Evolution under fire

The principle of Evolution has had a long and conflicted history since Darwin’s day. To those who understand it well, Darwin’s basic theories have long since been scrapped for better understanding of Macro and Micro-evolution, artificial vs. natural selection, and more.

To scientists, biological evolution, particularly Mendelian Inheritance is no theory, but fact. It is what shapes our environment every day. We can see it at work as bacteria evolve into ever-more resistant strains; the children of earlier bacteria which survived our strongest antibiotics are, in turn, similarly resistant to those strong antibiotics. We see genetics at work in population distribution, and in the traits passed from one generation to the next. I, personally, am interested in knowing what effect “neutral drift”, or changes that are totally neutral in nature as far as survival, will have on our population. Too bad I can only observe, at most, a generation or three before I pass away.

Yet Evolution is under fire in our schools. Despite the simple fact that evolutionary principles are responsible for daily changes all around us, the related concept of abiogenesis, or life deriving from non-life, is unnerving to many. Indeed, even in the scientific community, the question of the exact origin of life is largely unknown (though frequently theorized about and debated). If mankind, in fact, abiogenerated from some primordial soup, the fact is that simple molecular structures and bacteria tend to leave very poor, if any, fossil record. Therefore, we may never know the exact origin of life on this planet, outside the realm of faith, or unsubstantiated theory.

That said, however, what is known is that inheritance, natural selection, and artificial selection are at work every day, slightly modifying the food we eat, the plants we grow, the animals we call pets, and the bacteria we ingest and attempt to fight off. It’s a bit of an ever-escalating war, particularly against microbes, and it’s vital we be well-informed so that we can make smart decisions as short-lived bacteria and virusses gain ground against slower-evolving humans.

It’s curious to me that, due to the religious furor aroused by mere mention of the word “evolution” in a school’s curriculum, Georgia is preparing to ban the use of the word “evolution” in school textbooks and supplementary materials. I have to wonder about the long-term ramifications of refusing to use a word because its mere mention is controversial. We’ve long done this with “objectionable” words, such as George Carlin’s Seven Dirty Words, yet this is the first I’ve heard of official state objection to the use of a scientific term in reference works.

Proponents of science have long tussled over the use of words such as “natural” or “logical”, particularly when confronted by anti-scientists. To the scientist, it is vital that supernatural causes cannot be considered in attempting to understand natural phenomena. This is for a very simple reason: it’s cheating. It’s not that scientists are necessarily anti-religion, it is that faith in supernatural things is out-of-bounds for scientific explanation. Resorting to a supernatural explanation for a natural phenomena is a bit like playing Monopoly and cutting out one’s own card that says “EVERYTHING” on it, claiming that this card represents all other properties on the board, and therefore declaring victory. To do so renders the game pointless, and shenanigans such as these, generally pulled by the losing side, ended many a game prematurely when I was a child.

In scientific endeavors, we simply cannot resort to an explanation that a given thing is unexplainable. To do so is to give up and give in. To resort to supernatural explanations of biology is also disrespectful to those who worship Deity, by relegating such a being to becoming a “God of the Gaps”, a personage or force that can only operate in those areas of the darkness where science has failed to provide illumination. The act of giving birth, for instance, is no less beautiful or meaningful for the fact that we understand the process in excruciating detail. And, similarly, the faith of a devoted Christian is no less for understanding and accepting that the Biblical account of Creation is more allegorical and spiritual than factual.

Instead, by requiring evidence, much as a court of law does, science progresses little by little towards understanding how things work. I don’t think science is much closer to explaining why they work, though; such an explanation as to why the order of the universe exists still lies in the realm of the metaphysical, I think.

But anyway, the point of my post is that Berkeley University put up a resource for teachers who wish to teach evolution correctly, and to have answers for common questions. It’s available at evolution.berkeley.edu, and I found it a fascinating trip tonight. I’ve learned much about the evolution of evolutionary thought itself! I recently read “Darwin’s Black Box”, by Michael Behe, and it’s interesting to note that the problems of irreducible complexity or simple anatomic similarity have already been solved in the late twentieth century, and that today some of Darwin’s core concepts seem as antiquated as the hand-cranked phonograph. Yet we respect his place in history as a scientist who, using deduction and observation, came up with a powerful idea that serves, with great modification, as the basis of modern biology and genetics.

The nice thing about science is that, when it’s wrong, it can be proven so. And, barring such disproof, though many may dislike the ramifications of scientific progress, a hypothesis will progress to being a good working model, and that good working model will eventually become law, as much as we can understand it. Yet even those scientific “laws”, such as Kepler’s laws, will come to be understood in time as useful constructs to attempt to figure something out in rough form, but actually inaccurate in the real-life universe. And being able to change one’s mind is a really, really good thing.