What other evidence do you need? As if it isn't bad enough that American teens can't find Iraq on a map and think drinking bleach prevents the spread of HIV, the fundamentalist wing of the Republican party is still insisting on teaching children incorrect information about the origin of species. And it seems as though there is a very concerted effort by many Americans to personally disprove the theory of evolution. This effort is not spearheaded by any scientific rigor, mind you, but by rejecting evolution, thus remaining intellectually ignorant to the point where we might stop evolving altogether.
Today, the Wall Street Journal published an article detailing a new round of efforts by Christian Conservatives aimed at "encourag[ing] or requir[ing] public-school teachers to cast doubt on a cornerstone of modern science." From the look of things, it would seem that these efforts are unnecessary. Several recent surveys have indicated that about half of all Americans reject the theory of evolution altogether. In addition, the percentage of those who believe evolution is strictly a natural occurrence (i.e. no influence from a "higher power") is somewhere in the area of 15 percent. These data exist despite the fact that evolution is taught in nearly every public school system, and is regarded by scientists as a near scientific certainty. When I first saw the results of these surveys, I had one of those "oh that's right, I live in a blue state" moments. You know, like "Why is that liquor store closed at 5 pm?" or "Wow, I didn't know they still made Buicks."
National Geographic did a cover story on evolution a few years ago. The article is a brilliant and concise look at the theories Darwin proposed in his On the Origin of Species, the mountains of supporting evidence that has surfaced since, and the nature of the Creation-Evolution debate. The most brilliant part of the article in my opinion was the title,"Was Darwin Wrong?" It suggested that perhaps some new evidence had arisen recently that would cast doubt on Darwin's claims. Of course, if you read the article, you learn that, as most evidence suggests, Darwin was right. The title likely lured in many evolution skeptics looking for validation of their skepticism, only to learn how utterly complete and satisfying the theory is after nearly 150 years. A key passage comes from the first paragraph, showing that evolution is not functionally different from other routinely accepted scientific theories:
If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence.
So what makes evolution such a controversial subject? Why do we not see similar views when it comes to other well-established, rigorously tested theories like gravity, electricity, relativity, the round Earth, the heliocentric solar system? Is it because evolution is too slow as to be observable? Perhaps, but so is the aforementioned continental shift, and you don't see "stationary land mass" advocates pressuring school boards or state legislatures. Evolution is extremely complex, and maybe this complexity accounts for people's unwillingness to accept it. Of course, one does not need to understand a scientific theory to embrace it. Theories of chemistry, physics, neurology and medicine are often quite complex, yet these disciplines do not contain a theory as mystifyingly shunned as evolution. Perhaps the theory of evolution, just 150 years old, is still too new to be fully embraced. However, the idea that the dinosaurs were the victims of an asteroid or meteor colliding with the Earth is now the prevailing extinction theory, yet one that has been around for less than 30 years. So maybe it is a combination of these characteristics that explains all the skepticism. Or maybe it's something else....
If the theory of evolution were laid out on the first page of the best-selling book in the world, the number of people espousing this idea would likely approach 100%. Of course, this book instead begins with the story of creation. I call it a "story" because creationism is not a "theory," and it always bothers me to hear it referred to in that manner. A "theory," according to the common definition, is "a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable." Creation is not predictive, testable, nor is it any formalized expression of observations. So to include it alongside evolution as a valid explanation of the origin and diversity of species is absurd. But I digress.
If someone tried to tell you the sun revolved around the earth or that babies come from storks, they would be immediately fitted for a straight jacket. Yet evolution has some very powerful and vocal opponents who would like to see creationism taught in public schools, as if creation and evolution were somehow two sides of the same coin. President Bush has himself stated that he believes "the jury is still out" on evolution and that Intelligent Design (the euphemism Christians Conservatives have adopted to make creationism sound at least somewhat legitimate) should be taught alongside evolution.
So with the United States being a predominantly Christian nation, and Christian conservative activists and even the president fighting for against evolution, it is not difficult to imagine that so few Americans believe in it. Interestingly, the percentage of people who believe that evolution is a strictly scientific process is very close to the percentage of people who identify themselves as non-religious. The fact is, evolution and creationism are two explanations of the same phenomenon: one is a scientific explanation and the other is a religious one. One could even argue that creationism is not even a religious belief, but simply a belief that the people who wrote the bible held at the time. I think that creationism should be kept out of the public schools, not out of a conflict with the First Amendment, but because it is no longer the prevailing scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. I've never been to medical school, but I'm pretty certain they don't teach the theory of the humours alongside Grey's Anatomy. Therein lies the problem with the form of Christianity that exists throughout much of the United States. It is seen by many as an "all or nothing" religion, meaning if you are to believe in anything contained in the Bible, you have to believe everything. While I am not religious, there are many parts of the Bible that I recognize as useful tools in leading a full, moral existence. The Bible, however should not be seen as a means to explain the unknown. Our society has entrusted the institutions of science to explain worldly phenomena, and that trust has been highly successful in achieving an understanding of our lives.
