Viva La Evolution
This was an essay that I wrote for my English class during my senior year in high school.
Education, by definition, is the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life (Dictionary.com). Science is a major part of an individual’s education in a modern school. Evolution is an important part of science that should not be overlooked or ignored. So why do certain people that believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design want evolution out of a science curriculum? Also, why do they believe than their unscientific methods of education belong in a science classroom? Evolution is the only scientific method regarding how the species of today have acquired their characteristics and how they have changed over time, and evolution must be taught in all public schools.
A person who lacks knowledge on the subject of evolution might ask what is the difference between evolution, Intelligent Design, and Creationism? Evolution is the science of how a species adapts to natural changes in its environment through natural change. Evolution is not a theory of how life began; it is a theory of how life developed. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is the belief that changes in the environment and in species happen by the work of a supernatural or superhuman being. Creationism is the belief that the Earth and its environment were created according to the Book of Genesis in the Bible. A summary of the Biblical creation is that God created the Earth in seven days. Creationism is very similar to Intelligent Design because Creationism is the story that a supernatural and superhuman being created the earth. In fact, a Federal District Court in Pennsylvania ruled that Intelligent Design is a form of Creationism (Kitzmiller v. Dover). Creationists have tried to use a belief called Creation Science in an attempt to scientifically explain the Creation story, but a US federal court determined that Creation science is not an actual science (McLean v. Arkansas). Creationism and Intelligent Design are religious views and the US Supreme Court has declared four times that it is unconstitutional to teach them in public schools. Evolution, on the other hand, is a legitimate science. Despite evolution being a reality, it faces opposition from people who believe in Creation and Intelligent design.
Creationists will to argue that evolution is false because they say it is just a theory and that it does not explain everything. This argument is incorrect and invalid. Technically speaking, evolution is a theory, but it is not just a theory. In science, a theory is a well-supported, well-tested explanation for our observations. A theory is not just a guess of what happened; it is a statement describing the evidence and research (NotJustATheory.com). All of the physical evidence that has been collected that is relevant to evolution backs up evolution. No evidence has been collected that would make evolution a false theory. Creationism and Intelligent Design, however, have no scientific evidence to back up their claims; therefore they are not valid scientific claims. It is also technically correct to say that science has not yet to explained everything. Scientists have collected a huge amount of data and have established to a high degree of certainty that evolution has actually happened and is happening (NotJustATheory.com). Creationists like to say that occurrences in the world that scientists have not developed the tools to investigate and figure out are the works of God. If that is the case, then God has accounted for a lot less occurrences over the years than what was originally perceived. Since evolution is a theory, there is a lot of evidence to back it up and evolution is the best explanation of how life developed over time.
People who believe in Creationism and Intelligent Design will argue that evolution could not have possibly happened naturally because the Earth is too complex; therefore an omniscient and omnipotent God must have had to create the Universe and the Earth. They also say that it is highly improbable for life to develop naturally (CB010: Probability of Abiogenesis). In other words, they say life could not have developed by chance (CB940: Complex structures by chance). This argument lacks facts and evidence. This argument suggests because something is highly unlikely to occur, it will not occur. To put that into context with modern times, since it is highly unlikely to win the lottery or become the President of the United States of America, this argument suggests that it is impossible to do either of those things. We know that this is incorrect because people win the lottery and people have become the President of the United States. These Creationist probability arguments have no actual physical evidence to back them up. In fact, evolution explains and shows a natural process of life developing. Life’s development was not random, but there is no indication that some sort of supernatural creator had any influence on the development of life.
Creationists will argue that evolution isn’t happening today or that we have not seen evolution on a large scale (CB901: No Macroevolution). Creationists will also argue that we have not seen any new species come about (CB910: New Species). Evolution is not a quick process. The fossil record indicates that over millions of years, evolution on a large scale has taken place. For example, fossils have shown us that horses used to be the size of dogs, but over 55 million years, horses have evolved into what they are now (Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years). In response to the statement that we have not seen any new species, that statement is false. Although this is not the only case of speciation, Canadian stickleback fishes have divided into separate species, one for deep water, one for shallow water. Creationists will also ask why are there still apes if we have descended from them. Apes and humans have descended from a common ancestor. The lineage from the common ancestor split off into two or more directions, with a result of humans, apes, and other variations of that common ancestor. “Thus it is, as I believe, that two or more genera are produced by descent, with modification, from two or more species of the same genus. And the two or more parent-species are supposed to have descended from some one species of an earlier genus (Darwin).” Bacteria also evolve into new strands to resist antibiotic treatment. If Creationists that refuses to accept the facts of evolution needs an antibiotic, they should be given the first generation antibiotic that is not used anymore. With their logic, the old antibiotic should work since they do not believe that the bacteria have evolved to a newer strand. Evolution has created new species and has been observed.
What can be done to ensure that scientific fact is taught in science class and that religious stories are left out of the classroom? Laws must be passed ensuring that evolution is taught in science classrooms in public schools in all fifty states. Laws also must be passed to make sure that the unscientific stories of Creation and the unscientific assumptions of “Intelligent” Design are never taught in science classes in public schools as fact. Our children need to learn the difference between science and religious fantasy. Teaching evolution in public schools is the first step to a future of better education. If Creationism is taught as a science in public schools, it will help move America toward being a theocracy, which is a horrible idea. Evolution must be taught in out schools. Ask yourself, are our children going to be ready to face the future?
Works Cited
Behe, Michael. "A Functional Pseudogene?: An Open Letter to Nature." 13 May 2003. Access Research Network. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/behepseudogene052003.htm.
Calabro, Tina. "The Fossil Record and Evolution." 2000. Carnegie Magazine. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.carnegiemuseums.org/cmag/bk_issue/2000/marapr/feat7.html. "Creationism And The Law." 17 Oct. 2008. NCSE. 30 Nov. 2008 http://ncseweb.org/creationism/legal/creationism-law.
Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. New York: Random House, Incorporated, 1998.
"Education Definition." 2006. Dictionary.com. 30 Nov. 2008 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/education.
"Evolution Is Not Just A Theory." 2008. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.notjustatheory.com/.
"Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years." 30 Nov. 2008 http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horseevolution.htm.
"An Introduction To Evolution." UC Berkeley. 30 Nov. 2008 http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02.
Isaak, Mark, ed. "Arugment From Incredulity." 2004. TalkOrigins.Org. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ca/ca100.html.
Isaak, Mark, ed. "Complex Structures By Chance." 2004. TalkOrigins.Org. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/cb/cb940.html.
Isaak, Mark, ed. "An Index To Creationist Claims." 5 Nov. 2006. TalkOrigins.Org. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html.
Isaak, Mark, ed. "New Species." 2007. TalkOrigins.Org. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/cb/cb910.html.
Isaak, Mark, ed. "No Macroevolution." 2004. TalkOrigins.Org. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/cb/cb901.html.
Isaak, Mark, ed. "Origin Of The First Cells." 2005. TalkOrigins.Org. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/cb/cb010_2.html.
Isaak, Mark, ed. "Probability Of Abiogenesis." 2005. TalkOrigins.Org. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/cb/cb010.html.
Isaak, Mark, ed. "What Evolution Doesnt Explain." 2007. TalkOrigins.Org. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ca/ca100_1.html.
Isaak, Mark, ed. "Why Are There Still Apes Around?" 2005. TalkOrigins.Org. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/cc/cc150.html.
"Kitzmiller v. Dover." 17 Oct. 2008. NCSE. 30 Nov. 2008 http://ncseweb.org/creationism/legal/intelligent-design-trial-kitzm....
"Lottery Math." 30 Nov. 2008 http://members.cox.net/mathmistakes/rawdata.htm.
"McLean v. Arkansas." 17 Oct. 2008. NCSE. 30 Nov. 2008 http://ncseweb.org/creationism/legal/mclean-v-arkansas.
Norris, Michele. “Turtle Fossil Yields Clues To Its Evolution.” All Things Considered (NPR): 26 Nov. 2008. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. City U of New York Lib. 1 Dec. 2008.
Purdom, Georgia. "Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria: An Example of Evolution in Action?" 10 July 2007. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/antibiotic-resist....
Robinson, B. A. "OVERVIEW OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN." 16 Jan. 2006. ReligiousTolerance.Org. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.religioustolerance.org/evid7.htm.
Scott, Eugene C., and Glenn Branch. ""Intelligent Design" Not Accepted by Most Scientists." 12 Aug. 2002. NCSE. 30 Nov. 2008 http://ncseweb.org/creationism/general/intelligent-design-not-accep....
"Theory And Fact." 17 Oct. 2008. NCSE. 30 Nov. 2008 http://ncseweb.org/evolution/education/theory-fact.
Wallace, T. "Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution." 2007. The True.Origin Archive. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp.
Education, by definition, is the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life (Dictionary.com). Science is a major part of an individual’s education in a modern school. Evolution is an important part of science that should not be overlooked or ignored. So why do certain people that believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design want evolution out of a science curriculum? Also, why do they believe than their unscientific methods of education belong in a science classroom? Evolution is the only scientific method regarding how the species of today have acquired their characteristics and how they have changed over time, and evolution must be taught in all public schools.
A person who lacks knowledge on the subject of evolution might ask what is the difference between evolution, Intelligent Design, and Creationism? Evolution is the science of how a species adapts to natural changes in its environment through natural change. Evolution is not a theory of how life began; it is a theory of how life developed. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is the belief that changes in the environment and in species happen by the work of a supernatural or superhuman being. Creationism is the belief that the Earth and its environment were created according to the Book of Genesis in the Bible. A summary of the Biblical creation is that God created the Earth in seven days. Creationism is very similar to Intelligent Design because Creationism is the story that a supernatural and superhuman being created the earth. In fact, a Federal District Court in Pennsylvania ruled that Intelligent Design is a form of Creationism (Kitzmiller v. Dover). Creationists have tried to use a belief called Creation Science in an attempt to scientifically explain the Creation story, but a US federal court determined that Creation science is not an actual science (McLean v. Arkansas). Creationism and Intelligent Design are religious views and the US Supreme Court has declared four times that it is unconstitutional to teach them in public schools. Evolution, on the other hand, is a legitimate science. Despite evolution being a reality, it faces opposition from people who believe in Creation and Intelligent design.
Creationists will to argue that evolution is false because they say it is just a theory and that it does not explain everything. This argument is incorrect and invalid. Technically speaking, evolution is a theory, but it is not just a theory. In science, a theory is a well-supported, well-tested explanation for our observations. A theory is not just a guess of what happened; it is a statement describing the evidence and research (NotJustATheory.com). All of the physical evidence that has been collected that is relevant to evolution backs up evolution. No evidence has been collected that would make evolution a false theory. Creationism and Intelligent Design, however, have no scientific evidence to back up their claims; therefore they are not valid scientific claims. It is also technically correct to say that science has not yet to explained everything. Scientists have collected a huge amount of data and have established to a high degree of certainty that evolution has actually happened and is happening (NotJustATheory.com). Creationists like to say that occurrences in the world that scientists have not developed the tools to investigate and figure out are the works of God. If that is the case, then God has accounted for a lot less occurrences over the years than what was originally perceived. Since evolution is a theory, there is a lot of evidence to back it up and evolution is the best explanation of how life developed over time.
People who believe in Creationism and Intelligent Design will argue that evolution could not have possibly happened naturally because the Earth is too complex; therefore an omniscient and omnipotent God must have had to create the Universe and the Earth. They also say that it is highly improbable for life to develop naturally (CB010: Probability of Abiogenesis). In other words, they say life could not have developed by chance (CB940: Complex structures by chance). This argument lacks facts and evidence. This argument suggests because something is highly unlikely to occur, it will not occur. To put that into context with modern times, since it is highly unlikely to win the lottery or become the President of the United States of America, this argument suggests that it is impossible to do either of those things. We know that this is incorrect because people win the lottery and people have become the President of the United States. These Creationist probability arguments have no actual physical evidence to back them up. In fact, evolution explains and shows a natural process of life developing. Life’s development was not random, but there is no indication that some sort of supernatural creator had any influence on the development of life.
Creationists will argue that evolution isn’t happening today or that we have not seen evolution on a large scale (CB901: No Macroevolution). Creationists will also argue that we have not seen any new species come about (CB910: New Species). Evolution is not a quick process. The fossil record indicates that over millions of years, evolution on a large scale has taken place. For example, fossils have shown us that horses used to be the size of dogs, but over 55 million years, horses have evolved into what they are now (Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years). In response to the statement that we have not seen any new species, that statement is false. Although this is not the only case of speciation, Canadian stickleback fishes have divided into separate species, one for deep water, one for shallow water. Creationists will also ask why are there still apes if we have descended from them. Apes and humans have descended from a common ancestor. The lineage from the common ancestor split off into two or more directions, with a result of humans, apes, and other variations of that common ancestor. “Thus it is, as I believe, that two or more genera are produced by descent, with modification, from two or more species of the same genus. And the two or more parent-species are supposed to have descended from some one species of an earlier genus (Darwin).” Bacteria also evolve into new strands to resist antibiotic treatment. If Creationists that refuses to accept the facts of evolution needs an antibiotic, they should be given the first generation antibiotic that is not used anymore. With their logic, the old antibiotic should work since they do not believe that the bacteria have evolved to a newer strand. Evolution has created new species and has been observed.
What can be done to ensure that scientific fact is taught in science class and that religious stories are left out of the classroom? Laws must be passed ensuring that evolution is taught in science classrooms in public schools in all fifty states. Laws also must be passed to make sure that the unscientific stories of Creation and the unscientific assumptions of “Intelligent” Design are never taught in science classes in public schools as fact. Our children need to learn the difference between science and religious fantasy. Teaching evolution in public schools is the first step to a future of better education. If Creationism is taught as a science in public schools, it will help move America toward being a theocracy, which is a horrible idea. Evolution must be taught in out schools. Ask yourself, are our children going to be ready to face the future?
Works Cited
Behe, Michael. "A Functional Pseudogene?: An Open Letter to Nature." 13 May 2003. Access Research Network. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/behepseudogene052003.htm.
Calabro, Tina. "The Fossil Record and Evolution." 2000. Carnegie Magazine. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.carnegiemuseums.org/cmag/bk_issue/2000/marapr/feat7.html. "Creationism And The Law." 17 Oct. 2008. NCSE. 30 Nov. 2008 http://ncseweb.org/creationism/legal/creationism-law.
Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. New York: Random House, Incorporated, 1998.
"Education Definition." 2006. Dictionary.com. 30 Nov. 2008 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/education.
"Evolution Is Not Just A Theory." 2008. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.notjustatheory.com/.
"Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years." 30 Nov. 2008 http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horseevolution.htm.
"An Introduction To Evolution." UC Berkeley. 30 Nov. 2008 http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02.
Isaak, Mark, ed. "Arugment From Incredulity." 2004. TalkOrigins.Org. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ca/ca100.html.
Isaak, Mark, ed. "Complex Structures By Chance." 2004. TalkOrigins.Org. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/cb/cb940.html.
Isaak, Mark, ed. "An Index To Creationist Claims." 5 Nov. 2006. TalkOrigins.Org. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html.
Isaak, Mark, ed. "New Species." 2007. TalkOrigins.Org. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/cb/cb910.html.
Isaak, Mark, ed. "No Macroevolution." 2004. TalkOrigins.Org. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/cb/cb901.html.
Isaak, Mark, ed. "Origin Of The First Cells." 2005. TalkOrigins.Org. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/cb/cb010_2.html.
Isaak, Mark, ed. "Probability Of Abiogenesis." 2005. TalkOrigins.Org. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/cb/cb010.html.
Isaak, Mark, ed. "What Evolution Doesnt Explain." 2007. TalkOrigins.Org. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ca/ca100_1.html.
Isaak, Mark, ed. "Why Are There Still Apes Around?" 2005. TalkOrigins.Org. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/cc/cc150.html.
"Kitzmiller v. Dover." 17 Oct. 2008. NCSE. 30 Nov. 2008 http://ncseweb.org/creationism/legal/intelligent-design-trial-kitzm....
"Lottery Math." 30 Nov. 2008 http://members.cox.net/mathmistakes/rawdata.htm.
"McLean v. Arkansas." 17 Oct. 2008. NCSE. 30 Nov. 2008 http://ncseweb.org/creationism/legal/mclean-v-arkansas.
Norris, Michele. “Turtle Fossil Yields Clues To Its Evolution.” All Things Considered (NPR): 26 Nov. 2008. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. City U of New York Lib. 1 Dec. 2008.
Purdom, Georgia. "Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria: An Example of Evolution in Action?" 10 July 2007. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/antibiotic-resist....
Robinson, B. A. "OVERVIEW OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN." 16 Jan. 2006. ReligiousTolerance.Org. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.religioustolerance.org/evid7.htm.
Scott, Eugene C., and Glenn Branch. ""Intelligent Design" Not Accepted by Most Scientists." 12 Aug. 2002. NCSE. 30 Nov. 2008 http://ncseweb.org/creationism/general/intelligent-design-not-accep....
"Theory And Fact." 17 Oct. 2008. NCSE. 30 Nov. 2008 http://ncseweb.org/evolution/education/theory-fact.
Wallace, T. "Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution." 2007. The True.Origin Archive. 30 Nov. 2008 http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp.
Views: 0
Tags: biology, creationism, design, education, evolution, intelligent, pseudoscience, school, science
Comment
What's new today
Forum
Does every living animal have a consciousness?
Started by Holo Gram in Neuroscience, Cognitive Science, Psychology. Last reply by Daniel Rockwell 13 minutes ago. 39 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
...and now I wait to die.
Posted by Misty: Baytheist Living! on May 23, 2013 at 4:03pm 3 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!
Join Think Atheist