” Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (October 10, 2003). March 10, 2008 Shermer, Michael. “Skeptic: The Gradual Illumination of the Mind.” Scientific American. (February 2002). “The Constitution of the United States,” Amendment 1, Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. (Ratified December 15, 1791). March 10, 2008 < http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1> WGBH Educational Foundation. “Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution.” Public Broadcasting Systems. (2001). March 10, 2008 < http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat09.html> Read More