Creationism vs Evolution, an age old debate.

Abstract

When in the pursuit of providing a fair and efficient learning environment for children you must first tackle the possibilities of deception. Teach the facts, as we know them to be, and teach the methods in which we gained those facts s that children may carry on the questioning and investigation of ideas. It appears to be crucial that in order to evade possible deceptions that the teaching of science and religion should be handled sensitively. Teach the scientific facts of the times but also speak of the doubts that are held and the contradictory theories that exist. ’Teach the controversy’ as some say.

This essay focuses upon summarizing the Creationism vs. Evolution argument which has continued for many decades, and seeks to evaluate the ideas held on each side, see how over time these have evolved and adapted, and (if possible) reach a conclusion as to how science and religion should be approached within our schools.

……………………….

Introduction

The teaching of evolution in public schools has long been a controversial subject, and one that has been targeted primarily by anti-evolutionists. Similar to how anti-creationists targeted schools which teach the biblical creation story as a scientific fact.

The arguments between evolutionists and creationists have taken place within multiple countries across the globe, and this has over decades evolved both into, and out of numerous phases. One issue that arises when discussing the subject of evolution vs. creationism is that each side has become quite difficult to define. The creationist side has taken many forms, from the simple biblical literalist approach to the more complex creation science that includes such ideas as ‘irreducible biological complexity’. Contrary to this, the demands of the evolutionists appear to have taken numerous forms. The fundamental demand for evolution to be taught as scientific fact has been at the forefront of the evolutionist’ vision, however due to the rise of ‘New Atheism’ the confidence of the movement has differed from a timid proposal to a demand for educational reform.

Noah’s Ark! – When children could be learning the spine-tingling fact that Africa and South America were once joined, and have drawn apart at the speed with which fingernails grow. (Dawkins, 2007, p376)

New Atheism has certainly played a vital role in reinforcing the evolutionist corner, as these writers bring with them many followers. However some writers have attempted to find a common ground, one that unites faith with science. One such writer is Michael Ruse whose book Can a Darwinian be a Christian? Argued that you can both be a religious believer and a scientist.

Can a Darwinian be a Christian? Absolutely! Is it always easy for a Darwinian to be a Christian? No, but whoever said that the worthwhile things in life are easy? Is the Darwinian obliged to be a Christian? No, but try to be understanding of those who are. Is the Christian obliged to be a Darwinian? No, but realize how much you are going to foreswear if you don’t make the effort, and ask yourself seriously (if you reject all forms of evolutionism) whether you are using your God-given talents to the full. (Ruse, 2006, p217)

This significantly more liberal approach to the debate is one that shifted the aims of Creationists and Evolutionists, as it moved the focus from a grand victory for either science or faith, to establishing a fair and balanced education system. A balanced and fair approach to the teachings of these arguments is believed by some to be the key to promoting positive pedagogical values.

Summary of the debate

Creationism stems from the belief that ‘the entire universe and everything contained within was created by deity or deities’. Creationists generally take religious scripture (specifically those concerned with creation) and interpret them literally.

There is a long running debate within the Council of Europe primarily focusing on whether or not our schools should teach creationism in their science lessons, in particular alongside evolution.

Creation Science proponents argue that theirs is a legitimate scientific view, not merely a religious perspective, and that out of a sense of fairness; both ‘evolution science’ and ‘creation science’ should be presented. ‘Let the children decide’ has been the rallying cry of Young Earth Creationists for decades. (Scott, 2005, p212)

The teaching of two perspectives is certainly a fair way with which to resolve this conflict. However, do we not have a moral obligation to not only demonstrate the evidence but also explain the lack of evidence in many areas? And if little to no evidence is available, is it not both misleading and immoral to teach these ideas as part of a subject which focuses heavily upon empirical facts.

We now think of Charles Darwin as the man whose theories of evolution finally abolished the view of the creation set forth in the bible. To this day, so-called ‘creationism’ is taught in some American schools as an explanation for the world around us; but it has largely been replaced by evolutionary theory, which argues that humans and all other living creatures on earth developed over successive generations, acquiring over hundreds of thousands of years the characteristics that most aided the goals of survival and reproduction in their specific environments. In evolutionary theory, not only is the Bible wrong, but there is no need for God at the helm. (Winston, 2005, p384)

It would be unfair to say that creationism should be separated altogether from science as it would be somewhat ‘un-scientific’ to do so, as although there is little evidence to support this claim there is also gaps of knowledge which means it cannot be conclusively disproven.

Although numbers alone do not validate anything, you cannot help but award some merit to the incredible numbers of people who believe in creationism as it would be fair to assume that these people have though long and hard in regards to what they believe. And for people to still have faith means somewhere there must be something, just as some cannot bring themselves to believe in the religious ideas. There are many creationists who cannot bring themselves to believe in the scientific methods.

This is an issue within schools that has to be addressed and scrutinized in detail, as science lessons are reserved for what we see as factual information, and is also a place where the students are being taught what they are told is scientific fact.

We are seeing across the world a number of creationist schools which challenge the teaching of evolution and other scientific ideas as fact and, in place teach their own ideas in relation to the world, as they believe this to be a much more satisfying alternative. However this approach is one that lacks any fairness and is potentially damaging to students of science and religion. We do not merely have two sides that hold different opinions, but we have two sides that are to their extremes. This ‘all or nothing approach’ must be moved beyond if a constructive and fair system of education is to be created or even conceived of.

If there is a unifying conclusion it is that while the comparison of Darwinism and Christianity may be challenging and difficult, it is also stimulating and fruitful. I argue and I have argued that time and again what might seem to be firm barriers to the Darwinian and the Christian existing in one and the same person prove, on examination to be precisely the points where advances can be made and understanding can be achieved. (Ruse, 2006, p217-218)

This has not (on either side) offered any new arguments, it is merely a continuation of the old arguments which were at their peek within the last five years under the presidency of George W Bush, and has since been fiercely debated in America where there are many both for, and against the idea of teaching creationism alongside science.

One argument originating in America, which is said to contradict the evolutionist’ theories, originated from the research of Michael Behe who believes that organisms are of Irreducible biological complexity (IBC), which is the idea that all living organisms can and will only function in one way if anything was mutated or missing it would fail to live and/or fulfill its purpose.

Now this directly contradicts the theory of evolution which suggests we evolved into what we are now in gradual steps over millions of years, but IBC suggests that this cannot be as the organism would not have lived to evolve as it would have to be as it is now to have been able to have evolved originally. Therefore the organism must have been created in its entirety, now this cannot be chance so (they conclude) there must be a creator. This was however soon (to an extent) disproved as they found that you can break down an organism and it can function effectively, so this is why the debate continues.