|
|
I had
never intended for any of my papers on this site to get too political;
my intent is to focus on science and philosophy, but I have decided to
publish this essay exaplaining why evolution alone should be taught in
biology classrooms because I believe the topic is relevant to both
science and philosophy.
This is a slightly revised
version of an essay I turned in to my
philosophy teacher for an introductory class. Although I go into
several reasons why evolutionary theory is a better model than
creationism, a lot of this essay is a rebuttal to Gish's argument
concerning the second law of thermodynamics, found in his essay
"Creationist Science and Education."
|
|
Throughout
our history we
find times where science and religion have clashed against each other.
The most notable of these disputes include Copernicus’ heliocentric
model of the universe, and Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Although no public school in America would think twice about teaching
students that the sun is the center of our solar system, teachers
around the country cringe when the subject of human origin arises.
Advocates of creationism, or intelligent design, insist that their
theory be taught in schools. Creationism teaches the theory that life
on earth came about through the work of a designer who created all of
the species on earth as they appear today. Creationists can be divided
into old earth and young earth creationists; old earth creationists
accept the idea that the earth is billions of years old, but young
earth creationists
insist that earth is a mere 6,000 years old. Although many creationists
allow
for minor changes in species to take place over time, they insist that
species
do not originate from other species. In contrast, the theory of
evolution states that all life existing on earth has evolved by purely
natural means. The process of evolution involves a mechanism called
natural selection. A very basic explanation of natural selection relies
on a replicator, which is anything of which copies are made. In life on
earth, genes are replicated, and natural selection is the process by
which some of these genes are removed from the total pool of genes
because their effects, or phenotypes, do not aid in their replication
or promote their replication less effectively than other genes. When
genes are replicated inaccurately, a mutation occurs and another
replicator is formed to be either selected for or against by its
environment.
Because genes are instructions for making an organism, a change in the
genetic
makeup of organisms over time will lead to the evolution of different
types
of organisms. Despite overwhelming evidence for this evolutionary
process,
there is still an ongoing debate as to whether evolution should be
taught
in American public schools. Instead, some Americans insist that the
theory
of intelligent design be taught alongside or even in spite of
evolution.
Although both evolution and creationism may be acceptable hypotheses
for
the origin of species, evolution alone should be taught in public
schools due to the overwhelming evidence that exists in its favor.
The debate about which version of human origin should be taught in
public schools is not going to be won by stating that either side is
unscientific. Duane T. Gish, in his essay "Creationist Science and
Education," disagrees with this and claims that “neither evolution nor
creation qualifies as a scientific
theory,” but both ideas are testable (149). The predictions that
evolution
makes are clear. In a universe where life arises and diverges by the
purely
mechanistic process described in modern Darwinism, we would expect to
find
an old earth; enough time must be provided for the process of evolution
to
give us redwood trees, polar bears, and philosophy teachers. We would
also
expect to find the remains of some intermediate species fossilized.
Species
of closer origin, that is, species that share a common evolutionary
lineage
in the recent past would be similar morphologically, chemically, and
genetically.
The predictions that the theory of intelligent design makes are less
clear,
less daring, but some do exist. Unlike evolutionary theory, creationism
could
not be dismissed purely by observing the age of the universe; if a
creator
did indeed place all species on earth as they are today, the creator
could
have done so at any time. Creationism would predict that no
intermediate
fossils should exist at all; since species do not originate from other
species,
we should not find any intermediaries between species. We would also
have
no reason to suspect that the morphology of different species would be
much
similar, although creationism would not necessarily predict that
species
would be unique morphologically, chemically, or genetically either. We
can
clearly see by these basic examples that evolution is the theory that
not
only makes more daring predictions, but passes its tests with flying
colors.
Through geology and astronomy we can observe that our earth and
universe
is indeed very old; paleontology has revealed "thousands of
transitional
fossils," and modern genetics has revealed exactly what is predicted by
the
evolutionary model (Isaac). One intermediate fossil should be enough to
falsify
the theory of intelligent design. Introns, massive amounts of genetic
code
that seem to serve no purpose are completely compatible with modern
Darwinism,
but pose a problem for creationists. Evolution can explain sex ratios,
altruism
in and between species, and the ridiculously prominent feathers of a
peacock.
The theory of intelligent design cannot be used to predict or explain
any
of these things. For these reasons, the theory of intelligent design
has
been shown to be incompatible with the world around us, and if not for
its
religious ties creationism as a theory of human origin would be cast
false
alongside Lamarckian evolution, a version of evolutionary theory that
was
falsified in the nineteenth century.
A reason creationism would find little room in a science classroom is
that intelligent design, as a theory, has remarkably few arguments in
its favor, and most of creationists’ time seems to be spent in attempt
to falsify evolution. Of course, scientists should welcome any attempts
to falsify a theory, but we can understand biologists’ frustration when
these attempts come out of a lack of understanding of evolutionary
theory. Perhaps the most modern attempt to disprove the theory of
evolution involves the second law of thermodynamics. Gish explains
that, according to the second law of thermodynamics, we should expect
the universe to become more disordered over time. The second law of
thermodynamics states that whenever energy is exchanged, provided no
energy leaves or enters the system, the amount of potential energy that
exists in the system will never be more than that of the initial state.
In other words, when a system is left alone, energy will always break
down into different paths. This principle can be applied to engineering
because it follows that no machine can be built that performs a task
with one hundred percent efficiency; some energy in the system will
always be wasted in the form of heat. Our planet
is, of course, an open system with a continuing energy source coming
from
the sun, but Gish goes on to further claim that even with an input of
energy,
we cannot expect order to arise. Indeed, merely putting more energy
into
a system does not ensure order.
The argument made by Gish fails to take into account the power of a
replicator. Once anything starts to have copies made of itself, we find
structures of order arising out of disorder as the surrounding
environment is used to make more copies. In whatever form the original
replicators of earth took, those replicators must have used materials
in the environment around them to make copies of themselves. This
replication combined with random mutation and natural
selection would allow more complex replicators to emerge and transform
their
environment into a more ordered state. The reader should note that
nothing
in this process violates the second law of thermodynamics; all of the
energy
that goes into this process comes from the sun, and the laws of
thermodynamics
still apply because the lot of energy in the biological process is lost
in
the form of heat.
In an early earth, replication would be a very simple method of order
coming from disorder. Mark Isaac of the Talk Origins website points out
that "[s]nowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river
beds, and lightning" all are a simple methods we find today in which
order arises from disorder in abiotic circumstances. The
difference between these examples and replication is that replication
involves
heredity and the selection of heritable triats, that is, information in
a
replicator is passed down generations and selected based on the effects
it
has in its environment. This eventually yields more complex
replicators; snowflakes
cannot do this. The reason that we find order has nothing to do with
the
energy moving through the system, but the replication of molecules that
transform
the environment around them. This concept might be difficult to
understand,
but how can we expect students to even have a chance at learning these
biological
principles if we do not teach evolutionary biology in depth in the
classroom?
We must educate students in full on evolutionary theory; as a result,
those
that are knowledgeable in the dynamics of evolution can explore,
refine,
or even challenge the theory of evolution with a better understanding
of
how evolution works.
There are millions of Americans that still do not accept the theory of
evolution, and there are undoubtedly millions more that do not fully
understand the intricacies
of modern Darwinism. This is not the fault of those that are ignorant
of
the principles of evolution, for it is unlikely that the theory was
ever
explained to them. Despite overpowering evidence in favor of evolution,
teachers
across the country are still reluctant to go in depth with the theory.
The
subject of human origins is a delicate issue amongst people, but
students need to understand how evolution, the cornerstone of modern
biology, works. Creationism as a scientific theory has failed; we have
no reason to teach it in science classrooms anymore. If we are to bring
up the theory at all, we should treat it in a similar respect to the
way Lamarckian theory is taught today; we should explain the theory of
intelligent design and why it is no longer a workable model for the
origin of species. Of course, this would likely
bring more tension into the classroom, so perhaps the best solution is
to
not bring up creationism at all. Despite the fact that both evolution
and
creationism are acceptable scientific hypotheses, evolution is
currently the
only scientifically workable model of the origin of life, and it is the
only
model we should be teaching to our students.
Works Cited
Gish, Duane T. "Creationist Science and Education." Twenty
Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy. Comp. G L. Bowie,
Meredith W. Michaels, and Robert C. Solomon. N.p.: Harcourt Brace
College, 1996. 149-159.
Isaak, Mark. Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. 1 Oct. 2003.
The Talk.Origins Archive. 9 Mar. 2004
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html>. |
|