Facts are Stubborn Thing
by Douglas O. Linder
It is hardly surprising that Darwin’s theory of evolution should meet with so much resistance. We encounter an idea that comforts us, an account like Genesis 1 that establishes our specialness, and ask: “Can I believe it?” We consider a thing that troubles us, a process like evolution that seems chance-driven and dethrones us from our special place in the universe, and ask instead: “Must I believe it?”
Evolution suggests that our species, if not quite an accident, is an extreme improbability — and, most likely, one whose time is limited — on life’s continuing and circuitous journey to an undetermined destination. Must we believe it? Darwin knew that many people, raised to believe in miracles or magic, would find his theory hard to swallow. In his autobiography, he noted that, as a young man on the H.M.S. Beagle, he had written in his journal of “the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion” that would “fill and elevate” his mind. He lamented that now, older and wiser, believing in evolution and disbelieving in God, even “the grandest scenes” evoked no powerful feelings: “I am like a man that has become color-blind.” Publishing his theory, he said, felt “like confessing a murder.”
When William Jennings Bryan took on evolution in a courtroom in Tennessee in 1925, in the famous Scopes “Monkey” trial, he acknowledged that he did not fully understand the theory of evolution, but said that he fully understood the theory’s dangers and misuse: how it threatened to leave students feeling lost in an uncaring universe, how it could lead to sterilization of the abnormal and diminished concern for the survival of the “unfit.” Bryan cheerfully ignored the evidence for evolution, explaining, “I would rather begin with God and reason down than begin with a piece of dirt and reason up.”
I believe in the theory evolution not because I want to, but because I feel I must, and because, unlike Bryan, I find it hard to reason in one direction or another. Creationists have offered one objection after another — “The immune system is too complex to have evolved,” “Evolution could never produce an eye, because what use is half an eye?” — and each has been answered. As the confirming fossil and DNA evidence piles up, as the theory of evolution reveals itself to be a powerful tool for both explaining the imperfections of species and accounting for transitional species, it becomes ever more difficult to believe in the pleasing creation stories told in Genesis and elsewhere. Facts, as John Adams reminded us, are stubborn things. Whether 20 years or 200 years from now, the accumulating evidence will become so overwhelming that evolution will be as accepted as the Sun-centered solar system is today. (No gloating allowed, scientists.)
Our challenge is to accept evolution while maintaining a sense of wonder, concern for those whose survival is beyond their own means, and a vision of a colorful and surprise-filled world.
(This essay appeared in the New York Times, 8/15/2013)
Intelligent Design Vs. Natural Selection Essay
Since the day that Charles Darwin imposed his theory of Evolution and therefore his idea of natural selections there has been a debate between the theory of evolution and the theory of creationism. The main part of the debate lays in the question: Where did we can from? What made or created the earth and all living thing around us? Was it an Intelligent Design by a God? Or simply was it evolution? I say the debate needed to end because it is harming science more than benefiting it. There must be a way that both sides can strongly agree on, and find a common grounds or even a better solution is to allow Intelligent Design to co-exist with the idea of natural selection. First we must under stand what both intelligent design and Natural selection are.
Intelligent design (ID) or the modern day theory of creationism is an anti-evolution belief that asserts that natural explanations of some biological entities are not possible and such entities can only be explained by intelligent causes. Intelligent design maintains that the belief is scientific and provides for the existence of God or super intelligent aliens. The argument from design used to prevail as an explanation of the natural world until of the Origin of Species was published in 1859.  It says that the universe and all living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. That means that everything round us is the cause of being created by a higher power; a God. It claims that intelligent design should be taught in the science classroom as an alternative to the science of evolution because "it is a science that avoidably impacts religion".  The arguments of the ID believers may seem like a repeat of the creationist arguments, but the defenders of ID claim that they do not reject evolution simply because it does not fit with their understanding. However, they present natural selection by saying that the universe could not have been designed or created, which is nonsense. To deny that God has the power to create living things using natural selection is to assert something unknowable. The natural world contains abundant evidence of a supernatural creator and it is impossible to say that all living organisms were derived from a single unicell bacterium, which over the years evolved to different species.
In order to further understand the dilemma between intelligent design and natural selection we need to further explore the idea of natural selection. Natural selection is the process by which occurs over successive generations. It is a selected trait in a species that is changed because it is significant to the species existence and it is the cause of evolution, a phenomena first discovered by Charles Darwin. In other words or as described in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia it is the "basic...
Loading: Checking Spelling0%