Essay: Battle for Evolution

In honor of Darwin Day, I’m posting here an essay I recently did for a college class. I’m happy because just last week I got the grade back on it, and it was real good! Enjoy. 

The Battle for Evolution in Public Schools

Scientists today and throughout history are no strangers to debate and controversy. However, there is a solid foundation of knowledge that must be absorbed first before productive debate can even begin. The public school science classroom attempts to provide that necessary foundation for later learning and scientific understanding. In the high school biology lab alone there is a wide range of subjects to cover such as genetics, taxonomy, cellular biology, ecosystems and evolution. Without such basic groundwork the student stands little chance of succeeding in later scientific study and work. However, a few active, vocal organizations and individuals have worked hard in recent years to cast doubt on evolutionary theory and attack its teaching in public schools. Attacks on the teaching of evolution and the attempts to insert alternatives into high school instruction can be harmful to students’ understanding of basic biology and should be vigorously opposed.

Opposition to evolution thrives in part because of a deep divide among the American people between those that accept evolution and those that believe life, especially that of humans, was created in its present form according to their religious beliefs. There are small, vocal groups that sometimes make the headlines about this issue, but this fire smolders continuously all across the nation as shown by regular public opinion polls on the subject. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (2005) found that 42 percent of those surveyed can be labeled creationists since they believe that evolution played no role in the present existence of living things. Findings such as these hold steady over time, too. The Gallup Organization performed similar polls over the course of 25 years. Their findings mirror Pew’s. “The poll results have not shifted appreciably in the past 25 years” (Sturgeon, 2006, p. 78).

“The American resistance to evolution is not scientific, but socio-political,” said Dr. Wesley Elsberry (Personal communication, October 23, 2006) during an interview. “People aren’t motivated to learn more. They are comfortable with what they are told.” This mindset can lead to confusion and apathy when it comes to science understanding among the general population. Therefore, before diving too deep into the subject of evolution and the attacks on it, foundations need to be in place first.

One of the most important aspects to consider is the mixing of religious and scientific thought that can lead to incorrect conclusions. It’s important to realize that atheism and evolution are in no way linked, and evolution is not an attack on religion. Science strictly focuses on what is observable and testable within the natural world.

Additionally, there are many religions and people of various faiths that have no problem with evolution. One teacher introduced the subject of evolution by reviewing with students the various religious opinions on the subject. “By making the students aware of the diversity of opinion towards evolution extant in Christian theology, the teacher helped them understand that they didn’t have to make a choice between evolution and religious faith” (Scott, 2001).
Additionally, science has a language of its own that sometimes is counterintuitive to what the general public is familiar with. The most prominent example is the use of the word theory. A common attack on evolution is that it is denigrated as something that is “just” a theory. For instance, a person writing a letter to the editor of a Florida newspaper proclaimed, “Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is exactly what the name implies – a theory that has yet to be proven and will never be proven” (McNally, 2006).  This misunderstanding is so prominent that National Geographic, in an article strongly supporting evolution, addresses it in the opening paragraph. Outside of scientific circles, a theory is often associated with a guess or hunch. In science, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. Science has a host of theories, such as a continental drift theory, relativity theory and atomic theory.

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. (Quammen, 2004, p. 4)

Evolutionary theory is robust and sound. It is laced throughout all fields of study in biology. College biology textbooks feature entire sections on evolution, and mention evolution within other sections as well. One such textbook doesn’t mince words when it says, “The theory of evolution, which explains how populations of organisms have changed over time, has become the greatest unifying concept of biology” (Solomon, 1999, p. 8 ). The National Center for Science Education (2002) compiled a list of more than 80 statements from professional science organizations around the world supporting evolution.

Despite it status as a cornerstone of the life sciences, evolution faces spirited opposition from the American public. This stems from a combination of strong appeals to literal interpretations of the Christian Bible and a lack of foundational knowledge in the sciences. The fact that present day humans are descendants of ancient, monkey-like ancestors and even lower life forms farther back in the vast reaches of time seems to spit in the face of some religious beliefs. A strict, literal reading of the Bible makes it clear that such a fact has to be inaccurate at best or a complete lie at its worst.

Initially, there wasn’t much of a fight when it came to school age education due to most schools being small, private and rooted in each region’s religion. However, once public school enrollment grew, the fight that was once restricted to scientists and their detractors trickled into the classroom. The offensive theory of evolution was eventually wiped from the curriculum completely and even deemed illegal to teach in Tennessee in 1925. The average citizen who held the Bible dear trusted their religious leaders when they said that evolution was nothing short of the devil’s work. Evolution led directly to atheism and materialism, they said. For instance, during a 2005 court case in Dover, Pennsylvania that focused on the battle over evolution, a reverend caught up in the fervor said, “The moral condition of America is a result of taking steps away from the Bible and away from God over the past fifty to one hundred years, since evolution was introduced” (Chapman, 2006, p. 58).

Science took a front seat in the American public’s minds when the Soviet Union was the first to launch into space in 1957. A renewed focus on science brought along with it evolution in the textbooks. Suddenly, the Bible and fervent preachers weren’t enough to hold back the tide. Evolution deniers were forced to become more sophisticated and are even now trying to don the cloak of science.

A modern incarnation of anti-evolution is called intelligent design. One of its most vocal champions is Michael Behe, who claims that there are several aspects of life that are much too complicated to have evolved by random chance. He delves into the very molecules and chemistry that make up every living thing and sees highly ordered organisms made up of parts, that if removed, would render the organism useless. This then leads to the conclusion that it’s evidence of purposeful design. “Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity” (Behe, 2006, p. 193).

Oftentimes, the identity of this designer is deliberately not discussed. Behe and others like him work hard to present their ideas as science on par with evolution and also keep mentions of religion out of the spotlight. By looking scientific and not religious, this tactic tries to slip under the legal radar where other attempts have failed. The Supreme Court ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas and Edwards V. Aguillard that creationism, which is based on a specific religious belief, can’t be taught in the science classroom and that science can’t be outlawed in the classroom due to religious objections. By avoiding the overt mention of religion, it was hoped that intelligent design would make it into the classroom.

Despite this attempt to look scientific, intelligent design is actually devoid of any real science. No research projects have been based on intelligent design. No significant peer-reviewed papers have been written about intelligent design. Intelligent design proponents blatantly skip the whole established scientific process and instead try to appeal directly to the public. Conferences aimed directly at audiences of regular citizens are held across the country, popular books are written, speakers appear in debates and multiple websites are easy to find (Discovery, 2007). But this public relations juggernaut is selling a hollow product. As stated in the conclusion of the Pennsylvania 2005 court case Kitzmiller V. Dover Area School District, which addressed the teaching of intelligent design in the high school science classroom, the judge made it clear that intelligent design wasn’t science.

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. (Jones, 2006, p. 136)

Running parallel to the intelligent design movement is an attempt to take the fight directly to evolution. Rather than introduce a separate theory or idea, this plan entails casting doubt on evolution. The strategy is to make evolution seem shaky and on the verge of collapse. If students can be made to believe that the theory of evolution is weak, then they will look for alternatives, with creationism being a prominent one. An example of this strategy in action is the case of Cobb County, Georgia, requiring the placing of stickers in biology textbooks that attempt to weaken evolution’s stance. Those trying to tear down evolution stir up a contrived controversy, making it appear that even working scientists have their doubts about evolution. Whereas there are heated debates about various aspects of evolution, there is no debate in the scientific community about the veracity of the theory overall.

These multiple challenges to evolution have been refuted in the courts and the scientific community. However, the creationist movement continues to try to influence public opinion and infiltrate the public school classroom. Even when this influence doesn’t make big headlines, it still has a chilling effect on legitimate science education.

Teachers have been known to avoid evolution or give it scant attention in their lessons out of fear of drawing the ire of parents or uncomfortable attention from those opposed to evolution (Humes, 2007, p. 10). Nervous teachers and school administrations coupled with a general lack of public knowledge about the facts of evolution can have negative effects over time on the advanced study of biology in this country. This is especially true as the field of biomedical research increases in importance and influence. “No aspect of biomedical research seems more urgent today than the study of microbial diseases. And the dynamics of those microbes within human bodies, within human populations, can only be understood in terms of evolution” (Quammen, 2004, p. 21). This type of career choice can be denied our students if they aren’t even introduced to the subject in school.

There is a gaping divide between public acceptance of evolutionary theory and the reality of the theory’s importance. The anti-evolution flames are fanned by a loud core of creationists pursuing an ideological crusade against the perceived evils of materialism. Their methods of combating evolution change over time as they adapt to prior defeats.  This contrived controversy is detrimental to scientific exploration and discovery, starting in the public school classroom. An important science education foundation on which to build further understandings and ideas can suffer if patently unscientific ideas and attacks on accepted science are allowed a foothold in the classroom.
References

Behe, M. (1996). Darwin’s black box: The biochemical challenge to evolution. New York: Free Press.

Chapman, M. (2006, February). God or gorilla, A darwin descendant at the Dover monkey trial. Harper’s Magazine, 312(1869), 54-63.

Discovery Institute. Retrieved October 9, 2006, from Discovery Institute Web site: http://www.discovery.org/

Humes, E. (2007). Monkey girl: Evolution, education, religion, and the battle for america’s soul. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

McNally, A. (2006, October). Missing link still missing [Letter to the editor]. News Chief.

NCSE, (2002, December). Statements from scientific and scholarly organizations. Retrieved February 6, 2007, from National Center for Science Education Web site:http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9321_statements_from_scientific_an_12_19_2002.asp

Quammen, D. (2004, November). Was Darwin wrong?. National Geographic, 206(5), 4-35.

Scott, E. (2001, January). Creation or evolution? Retrieved February 6, 2007, from National Center for Science Education Web site: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/6261_creation_or_evolution__1_9_2001.asp

Sturgeon, J. (2006, March). The great debate. District Administration, 42(3), 74-80.

Solomon, E.P., Berg, L.R., & Martin, D.W. (1999). Biology (5th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Sauders College Publishing.
The Pew Research Center. (2005). Public divided on origins of life: Religion a strength and weakness for both parties. Washington, D.C.: Author.

U.S. district court for the middle district of Pennsylvania. (2005). Tammy Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Area School District et al. (Case Number 04cv2688). Pennsylvania.