Evolution

Definitions of Terms in Evolution and Creationism
History of the Study of Biological Evolution
Morality and Evolution
Fundamentalists and their problem with Science.
Books about Evolution and Creationism
Internet Resources
Common Errors

creationism: the doctrine that creation occurs by divine intervention rather than
   a natural evolutionary processes.

evolution: the act or process of change, as in "to unfold over time".

fact: something known to have occurred.

religion: a system or doctrine accepted on faith

revelation: the act of revealing information by supernatural means.

science: 1) knowledge about natural phenomena
            or
                2) the process by which such knowledge is generated, involving objective and
                verifiable observations of natural phenomena.

theory: a proposed explanation or organized description of natural phenomena.

Both religion and science deal with explanations and facts, but they do so in different ways. Science accepts nothing on faith or on the basis of divine revelation or as supernatural. Religions contain explanations, facts, and knowledge that are based on faith, revelation, or the supernatural. It is clear that religious people and scientists can and do sometimes use the words "explanation", "fact", and "knowledge" in different and contradictory ways.

History
Religion is much older than modern science. When modern science evolved from "natural philosophy", there was an effort made to separate science from religion as a different way of producing knowledge. Specifically, knowledge of or from revelation or divine intervention was ruled out. Science restricts itself to knowledge that can be obtained by objective and reproducible observations of natural phenomena. There is certainly over-lap between the domains of science and religion, but there are differences between the two that are real and important.

Within science, ancient documents or even Folk Tales are taken to be sources of objective information. However, it is always questionable within science if a story is factual. Claims of truth by way of revelation are not accepted by science. For example, the Greek Homer's stories of the city Troy are of interest within the science of Archeology. Starting from Homer's stories, an important archeological site was discovered in Asia Minor and proposed to be the remains of Homer's Troy. The archeological site that was found is a fact. That the ruins were once Troy is a theory that is useful to archeologist, it is part of that science and is taught to students of archeology. If you go to the proposed site of Troy, you can observe various levels of ruins that reflect the growth and death of a series of cites at that site over the course of thousands of years. Archeologists study the evolution of tools, art and other artifacts through time from level to level of the ruins. The change in artifacts through time is a fact. Various theories are proposed to account for changes in the artifacts through time such as invasions of the city by foreign peoples and the development of new patterns of trade with distant ports.

For the most part, there is little conflict over the teaching of archeology in our schools. Archeology as a science includes the fact of evolution of cultures through time and the fact that the remains of permanent villages have been found which date back more than 10,000 years. Of course, if you take the Christian Bible as an unquestionable source of knowledge, then modern Archeology is in conflict with your faith. Christians have done the math and shown that the Earth (according to the Bible) can be no more than about 6,000 years old.

So we must ask this question: why is use of the word "evolution" acceptable within all of science except for biology? Why do fundamentalist Christians campaign to remove the teaching of evolution from public schools while allowing all of the rest of the sciences to continue to use the word? How can we understand the antagonism of Creationists towards Biology?

The claim is made that evolutionary thinking within the science of Biology not only contradicts the Bible but also undermines the morality of children. There is no doubt that the facts of biological evolution contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible. First there is the time issue, as mentioned above in the context of Anthropology. However, since Anthropology does not upset Creationists, we must look beyond the time issue and the matter of contradiction with the Bible.
 

Morality
There are two related issues,

1) how should the issue of morality influence the curriculum?

and

2) does the biological theory of evolution corrupt the moral development of children?

It is an accepted part of public schooling that socially accepted norms of morality are part of what should be conveyed to children in schools. Within the science of Sociology, many different systems of morality from different cultures are studied. Many human cultures have deemed morally acceptable slavery, preventing women from voting, infanticide, and dozens of other practices which contradict modern American morality. And yet, the comparative analysis of cultures is taught in our schools. Understanding that there are many human cultures and learning how people from different cultures can co-exist is an important part of the educational process. Why have Christians largely abandoned slavery, female servitude, and tribal warfare even though such practices are the written law of the Bible? Clearly, when modern Christians think that their morals are higher than those of the people described in the Bible, it is acceptable to ignore the Bible and go in new directions. It is also clear that a school curriculum can deal with topics like slavery without corrupting children and causing them to all want to own slaves. After the Soviets beat America into outer space, the National Science Foundation was ordered by the government to beef up the science curriculum. Modern textbooks were developed that included such topics as biological evolution and comparative sociology. Some Christian Fundamentalists objected to the inclusion of such material in school textbooks. Some states, under pressure from Christian Fundamentalists, did not sanction the use of these modern textbooks. Even in locations where textbooks dealing with biological evolution were used, the evolution material in the texts was never taught. Most Americans alive today have never learned what biological evolution is, while many "know" that it is evil and should not be taught in the schools. What, then, is so special about the biological theory of evolution that it must be singled out and condemned by Creationists?

What does the scientific theory of biological evolution say about morality? The study of human culture is a very minor part of the science of biology, and a science of human morality is almost non-existent. The most notable modern trend towards a science of human morality has been greatly influenced by people like Edward Wilson. Wilson is responsible for bringing the new science of Sociobiology to the attention of the public at large. The number of biologists who call themselves Sociobiologists is very small. In that small group, most Sociobiologists work on non-human species such as ants. A few biologists have bothered to point out facts such as the existence of homosexual behavior in many human cultures and in non-human species. This work draws the ire of Christian Fundamentalists. They imagine that if God created people, then there are absolutes like "homosexuality is wrong", but if humans evolved as one of many animals that naturally engage in homosexual behavior, and if children hear about that fact, then human society will be swamped in immoral behavior like homosexuality. This kind of reasoning is illogical. Recognizing that there are biological reasons why people become addicted to drugs and telling children that fact does not make children go out and become addicts "because it is natural". Nobody goes out and becomes a homosexual because somebody tells them that it is "natural".

Creationists are wrong to fear that when students learn about the theory of evolution by natural selection that they become immoral because of that learning process. Scientists who use the theory of evolution in their work are no less moral than the Creationists. Children who know about the theory of evolution do not suddenly revolt against their parents and their religious tradition and become immoral people. Many scientists who believe in evolution are Christians and most Christians accept the fact of biological evolution without becoming immoral.

Fundamentalists
Fundamentalists are interested in preventing people from being openly homosexual because they fear that homosexuality is contrary to Biblical law and that it is immoral. Clearly, what Christians consider to be immoral has continuously evolved over the past 2000 years. Slavery was once moral and practiced by Christians. Rights for women were once considered a danger to society, but today most Christians think that depriving women of equal rights is immoral. In the future homosexuality will be better understood through the efforts of science and increasing numbers of Christians will come to understand and deal with it in constructive ways. Irrational fears such as homophobia are important motivations behind Creation Science. Scientists believe that if we replace superstitions and irrational fears with understanding, then society can come to deal humanely and successfully with facts of life such as homosexuality. The truth will set us free.

How can science be so right and yet so wrong?
One of the great puzzles introduced to us by Creationists is how science can be so right about so many things yet so wrong about Creation. If Creationists say that biological evolution is wrong, then they should be able to tell us where biology went wrong. Evolution was an accepted fact within the community of educated scholars in Darwin's time. When Darwin published "The Origin of Species", evolutionary thinking became the target for attack by Christians. Darwin could very easily have become an English Pastor had he not gone to sea on the Beagle. When he realized what the fundamental mechanism of biological evolution is (natural selection) he knew that his theory of evolution by natural selection would greatly trouble people of the Christian faith, such as his wife. However, history is clear. The theory of biological evolution by natural selection was not some evil plot to destroy the faith and morality of Christians. Darwin and other free thinkers were forced to the theory of natural selection by the evidence. Many Creation Scientists argue strenuously that the evidence does not support evolution; they do not even need to get to the issue of the mechanism of change. Darwin's book and theory were simply the most noticeable signals to the public at large that scientists had left the world of Biblical Creation behind. The mechanism of biological evolution is really irrelevant to Creationists. ANY mechanism of evolution must be false, because if evolution is true then a literal interpretation of the Bible is impossible. Thus, Creationists have a big challenge, they must prove the impossibility of biological evolution, which unfortunately for the Creationists, is a clearly demonstrable fact that was accepted by people who had the evidence long before Darwin published "The Origin of Species".

When Creationists "prove" that biological evolution is false, they have to propose that scientists are utterly incompetent in how they collect data and interpret their observations. How can it be that science is correct about electric motors and jet engines and the Earth moving, but wrong about the origin of humans and living organisms? Creationists are forced to concoct the world's greatest conspiracy theory, that thousands of atheistic scientists conspire to force the false doctrine of biological evolution on the rest of humanity. The history of the theory of biological evolution clearly contradicts any such conspiracy theory. Darwin himself came out of a Christian background and many biologists who deal with evolution in their work as scientists are still Christian. The truth is than only a tiny minority of Christians believe that the Bible is literally true and in need of defense against the theory of biological evolution. Most Christians live comfortably with a 10,000,000,000 year old universe, biological evolution, the abolition of slavery, and even inter-faith marriages. The truth is that no scientist would make use of the theory of biological evolution by natural selection if it were not a powerful way of making sense of the diversity of life on the planet. If there were any other sensible alternative, everyone from Darwin on to the present would never have gotten involved with natural selection. The data, observations of fossils and the geological record, prove the fact of evolution to impartial scientists. Objective thinkers are forced to accept biological evolution by the facts. Scientists believe in biological evolution because the theory of natural selection is useful in the work that Biologists do everyday. If Creation Science had a valid scientific view, other scientists would welcome it. Creation Science has no valid scientific basis, so most scientists are forced to ignore it and speak out against it.

Common Errors
1) Most people do not keep clear the distinction between the fact of biological evolution and the theory of evolution by natural selection. Students in Biology 104Q will learn to make this distinction. Students will learn some of the evidence that demonstrates the fact of biological evolution. The theory of evolution by natural selection will be introduced and it will be explained why biologists find this theory useful in their attempt to understand the diversity of life. Go here for more on evolution fact and theory.

2) Creation Scientists are not real scientists. Rather than following objective observations to their most reasonable conclusions, Creation Scientists start by assuming that their religious beliefs are correct. They then systematically interpret observations of the biological world in terms of their  religiously motivated assumptions. This is not science. Students in Biology 104Q will have the chance to learn how science works and how to make the distinction between science and psuedoscience. Students should understand why Creationism is not taught as part of the science curriculum, although it is talked about as an example of pseudoscience.

3) Creation Scientists and Christian Fundamentalists have told the public at large that belief in biological evolution is a path to immorality. The truth is that the science of biological evolution is mostly neutral in its moral implications. There is a new science called Sociobiology which is beginning to explore the biological basis of human culture, including topics like morality. This new science makes observations about aspects of human behavior such as homosexuality and attempts to integrate those observations into a scientific understanding of the world. Creationists are mistaken in their belief that teaching biological evolution is schools causes homosexuality or any other kind of immorality. Students in Biology 104Q are introduced to how biologists study the brain as the physiological mechanism that produces human behavior. Students will learn how human genes influence human behavior. Students will learn how human genes have evolved over millions of years, resulting in the unique human behaviors that are found in no other species, but they also learn about the many similarities between humans and the other animal species which we are related to by way of common ancestors. Topics like Sociobiology are beyond the scope of Biology 104Q, but students should learn that Biology is a young science and nobody has all the answers about who we are and where we came from. The study of life has a grand future of discovery yet to come.

Some sources of information on evolution.

Books

The Creationists by Ronald L. Numbers
The Battle of Beginnings : Why Neither Side Is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate  by Delvin Lee Ratzsch, Del Ratzsch
Anti-Evolution : A Reader's Guide to Writings Before and After Darwin by Tom McIver
Abusing Science : The Case Against Creationism by Philip Kitcher
Science on Trial : The Case for Evolution by Douglas J. Futuyma
Scientists Confront Creationism  by Laurie R. Godfrey (Editor)
Scientific Creationism  by Henry M. Morris (Editor)
The Case for Creationism  by Colin Mitchell
Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy  by Hugh, Dr. Ross
Creationism on Trial : Evolution and God at Little Rock (Studies in Religion and Culture)  by Langdon Brown Gilkey
Creationism's Upside-Down Pyramid : How Science Refutes Fundamentalism by Lee Tiffin

Internet Resources

Creationism

Evolution