|
|
|
Scott Kulah Journalism & Mass Communications |
 |
Biology Seminar Dr. Stephen Marvel |
| Depending on who you ask, you may get some very interesting yet different answers regarding the origins of life on earth. While some believe humans have evolved from other organisms over time, many others have a quite different view. Many others attribute life to a greater or higher power. Although that greater power may vary, depending on who you ask, the idea of creationism is widely accepted. |
| The theory of evolution is based on scientific research and backed by substantial evidence but is still just a theory. The definition, however, is much more difficult to explain. For example, Webster's dictionary defines evolution as. "the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny." This definition, is inaccurate, according to evolutionary scientists, because it leaves out so many important aspects. Evolutionary Biologist Douglas J. Futuyma explained it like this, "Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next." He added, "Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population to the successive alterations that led from the earliest proto-organism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions" (Moran). In short, evolution can be defined as genetic changes in a species population over time. |
 |
|
Much like the theory of evolution, creationism is also just a theory.
However, one big difference is that creationism lacks support in
the form of solid evidence. Creationism is more based around ideas
stemming from religious and spiritual beliefs. Like evolution,
creationism can have more than one meaning. According to the
Webster's dictionary, creationism
is "a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life
and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way
described in Genesis." To keep it basic as possible, creationism
is a belief that the universe was created by a greater or higher power
of some sort. After that, there is quite a lot of variety among
creationists as to just what they believe and why. People may lump all
creationists together in one group, but it is important to understand
where they differ and why (Isaak).
Though origin myths are usually based on religious beliefs and scattered with moral implications, they do have one scientific characteristic in common, explanation. They basically attempt to explain why things are the way they are. What distinguishes science from mythology is verification, or proof. Science proposes questions and answers, tests those answers and rejects whatever answers cannot be verified. This is where mythology differs. Myths offer answers that must be believe, rather than proved. They rely on acceptance rather than verification (Carniero). |
|
The Continuum One way to help understand the differences between evolution and creationism is to picture them as two opposite ends of a continuum. Most people's beliefs fall somewhere along the line but not at the ends. For example, according to this graphic beliefs can be broken down into many views, which all fit into their own location along this continuum. The creation side of the continuum is based on beliefs parallel to those practiced in Christianity. Flat Earthers believe that the shape of the earth is flat because a literal reading of the Bible demands it . Charles K. Johnson is the head of the International Flat Earth Society, headquartered in Lancaster, CA, and he is very serious about the planet's shape being as the ancients perceived it: circular and flat, not spherical. The earth is shaped like a coin, not a ball. References in the Bible to the "four corners of the earth" refer to the cardinal directions; more relevant are references to the "circle of the earth", implying a 2-dimensional, flat plane. The International Flat Earth Society has only about 200 members and is insignificant in the antievolution movement. However, it represents the most extreme biblical literalist theology: the earth is flat because the Bible says it is flat. Scientific views are of secondary importance (Scott). Young-Earth Creationists usually interpret the flat-earth and geocentric passages of the Bible literally, but they reject modern physics, chemistry, and geology concerning the age of the earth, and they deny biological descent with modification. In their view, the earth is from 6 to 10 thousand years old (Scott). Old Earth Creationists believe the most critical element of creationism is God's personal involvement in Creation; precise details of how God created are considered secondary. The present may indeed be different from the past, but God is responsible for the observed changes (Scott). |
|
|
Gap Creationism, which claims there is a large gap between Genesis
chapter I:1 and chapter I:2. Articulated from about the late 18th
century on, gap creationism assumes a pre-Adamic creation that was
destroyed before Genesis I:2, when God recreated the world in six days,
and created Adam and Eve. A time gap between two separate creations
allows for an accommodation of the proof of the ancient age of the earth
(Scott). Day-age creationism is the next step on the continuum. It is an attempt to incorporate science and the Bible. This model renders each of the six days of creation as long periods of time, possibly thousands or millions of years rather than just 24 hours long. Many literalists take comfort in in the idea. They acknowledge the rough parallel between organic evolution and Genesis, in which plants appear before animals, and human beings appear last (Scott). Progressive Creationism, the next step down the continuum, blends creationism with modern science. Progressive creationists have no problem with scientific data concerning the age of the earth, or the long period of time it has taken for the earth to come to its current form. Many consider scientific theories evidence of the power of God. They usually believe that God created animals sequentially; the fossil record is thus an accurate representation of history because different animals and plants appeared at different times rather than having been created all at once. However, they reject the idea that earlier forms are genetically related to today's forms. They believe that God created all species with evolution and species mutation in mind, making evolution a process stemming from God's work (Scott). Intelligent design creationists believe that the finding of order, purpose, and design throughout the world is proof of an omniscient designer. Supporters deny that mutation and natural selection are adequate theories to explain the evolution of one kind from another, such as the evolution of humans from apes, etc. Intelligent design creationists believe in a fair amount of science, but believe that all of life's phenomena cannot be explained merely by natural processes. This leads to the idea that these phenomena must be specially created, this itself, they believe, is evidence of and intelligent designer (Scott). In evolutionary creationism is a type of evolution God, the Creator, uses evolution as a tool to bring about the universe according to his plan. From a scientific point of view, evolutionary creationism is shares much in common with theistic evolution, the next step on the continuum. The differences between evolutionary creationism and theistic evolution lie not in scientific theories but in theologies (Scott). Both theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism are beliefs that God creates through evolution. They vary in whether and how much God is allowed to intervene. Some theistic evolutionists see God as intervening at critical intervals during the history of life, especially in regards to the origin of human beings. Theistic evolution is the official position of the Catholic church. In 1996, Pope John Paul II reiterated the Catholic theistic evolutionary position, in which God created and evolution followed. He concluded that Humans may indeed have descended from more primitive forms, but the hand of God was needed for the creation of the human soul (John Paul II, 1996). The final position of the continuum combines the presence of evolution with a non-religious view of the world. Materialist evolution focuses on the science behind matter and energy and the results of their interactions. Because science has a neutral view of religion (neither pro or anti religion), the materialistic evolution theory says that the laws of nature are all that exists, the supernatural does not exist (Scott). The continuum only presents the tip of the iceberg as far as views of creationism and evolutionism and how they are related. Creationists especially have a huge variety of beliefs, which are slightly different depending on religious beliefs. One important thing to remember is that all creationists believe that life on earth is the result of work done by a higher power, despite what that power may be. However, evolutionists, which seem to provide for much less variance within the theory of evolution, believe that life on earth as it is today is the result of millions if not billions of years of adaptations and changes in genetics of different species. Most people fall somewhere along the middle of the continuum, depending on their religious beliefs and scientific background. Evolution provides a way of understanding a huge amount of data from all fields of biology: anatomy, embryology, systematic, physiology, genetics, distribution, behavior and biochemistry. It allows us to make sense out of an otherwise bewildering mass of seemingly unrelated facts (Zetterberg).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most evolutionists would argue that evolution almost certainly exists.
It is a real phenomenon powerful enough to be responsible for the varied
forms of life we see around us. Absolute proof is another story
though.
Most evolutionists argue that though evolution is a theory, backed up by a large body of circumstantial evidence, it is almost certainly real. The problem that evolutionists face refers to the idea that science never proves anything, however, it can disprove. It provides no more than a high degree of certainty (Stanley). For example, the connection between cigarette smoking and cancer is very similar. Though an enormous amount of evidence points to the fact that smoking causes cancer and statistics show that there is a very slim chance that smoking does not cause cancer, those statistics don't offer proof. Although the probability is high, the evidence is circumstantial and cannot provide complete certainty. Most scientists believe that the theory of evolution is much to the same effect. Another example involves the sun rise. Throughout recorded history the sun has risen on the east every morning. This means it almost certainly will appear in the east again tomorrow morning, but we have no proof. Though we can not generalize that the sun will always rise in the east, but who would bet against it? Though the theory cannot be certain, there are three ways to test it's validity. One way is to observe the phenomenon at a small scale; the second is the argument from classification, which concerns certain patterns in the diversity of life. The third test comes from the fossil record (Ridley). Science has not provided proof that evolution does take place, but it also has not provided any disproof, challenging the existence of evolution. Usually when a theory withstands the test of time, it is granted a high possibility of being true. It gains general acceptance, which is what has become of the theory of evolution (Stanley). Evolutionists use available devices and procedures to understand and explain the origins and changes of life. With full dependency on science, no approaches accept the supernatural. It is not accepted not because it is wrong, but because science has no way of dealing with it. Science is concerned with nature, and facts. By definition, something that is above or apart from nature eludes the grasp of science (Zetterberg).
|
|
Creationism is such a large and complex concept that it is very
difficult to explain completely. One important thing to understand
is that there are most likely hundreds or even thousands of forms of
creationism, and although they are all related, they all differ.
Most believe species to be discrete entities that a divine being brought separately to life and placed upon the earth. The fossil record, which offers the idea that distinctive forms somehow suddenly appear and once established change slowly, seems to play into the idea of creationism. Many creationists relate the idea of creationism to the book of Genesis, from the Christian Bible. "Genesis," which means "the beginning," speaks of a seven day period when God created everything that we know. On the first day he created light, which is explained as the division from darkness from night and day. On the second day heaven was created. Land and seas and vegetation were created on the third day, followed by the lights of heaven, the moon, sun and stars. On the fifth day creatures of the sea and of the air were created. On the sixth day God created earth creatures, including man. On the seventh and final day, God rested and the day was supposedly sanctified (Livingston). Many Christians claim that evolution may exist but it too is one of God's creations. Though god created all that exists, what sets humans apart from everyone else is the fact that we are based on the mold of God himself. They also believe that God granted a soul to humans, something that other creatures were not blessed with. Modern creationists would say this about the origin of man. Go is the creator of man, body and soul. Whether he used the method of evolution for the preparation of the human body or created it from unorganized matter is not of primary interest. In either case, he is the creator. Even if he used an already formed body, he touched both the body and soul in the creation of man. The changes in the already organized body may have been so subtle, so much in the philosophical order...that no method of physical science could observe them. God raised the body of man to a human place and of course created the human spiritual soul (Sol Tax). In many cases, creationists are well funded and well organized in their pursuit against the theory of evolution. They write books and stage debates, quoting respectable scientists, but sometimes their information is out of context and many times out of date (Stanley). Creationists are concerned with promoting a selection of statements in Genesis, no matter how literally. The main stories are the two divergent accounts of creation and the story of Noah and his flood (Zetterberg). However, every religion has an account of creation, and there is no scientific data available to prove any of them.
|
|
|
|
Modern evolutionary theory was first sparked by a scientist named
Charles Robert Darwin about a hundred and fifty years ago.
Darwin's research led him to conclude that evolution exists and another theory called "Natural Selection" fed into his theory. Natural Selection, Darwin said, is the idea that some individuals have a better chance of survival than others because of certain limitations or characteristics that they live with. This raised the question of whether variations of man have occurred and whether other variations, however complex, and in whatever way useful to the great and complex battle of life, should occur in the course of many successive generations. His theory concluded that any individual having any advantage, at whatever scope, would have the best chance of survival and procreation of their kind. Any variation that was the least bit injurious would eventually be destroyed. He said, "This preservation of favorable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection." Those with the characteristics which make them the "fittest" will more often survive (Hotton III). |
||
|
|
Darwin is most famous for his book "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection." The book outlines his beliefs that species were not immutable, but were forced to constantly adapt to the ever-changing environments that they called home. In the book's introduction Darwin noted, "I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of the continent." These facts, he added, "seemed to throw some light on the origin of the species. The mystery of Mysteries." (Awerty) |
 |
|
The theory of natural selection thus depends upon the environment evaluating the individuals who make up a population according to the characteristics they are born with. A individual with a characteristic useful in the struggle for existence will find more success in survival. An individual with a characteristic that will prove useful in the struggle for existence will breed more frequently than the average, whereas any with harmful characteristics will eventually be eliminated (Bowler). After more than twenty years of research, Darwin published his findings. His results are still used as a model to scientists today.
|
||
|
|
| By
David Quammen This is an excerpt from a 33-page essay written for the November 2004 issue of National Geographic Magazine. Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It's a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along. |
 |
|
The rest of us generally agree. We plug our televisions into little wall sockets, measure a year by the length of Earth's orbit, and in many other ways live our lives based on the trusted reality of those theories. Evolutionary theory, though, is a bit different. It's such a dangerously wonderful and far-reaching view of life that some people find it unacceptable, despite the vast body of supporting evidence. As applied to our own species, Homo sapiens, it can seem more threatening still. Many fundamentalist Christians and ultra-orthodox Jews take alarm at the thought that human descent from earlier primates contradicts a strict reading of the Book of Genesis. Their discomfort is paralleled by Islamic creationists such as Harun Yahya, author of a recent volume titled The Evolution Deceit, who points to the six-day creation story in the Koran as literal truth and calls the theory of evolution "nothing but a deception imposed on us by the dominators of the world system." The late Srila Prabhupada, of the Hare Krishna movement, explained that God created "the 8,400,000 species of life from the very beginning," in order to establish multiple tiers of reincarnation for rising souls. Although souls ascend, the species themselves don't change, he insisted, dismissing "Darwin's nonsensical theory." Other people too, not just scriptural literalists, remain unperceived about evolution. According to a Gallup poll drawn from more than a thousand telephone interviews conducted in February 2001, no less than 45 percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Evolution, by their lights, played no role in shaping us. Only 37 percent of the polled Americans were satisfied with allowing room for both God and Darwin—that is, divine initiative to get things started, evolution as the creative means. (This view, according to more than one papal pronouncement, is compatible with Roman Catholic dogma.) Still fewer Americans, only 12 percent, believed that humans evolved from other life-forms without any involvement of a god. The most startling thing about these poll numbers is not that so many Americans reject evolution, but that the statistical breakdown hasn't changed much in two decades. Gallup interviewers posed exactly the same choices in 1982, 1993, 1997, and 1999. The creationist conviction—that God alone, and not evolution, produced humans—has never drawn less than 44 percent. In other words, nearly half the American populace prefers to believe that Charles Darwin was wrong where it mattered most. |
|
|
|
|
| Evolution, in contrast to earlier views, does not seem to be a gradual process when examined from the perspective of the whole span of geologic time. It seems to be dominated by sudden bursts of activity . |
 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
A famous quote on the subject is, "Nothing in Biology makes sense except
in the light of evolution."
An issue has evolved concerning the appropriateness of including evolution and creationism in the curriculum of public education. The problems have evolved from the fact that no laws have ever been pass requiring evolution to be taught in biology courses. The prestige of evolutionary theory has been built by its impact on the thousands of biologists who have learned its power and usefulness in the study of living things. No laws need to be passed for creationists to do the same thing (Alexander).
Fifty studies were reviewed that surveyed opinions on teaching origins in public schools. The vast majority found about 90 % of the public desired that both creation and evolution or creation only be taught in the public schools. About 90 % of Americans consider themselves creationists of some form, and about half believe that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years. In America, about 15 % of high school teachers teach both evolution and creation, and close to 20% of high school science teachers and about 10,000 scientists (including more than 4,000 life scientists) reject both macroevolution and theistic evolution. Although the vast majority of Americans desire both creation and evolution taught in school, the evolutionary naturalism worldview dominates, revealing a major disparity between the population and the ruling elite (Bergman). Many antievolutionists claim that evolution is a religion, and that its teaching is therefore unconstitutional. Alas for this view, the courts have been quite clear that evolution is science, and therefore to teach it does not violate the First Amendment (Scott). After all is said and done, the courts came to the following conclusion: A teacher can teach about religion, though not advocate it, and teach evolution. A state, district or school cannot ban evolution, require equal time for creationism, or require a disclaimer on evolution. An individual teacher cannot teach creationism or creation science "free lance." There have been several court cases involving the issues of creationism and evolution in public education (Check out the cases). |
|
|||||||||||||||||
An Evolution Exercise (click here)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Internet Sources: Livingston, Ken. GENESIS. http://www.adam2.org/visitors/otv/gensum.html. 1999 -2004. Pope John Paul II. Magisterium is Concerned with Question of Evolution For It Involves Conception of Man. A Message to the Academy of Sciences. October 22, 1996. Religious Tolerance. Various Theories of Origins of Life, the Earth and the Rest of the Universe. http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm Awerty Notes. The Origin of Species By Charles Darwin. http://www.awerty.com/orgin2.html. Origin and Evolution of Life in the Oceans. www.sfos.uaf.edu/ msl111/notes/orgoc.html Carniero, Robert. Origin Myths. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3570_origin_myths_12_7_2000.asp Moran, Laurence. What is Evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html. 1993. Isaak, Mark. What is Creationism. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html. 2000. Scott, Eugenie. The Creation/Evolution Continuum. http://216.87.9.200/resources/resources/811889648437.asp Scott, Euguenie. Cans and Can'ts of Teaching Evolution. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9082_cans_and_cants_of_teaching_ev_2_13_2001.asp. 2000. Bergman, Jerry. Teaching Creation and Evolution in Public Schools - Solid Research Reveals Americans Beliefs. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4178.asp. 1999. Hard Copy Sources: Bowler, Peter J. Theories of Human Evolution. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore and London, 1986.
Kurten, Bjorn. Not From The Apes - A History of Man's Origins and Evolution. Pantheon Books. New York, 1972. Ridley, Mark. The Problems of Evolution. Oxford University Press. New York, 1985. Stanley, Steven M.. The New Evolutionary Timetable - Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species. Basic Books Inc., New York. 1981. Tax, Sol and Charles Callender. Evolution After Darwin - The University of Chicago Centennial -Volume III. Issues in Evolution. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago. 1960. Wendt, Herbert. From Ape to Adam - The Search for the Ancentry of Man. Bobbs-Merrill Company Inc. Indianapolis, New York. 1972. Zetterberg, J. Peter. Evolution versus Creationism, The Public Education Controversy. ORYX Press. Phoenix, Arizona. 1983.
|
Scott Kulah Productions, 2004
