|
Articles:
Religion
Darwin
and Scopes Must Be Turning in Their Graves
Sunday, May 8, 2005
It
has been over one hundred years since Charles Darwin first
proposed the theory of evolution and natural selection. It
has been over eighty years since the trial of John Scopes
paved the way for the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Yet we now find ourselves still arguing over the same topic.
I don't think the Copernican idea of a heliocentric solar
system took this long to be accepted as fact. Why are some
people so offended by and resistant to the idea of evolution?
I
assume that the resistance to the theory of evolution lies
among religious people who believe evolution and creationism
are mutually-exclusive. Who came up with this idea? I think
the two schools of thought can exist simultaneously, even
within one's own mind. Does the theory of the Big Bang creation
of the universe supplant the belief of God's own creation
of it? Couldn't they be one in the same? At the same time,
couldn't evolution be a subsequent phenomenon that occurs
after God's creation of the universe? Does the belief that
life arose from primordial goo necessarily mean God did not
make that happen? I don't believe Darwinists must necessarily
be atheists, or that religious people must necessarily denounce
the theory of evolution as the work of the devil.
That
aside, I find it hard to believe some people still refuse
to acknowledge the evidence and accept the probability that
evolution is indeed a valid theory. It's a widely-accepted
axiom that older strata of rock lay below newer strata. It
stands to reason that newer sediment was laid on top of older
sediment. Following that belief, it stands to reason that
older index fossils lay below newer ones. In this regard,
one can examine index fossils and see that life on earth developed
from simple single-celled organisms to more complex marine
life, then to simple terrestrial life, and from there to even
more complex organisms. The procession of life on earth from
"simple" to "complex" seems blatantly
obvious. This observation supports the theory of evolution,
that is, that life forms develop, mutate, and evolve into
new life forms. Biological features that result in survival
are necessarily passed on to future generations, resulting
in the promotion of such features. Features that don't result
in survival are lost. What about missing links between known
species? Ever heard of the archaeopteryx? It was a reptile
with feathers, and possibly the ability of flight. There are
numerous other examples of such links, such as primitive whales
with vestigial rear limbs. Remember, too, that new species
are continually being discovered in the fossil record. It
is perhaps difficult to imagine species developing in such
a manner, but remember that this phenomenon is supposed to
happen over hundreds of millions of years. I don't believe
most people can comprehend what these tiny changes, when accumulated
over this kind of time period, can add up to.
Along
with this theory is the belief that life on earth began in
a prehistoric concoction of various proteins and chemicals.
While this is perhaps easier to debate than evolution itself,
one can trace the progression of species back to the oldest
layers of rock on earth. At this level, life is so simple
in construction that one could argue that life began spontanously,
in these simplest of forms.
In
our limited knowledge it is possible that the theory of evolution
may be refined or denounced by future scientific study. Regardless,
I believe it is currently the "most likely scenario"
and therefore should be generally accepted as the truth, or
at least as "probable".
Yet
we currently find the debate over evolutionism versus creationism
still being played out in our public schools. Some religious
people who believe God created the universe and evolution
is impossible through mutual exclusion think we should have
disclaimers in the textbooks of our public schools. Such a
disclaimer may read:
"It
is important to realize evolution is merely one theory regarding
the origin of life on earth. You should keep an open mind
about such matters, realize there are other beliefs, and decide
for yourself which is correct."
This
certainly seems acceptable to me. As I said, evolution may
yet be refined or denounced. But at the same time, are religious
people willing to put a similar disclaimer in the front of
their religious texts?
"It
is important to realize that God's creation of the universe
is merely one theory on the origin of life. You should keep
an open mind about such matters, realize there are other beliefs,
and decide for yourself which is correct."
I
don't believe they would.
When
it comes down to it, religious beliefs rely almost entirely
on faith. You're not supposed to question things, you're supposed
to just accept them and believe them to be true. In the case
of evolution, there is a large amount of evidence to support
the theory. The question is, can you ignore evidence for one
idea, denounce it as false, and believe another idea just
because you were programmed to do so? I don't believe this
is rational. At the very least, I would think everyone would
have to accept the validity of evolution, and make it compatible
with their religious beliefs as they see fit. Science does
not conform to blind religious beliefs. It is supported in
empirical terms such as observation, testing, evidence, proof,
along with logic and reason. Therefore, it stands to reason
that any belief that contradicts science must adapt to what
has been proven.
We've
seen this time and again in the past. When Copernicus first
proposed the earth was not the center of the universe, and
Galileo subsequently supported this idea, the Catholic Church
was outraged at such "heresy". Yet we now know this
to be true, that the earth revolves around the sun. When vaccines
and cures for diseases were first developed, many religious
people denounced them as the work of the devil. They argued
that they prevented the afflicted from suffering God's wrath
for their evil deeds. Yet today we hail them as scientific
marvels that are a great good to our society. I believe, in
time, that those who remain opposed to evolution will eventually
accept it, so long as evolution holds as a valid theory. In
time, evidence may mount to undeniable levels, forcing the
acceptance of yet another scientific fact that was once denounced
as heresy. Forcing, as well, the religious community to make
yet another concession in their beliefs.
But
as I said earlier, such a concession does not necessarily
disprove the existence of God. It merely forces the conformation
and refinement of religious beliefs to what is explicitly
known. It's because of this that I cannot understand why some
people seem so afraid of the theory of evolution. Admitting
that life on earth evolves from "simple" to "complex"
does not disprove God, so why be so ignorant of the evidence?
It
is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe
what is proved. --Galileo Galilei
When
it is not in our power to determine what is true, we ought
to follow what is most probable. --Rene Descartes
The
great tragedy of Science: the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact. --Thomas Huxley
|
