Evolution and Creationism. Evolution Is Usually Held

¶ … evolution and creationism. Evolution is usually held responsible for inducing immorality among its followers. This paper discusses the impact of believing in evolution on the behavior of student by describing both the evolutionary theory and its various effects.

EVOLUTION AND STUDENT BEHAVIOR

It is the belief about an individual's origins that sparks a debate evolution and creation. This is because not only does the belief about origins (and the consequent debate) stir controversy but it also has serious implications. These implications are substantial in consequence because they relate to issues such as ethics, morals, truth, values, and a number of actions.

EVOLUTION OR CREATION

Belief about origins has two conflicting branches. These are creation and evolution. The theory of evolution claims that "all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form" (Kerkut, 1960). Since it is a widely-accepted phenomenon that beliefs have considerable impact on an individual's actions (Gardner, 1988 and Erickson, 1992), it is important that an individual's beliefs be correct and healthy. A belief in evolution, on the other hand, rules out the possibility of a Divine Creator by the very nature of its definition. This is because evolution is considered a naturalistic process (Simpson, 1960 & Simpson et.al, 1957). A belief in such a process creates an unhealthy individual and an equally unhealthy society. This is primarily because as evolutionists claim "there is no higher purpose in life" (Dawkins, 1989). This translates into a belief that since there is no higher purpose and no Supreme Being, "anything goes." Hence a "human society based simply on the gene's law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live" (Dawkins, 1989). This is derived from the implications that a belief in evolution can have on an individual's ethics.

Evolution and Ethics

Ethics is that yardstick or a code of conduct that measures the inherent nature of an action to determine whether it is right or wrong. If the theory of evolution is correct, an individual creates an environment where just about anything is allowed in the absence of a Supreme Being to monitor. As Sartre states, "everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself.... Nor, on the other hand, if God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimize our behavior" (1961; 485). As a result, there are no methods of reaching an adequate conclusion regarding an ethical code of conduct. This leads to a society where, for lack of guidance of a fixed code, an individual does as he pleases in order to serve his own ends without any regard for ethical conduct. This in turn leads to an immoral character.

Evolution and Morality

Morality can be defined as an individual's character being in accordance with the principles or code of ethical conduct. Since "discovery that the universe apart from man or before his coming lacks and lacked any purpose or plan has the inevitable corollary that the workings of the universe cannot provide any automatic, universal, eternal, or absolute ethical criteria of right and wrong," morals cannot be determined (Simpson, 1951; 180). This is because belief in evolution states that man is only an animal that possesses a mind as low as a dog or a lion. Since an animal cannot be expected to abide by ethical conduct, man also cannot be expected to "draw such grand conclusions" as whether his actions are right or wrong (Darwin, 1889, 1:282).

If there is no inherent higher purpose to existence of Universe, then there is no purpose to morality or ethics. As a result, morality becomes an exercise in relativity where actions of an individual could only be judged by the situation and not an absolute standard. Hence an individual, who does not believe in an absolute standard, would aim to maximize personal benefit or pleasure and minimize pain out of any action.

Evolution and the Value of Human Life

The theory of evolution that man is just another animal in the line of living forms, attaches the same value to a man's life as the value that is attached to an animal. As a result, in presence of evolutionary claims, there is no rule that could regard a man's life as more important than an animal's and therefore worth treating any differently. Such a belief tends to lead, inevitably to unethical code of conduct. For instance, in January, 1973, the United States Supreme Court, in a 7-to-2 vote, decided that the human embryo growing within the human womb cannot be defined as "human" and as a result, it can be subjected to any kind of maltreatment. According to Darwin, an evolutionist, since the weaker members of society are unfit and, by the laws of nature, cannot survive, a baby growing in the womb cannot survive either unless helped by a stronger being. Unless the mother, a stronger being, is bound by a moral code, she will not help a baby grow. This will, in the long run, inevitably lead to extinction of human race. This goes to show the extent to which an individual's beliefs can affect his actions. In the present-day United States, it is more evident than before where students kill each other in extreme forms of violence, resultant of the value they attach to human life. Therefore it is feared that students studying the theory of evolution in their biology classes are as vulnerable to immoral conduct as their elders who have come to believe in evolution through other means.

CO-EXISTENCE OF EVOLUTION AND RELIGION/MORALITY

The religious faiths provide one theory for human origin. The religious theory claims that man was created by God, a Supreme Being. The human race has therefore descended from Adam, who was created from dirt and God's breath. This is known as Creationism. On the other hand, evolutionary theory claims that human race has evolved from monkeys which came from bacteria, which in turn were a product of non-living chemicals and lightning. Both of these theories however have credibility. This is because the theory of Creationism has been derived from the Bible which is one of the oldest and most extensive historical documents that the human race possesses which has also been recorded with great precision, while evolutionary theory is logical and builds on numerous scientific disciplines. However it cannot be ignored that creation and evolution appear to rest at opposite ends. If the human race was a random creation without any purpose, as evolution suggests, then the creationist account of a Supreme Being molding a human body out of His hands appears incongruous. As a result, scientists often label the Genesis account a "myth." Such a labeling has always offended people of religion who turn to attack the scientific claims of evolution. However it can be demonstrated that both the theories can co-exist and that the dichotomy between the two is false. Though scientists claim that existence of God is not a scientific phenomenon, there is considerable evidence in nature that points towards His existence. One argument for existence of a creator is that everything in nature is balanced so precisely for this universe to function perfectly to facilitate the existence of human race that the laws in the universe actually point towards producing man. Now if man has been the goal, someone should be preceding this goal. This argument is seen in the Anthropic Principle first described by Brandon Carter, an astrophysicist and cosmologist from Cambridge University. This principle states that the basic constants of chemistry and physics in the world are the precise values needed for life to exist (Carter, 1974). For example, gravity is 10^39 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity was just 10^33 times weaker, then the composition and characteristics of stars would be drastically different to the point of being problematic to life (Taylor). In addition, the difference between protons and neutrons is approximately twice the mass of an electron. If this was not the case, then protons would have become neutrons and vice versa, distorting chemistry and life (Taylor).

Another argument for existence of God is the argument that evolution does not disprove God. Though all species may have evolved from a common ancestor that itself did not evolve from a living form, it was perhaps a Supreme Being who set up the laws of nature to govern this process. This is evident in the theories that some scientists hold that states that there is a guiding force behind natural selection (Blackmore & Page, 1989). Therefore it can be stated that evolution and creationism can co-exist.

BELIEF IN EVOLUTION AND BEHAVIOR OF A STUDENT

Recently there has been a lot of debate regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools. This is because of the evidence (mentioned above) that has been gathered regarding the actions that are generated due to an individual's belief in evolution. It has been concluded, as a result, that belief in evolution affects the actions of children just as much as they affect an elder's. Erratic behavior in students is usually attributed to such beliefs especially when in absence of an absolute code of ethics; they choose to take a human life. The Kansas State Board of Education prohibited any reference to evolution from being made in state education (Ayala, 1995). The growing concern that surrounds the belief in evolution and the consequent actions has resulted in issuing disclaimer in Biology textbooks by the publishing companies which states that evolution is a "controversial theory that some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things such as plants, animals, and humans." This is done in order to avoid any responsibility for students' actions that may result from their belief in evolution. However such disclaimers create problems for Biology teachers. They believe that even before a class begins, students are led to believe that perhaps evolution is an immoral concept which is not accepted by a significant number of scientists as well (Dawkins, 1997). This makes it impossible for teachers to teach biology where students can study evolution in the scientific context. Such disclaimer, as teachers complain, are defining the word "theory" in laymen's terms, not scientifically, and evolution is described as "random" and "undirected." Teachers complain that students enter biology class with established misconceptions about evolution as it is where such disclaimers only serve to reinforce their misconceptions before evolution is allowed to be taught in a scientific context.

These misconceptions regarding evolution stem from various reasons, primarily from religious views. Children belonging to religious households are already grounded in the immorality of the evolutionary theory. As a result teachers avoid discussing the evolutionary theory in detail though it is necessary to cause a conceptual change for the study of evolution to be in its proper perspective. Not only do teachers avoid such a discussion on the grounds of conflicting nature of evolutionary theory but also for fear that parents of those students might come to school complaining their children are being taught immoral stuff. Therefore teachers themselves are forced not to teach evolutionary theory in its proper context in order to avoid confrontation with the students' parents. However this is major cause of concern among teachers and school administration alike since they believe that evolution "provides a unifying framework within which many diverse facts are integrated and explained" and therefore evolutionary theory must be allowed to be taught in its proper scientific context.

Although the concept of evolution has been existing for centuries, it was not accepted by scientists until Darwin came up with his theory of evolution with the mechanism of natural selection. Rudolph and Stewart point out that there are substantial similarities between the concepts held by children and historical scientific concepts. But they fear that there is no significant evidence to believe that students take the same route in understanding evolution as that of science. Teachers, therefore complain that students hold many misconceptions regarding role of natural selection in evolution which ought to be removed for progress in biological study. However this is not allowed for the fear of what a belief in evolutionary theory might lead children to. This is strongly opposed by teachers who feel that there are many misconceptions, both biological and moral regarding evolutionary theory.

Other than the scientific misconceptions in the theory regarding mutation and natural selection, there are visible clash between a student's religious theories and the evolutionary theory. As a result, though students do not argue against evolution, they do display nonverbal signs of anxiety and confusion. This is because students feel that evolution and religion stand at opposite ends, therefore evolution and religion cannot be accepted simultaneously. Moreover students do not want to and are rather opposed to the idea of modifying their personal views with respect to evolutionary theory. In order to avoid such a situation in classroom, teachers do not explain the evolutionary theory in an adequate manner but rather give a superficial overview of the topic.

In a study conducted by some scholars, the actual relationship between religious beliefs of students and their acceptance of evolutionary theory was determined. Students were given both a pre and post survey. The students who felt there were no conflict between their religious beliefs and evolutionary theory were determined to be at 12.5% through the pre-test. This number increased from 12.5% on the pre-test to 19.9% on the post-test. Moreover there was also a decrease from the pre-to post-test in the percentage of students who felt there was indeed a conflict between the two. Twenty-nine percent of students stated that evolutionary theory and their religious beliefs were at opposite ends, while 34.3% felt that there was some form of conflict between the two (Sinclair, 1997). The survey also contained the query: "Do you feel that a person can accept the validity of the theory of evolution and also believe in God?" A majority of seventy-four percent answered "yes" to this question on both the pre and post survey. Therefore it can be concluded that a large number of students accept the possibility of accommodating both theories into their belief system. However while agreeing that evolution and religion are not entirely contradictory, students appear to have problems accepting the possibility of human evolution. Therefore the study concluded that students' views of evolutionary theory are influenced by religious beliefs. This was concluded on the basis of the answers that students gave where those who rejected evolutionary theory cited opposing religious ideals as the basis (1997).