Evolution in Schools: What ’ s with all the Monkey Business?
Evolution has been a controversial subject since it was first delivered by Charles Darwin in his book, The Origin of Species. The question at hand is, why has it been so controversial, and why is there such a debate? Evolution to some speaks for itself; the answer depends on who is listening and what they hear. The science is based on research and research alone. That may be an arbitrary statement, but some may say a lot of the arguments against the science of evolution are arbitrary as well. Like many things it comes down to what you want to believe and who the public wants to listen to. The fact is evolution is a science of facts not just a made up theory. The underlying question is, should evolution be taught in schools?
What is evolution and where did it come from? Evolution is a process that affects all species from lizards to humans. The fact is that all creatures are tied together genetically. The proposed theory suggests that all creatures including humans all share a common ancestor and that over time certain adaptations expanded the family tree all the way to humans. Charles Darwin was the first to officially deliver the idea of evolution in 1859 with his book, The Origin of Species. His studies and career didn ’ t originally start with evolution and science. Originally, Darwin was following in his father ’ s footsteps by becoming a physician. He decided to change career paths and become an Anglican clergyman. It wasn ’ t until he was invited to sail on a British warship that he spent five years sailing the world. Darwin studied geological journals written by Charles Lyell, which lead him to explain origins naturally instead of supernaturally. It ultimately led to his study of the Galapagos Islands, where he came to the conclusion that the species there were unique to the Islands only. (Ruse, 2006) Darwin had questions. Why there is different species on the islands than found on the main land? Why are there different variations of the same animal? These questions along with Darwin ’ s theory sparked debates that have continued until today. Darwin was agnostic, not an atheist, so why do religious groups have such a hard time with evolution being taught. Even though evolution has far surpassed the days of Darwin, Darwin himself still is the poster boy for this particular science. As mentioned by Michael Ennis, " While it would be political suicide in today's Texas to fling early-twentieth-century prejudices at African Americans, Hispanics, or women, this particular dead white male can still be bashed as blithely as he was eighty years ago " (Ennis, 2005, p. 64). Is there and how can a prejudice be exercised against science? Maybe it is nothing more than a social battle between science and religion or maybe it is a fear of change. Like all other social battles, the one on evolution is like any other social challenge. Racial groups have had to fight within the court systems, eventually they prevailed. Homosexual groups have also had to fight and they have prevailed. Racism along with the social prejudice, along with the fear of excepting evolution may be one in the same. At one point there was a debate about segregation in schools, now it is and has been evolution. Is it possible that this debate on evolution will pass, along with racism and social bitterness in schools?
Debates on evolution range from scientific to religious. The fact is that evolution scares people, mainly religious creationists and Intelligent Design (ID) groups. The debate on whether or not schools should teach evolution seems never ending. Creationist and ID groups fight tooth and nail to keep a basic scientific principle from being taught to children. Why all the controversy? Some believe that evolution is killing religion, because it challenges the biblical timeline of Genesis. In an article by Eugenie Scott called Monkey Business he states,
From the beginning of the American antievolution movement, the driving force has been the same; a struggle for souls. Students who learn evolution, the creationists reason, will come to doubt the existence of God. Without the moral rudder that religion provides, they will become bad people doing bad things. Evolution is thus evil and the cause of evil (Scott, 1996, p. 21a).
Is this really the case? In a poll taken by Newsweek on MSNBC.com, 55% of the people who participated believe that evolution can coexist with religion, and 39% answered no. If so many people believe that evolution can exist with religion then why is there so much resistance? Also, if the science world so widely accepts evolution as fact, with little resistance, then why can ’ t the rest of the population? Maybe it is because people are scared of what they don ’ t know.
The truth is that very few people know what evolution is really about. The basic perception is that if one was to believe in evolution that meant humans originated from apes. Ignorance to the subject of evolution is immense. For example, most people don ’ t know the difference between Homo sapiens, Homo habilis, or Australopithecus aethiopicus, they are primitive human skeletons. Maybe most people don ’ t care about the evolution of humans anyway. The fact is that the science and techniques have changed dramatically since the days of Darwin. The study of evolution has taken great leaps in its understanding of the way everything works. Along with the great leaps the scientific community has made, social and even political challenges for society as a whole have risen, whether or not the public is largely aware.
The thought that human ancestry could have only been held to a timeline of a few thousand years is a mainly due to religious belief. One possible example of human development is found in the prehistoric remains, which usually challenges religious dogma. Researchers believe that humans developed over millions of years and with the development of the brain the human race developed. This information is more than just guessed at. According to archaeologyinfo.com (2006), Australopithecus aethiopicus can be dated back to almost 3 million years ago and has a cranial size of 410c.c. Homo habilis can be dated back 2 million years ago and has a cranial size of around 520c.c. and Homo erectus can be dated back around 1.5 million years ago and has a cranial size of 850c.c. Science never stops changing and improves almost faster then some can keep up. For example, a gene called HAR1 (human accelerated region) was discovered last summer. The gene (HAR1) is present in all animals, including humans; by a technique called " Molecular clock " scientists can trace changes in DNA like clockwork. By winding the clock back scientists can determine when major changes occurred. HAR1 is described as playing a huge part in the development of the brain from the seventh to ninth week of gestation. The Molecular clock can determine when our genetic split from apes and even chickens occurred (Begley, 2007). With science and evolution working hand in hand how can it be argued that evolution doesn ’ t have any weight in the educational world? Another example is the development of humans. Ancient skeletons of prehistoric man have been found and examined for years. Through radio carbon dating and argon dating these fossils can be traced by thousands and even millions of years. The estimated date of most ancient skeletons can be dated on a family tree, which coincides with brain growth. Thanks to paleoneurology, molds can be made from old skulls, making an artificial copy of the brain, which allows these modified neurologists to determine some of the capabilities of ancient humans. Also, the way that the spinal cord reaches the brain can indicate whether or not prehistoric skeletons were creatures that stood upright or used there hands with walking, such as present primates. Also, pelvic structure can determine whether or not these old skeletons were bipedal, and to what extent. With ancient creatures having the ability of walking upright and having human characteristics, the scientific community as always was intrigued to investigate. These are just a few examples in the scientific world. With the development of technology and growing understanding of science the evidence is mounting up.
If there is enough evidence to prove that the study of evolution (or more appropriately paleontology, archeology, biology, anthropology, paleoneurology, chemistry, and so forth) is much more extensive then just apes and humans, why should evolution be kept out of schools? Some say yes. Because there are still scientists that truly believe that evolution, which is accepted by most of the scientific world, still is not a fact and just a theory, which somehow is not convincing enough to be accepted. The groups that oppose evolution being taught are they are mostly creationists or ID groups. ID groups and creationists, whether scientists or not, that actively oppose evolution in schools tend to share the same view and come from religious backgrounds. For example, the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Albert Mohler stated,
Personally, I am a young-Earth creationist. I believe the Bible is adequately clear about how God created the world, and that its most natural reading points to a six-day creation that included not just the animal and plant species but the earth itself. But there have always been Evangelicals who asserted that it might have taken longer. What they should not be asserting is the idea of God's having set the rules for evolution and then stepped back. And even less so, the model held by much of the scientific academy: of evolution as the result of a random process of mutation and selection. (Van Biema, 2005, p. 34)
It ’ s no wonder why someone might be opposed to evolution with a view such as this. But even still does that mean that evolution shouldn ’ t be taught in schools?
Is it legal to ban evolution from schools at all? The court cases are piling up. According to Scott, the earliest court cases stared in 1925 with the conviction of John T. Scopes for teaching evolution. Evolution was kept out of textbooks for over thirty years. It wasn ’ t until after 1957 that evolution started to be printed in biological books. In 1968 in Eppson v. Arkansas the Supreme Court made it illegal for any state to ban evolution from being taught. The reasoning by Justice Abe Fortas was based on the First Amendment to the Constitution: " Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. " (Scott, 1996, P. 21b)
Today opposition to evolution in schools is still rampant. Creationists and ID groups still try over and over again to keep evolution out of the school systems. Despite the court cases and recent victories for the science of evolution, some still are persistent in arguing the case that evolution is nothing more than a theory. Despite any religious repercussions, should the constitution be ignored? If the Constitution of the United States can be ignored then maybe there is a problem with the court systems. The debate may ultimately take time and further advancement of scientific technology before it is over. Overall, the final questions remain. Should evolution (science) be taught in school? And, is evolution just a theory or a science of facts and discoveries?
References
Ruse, Michael (2006). Darwinism and Its Discontents. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Ennis, Michael. (April 2005). Dissing Darwin: as Texas grapples with the future of
biotech, our long-standing hostility toward one of modern science's founding fathers is about to cost us plenty.(Charles Darwin). In Texas Monthly, 33, p64(3). Retrieved April 09, 2007, from Academic OneFile via Thomson Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com/ips/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-
Scott, Eugenie C. (Jan-Feb 1996). Monkey business.(Cover Story). In The
Sciences
, 36, p20(6). Retrieved April 09, 2007, from
Academic OneFile via Thomson Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com/ips/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-
Archaeologyinfo.com. (1999-2006). Human Ancestry: Hominidae: Species overview.
Retrieved March 14, 2007, from http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/evolution.htm
Begley, Sharon. (2007, March 19). Beyond Stones & Bones. Newsweek, 53-58
