The Fact of Evolution

The intent of this paper is not to present an argument for or against any evolutionary theory or religious position. Although it is inevitable for evidence to be presented that would, within another context, be used against the theory itself, the goal is to illustrate, objectively, that the academic community is trying to establish unproven scientific theories as facts based on dogmatic presuppositions. I will use the evidence presented by the leading minds in various fields only to illustrate the difference between fact and theory, and how crippling to science this confusion can be.

First I want to present the arguments used to defend this use of evolutionary theory as given by its prominent supporters. Following that I will present the evidence contrary to it; some of which, interestingly, is also from its supporters.

Methodology:

I initially started the research for this project with a much broader scope to my thesis, but I later narrowed my topic field because of space and time limitations.

First I researched several authors who were opposed to evolution just to give myself an idea of what I was dealing with on one side of the argument. Then I researched their sources and data that were used.

For the second part of my research I spent a great deal of time reading through text books from different eras, predominantly from the early 1980s to present, to form the best possible counter arguments to support evolution. I noted differences and similarities from book to book and year to year.

I combined the commonalities to form an overall view of evolution and its different aspects. The difficult part with these two steps is establishing who is an authority in their field and who is simply a product of their educational background; the difference between first hand knowledge in the field and an educated opinion essentially. I was frequently surprised that when I went to research authorities that favor evolution, I found stronger arguments against the theory from them than from its critics.

I synthesized this information in matching parts with similar topics addressing each other, combining them into a readable form. Revision of this form has lead to the paper contained herein.

Introduction:

Before we get into the subject at hand, I want to define my terms so that there is no confusion regarding subject matter.

Science:

Systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied (Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language).

Fact:

"A concept whose truth can be proved; scientific hypotheses are not facts." (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn).

Biological Evolution:

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. The mechanism driving evolution is random mutations caused by the spontaneous generation of errors while copying the genome during reproduction.

Also I must note that the evolution described as “Darwinian Evolution” or just “evolution” from here on is macroevolution not microevolution. Microevolution is the genetic variation within a given species. A German Shepherd is a dog and so is a Golden Retriever. The difference is small genetic change but the species remains the same. Macroevolution is the term used when a new species is developed as a result of genetic mutation (see Appendix 2).

The California Policy Statement and the Fact of Evolution:

In 1989 the California State Board of Education issued their Policy Statement on the Teaching of Science. On the surface the Policy Statement sounds reasonable and only encourages a more thorough coverage of evolution and naturalistic sciences in classrooms. The Policy Statement also defines science as empirically testable and observable.

However, the Policy Statement was supplemented by the Science Framework, which tells publishers what their books must teach if they want to be able to sell their texts in California. Since California is such a large market for textbooks, it affects the contents of textbooks nationwide. The Framework dictates that naturalistic evolution should be portrayed as without controversy, and that students should be reassured by their teachers that science has addressed any difficulties and sorted them out long ago. There is an important distinction to be made between the teaching of scientific theories within relevant contexts and the mandating of their teaching as fact from all contexts. The Framework says:

Students should never be told that "many scientists" think this or that. Science is not decided by vote, but by evidence. Nor should students be told that "scientists believe." Science is not a matter of belief; rather, it is a matter of evidence that can be subjected to the tests of observation and objective reasoning.... Show students that nothing in science is decided just because someone important says it is so (authority) or because that is the way it has always been done (tradition) (Johnson 145).