Evolution
Having read numerous articles highlighting the many angles, claims, and pieces of evidence regarding the theories of evolution and intelligent design, I will show (X) the theory of evolution, rather than intelligent design, is superior in explaining how a species learns to adapt and change (Y) (premise 1) by comparing the key theorists and their science behind both claims, (premise 2) the underlying religious implications, and (premise 3) providing evidence supporting the theory, (Z) in order to prove evolution as the more logical theory.
While many scientists have undoubtedly invested their lives to the study of evolution and natural selection, the theory cannot be discussed without mentioning three specific evolutionists: Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin, and Geoffrey Parker.
Historically, the theory of evolution can trace its roots back to Erasmus Darwin. The grandfather of well known scientist Charles Darwin, studied the natural world stating “that all organisms descend through natural causes (that is, no miracles) from life forms very different from themselves…� (Ruse, 39). Erasmus also pointed to the docking of dogs’ tails, which he believed would evolve into dogs born with little or no existence of a tail (Ruse, 40). He studied nature from a perspective of how things developed into what they currently are. His thoughts led him to arrive that all organisms are in pursuit of arriving at the best form for survival in a given environment, to ensure their success as a species leaving prenotions of religious creationism aside, relying on pure scientific evidence to support his claim.
Following the work of Erasmus, his grandson Charles Darwin picked up on the thought of evolution, bringing this potential theory to the limelight as he linked scientific evidence to the newly born theory. Charles claimed “many more organisms are born than can possibly survive and reproduce; organisms come with heritable differences; those organisms that succeed in the struggle for existence and reproduction will be different from those that do not, and their success will (on average) be a function of the differences…and given enough time this will lead to full-blown evolution� (Ruse, 57). As Charles was raised during the Industrial Revolution, he was allowed to first hand witness the selection of a breeding stock in agriculture to maximize survival. Then, on his voyage to South America, Charles found a series of islands (the Galapagos), which had remarkably different wildlife and fauna from that of the rest of the continent. This led him to apply this same “struggle for existence� to the natural world arriving at his mechanism of natural selection (Ruse, 56).
Geoffrey Parker, another evolutionist, is an unabashed Darwinian adaptionist. Whenever possible, he searched for function as allowed by natural selection from a pragmatic, step-by-step approach (Ruse, 205). Parker continued off of Charles’ work, taking his theory to assist him in explaining survival tactics in the natural world. One such explanation arrived on his observation of the golden eagle where he noticed siblicide, when one dominate chick frequently kills nest mates to ensure its survival in competition for food (Ruse, 201). Michael Ruse outlines Parkers arguments noting, “Parker spells out his position: balancing what he sees as the right, the positive, moral obligation to recognize the limitations of what science can achieve� (Ruse, 213).
In reflection of all three pro-evolution theorists, many commonalities can be found. For start, all theorists placed their outside biases of religion and their assumptions of how the natural world work aside. This allowed them to create a hypothesis, to use that hypothesis to test and observe what they saw to be true, and using their scientific evidence from these observations to finally arrive at a plausible theory. All of these men, among many others, used actual scientific methods to arrive at their appropriate theories supporting evolution.
As an alternative argument to the theory of evolution, leading theorists William Dembski and Michael Behe, work to support the concept of “Intelligent Design�.
Dembski, a mathematician, philosopher, and divine theologist, claims a complex object must be the result of intelligent design if it were a product of neither chance nor necessity (Orr, 201). He argues if organisms show specified complexity that it is plausible to conclude they are the handiwork of an intelligent agent (Orr, 202). However, Dembski’s argument fails to recognize that organisms are not trying to fit any pattern. H. Allen Orr, from The New Yorker, comments, “Evolution has no goal, and the history of life isn’t trying to get anywhere…………but if destroying a sophisticated structure like the eye increases the number of children produced (as found in many cave species), evolution will just as happily destroy the eye� (Orr, 204). Another flaw with Dembski’s argument is that his theory do not hold true in cases of co-evolution, or when two or more species evolve as a response to the other (Orr, 204). All of this leads me to point out the final flaw in Dembski’s science, which is none of his work contains actual evidence, data, or the testing of data. Dembski simply brings his bias of the belief in a creator/designer into the scientific community without any hypothesis, factual evidence, or testable methods. His theory should not be considered scientific, as it does not follow any scientific method protocol, and thus a theory with no content, should be viewed as an opinion at best.
Complementing Dembski’s analysis, Behe concluded that irreducibly complex cells only arise from someone designing them. He states that by employing evolution as a theory, we are starting with a cell advancing us 90 percent of the way to the finish line (Orr, 198). However, as Orr points out, Behe fails to recognize a more indirect path to complex cells, as “elaborate structures may evolve for one reason and then get co-opted for some entirely different, irreducibly complex function� (Orr, 199). This Darwinian evolutionary approach to cells as we know them today justly explains their irreducible state. Behe replies to this confessing, “I quite agree that my argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof� (Orr, 200).
After commenting on the superiority of the theorists and science behind both Darwinsim and evolution in comparison with those supporting intelligent design, it is important to understand why people still chose to accept the lesser theory due to the religious implications of evolution and Darwinism.
Jack Hitt, of Harper’s Magazine, best addresses this angle as he states, “Roots are crucial to us-us being all Americans-because they are the source of so much of our national anxiety about not quite belonging� (Hitt, 238). With relying on a “creator� as the sole responsible entity for why and who we are, it eases a religious component as the Bible, Koran, and various other religious instruments taught all of us from an early age that God responsible for the creation of mankind, not that we evolved over millions of years from our primate ancestors. Education committee chair and intelligent design proponent William Buckingham stated, “This country wasn’t founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution; this country was founded on Christianity, and our students should be taught as such� (Mooney, 174). As we reflect on our education as Americans, specifically our background in science, we need to ask whether it is both accurate and legal to study science as a function of religion, considering the American notion of separation of church and state, specifically in our public schools. Daniel C. Dennett, of The New York Times, states, “No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder (in response to the blind spot in all eyes), and this is just one of hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process (evolution)� (Dennett, 41). This brings to question if we are using actual science as evidence of intelligent design, or if we are using religious tools to define what we cannot immediately see about the gradual change of earth because of religious heritage.
Now, after invalidating the claims of intelligent designs’ key theorists, linking the theory to religious teachings rather than actual science, we can highlight evolution as the prime theory of explaining the natural world focusing on the data and findings of today.
Evolution should not be seen as a historical concept from the times of Darwin and other great scientists, for it is a constant constraint placed on all living things with no bearing on time or place. The most recent evidence of this, as mentioned by our articles, is actually the evolution of man. Paul Bloom, in his article Is God an Accident?, gives insight as to how religion may have be an evolutionary tool acquired to ease the pain of existence (Bloom, 276). He goes on to explain that men cannot deal with chaos, religion helps us not only to deal with the fear of death, but also works as a societal glue, bringing people together on common grounds based on a simple belief (Bloom, 277). The article continues to explain how even as newborns we look at faces, feel as though we have a purpose, and that our body and soul are not a single entity (Bloom, 283). The evidence that children believe in a soul, and more importantly a purpose, leads us to conclude the notion of life after death is not learned, rather it is a by-product of how we naturally evolved to think about the world (Bloom, 284). This reflects a social understanding, different from our physical understanding, which is a relatively recent adaptation shared only by other humans (Bloom, 280).
In conclusion, the theory of evolution, and its many components, accurately describes the progression of life as proven by superior backing of scientists, in the absence of any religious bias, and by evidence as seen in humans. As rookie geologist Luann Becker stated, regarding her revolutionary theory of the PT extinction, “We’ve got everybody hounding us because it’s a spectacular claim; they feel threatened; why else would they make such absurd statements�(Wright, 233). This same statement applies to evolution, for centuries religious institutions have taught people that earth, nature, and mankind are all a creation of God. For a group of scientists to one day propose an idea refuting this claim, with a much more secular theory with a more logical explanation, caused an uproar of ridiculous statements and threatened institutions.
Works Cited
Bloom, Paul. “Is God an Accident?� The Best American Science Writing. Ed. Atul Gawande. New York, London: Harper Perennial, 2006. 272-290.
Dennett, Daniel C. “Show Me the Science� The Best American Science and Nature Writing. Ed. Brian Greene. Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. 39-45.
Hitt, Jack. “Might White of You� The Best American Science Writing. Ed. Atul Gawande. New York, London: Harper Perennial, 2006. 237-271.
Mooney, Chris. “The Dover Monkey Trial� The Best American Science and Nature Writing. Ed. Brian Greene. Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. 172-179.
Orr, H. Allen. “Devolution� The Best American Science Writing. Ed. Atul Gawande. New York, London: Harper Perennial, 2006. 194-207.
Ruse, Michael. Mystery of Mysteries. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press, 2001.
Wright, Karen. “The Day Everything Died� The Best American Science Writing. Ed. Atul Gawande. New York, London: Harper Perennial, 2006. 223-236.