Editor’s note: Feb. 12 is Charles Darwin’s birthday, and on that date the CVPost began a six-part series on the life of the British naturalist whose theory of evolution transformed scientific views of the natural world. This is final installment of the series written by Wil Taylor, chair of the biology department at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. As a paleontologist and educator, Taylor has a lifelong passion for the study of evolution. His study has taken him, among other places, to the Galapagos Islands and Darwin’s country estate at Downe, England.
By Wil Taylor
For the CVPost
Five hundred years ago, the idea that the Earth is in the center of the universe was widely held. There was even a system to accurately predict the positions of the planets. We figured that one out.
Two hundred years ago, most people (including scientists) thought every type of organism has been specifically created by a divine being and has not changed since the time of creation. This was called the “Doctrine of Special Creation.” Well, we figured that one out, too, due in no small part to the efforts and insights of Charles Darwin.
Today, in the popular press, evolution is considered controversial. Ask people who actually know something about the subject – especially scientists – and you will find no legitimate controversy. Living things are related by common ancestry. Period.
Why does this mismatch exist between popular understanding and the experts?
If you ask someone who believes that every single word in the Bible is literally true, it is virtually certain they will reject evolution. This vocal, well-funded minority of Americans has held center stage with the controversy loving media for the past 30 years or so.
Controversy = attention.
Attention = advertising dollars.
So those shouting loudest, and getting most of the attention, are driving this erroneous perception about the history of living things. And this misperception has spilled over into a high-stakes arena of public engagement – the public school system.
U.S. judicial system has spoken
In a pluralistic society like the United States, is there a way to mediate between factions who disagree about what should be taught in public schools? Of course there is. It’s called the judicial system.
Has the judicial system weighed in on the subject? It most certainly has, and the result is resounding.
In 1982, the Balanced Treatment Act in Arkansas requiring public schools in that state to treat as equals evolution and the oxymoronically named “Creation Science” was challenged in the case of McLean v. Arkansas.
Judge William Overton ruled that for a scientific theory to be taught in a public school as science, it must fulfill the following criteria:
1. It must be guided by natural law.
2. It must be explained by reference to natural law.
3. It must be testable against the empirical world (i.e., science).
4. Its conclusions must be tentative, that is to say they can be revised pending new discoveries.
5. It must be falsifiable.
Creation Science was judged as being none of these, thus it was not permitted to be taught in public schools. (For more information on this case, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas)
In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court took up the matter in a case that challenged a similar law from Louisiana. That case, Edwards v. Aguillard, ended with a similar judgment and invalidated the Louisiana law, stating that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The clear message was that the Louisiana law supported a specific religious faction and had no real secular value. (For more information on this case, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard)
And most recently, in 2004, the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was brought by science-minded community members in Dover, PA, challenging the teaching of “intelligent design” in their schools. While slightly more cleverly disguised, the concept of “intelligent design” is every bit as scientifically empty as creation science. (For more information on this case, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District)
Opposition to evolution religiously based
The common element in all of these cases is that organized opposition to evolution is limited to those who hold a narrowly specific religious position – certain fundamentalist protestant denominations – who argue that their particular religious views should be taught in all publicly funded schools.
Those who question evolution should consider who they are agreeing with when “deciding for themselves” about the subject.
A couple of final facts are worth noting:
First, if you are a Roman Catholic and object to evolution, you are out of step with the Holy Father. On Oct. 27, 2014, Pope Francis issued a statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that reads, in part, “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation.” The Pope’s statement further warns against thinking of God’s act of creation as “God [being] a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything.”
Second, shifts in public opinion have no impact on the way the natural world works. Put another way, as in the words of British novelist Aldous Huxley, the author of Brave New World, “Facts do not cease to be true because they are ignored.”
In summary, Darwin’s ideas are as valid and inspiring today as they were when first proposed. In the intervening 150 years we have acquired entirely new perspectives and data sets that are fully consistent with the view that all organisms are related by bonds of ancestry.
Stated another way – namely in the words of Ukrainian-born 20th century scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky, the author of Genetics and the Origin of Species – “Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution.”