Opponents Of Evolution

On August 2nd 2006, The New York Times published an article by the Associated Press entitled 'Evolution Opponents Lose Kansas Board Majority'. I recommend checking it out. It got me a little flustered so here are some thoughts I have on the debate.

The evolution debate concerns the four mechanisms of evolution: gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection & mutation. I always find this debate interesting. To quote Sir John Houghton,

One of the most important statements you can make as a scientist is: I don't know. One of the most important statements you — you should be prepared to make as a believer is: I don't know.

Biology cannot prove. Evolution can only be highly corroborated through repeatable research that can be observed by different individuals.

I ask all of those who believe that evolution is 'just a theory' to stop all contradictory behavior and discontinue their annual vaccines (to fight off newly mutated viruses). After all, many microevolutionary events turn into macroevolutionary events if given enough time (i.e. it took 6,000,000 years -- or > 300,000 generations of diverging populations -- for the differences observed today between chimpanzees and humans). And yet I still manage to share blood type with many chimpanzees and not with many humans! Anyways... there should be debate about evolution, such as punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism. However, intelligent design is not science and should not be taught in science classrooms.

One would have expected the past 147 years to have produced enormous amounts of data concerning the evolution debate, and it has. For instance, DNA has provided unrelenting support for the theory of evolution. Scientists cannot prove; however, to ignore the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution is irrational. To question the validity of evolution, you must question the reality of the evidence supporting evolution. Thus far, the objective scientific method has concluded that evolution is worthy to be considered a theory. To argue against evolution, is to argue against the scientific method.

If the debate is about the subjectivity of reality depending on the perspective or the constraints of any given methodology, then I agree that human reason is inherently flawed. However, this applies to every aspect of knowledge, including spiritual, that we consider to be real. George Berkeley once said,

Nothing seems of more importance, towards erecting a firm system of sound and real knowledge, which may be proof against the assaults of scepticism, than to lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed the meaning of those words.

The beauty of science is that we can never know it all.

Related post: 'Medicine Needs Evolution'