Science, Evolution, and Creationism (2008)

Chapter: Frequently Asked Questions

« Previous: 4 Conclusion
Suggested Citation: "Frequently Asked Questions." National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. Science, Evolution, and Creationism. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2008.
Page 49
Suggested Citation: "Frequently Asked Questions." National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. Science, Evolution, and Creationism. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2008.
Page 50
Suggested Citation: "Frequently Asked Questions." National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. Science, Evolution, and Creationism. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2008.
Page 51
Suggested Citation: "Frequently Asked Questions." National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. Science, Evolution, and Creationism. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2008.
Page 52
Suggested Citation: "Frequently Asked Questions." National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. Science, Evolution, and Creationism. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2008.
Page 53
Suggested Citation: "Frequently Asked Questions." National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. Science, Evolution, and Creationism. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2008.
Page 54

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

frequently asked questions Aren’t evolution and religion opposing ideas? Newspaper and television stories sometimes make it seem as though evolu- tion and religion are incompatible, but that is not true. Many scientists and theologians have written about how one can accept both faith and the valid- ity of biological evolution. Many past and current scientists who have made major contributions to our understanding of the world have been devoutly religious. At the same time, many religious people accept the reality of evo- lution, and many religious denominations have issued emphatic statements reflecting this acceptance. (For more information, see http://www.ncseweb. org/resources/articles/1028_statements_from_religious_org_12_19_2002.asp.) To be sure, disagreements do exist. Some people reject any science that contains the word “evolution”; others reject all forms of religion. The range of beliefs about science and about religion is very broad. Regrettably, those who occupy the extremes of this range often have set the tone of public discussions. Evolution is science, however, and only science should be taught and learned in science classes. The “Additional Readings” section of this publication cites a number of books and articles that explore in depth the intersection of science and faith. Isn’t belief in evolution also a matter of faith? Acceptance of evolution is not the same as a religious belief. Scientists’ con- fidence about the occurrence of evolution is based on an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence gathered from many aspects of the natural world. To be accepted, scientific knowledge has to withstand the scrutiny of testing, retesting, and experimentation. Evolution is accepted within the scientific community because the concept has withstood extensive testing by many thousands of scientists for more than a century. As a 2006 “Statement on the Teaching of Evolution” from the Interacademy Panel on International Issues, a global network of national science academies, said, “Evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived Science, Evolution, and Creationism 49

experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines” (emphasis in original). (See Evolution%20statement.pdf.) Many religious beliefs do not rely on evidence gathered from the natural world. On the contrary, an important component of religious belief is faith, which implies acceptance of a truth regardless of the presence of empirical evidence for or against that truth. Scientists cannot accept scientific conclu- sions on faith alone because all such conclusions must be subject to testing against observations. Thus, scientists do not “believe” in evolution in the same way that someone believes in God. How can random biological changes lead to more adapted organisms? Contrary to a widespread public impression, biological evolution is not ran- dom, even though the biological changes that provide the raw material for evolution are not directed toward predetermined, specific goals. When DNA is being copied, mistakes in the copying process generate novel DNA sequences. These new sequences act as evolutionary “experiments.” Most mutations do not change traits or fitness. But some mutations give organisms traits that enhance their ability to survive and reproduce, while other mutations reduce the reproductive fitness of an organism. The process by which organisms with advantageous variations have greater reproductive success than other organisms within a population is known as “natural selection.” Over multiple generations, some populations of organisms subjected to natural selection may change in ways that make them better able to survive and reproduce in a given environment. Others may be unable to adapt to a changing environment and will become extinct. Aren’t there many questions that still surround evolu- tion? Don’t many famous scientists reject evolution? As with all active areas of science, there remain questions about evolution. There are always new questions to ask, new situations to consider, and new ways to study known phenomena. But evolution itself has been so thor- oughly tested that biologists are no longer examining whether evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Similarly, biologists no longer debate many of the mechanisms responsible for evolution. As with any other field of science, scientists continue to study the mechanisms of how the process of evo- lution operates. As new technologies make possible previously unimaginable observations and allow for new kinds of experiments, scientists continue to 50 Science, Evolution, and Creationism

propose and examine the strength of evidence regarding the mechanisms for evolutionary change. But the existence of such questions neither reduces nor undermines the fact that evolution has occurred and continues to occur. Nor do such questions diminish the strength of evolutionary science. Indeed, the strength of a theory rests in part on providing scientists with the basis to explain observed phenomena and to predict what they are likely to find when exploring new phenomena and observations. In this regard, evolution has been and continues to be one of the most productive theories known to modern science. Even scientific theories that are firmly established continue to be tested and modified by scientists as new information and new technologies become available. For example, the theory of gravity has been substantiated by many observations on Earth. But theoretical scientists, using their understanding of the physical universe, continue to test the limits of the theory of gravity in more extreme situations, such as close to a neutron star or black hole. Someday, new phenomena may be discovered that will require that the theory be expanded or revised, just as the development of the theory of general relativity in the first part of the 20th century expanded knowledge about gravity. With evolutionary theory, many new insights will emerge as research pro- ceeds. For example, the links between genetic changes and alterations in an organism’s form and function are being intensively investigated now that the tools and technologies to do so are available. Some who oppose the teaching of evolution sometimes use quotations from prominent scientists out of context to claim that scientists do not support evo- lution. However, examination of the quotations reveals that the scientists are actually disputing some aspect of how evolution occurs, not whether evolution occurred. What evidence is there that the universe is billions of years old? This is an important question because evolution of the wide variety of organ- isms currently existing on Earth required a very long period of time. Several independent dating techniques indicate that the Earth is billions of years old. Measurements of the radioactive elements in materials from the Earth, the Moon, and meteorites provide ages for the Earth and the solar system. These measurements are consistent with each other and with the physical processes of radioactivity. Additional evidence for the ages of the solar system and the galaxy includes the record of crater formation on the planets and their moons, the ages of the oldest stars in the Milky Way, and the rate of expansion of the universe. Measurements of the radiation left over from the Big Bang also sup- port the universe’s great age. Science, Evolution, and Creationism 51

What’s wrong with teaching critical thinking or “controversies” with regard to evolution? Nothing is wrong with teaching critical thinking. Students need to learn how to reexamine their ideas in light of observations and accepted scientific con- cepts. Scientific knowledge itself is the result of the critical thinking applied by generations of scientists to questions about the natural world. Scientific knowledge must be subjected to continued reexamination and skepticism for human knowledge to continue to advance. But critical thinking does not mean that all criticisms are equally valid. Critical thinking has to be based on rules of reason and evidence. Discussion of critical thinking or controversies does not mean giving equal weight to ideas that lack essential supporting evidence. The ideas offered by intelligent design creationists are not the products of scientific reasoning. Discussing these ideas in science classes would not be appropriate given their lack of scientific support. Recent calls to introduce “critical analysis” into science classes disguise a broader agenda. Other attempts to introduce creationist ideas into science employ such phrases as “teach the controversy” or “present arguments for and against evolution.” Many such calls are directed specifically at attacking the teaching of evolution or other topics that some people consider as controversial. In this way, they are intended to introduce creationist ideas into science classes, even though scientists have thoroughly refuted these ideas. Indeed, the appli- cation of critical thinking to the science curriculum would argue against includ- ing these ideas in science classes because they do not meet scientific standards. There is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution. In this sense the intelligent design movement’s call to “teach the controversy” is unwar- ranted. Of course, there remain many interesting questions about evolution, such as the evolutionary origin of sex or different mechanisms of speciation, and discussion of these questions is fully warranted in science classes. However, arguments that attempt to confuse students by suggesting that there are fun- damental weaknesses in the science of evolution are unwarranted based on the overwhelming evidence that supports the theory. Creationist ideas lie outside of the realm of science, and introducing them in science courses has been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts. What are common ideas regarding creationism? “Creationism” is a very broad term. In the most general sense, it refers to views that reject scientific explanations of certain features of the natural world (wheth- er in biology, geology, or other sciences) and instead posit direct intervention (sometimes called “special creation”) in these features by some transcendent being or power. Some creationists believe that the universe and Earth are only 52 Science, Evolution, and Creationism

several thousand years old, a position referred to as “young Earth” creation- ism. Creationism also includes the view that the complex features of organ- isms cannot be explained by natural processes but require the intervention of a nonnatural “intelligent designer.” The “Additional Readings” section follow- ing these questions contains several books that describe the various ways in which the word “creationism” is used. Wouldn’t it be “fair” to teach creationism along with evolution? The goal of science education is to expose students to the best possible schol- arship in each field of science. The science curriculum is thus the product of centuries of scientific investigation. Ideas need to become part of the base of accepted scientific knowledge before they are appropriately taught in schools. For example, the idea of continental drift to explain the movements and shapes of the continents was studied and debated for many years without becoming part of the basic science curriculum. As data accumulated, it became clearer that the surface of the Earth is composed of a series of massive plates, which are not bounded by the continents, that continually move in relation to each other. The theory of plate tectonics (which was proposed in the mid-1960s) grew from these data and offered a more complete explanation for the move- ment of continents. The new theory also predicted important phenomena, such as where earthquakes and volcanoes are likely to occur. When enough evidence had accumulated for the concept of plate tectonics to be accepted by the scientific community as fact, it became part of the earth sciences curriculum. Scientists and science educators have concluded that evolution should be taught in science classes because it is the only tested, comprehensive scientific explanation for the nature of the biological world today that is supported by overwhelming evidence and widely accepted by the scientific community. The ideas supported by creationists, in contrast, are not supported by evi- dence and are not accepted by the scientific community. Different religions hold very different views and teachings about the origins and diversity of life on Earth. Because creationism is based on specific sets of religious convictions, teaching it in science classes would mean imposing a particular religious view on students and thus is unconstitutional, according to several major rulings in federal district courts and the Supreme Court of the United States. Science, Evolution, and Creationism 53

Does science disprove religion? Science can neither prove nor disprove religion. Scientific advances have called some religious beliefs into question, such as the ideas that the Earth was created very recently, that the Sun goes around the Earth, and that mental illness is due to possession by spirits or demons. But many religious beliefs involve entities or ideas that currently are not within the domain of science. Thus, it would be false to assume that all religious beliefs can be challenged by scientific findings. As science continues to advance, it will produce more complete and more accu- rate explanations for natural phenomena, including a deeper understanding of biological evolution. Both science and religion are weakened by claims that some- thing not yet explained scientifically must be attributed to a supernatural deity. Theologians have pointed out that as scientific knowledge about phenomena that had been previously attributed to supernatural causes increases, a “god of the gaps” approach can undermine faith. Furthermore, it confuses the roles of science and religion by attributing explanations to one that belong in the domain of the other. Many scientists have written eloquently about how their scientific studies have increased their awe and understanding of a creator (see the “Additional Readings” section). The study of science need not lessen or compromise faith. 54 Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Next: Additional Readings »
Science, Evolution, and Creationism Get This Book
Buy Paperback | $9.95
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

How did life evolve on Earth? The answer to this question can help us understand our past and prepare for our future. Although evolution provides credible and reliable answers, polls show that many people turn away from science, seeking other explanations with which they are more comfortable.

In the book Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a group of experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine explain the fundamental methods of science, document the overwhelming evidence in support of biological evolution, and evaluate the alternative perspectives offered by advocates of various kinds of creationism, including "intelligent design." The book explores the many fascinating inquiries being pursued that put the science of evolution to work in preventing and treating human disease, developing new agricultural products, and fostering industrial innovations. The book also presents the scientific and legal reasons for not teaching creationist ideas in public school science classes.

Mindful of school board battles and recent court decisions, Science, Evolution, and Creationism shows that science and religion should be viewed as different ways of understanding the world rather than as frameworks that are in conflict with each other and that the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. For educators, students, teachers, community leaders, legislators, policy makers, and parents who seek to understand the basis of evolutionary science, this publication will be an essential resource.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook,'s online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    And that's about it! What do you think of the new OpenBook? Click the Feedback button and tell us. Happy reading!

    « Back Done