Blogs

With the human species in a full dominance swing over the world, is the world due for a mass extinction?  At the end of the Cretaceous period, 65 million years ago, an event occurred that would forever change organisms’ interactions amidst the earth’s biota.  For 160 million years, the dinosaurs played the same role that humans are staring in on the present earth.  The question is, when will this reign terminate?

The dinosaurs had 160 million years to completely diversify into over 330 species, and while the animal kingdom was able to radiate into thousands of different species, the one species that has taken control of nearly every ecosystem on this earth is the Homo sapiens.  The anatomically modern human has only been roaming the earth for 200,000 years.  Humans are so homogeneous that they all fit into one species that has very little variation at the chromosomal level.  Therefore, while allegedly, the intensely disparate dinosaurs needed an enormous asteroid to crash into the earth at the Yucatan Peninsula to inevitably end their reign over the earth’s ecosystems, what would need to happen for the same result to happen to an exceptionally homogenous group, whose parasitic relationships have affected every organism on this planet?

Since its acceptance as the leading scientific theory of the origin of man, Darwinism (evolution) has been at odds with Creationism. Over the last century, American schools have gone back and forth between teaching one of the two theories, and at times even taught both. While Darwinism, in 1987, won a decisive battle with a supreme court ruling that outlawed the teaching of Creationism in public schools (it was ruled as a violation of the first amendment), in the last decade, non-Darwinist theories have been gaining support (1). Many argue that there are significant “gaps” in the theory of evolution that other competing theories, such as intelligent design, can explain. They feel that such theories should be taught in high school biology courses.

                  Education is the process of providing all facets of knowledge to students as a means of stimulating mental growth.  As such, it should not be an educator’s job to tell students what to think, rather, to encourage them to think and develop their own theories based on all of the presented information.  An example of a controversial subject with more than one possible theory of explanation is the origins of humans and the universe, of which the two most accepted explanations are creationism and evolution.  Although one of these explanations could be potentially less wrong than the other, as seen through many ongoing debates among science educators, religious leaders, parents, and school and government officials, both are still the most prevalent explanations for the story, and as such, should be taught in schools today.  And although I personally believe that the theory and observations explaining evolution are less wrong than those presented in favor of creationism, both should still be taught, as those who believe in creationism have their own evidence and belief in their version of the origin of human beings and life.  Thus, both evolution and creationism should and must be taught in the curriculum, provided that both the evidence supporting and disproving both theories are equally presented and left for the individual interpretations of the students.  In addition, all schools, regardless of their religious affiliations or their public or private nature should teach both topics in the classrooms, as both explanations should be presented and left for the students to interpret and understand.
                   In his book “What Evolution Is”, Ernst Mayr describes the modern thinking of human beings as being profoundly affected by evolutionary thinking, despite the fact that many still follow the creationist view.  As Mayr states, “I do not expect to convert this kind of reader [ creationist] but I want to show him or her how powerful the evidence is that induces the evolutionary biologists to disagree with the account presented in Genesis.”  According to Mayr, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting evolution, such as: the fossil record, branching evolution and common descent (homologous and analogous structures), the study of embryology, vestigial structures, and the study of biogeography and molecular evidence, among others.  The aforementioned evidence is largely accredited to Charles Darwin, author of “On the Origin of Species,” which lays the foundations for the study of evolution today.  Darwin’s theory of common descent proposes that all groups of organisms have derived from an ancestral group, postulating that the progression of the simplest prokaryotic cells to more complex eukaryotes and more multicellular organisms is due to the phenomenon of evolution. 
                    On the other hand, creationists, including Christians, believe in the literal truth of the creation stories that are found in the book of Genesis in the Hebrew Scriptures, (3).  If creationists don’t refer to the book of Genesis, then the most popular alternative is to say they believe in “intelligent design” from a force that is commonly accepted to be God, for man was created in the image of God, and all of life itself was created by God (2). Some specific beliefs that fall under creationism are things like determinism, for “whatever human actions or decisions seem to indicate the operation of a free will, or a freedom of choice, can be shown, on closer inspection and analysis, to be based on unconscious determinism,” (4).  In other words, under creationism, things like free-will, determinism and essentialism do not exist.  Nevertheless, as stated above, all of creationism is merely based on the book of Genesis, which clearly does not surpass the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution. 
                      To refute the aforementioned ideas of creationism, Darwin developed new theories and concepts, such as population thinking, natural selection, chance, and the history in relation to time.  Darwin replaced essentialism with population thinking, explaining that species are composed of variable populations and individuals or organisms within each population are also variable in their nature.  Overall, populations change gradually through constant variations. Darwin was also able to refute the idea of determinism by explaining how the universe is ever evolving, over time.  Furthermore, his theory of Natural Selection revolutionized evolution by explaining that the available resources on earth are limited, creating competition, from which those individuals who are best equipped to adapt to their environments will survive and pass on their genes to their offspring.   Leading on this theory, evidence from the study of genes has also shown and explained the variation among human beings, as recombination has evolutionary importance for sexual reproduction.
                       Overall, educating students on the tenets behind these two theories is significant for it forces them to think critically about subject matter to formulate their own hypotheses and beliefs.  While I believe the story of creationism should still be taught, it has more or less stayed the same since its origins and does not have enough supporting evidence.  The theory of evolution, however, has itself evolved since its origins with Darwin, causing it to constantly generate new questions, theories and observations in addition to its already well established set of evidence.  Nevertheless, the aforementioned theories are still the most popular and accepted in today’s culture, and so therefore, they must be taught in the educational system. Furthermore, perhaps the only distinction that needs to be made is the time allotted to the study of each topic; because evolution has more evidence and subject-matter to cover than creationism, it should be more strongly emphasized in schools. While many other possible theories may exist, not all can be taught in schools, most importantly for the sake of time, and also because they may lack the practical applications that we see with evolution and creationist views in life today.  For example, we use evolutionary theories and thinking in our everyday life, like with the study of antibiotic resistance by pathogens, pesticide resistance in crops, controlling disease vectors, human epidemics, producing new crops with evolutionary genetics, and much more.  Evolutionary studies have also enriched the sciences in areas of developmental biology, the study of the human mind and consciousness, behavioral studies and so on.  Therefore, the study of evolution is a crucial and integral part of adolescent education.  Creationism has also been essential to life today, as it has given many individuals some values and foundations upon which they live their lives, a sense of spirituality, and an overall sense of richness of humanity.  It is a means of uniting people together under one cause and belief, and strengthens the sense of identity and culture in individuals.
                       Unfortunately, however, the aforementioned conflicts are calling for more evaluation of the separation of church and state, a long-standing issue of historical politics.  By making this a political issue, we may lose sight of the wonderful level of human curiosity (and the many possibilities of varying explanations for life’s phenomenon) and may fall prey to indoctrinating our students on certain concepts alone, especially at such a young age.  If only certain principles were taught, so as to make students integrated into particular cultures and society, we would lose the flavor and creativity that comes with having a diversity of viewpoints and beliefs.  Also, why exhaust ourselves in engaging in this cultural war pitting the conventional sciences against the evangelical faiths?  The ramifications of the dispute on education are remarkable and can be foreseen as causing many conflicts in the future.  Perhaps the future generations will develop a universal system of education, having reached a middle-ground in order to deal with such differences among educational systems.  Teaching students to be aware of all possible theories, time-effectively, will not only make them more educated, sophisticated and intellectual, but will help them make their own decisions and stimulate their own personal mental growth as well-rounded citizens.  Therefore, all schools should teach these same core theories of evolution and creativity so that all students have the same basic knowledge on the principle issues of interest among our nation, and as the US becomes a larger melting pot, these types of questions involving faith and religion will undoubtedly be broached in the near future.

The simplistic gives rise to the complex, which in turn gives rise to the simplistic, which then gives rise to the complex again, etc. This is something that will never change; the simple and complex are codependent—one cannot exist without the other. However, the forms of the simple and complex change with each cycle. They can never be exactly the same twice; however, they can manifest similar forms in the future which can also be defined as simple and complex. Everything which we are and will be is constantly changing based on time and influence, but to our minds and as a part of this cycle we perceive the cycle as linear and never changing because we do not wish to see before or beyond what we are. Even the smallest thing in our existence influences something in us and creates change. Change is inevitable but it comes in forms which are different each time.

      It’s my conviction that man has and will always search for the one ‘true’ answer to life’s most pressing questions, “How did we get here?”  The question posed seeks to answer how modern day Homo sapiens came to be corporeal and how his/her outlying environment has shaped and impacted the species.  In Ernst Mayr’s book This Is Evolution, we are presented with various answers to this question but only one solution, Darwinism (the “fact” that evolution and natural selection allowed Homo sapiens to exist and flourish in the Earth’s ecosystem) (Mayr 2001, 275).  However, biology and the story of how man came into existence cannot be viewed in such a concrete manner.  We must constantly redefine what we know to be ‘fact’ by new observations, observations that may remold and redefine what we believe to be true. Therefore, it should be understood that as stories change, so do their meanings.  It is by these standards that we come to discover that stories must be understood as fiction, not fact.
 In the 1970’s, some time before Ernst Mawr published his take on the story of evolution, he published an article in the journal Systematic Zoology.  In this article, Mayr discusses biological terms, specifically their “Origin and History”.  For our purpose, it behooves us to look at the terms as metaphors of sorts for the way we should view evolution itself.  Mayr opens his article by stating “the most important aspect of the history of biology is neither the discovery of new facts nor the establishment of new laws, but the development of new concepts and the maturation or revision of existing concepts” (Mayr 1973, 83).  About terms specifically Mayr can be quoted saying, “once a term has been given, it tends to hang on tenaciously even when its underlying meaning is changing radically” (Mayr 1973, 84).  If we look at terms in relation to the concept of evolution and how man came into being, we may similarly note that the more observations we make about our past and the past of other species on Earth, the more the meaning or story of evolution changes (whether or not the change is ‘radical’). 
 It’s interesting that in this article Mayr toys with the notion that meanings sometimes aren’t fixed, but when it comes to his later stance on the story of evolution, he believes there to be one fixed manner by which evolution has occurred.  In order to understand why Mayr may be wrong in his rather authoritative and assumptive stance, we must go back to the basics and understand the fundamentals or principles on which biology relies.  One author states that to be a biologist “is to seek for, to search for the innermost and the uttermost of nature’s secrets, the nature of life itself” (Glass 1957, 9).  He continues, additionally noting, “It is the essence of the scientific mind not only to be curious but likewise to be skeptical and critical---to maintain suspended judgment until the facts are in, to be willing always, in the light of fresh knowledge, to change one’s conclusions.  Not even the ‘laws’ of science are irrevocable. They are mere summaries of observed phenomena, ever subject to revision.  And it is the essence of the scientific method to rely only upon observations” (Glass 1957, 13).  It would be irrational to claim that Mayr, by these standards is neither a scientist nor a biologist, but it seems rather that he does not adhere to such principles (principles that were established prior to the publication of either of his previously mentioned texts in the late 1950’s).  Mayr’s take on the process of evolution is clearly biased towards Darwinism, indirectly creating a dogma out of it.  Though he admits that evolutionary theories can eventually be rejected, he sees no need to explore any manner by which Darwinism can or could possibly be falsified.  Additionally, going back to the notion of relying on observations instead of facts, Mayr focuses solely on what he believes to be concrete facts or “mountains of evidence” for evolution; implying that it is the only version of the story and that is the ‘truth’ (Mayr 2001, 264, 275).
 To imply that there is one truth impedes upon our learning and being taught new concepts and notions.  We cannot proceed in the world of science or in the world itself without questioning it to some degree, despite what authorities before us have said.  We should be taught “To see a problem unfold, to see progress impeded by traditional ways of thought, to learn that scientists make mistakes as well as achieve success, to observe what experiments brought illumination, and why…to observe how frequently the truth of today is synthesis of opposing counterviews and countertheories held in their time to be irreconcilable” (Glass 1957, 13).  These teachings help us to “damn forever the legions of biology textbooks which serve up to hapless students a crystallized, anonymous biology seeming to have descended perfect, like the divine city out of heaven” (Glass 1957, 13). In his book What Is Evolution, Mayr is essentially serving his readers or students if you will, a ‘crystallized’ and ‘perfect’ answer to how evolution occurred and how man was made.
 After we come to the realization that Mayr is telling a story we must come to an understanding that no two people have the ability to tell the same exact story.  By default, every story is fiction because every story has room to be improved or modified.  By implying that a story is true, there is no room granted for error or falsities.  Mayr implies that Darwinism is the only explanation for evolution and in turn it is the only way to explain how we essentially became who we are.  The story is not a closed book, for man is still in existence and is perpetually changing.  We make new observations everyday that fall into our understanding of who we are, whether it is in a biological sense or not.  To conclude that evolution is a fact rather than a series of observations is to imply that our definition and the meaning of evolution cannot change---when change seems to be, and has always been, inevitable.

Megan Smith

Evolution

Professor Dalke

February 16, 2007

Evolution and Creationism: Separate Similar Searches

           The debate between advocates of intelligent design and Darwinian evolution is one that not only permeates modern legal arenas, but also reflects an underlying dispute about the nature of science, and the innate appeal certain scientific stories over others.  Randomness is at the heart of biological evolution.  It is integral to natural selection and genetic mutation, two of the cornerstones of the modern understanding of the evolutionary process.  While the bulk of scientific observations seem to support such randomness, many people find it unnerving and even improbable.  In an article in the New York Times in 2005, Christopher Schönborn articulated a position held by many people both inside and outside the scientific community, "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science” (“Science as a Story”).  This stance on the evolutionary process has come to be recognized as “intelligent design,” a subtle mixture of Darwin and religion.  It is compelling that both explanations seem to provide security to some and anxiety to others.  While many are reassured by the “hard facts” that support biological evolution, others see this enforced randomness as lacking in meaning and thus undermining human purpose.  Conversely, the supernatural beginnings of intelligent design provide security through order, while causing some people to question its narrow view of human potential and attending religious connotations.

Recapitulation: Evidence For or Against Evolution?

The idea that embryos of different organisms look similar is not foreign. Anyone in an introductory biology, anatomy, or embryology class knows that chicken embryos are almost identical to the embryos of humans. Embryological development in different organisms diverges from other organisms at different stages in correlation with the complexity of the organisms. For example, human embryos and rabbit embryos diverge at a later time in development than the embryos of humans and fish. This idea was first described by K. E. von Baer (1792-1876) in his biogenetic law that stated that earlier stages of embryonic development of higher organisms resemble those organisms lower on the scale of nature (Pittendrigh 352). It was Ernst Heinrich Haeckel (1834-1919) who coined the phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” adapting von Baer’s ideas of the scale of nature to that of evolution. “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” was a commonly used phrase to explain the evidence supporting evolution. Ontogeny is “the complete developmental history of the individual organism,” and phylogeny is defined as “the complete evolutionary history of a group of organisms,” (Villee 697, 699). Thus, this phase means that the evolutionary history of a group of organisms is repeated during the developmental history of an individual organism of that group. This idea is also known as recapitulation. Recapitulation is a disputed topic used by pro-evolutionists as evidence for evolution and as against by the opposition. The story behind evolution and recapitulation is not as black and white as these suggest. I believe there is a middle ground in which recapitulation neither proves nor refutes evolution.

Shannon McPherson

Evolution Paper 1

February 16, 2007

Throughout this course we have repeatedly made note of the great importance of storytelling in science. Scientific stories are constantly changing, undergoing perpetual revision as new observations are made over time. The inconstancy of such scientific stories, however, can weaken reception to science, as vast uncertainties are naturally unsettling, and many people thus prefer to believe stories based in squarely in religious faith. The current story of biological evolution has still not convinced even half of the American population, almost 100 years after Darwin first introduced his theory in The Origin of Species1. This is a somewhat difficult fact to grapple with, as so much physical evidence backs the theory of biological evolution that it would seem somewhat foolish to dismiss it outright, and yet evolution remains an incredibly controversial issue. Although I personally put much stock in evolutionary theory, I am hesitant to label creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design as backwards, ignorant or delusional as some evolutionists are wont to do. Rather, I find their dependence on the Bible and on a historical world view based entirely within a religious context to be quite natural, in the sense that the biblical story of creation has been around for thousands of years, and is a static story, not plagued with change and uncertainty like the scientific story of biological evolution. Additionally, I feel that biological evolution is often grossly misrepresented in the mainstream by those advancing creationist perspectives. Biological evolutionary theory, therefore, is damaged by comforting and effective religious storytelling, Storytelling, therefore, is an incredibly crucial component in the tension between evolutionary and creationist world views.