Evolution in Education
Matt Abens
1152W
10-10-07
Evolution/Intelligent Design Analysis
Evolution in Education
In this paper (X) I will encourage the reader to support the education of evolution in public schools (Y) by exploring the concepts of both evolution and intelligent design (Z) in order to show you that evolution, not intelligent design belongs in the science curriculum of public institutions. I will do this by showing that the majority of the science field supports the theory of evolution. I will also explore the evidence that shows the theory of intelligent design is not supported by science. I will then discuss why public education and religious beliefs should be kept separate. Finally, I will show that the theory of evolution is the correct educational path that should be applied to public school’s science curriculums.
The concept of evolution was born out of Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection, which he formulated in 1838. The theory states that within species, the organism that was best suited to survive would live longer and produce more offspring. The certain traits that enabled a competitive advantage were passed on to the offspring, thus creating a higher population of organisms with the trait as multiple generations passed. The organisms that did not posses the necessary traits have shorter lifetimes, therefore less opportunity for reproduction, and as a consequence there were fewer offspring that bear the inadequate traits. The necessary traits for survival were frequently changing as habitats and environments altered. As a result, the population would, over time, alter the traits that it carried that were the most beneficial to its survival, which came to be known as evolving. All species adapt to their environment through the process of evolution. The studies Charles Darwin completed in the Galapagos Islands regarding finches were replicated by other scientists and accordingly helped to prove his theory.
Darwin’s evolutionism became orthodoxy almost overnight. By wrapping his ideas in such a socially acceptable form, most people happily accepted descent with modification (Ruse 73). Descent with modification is the process of genetic differences that are inherited from previous generations. In the first hundred years of its history, evolution rose up from its origins in the lowest depths of pseudo science to become the science of the public domain (Ruse 80). By the 1960’s, evolution was rising up the scale of respectability, socially and epistemologically both in Britain and America (Ruse 100). Darwin’s book The Origin of Species, proved to be very important work as more people read it. The readers understood why science should move forward with evolutionary studies, which created a greater awareness for the subject.
Theodosius Dobzhansky and his colleagues, Mayr, Simpson, and the botanist G. L. Stebbins shared their enthusiasm for the nonepistemic culture of evolution (Ruse 111). Evolution is non-epistemic because it is popular science and heavily supported by the public. This is important because it shows that the majority of common people agree with the concept of evolution. Society as a whole, not just the scientific fields began to fully grasp and accept evolution in the 1950’s. The journal “Evolution� was formed and began circulating and the National Science Foundation started to provide grants for research purposes (Ruse 114). Evolution was considered not only popular science but also a professionalized science.
Alternatively, intelligent design is not a legitimate school of scientific thought. According to Daniel Dennett it is one of the most ingenious hoaxes in the history of science (Dennett 39). The idea of intelligent design originated from the Catholic Church in order to explain to its members where everything came from. The problem with this theory is that it does not have any scientific evidence to support it. According to intelligent design (or creationism), God developed the Earth and all of the organisms on it in a six-day period only a few thousand years ago.
There are still some unanswered questions regarding evolution that perplex biologists, but intelligent design has not yet tried to answer them (Dennett 43). Contradictory to this thought, evidence of carbon dating places the age of Earth at about 4 billion years old. According to Karen Wright, fossil records show that approximately 250 million years ago, 90 percent of the species on Earth disappeared in an abrupt event that spanned the globe (Wright 224). If this is true, how can the intelligent design theory of the earth and all species being created only thousands of years ago be accurate? Some might wonder how long the process of evolution takes compared to the proven age of the earth. According to Darwin, the 4-5 million years since the formation of the earth has been quite enough time for evolution to occur (Ruse 66).
Some people believe that multiple controversial theories should be taught in the public school system in order for students to have exposure to more than one idea. Intelligent design does not pertain to science, so there should not be any controversy about whether or not to teach the subject in biology class (Dennett 45). Children educated of intelligent design in public science classrooms should not be allowed because of the lack of scientific evidence. Furthermore, intelligent design does not have any scientific basis so it should be taught outside of science, for example in the home or religious environment.
The role of the public school system is to educate its students in the main subject matters including science, math, english, and social studies. Intelligent design should not be considered a main concept of the science curriculum because it does not have any scientific evidence and it also violates a student’s right to the separation of government and religion. Religion does not belong in a public school atmosphere because of the multiple conflicting beliefs between students and staff. Religious beliefs and theories such as intelligent design can be taught outside of school, where only those who want to be subjected to it are present.
Intelligent design fails every criterion of legitimate science. Scientists point to errors in the claims of the literalists who believe in intelligent design (Ruse 135). An example of this is the age of earth and their theories of how organisms change over time. This shows there is no educational benefit to the theory. There is nothing wrong with being religious and believing in intelligent design, but the problem is with trying to convince people of conflicting religions to accept it as right in a public environment. Sometimes there really are signs of nonrandom and functional design. We can observe that the eye seems to be crafted for seeing, or that the leaf insect seems colored with the goal of looking very much like a leaf. However biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose (Bloom 286). This suggests that some things seem to be created by intelligent design, but they instead evolved over time to be the complex objects that they are today.
Although many people including the President of the United States support teaching intelligent design in our schools, it is not the correct path for us as a country as some parents want to provide that information themselves rather than it being taught to their child from a teacher who might not be fully educated in the student’s personal beliefs. Steve Stough, a plaintiff in the Dover Monkey Trial claims that he wants his daughter to have a religious education, but he would like to be responsible for it, or the church they attend (Mooney 175). Another reason to keep intelligent design out of the curriculum is because most likely legal action will be taken against the school board from a parent with conflicting points of view. That will be an ugly, expensive battle that would affect the whole school and district such as the Dover Monkey and the Scopes Monkey trial have done to their respective towns, such as pulling the citizens into groups with different opinions. Although proposals hostile to evolution are being considered in more than twenty states throughout the country (Orr 198), it is not the right decision to support these plans for either your child or their school district. If the proposals passed, it would violate the rights designated to each person in this Country granted by the founding fathers who fought to give us freedom and the right to separation of government and religion as stated in the Constitution.
Intelligent design is not supported by any science; instead the majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution. Why should an idea that does not have any significant scientific support be allowed to be taught to students in public schools? The answer is that intelligent design should be outlawed within public science curriculums. Intelligent design is welcomed to be discussed in private homes or in religious groups but in public situations it should not be a forced subject because it would be violating people’s personal rights. The theory of evolution has substantial evidence and scientific consistency; therefore, it should be the right of public institutions to teach the theory of evolution and in no way implicate such false theories as intelligent design.
Works Cited
Bloom, Paul. “Is God and Accident?� The Best American Science Writing. Ed. Atul
Gawande. New York: Harper Perennial, 2006. 272-290
Dennet, Daniel. “Show Me The Science� The Best American Science and Nature
Writing. Ed. Brian Greene. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. 39-45
Mooney, Chris. “The Dover Monkey Trial� The Best American Science and Nature
Writing. Ed. Brian Greene. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. 172-179
Orr, H. Allen. “Devolution� The Best American Science Writing. Ed. Atul
Gawande. New York: Harper Perennial, 2006. 194-207
Ruse, Michael. Mystery of Mysteries. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Wright, Karen. “The Day Everything Died� The Best American Science Writing. Ed.
Atul Gawande. New York: Harper Perennial, 2006. 223-236