Creation vs Evolution

In the Classroom and Beyond…

Since the advent of Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection in the nineteenth century, there has been a growing debate over the seemingly inexplicable presence of humans in the universe. On the one hand, anthropologists espouse the view that humans are part of a long-standing tree of life that traces far back through an increasingly common ancestry. On the other hand, there is a theological assumption that proposes the idea that humans were divinely created a short time ago as unchanging beings. As part of this political controversy, both sides are currently advocating that their views be taught in public school, making this one of the most important conflicts in the modern world.

According to Ian Marshall and Danah Zohar — professors at Oxford Brookes University, “There is as of yet no firm scientific explanation for why we are here” (44). Of course, the debate in mention is actually more concerned with how we got here than what we are actually supposed to be doing here. In line with this Charles Francis Hockett wrote the following:

“To speak of man’s place in nature is to assert that we human beings are in and part of the natural order. Any study or discussion of nature that ignores man’s presence is necessarily incomplete. Likewise, any discussion of human affairs that pretends that man is not part of nature and subject to all the “laws of nature” (whatever they may be) is founded on fantasy” (2).

To address this, academics often call upon what is known as the anthropic principle, in a weak attempt to account for the almost paradoxical existence of humans. This general assumption is derived from a set of notions concerned with the presence of Homo sapiens in the world. The Encyclopedia of Cosmology explains this in the following way:

“The anthropic principle is motivated by a desire to explain the fact that minor alterations of basic features of the world — conditions in the very early universe, the values of physical constants, strengths of the fundamental forces, and the masses and charges of subatomic particles, for example — would have rendered the universe unsuitable for human habitation. The alterations in question are in some cases remarkably slight. For example, an increase in the early expansion rate of the universe by one part in a million would have meant that no galaxies would have formed. An increase in the strength of the gravitational force by a similar amount would have ensured that stellar lifetimes would be too short for the biological evolution of intelligent species to occur. These scenarios, and many others, illustrate the claim that the physical requirements of human life are just barely met, and that the universe seems remarkably fine tuned to our needs — so remarkably, in fact, that the probability of getting a life supporting universe out of all the possibilities is arguably zero” (12).

The problem with this sort of reasoning is that it is just as valid an argument for the creationists as it is for the evolutionists. The notion immediately begs the question of intelligent design, thus making it useful to both sides of the argument. After all, one must wonder how everything just so happens to sufficiently fulfill the necessary conditions of advanced life in a universe of chance.

Examples such as this clearly illustrate that it is necessary to consider the facts and not worry too much about the philosophy entailed with this, lest the argument become arbitrary and no longer falsifiable. To understand what this means it is important to realize that there is nothing in the fossil record that would presently indicate that the morphology of Homo sapiens is any older than a few hundred thousand years, and that’s a very liberal estimate. In addition to this, there is a growing body of evidence that would seem to suggest that humans evolved from less sophisticated animals that range back through millions of years of deep time. So, the question for creationist comes about when trying to account for the proof that there were ancient tool using bipeds in the distant past, despite the claim that modern humans are uniquely suited for this. And being unable to rectify this fact, creationists place themselves in a position of ignorance by rejecting the fossil evidence at hand through an intentional use of omission.

In sharp contrast, anthropologists have found it necessary to develop the term hominid to refer to any member of the primate family Hominidae, which includes all of the modern and fossil humans in the genus Homo. According to Professor Richard Klein:

“In modern biological classification, the range of species within genera and higher taxa is supposed to reflect their evolutionary relationships, such that species placed in the same higher-level taxon share a closer (more recent) common ancestor than ones placed in other taxa at the same level. Thus, the inclusion of modern people, Homo sapiens, and the (extinct) ‘robust’ australopithecine, Australopithecus robustus, in the family Hominidae reflects the belief that they share a more recent common ancestor than either does with the orangutan, Pongo pygmaeus, which is placed in a separate family, the Pongidae” (42).

Another useful taxonomic example of this kind of kinship is seen in the fact that chimpanzees share nearly identical genetic makeup with humans, indicating that these animals are the closest living relative and common ancestor of everyone alive today. This is in complete agreement with the evolutionist side of the argument, while it seems to contradict the creationist notion that humans are not animals.

To further complicate matters, along with the practice of evasion, another convenient hegemonic tactic employed by the creationists is the use of loaded words. As an example, in a misguided attempt to prove their argument, many advocates of creationism make use of the word “theory” connotatively in conjunction with the discussion of evolution, in an attempt to indicate that the concept is nothing more than an idea. The problem with this is that these individuals rarely, if ever, refer to the theory of electricity or the theory of oncology because they find these things useful in their everyday lives. However when it suits their needs, many creationists are quick to say “theory” when it pertains to something they find controversial — like the adaptation of organisms to their environment.

Since this debate centers on whether or not something should be mandatory curriculum, it would seem that creationism is inaccurate and inappropriate. Based on the complete lack of proof in common use of unsound logic by the proponents, and the abundant genetic and archaeological evidence of the evolutionists, it seems to be unnecessary if not unethical to teach the former along side, or worse yet in place of, the latter. Truth be told, it all boils down to the use of science and the methods thereof.

The creationists already have an established assumption concerning the origin of humans, so it is impossible for them to draw conclusions based on new evidence, let alone accept the evidence at hand. In sharp contrast with this, evolutionists are mainly provisional to enable them to refine their understanding of humanity. The former, being rigidly dogmatic, is highly unscientific, while the latter has actually been forged by science itself making it increasingly more accurate as time goes on, unlike the alternative. As such, there seems to be absolutely no logical reason that creationism should ever find its way into an accredited classroom, save for mythology, but definitely not biology or any of the other sciences.

There’s simply nothing in nature that would sufficiently indicate the creationist notions about humanity are valid enough to be of any benefit in the field of education and the subsequent paradigms that inevitably shape the world view as a result. The fact is that it would be irresponsible for teachers to advocate something that cannot be shown to be true, no matter what reason they might choose to justify their deviant counterproductive behavior. Nothing noble can ever come from knowingly misleading others — especially the impressionable youth!

SOURCE CITATIONS:

Hetherington, Norriss S., ed. Encyclopedia of Cosmology: Historical, Philosophical, and Scientific Foundations of Modern Cosmology. New York: Garland, 1993.

Hockett, Charles F. Man’s Place in Nature. New York: McGraw Hill, 1973.

Klein, Richard G. The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1989.

Marshall, Ian and Danah Zohar. Who’s Afraid of Schrodinger’s Cat?. New York: William Morrow, 1997.