Life as we Know it
In 1859, Charles R. Darwin published his scientific theory with compelling evidence of a pattern in evolution known as natural selection, in his book The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (Charles R. Darwin 5). Darwin’s theory of Evolution held concepts that all life is related and descended from a common ancestor; that over time, genetic mutation aided life forms in surviving. Although, along with Darwin’s discovery of evolution, came the altercation of Creationism, the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the Universe were all created by a supernatural being – God (Bible, Genesis 1). The Origins debate over Evolution and Creationism seemed to ...view middle of the document...
‘Darwin made bold assumptions about heritable variation, the age of Earth and relationships among organisms. New data from genetics, physics and biochemistry could have proved him wrong on many counts. They didn’t. (Biology 410)’ sited Biology, a student textbook published by Prentice Hall. There are, no doubt, gaps in Darwin’s theory of Evolution; which brings us to this: How exactly could genetics, physics and biochemistry prove him wrong? Technically thinking, there is almost no way that any scientist could have proved modification on a genetic level because, say it was possible to test the DNA of an australopithecine and to compare it to a live human being’s DNA now; would you be able to find similar genomes? Possibly. But Darwin’s theory explains that we all came from the same species, one way or another – and no matter what, the DNA that you test, will be so diluted from the generations it was passed through, that there is nearly a 10% that you’ll be able to link the two hominids.
Evolution defines that we’re all from a single-celled organism; that we’re all from the same exact thing. But along those exact lines, stands Creationism: God created us all in his self-image. By any standards, both definitions could mean the same exact thing, that we were all made from the same fixation, whether it’s from a common single-celled organism or God himself.
But therein also lies the problem of evidence against the religion of Creationism versus the evidence of science in Evolution. Natural Selection is a brilliant answer to the conundrum of difficulty and logical discovery because it is not a theory of chance, as most Creationist often label it as, for the theory mainly objects that mutation among the genetic code is noticeable throughout hominids since the oldest Australopithecine was discovered nearly 36 years ago (The Story of Lucy 1).
In 1968, with Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court annulled a decree that prohibited the teaching of evolution in public school systems. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment in the United States Constitution does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any particular religion sect or doctrine (Epperson Vs. Arkansas 39).
Fourteen years later, Mclean v. Arkansas Board of Education, surfaced in a federal court where the “balanced treatment” statute violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. The Arkansas law required public schools to give balanced treatment to “creation science” and “evolution science”. The Court declared that “creation science” is in fact, not science at all by the detailed definition of “science”. The Court also noted that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature, and that the theory of evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence of a creator (Mclean Vs. Arkansas Board of Education 50) . ...