• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Evolution is Fact-Based, Religion is Faith

Posted on: Wednesday, 1 December 2004, 11:44 CST

Demonstrating the desperate need for science education in society today as well as in schools, the writer of a Nov. 16 letter to the editor ("ACLU allowing theory to evolve as fact") charged that evolution was theory, not fact.

From progressive morphological changes in the fossil record of some species to the evolving antibiotic resistance of bacteria, the evidence supporting evolution as fact is all around us. For example, we now know that birds are perhaps the closest living relatives to the dinosaurs based on their genetic similarities. Some Old World pythons have vestigial pelvises left over from when they had hind legs. Wings on birds, pectoral fins on fish, and the hands of primates are all homologous, similar structures, originating from a shared body plan.

For starters, one could read the November issue of National Geographic that revisits evolution, reaffirming its validity, and offering evidence aplenty.

Teaching evolution in the schools is based on solid, verified facts. Religion, on the other hand, relies on faith - a very subjective, unverifiable belief that often varies greatly across populations.

Who's lying to whom? Who is going to be the judge of which creation myth is true and which is not? It's not as if we actually had any credible proof supporting these varying myths.

Throughout history, religions have often greeted major advances in science and knowledge with condemnation and persecution. The latest bogeyman is embryonic stem cell research and "cloning," replacing the old standby, evolution. From Galileo to Copernicus to Darwin to any of the progressive "heretics" through time, fundamentalist religions from the East and the West have consistently resisted revelations from science that spoke to our origins or to our place in the cosmos.

As we uncover more and more about the Earth, the universe beyond and even ourselves, the foundations of religion fall away, exposing their root in the archaic fear and mystery of the unknown. That is why belief in anthropomorphized god(s) and afterlives will always be threatened by our ever-increasing knowledge of science.

Early myth centered on icons of nature; eventually, Middle Eastern polytheism coalesced into the monotheistic, Abrahamic religions we see today. The medieval Arab world escaped the ignorance of the Dark Ages, giving the world many advances in areas such as math and medicine, only to be eventually stifled by the fundamentalist mullahs in those societies.

Canonical literalism is patently false and has no place in any school other than one of religion. Evolution requires no faith to accept, only a free mind to rationally and fairly assess the mountain of evidence in its favor.

Preston Rogers

Memphis

Over the years I have seen multitudes of letters about evolution in The Commercial Appeal and other publications, letters insisting evolution is a theory, not a fact. Human knowledge is never absolute; like all of life it is in flux, always changing, and what may be viewed as scientific fact today may be obsolete tomorrow.

Because of this human condition there exists a concept of "state of the art," a concept that continues to be ignored in these many letters. "State of the art" essentially says that this is the way such-and-such is believed to be in the light of knowledge up to this date. The existence of God qualifies much more as theory than does evolution because evolution has far more facts supporting it than does the existence of God. In other words, evolution, the chronicle of change and the processes of change, is the best explanation to date for a variety of disparate phenomena, from the remarkable connections between dinosaurs and birds, from the human genome similarities to yeast, to the human chromosomal similarities to chimpanzees.

In these respects, evolution is no more a theory than, as a recent article in The Commercial Appeal pointed out, that Arkansas 3 million years ago was at the bottom of an ocean.

Walt R.R. Bailey

Memphis

Misconceptions about evolution are still being planted in the minds of the public through antievolution propaganda and rhetoric. Your Nov. 16 letter to the editor is a case in point.

The arguments, if they can be called that, are intended to discredit evolution. The entire purpose of such attacks on evolution is to keep the general public from noticing that the anti- evolutionists never attempt to propose their own scientifically valid theory. A common diversion tactic anti-evolutionists have used even before the Scopes Trial in 1925.

The theory of evolution is the most accurate explanation for life we see in the world today and is based on the research and experimentation from multiple lines of evidence in the fields such as paleontology, biogeography, embryology, population genetics, biochemistry and molecular biology. Findings by thousands of scientists for well over a century, all over the world confirm that evolution has occurred. For instance, mountains of evidence in many areas of evolutionary science point to the fact that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor.

Some anti-evolutionists, either through willful ignorance or use of fallacious arguments meant to deceive the ignorant, often ask: Can we see evolution in action? Can it be observed in the wild? Pick up any respectable peer-reviewed scientific journal and you will soon find out that the answer is a loud yes.

Another diversion tactic for the anti-evolutionists is to equate evolutionary theory with religion. Valid science is not a religion. Religion has to do with the supernatural, the service and worship of some god or deity. Religion also has to do with faith and the unseen and the untestable, infallible realm of belief. Evolution focuses on empirical evidence and testable knowledge. The science of evolutionary theory and religion are 180 degrees opposite of each other.

In the "Divine Comedy," Dante Alighieri said that humans are not made to live like brutes, but to seek virtue and knowledge. We help neither the search for virtue nor the search for knowledge by use of fallacious arguments.

Chris Stahl

Cordova

A recent letter made a common fallacy about the theory of evolution in writing about the Atlanta school book sticker case. This widely believed misconception holds that evolution should be taught with a disclaimer as it is "only a theory," not a fact.

The definition of a theory, in a scientific sense, is an explanation of how something works based on the evidence we have. In this sense, electricity is based on the theory of electromagnetism - we cannot see electrons but based on observation and testing we have deduced their existence and learned how they function. These theories are studied and confirmed to such a degree as to be considered fact by experts.

The truth is that the evidence supporting evolution and Darwin's theory of natural selection is overwhelming. America's schoolchildren need to understand this if we are to remain competitive globally in science and technology.

Another argument often made in this debate is that people who believe scientific theories to be true are exercising faith, and thus belief in the theory of evolution is a type of religion. But isn't faith, by definition, belief in something that cannot be proved scientifically? Belief in God can't be tested in a lab, but rather is characterized by inward knowledge that God exists. Science, on the other hand, is based exclusively on testable hypotheses, hardly what you would call true faith. Science just looks for facts we can see; the question of whether there is a Creator is a question for religion and philosophy. Let's keep this distinction straight in the classroom.

Cheryl Williams

Germantown

Separate classes for separate theories

I see where the teaching of evolution and creationism is again becoming a subject of controversy.

The argument for teaching an "intelligent design" is that it offers an alternative to the theory of evolution, and gives the students the freedom to choose. I agree with this, but rather than trying to teach both subjects in a biology class, why not offer a separate class on the story of creation. Of course, to keep the "separation of church and state" fanatics out of the classroom, you would have to teach the creation story of all primitive peoples, not just the Jewish/Muslim/ Christian one.

Tom Wheeler

Memphis

Is gay marriage 'greatest threat'?

Thank you for Wendi C. Thomas's insightful Nov. 23 column ("Think what mountains the churches could move") and Rev. C.B. Baker's moving response (Letters, Nov. 27).

Surely the 400 local churches who banded together on one special occasion to voice their opposition to gay marriage should be challenged to explain why they believe that this represents "the greatest threat facing America today" (to quote James Dobson, who is literally obsessed with the subject). A greater threat than that posed by violence, by poverty, by dishonesty, by war, by greed, by bigotry, by racism, by hubris - by man's inhumanity to man? Please.

Some Christians believe the Bible condemns homosexuality - but many biblical scholars disagree. In fact, much of the push to recognize committed relationships between homosexuals has come from within the Christian church.

Anyone who believes that opposition to gay marriage should be the number one priority for Christians today is basing this view on something other than Scripture. Jesus never mentions the subject and spends almost all of his time on Earth ministering to those who are rejected and mistreated by society while promoting peace and justice. If Jesus came back tomorrow, I believe that He would warmly welcome gays and lesbians to the fold - it is inconceivable that blocking the ability of gays and lesbians to form legal partnerships would be one of His priorities.

B. Keith English

Memphis

Source: Commercial Appeal, The

More News in this Category