Name

Professor Martin

English 1301

25 April 2008 

Blind Teaching
     All across America, the mainstream science taught in all of the public schools is evolution. Not just the ideas of evolution, but the entire belief of one tiny microorganism turning into millions of different species type of Darwinian Evolution. It is true that Charles Darwin came up with a theory on how this world came to be, so what is wrong with it being taught to students? There would be nothing wrong if it were being taught for what it is, just a theory. But the schools are teaching it to the students like it is a fact and that there is no other truth about how this world formed. There are other ideas about how this world was made. One of the most popular ideas is Intelligent Design, but it is hardly ever considered by the educators as a valid scientific theory. If the public schools would present science in a way that they showed both evolution and Intelligent Design as theories, then the students would be able to choose for themselves what they want to believe. Therefore, the public schools should not teach Darwinian Evolution as fact, but rather as a theory along with Intelligent Design.
     This theory of evolution that is taught to students throughout the world was created by Charles Darwin in the mid 1800s. Darwin wrote a book called The Origin of Species which explains his ideas on the growth and advancement of the Earth.  The primary idea of this theory is that there is no creator of the universe, but that this planet evolved over millions of years by random events and mutations. Darwin believed that the very first sign of life was a tiny single celled microorganism which slowly turned into a fish. This fish then turned into amphibian, which later turned into a reptile, allowing life to spread onto the dry land. This reptile eventually became a mammal and from mammals came the most intelligent of all animals, Man. But how did the microorganism eventually turn into the man? According to Darwin, natural selection aided life on Earth to become more advanced and adapted to the environment. Natural selection allows the most well adapted animals to survive and the weaker ones to die off. Whatever the difference is in the stronger and the weaker of the species, the stronger will pass their good qualities on to their offspring and thus the entire species will eventually become like the strongest (30).  Therefore, all the species on the Earth have evolved by survival of the fittest. 
     On the other hand, Intelligent Design takes a completely opposite view on how this Earth formed into what it is today. Intelligent Design is a type of science that tries to discover signs in nature that a higher being created the world. Since Darwin’s theory tries to prove that the Earth could have been made without the help of a creator, Intelligent Design and evolution greatly contradict each other (Dembski 711).  The main idea of Intelligent Design is that this universe is too complex and orderly to have been made by chance, thus there had to have been someone who designed every thing to work together in such a perfect way. One of the arguments of Intelligent Design is that all organisms are irreducibly complex. Many organisms have multiple complex biological structures that work together and if even one of those structures is missing, all of the others would be pointless and the organism would surely die (Morowitz 723). Since evolution proposes that organisms slowly gained new structures, Intelligent Design’s irreducibility theory seriously conflicts with Darwin’s beliefs. 
     Because Intelligent Design and evolution have such opposing views, evolutionists have various reasons why they think Intelligent Design should not be taught in the public school system.  The most popular reason is that evolution scientists claim Intelligent Design to be a religious idea and not really scientific. Evolutionists think that because Intelligent Design proposes there is a God, that it is really just based on faith and not facts. It has also been said that Intelligent Design is just a “Trojan Horse” to slip creationism and religion into the schools. Evolutionists view Intelligent Design as primitive and old-fashioned. Morowitz described this feeling very well when he said: “Scientists who teach evolution sometimes feel as if they are trapped in an old horror film-the kind where the monster is killed repeatedly, only to come to life in a nastier form each time” (722). He then goes on to write about the Scopes trial and how evolution was accepted as the science to be taught in schools. Obviously, Morowitz and other evolutionists feel like Intelligent Design is just the “nastier form” of the earlier monster, Creationism. 
     Although it is logical to think that because Intelligent Design claims there is a God that it is a religion, we need to remember that Darwinian Evolution is just as much a religion (if not more so) as Intelligent Design is. Evolutionists are disgusted by this idea that evolution is faith based, but it is the truth. It is a faith based theory because there is no real proof for it and there are multiple objections to its validity. One of the main flaws of Darwinian Evolution is that there are no transitional animals visible today. If animals really do evolve into new species, then why aren’t we seeing any dramatic changes in any of the animals that have been the same for so long? The fact that there are no transitional species found in the fossil record (except for the lone Archaeopteryx) is a major flaw in Darwin’s theory.  Darwin even openly admitted this in his book, The Origin of Species. He said that for his theory to be proven there would need to be numerous transitional fossils to prove that species have evolved. Darwin saw that there were no in-between species to be found anywhere and he himself said: “(this is) the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory” (qtd. in Davis 22).  And also, if all species are evolving to become more perfect, and Man, with his ability to reason and think and rule all other species, is the most fit to survive, then why are all the other species around? Wouldn’t all the species on Earth try to evolve and become like Man, who is obviously the most well adapted animal? According to James Perloff, Man is incredibly unique. There is no way that a man has the same ancestor as a grasshopper or an ape or a fish. If Man is just another animal, why is it that he can laugh at jokes, solve math problems, distinguish right from wrong, write poetry, and do many other things that no other animal on this planet can even come close to? (Perloff).
      These ideas of evolution that view mankind as just another animal, another insignificant beast roaming the Earth, lead to serious moral problems. If Man is just another animal, why is killing a child any different than killing a cow? For all we know, that cow’s offspring could evolve over millions of years and turn into a better race of species, even better than humans.  Also, morals mean nothing to animals. If we are animals, than we should be stealing, having affairs, killing, and doing whatever we want without having any feelings of guilt. No one should be in prison because no one should be punished for what they do. There is nothing wrong in doing what you must to survive. Also, how do evolutionists feel about their lives? How can someone go through life believing that they are not significant, that they are just another random beast of the land, and that when they die, they will cease to exist completely. For evolutionists, there is no hope for life after death. There have been traumatic results of these feelings that evolutionists hold about mankind. One of these results was the holocaust.
     It is not commonly taught that the holocaust was an indirect result of the teachings of Darwin, but it was. Adolf Hitler, the German ruler who ordered the killing of millions of Jews, was a follower of Darwin. Hitler believed strongly in Darwin’s theory on “survival of the fittest”. Hitler acted upon this theory, and the result was the grotesque and cruel way that the Jews were treated and killed by the Nazis. Hitler believed the most fit to survive were the blonde-hair, blue-eyed Germans, and the weaker of the species were the Jews. So in order to allow the Germans to better survive and have more resources, Hitler ordered the weak Jews to be terminated. He had no problem being responsible for so many deaths of innocent people because he blindly believed Darwin was right. Likewise, the American public schools have also blindly followed Darwin on no evidence at all. 
     While it is true that there is minor evolution in the world today, like a gecko being able to change his color to the surrounding environment, however, there is no Darwinian Evolution going on. There are no geckos mutating into hamsters. And also, Darwin claims that the Earth started out as chaotic and it moved toward order, but this goes against the laws of physics. It is a law of physics that chaos does not lead to order. The second law of thermodynamics states: “In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same”.  And entropy is defined as: “a measure of the disorder of a system” (Nave). Therefore, the amount of disorder in a cyclic process will never diminish. Chaos will either stay the same or it will increase. If you have a garden and you stop taking care of it, will it evolve into a more orderly and productive garden? No, that is absurd! It will become overrun with weeds and the vegetables will wither from not being watered. Another disproof of evolution is the fascinating whale. None of the evolutionist can answer the question of why there is a mammal living in the ocean. Darwin’s theory says that the mammals evolved from reptiles on dry land. So how is it that a mammal could mutate back into a fish, a whole two steps (reptiles and amphibians) back? Is it that one of the mammals just ran into the water and lost its legs and acquired fins? That is ridiculous. No creature would survive the in-between stage of land creature and sea creature. It would die before the species could even begin.  According to Celeste Biever, a scientist named Fersht and his colleagues were working on a lab to try and get enzymes to evolve, but they were unsuccessful and claimed to have found proof that there are problems with evolution (8-11). So with no proof and many flaws, why is Darwinian Evolution taught to students all across America as if it is hard-core scientific fact? It isn’t fact. It is just a theory and it should be taught as one.
     Darwinian Evolution seems so much like fact because scientists say that there is no other way that the Earth could have formed.  However, if the science classes would teach evolution alongside Intelligent Design, the students would better be able to see evolution as just a theory. Intelligent Design does not favor any one religion. It does not endorse Christianity, or Islam, or Mormonism, or any other religion. It simply states that nature points to a creator. And there are scientific studies being done to prove that the Earth was created. According to Biever, there are labs and actual scientists working to prove this (8-11).  An argument for Intelligent Design given by William Paley is the example of a watch. Paley said that humans are extremely complex and have incredibly well designed parts, such as the eye. We must conclude that someone designed us. If a person found a watch lying in a field, would they think ‘Oh! What an amazing thing the wind and rain and dirt has randomly made!’ No, they would immediately know that someone made the watch (Dembski 714). Intelligent design has enough support that it should be taught in the science classes with evolution so evolution does not seem so factual to the students. 
     In fact, both Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution are theories that were based on faith. There was no one here to witness the very start of the Earth, so no one can prove how it happened. Those who believe in evolution have faith that one tiny little microorganism evolved into millions of different species through random mutations. On the other hand, those who believe in Intelligent Design have faith that there is a God who created the entire universe and all of the animals on the Earth. Statistics show that ninety percent of Americans believe in some kind of a god (Bergman). Ninety percent! If most of America believes in a god, then why are all of the schools teaching evolution, which completely rejects any kind of a god? Whenever students walk into the classroom, they go in with pre-set beliefs. The students are not going to change their beliefs to fit with science, they will change their view of science to fit with their beliefs. Because of this, the classes need to change science so that it is presentable to the students and will not cause any of them to compromise their faith. One example of this is given by Robert Fysh in his article regarding evolution in the schools. A student named Laura said that she only saw science as a “body of knowledge” such as set laws and theories, but that it does not have any affect on the natural world. She also said that she is a strong Christian and the ideas she learns in her science class does not change her faith in any way (61+). If students all over America feel the same way, then science should be presented in a more diverse-friendly way. That is why both Evolution and Intelligent Design should be taught to students. Evolution caters to that small group of students who do not believe in a god, and Intelligent Design allows those many students who do believe in a god to not feel like a scientific religion (evolution) is being forced on them. 
     There have been many court cases regarding the teaching of Intelligent Design and evolution in the public schools. One of the most famous ones was the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education in 1982. This case addressed an Act that was passed in 1981. This Act was called the “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act” and it ordered for creation-science and evolution-science to have equal time in the science class rooms. This Act claimed that it would help: “to protect academic freedom for students' differing values and beliefs; to ensure neutrality toward students' diverse religious convictions; to ensure freedom of religious exercise for students and their parents; to guarantee freedom of belief and speech for students; to prevent establishment of theologically liberal, humanist, nontheist, or atheist religions; to prevent discrimination against students on the basis of their personal beliefs concerning creation and evolution; and to assist students in their search for truth” (Hamre).  Even though a large majority of the people wanted this Act to be passed, Judge Overton denied it and claimed it to be unconstitutional. 
     In light of all the evidence against evolution, it is clear that it is time for a change in the American public schools. Evolution should just be taught as a theory alongside Intelligent Design in the science classrooms. Even though most of the scientists in America would cringe at the thought of Intelligent Design being taught in the public schools, it is obvious that most of the students would gladly accept the addition to their science curriculums. 

Works Cited
Bergman, Jerry. “Attitudes of Various Populations Toward Teaching Creation and Evolution in Public Schools.” trueorigin.org. 1999. 5 April 2008 <http://www.trueorigin.org/edupolls.asp>.
Biever, Celeste. “THE GOD LAB.” New Scientist. 192 issue 2582 (2006): 8+.
            Academic Search Complete. CCCCD Lib., Plano, TX. 27 March 2008 < http://web.ebscohost.com.library.ccccd.edu/ehost/detail?vid=8&hid=115&sid=ef610c2c-2822-4901-8655-6b1000b8d11d%40sessionmgr103>.
Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, Or, The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Champaign, Ill.: Project Gutenberg. NetLibrary. CCCCD Lib., Plano, TX. 5 April 2008 <http://www.netlibrary.com.library.ccccd.edu/Reader/>.
Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon. Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins. Ed. Charles B. Thaxton. 2nd ed. Dallas, Texas: Haughton Publishing Company, 1989. 
Dembski, William A. “Intelligent Design” The Encyclopedia of Religion. 2005.
Fysh, Robert and Keith B. Lucas. “Science and Religion: Acknowledging Student Beliefs.” Australian Science Teachers Journal 44. 6(1989): 61+. Academic Search Complete. CCCCD Lib., Plano, TX. 24 March 2008 <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=14&sid=433b6fa6-45a1-4952-b1b4-4bb4fe8df1f2%40sessionmgr8>.
Hamre, James S. “The Creationist-Evolutionist Debate and the Public Schools.” Journal of Church and State 33 issue 4 (1991): 765+. Academic Search Complete. CCCCD Lib., Plano, TX. 27 March 2008 <http://web.ebscohost.com.library.ccccd.edu/ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=107&sid=cc181ea0-601b-4c21-bdf6-0c31a266be09%40sessionmgr104>.
Morowitz, Harold, Robert Hazen and James Trefil. “Intelligent Design Has No Place in the Science Curriculum.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. 2005. 
Nave, Carl R. HyperPhysics. 2005. 23 April 2008 <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html>.
Perloff, James. “The Case Against Darwin.” Worldnetdaily.com. 2001. 22 April 2008 < http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21776>.