Global warming Evolution Consciousness and the Brain Genetic Engineering

Evolution Resources: The Controversies

(See links at bottom of the page.)

There are a wide variety of issues that come up in relation the debates about evolution. Many are interconnected and, when in the heat of debate, difficult to keep separated. It is worth trying to do this however, since not all the information that one might come across is relevant to every debate.

The issues:

* What is science?

• The question of what counts as science has been used as part of arguments by both those who support and those who challenge the theory of evolution. So, for instance, Creationists have argued that evolution should not be accepted as science because it violates key features of scientific method (it is not falsifiable, they claim). On the other hand, supporters of evolution have argued that Creationism should not be taught in schools because it is not science (since it appeals to supernatural causes whereas science is concerned solely with natural causes). Answering the question "What is science?" turns out to be relevant to another issue, the issue of science education in public schools, because of the constitutional separation of Church and State.

  As is the case whenever arguments are to be evaluated, the claims about whether either or both of these are science need to be evaluated to determine if the arguments in support of them are sound. So, for instance, is it true that evolutionary theory is not falsifiable? In order to answer this question, one needs to be clear about what is meant by evolutionary theory. It is quite clear that there are parts that are falsifiable and so this claim seems to be false. But there is another question that we would need to answer and that is, "Is falsifiability the correct standard that a theory needs to meet in order to qualify as science. This idea was put forward by the 20th Century philosopher, Karl Popper. While it has some plausibility, it has not gone unchallenged. It is NOT the criterion that the courts have used in cases regarding the teaching of evolution. In fact, the standard that the courts have used is that science is whatever the majority of scientists do and say that they do. According to this standard, creationism fails to qualify as a science.

* Does Creationism or Intelligent Design deserve "equal time"?

• This question brings up the most recent version of the debate in science education. The question raised above may or may not be relevant to it. The arguments have been made both ways. So, if evolution is consider to be a science, supporters of Creationism and ID (Intelligent Design) might argue that these views are science as well and so should be taught.(Creationism and Intelligent Design are not the same. For a complete discussion, explore the links below, but for a quick overview, see this link.)Alternatively, they might argue that though evolution may be a science, it actually incorporates values that are fundamentally like religious values (humanism and atheism) and so it is only fair that Creationism and ID should be taught as well. Both types of arguments have been used with varying success (mostly not too successful). Again, the questions that we should be asking are about the truth of the claims. Creationism has not been successfully supported as science in the courts. This is probably part of the reason for the shift to the ID movement in court battles. This shifts interest to the argument that claims evolution is like a religion. Should science be value-free? Can it be value-neutral? These are questions that are debated by philosophers and others and have to do with the question of what the nature of science is (this brings us back to the first concern).

* Is evolutionary theory compatible with religion?

• This question has less to do with public policy issues and more to do with decisions of personal belief and faith. Many people have come to believe (wrongly in most cases) that the religion that they are committed to is incompatible with evolutionary theory. But the official stance of many of the most common religions in the US is that the doctrine of those religions is compatible with evolutionary theory. For a brief overview of this issue and what members of various different religions have to say, see here.

* How reliable is the evidence for evolutionary theory? Is it "just a theory"?

• A scientific theory provides general principles which enable us to organize and understand natural phenomena. When scientist say that something is a theory this says nothing about how well supported it is, whether it should be accepted, or anything else about whether it should be believed. Evolutionary theory provides such general principles and so is a theory according to the definition that I have offered. It doesn't really mean anything to say it is "just a theory" however. The question that we want to ask is how well supported a theory it is; what evidence is there that the theory is a good one and how good is that evidence? Much of the public debate about evolution revolves around debate about the evidence. Sometimes it is said that the only evidence is the fossil record (it is not the only evidence, so this is false) and that the fossil record is unreliable. Though there are disputes about how to interpret the fossil record, these disputes challenge particular ideas about how particular species developed rather than the general principles behind evolutionary theory. Within the mainstream scientific community there are disputes about the details of evolution but not about the general principles. Explore the evidence through the links below.

As you can see there are many angles to this controversy. Understanding what evolution, creationism, and intelligent design are will not resolve all the issues, but it is not possible to even begin to have the discussion without that understanding. These controversies require going back to the science to start the discussion.

Neutral and mainstream science sites:

* The Talk Origins Archive: Background and links necessary for informed participation in the discussion. This website is several layers deep. Follow the links to get the complete picture.
*The National Academies (Science, Engineering, and the National Research Council): Links to reports, research papers, academic articles of evolution
* National Center for Science Education: Evolution page from the organization. (Supportive of teaching evolution.)
* New York Times Coverage of the Evolution Debate: Good coverage of recent issues in the ongoing debate.
* USA Today summary of Court cases involving evolution and education: Good for an overview of the legal battles.

Creationist sites:

* Institute for Creation Research
* The Creation Research Society
* The Discovery Institute: The hub of the intelligent design movement.
* Intelligent Design Network

Anti-Creationist/Intelligent Design sites:

* ACLU: The ACLU strongly advocates the separation of Church and state.
* Natural History Magazine: A special report on Intelligent Design
* American Association for the Advancement of Science: Resolution
* Creation and Intelligent Design Watch: Hosted by he Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal

Media

* How the media have covered ID (Columbia Journalism Review)
* Banned in biology class: intelligent design (Christian Science Monitor)
* Devolution (The New Yorker)
* Debating Evolution in the Classroom (NPR)
* Darwin Victorious (Time)
* Intelligent Design: Scientific Inquiry or Religious Indoctrination? (Justice Talking)
* Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom (New England Journal of Medicine)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design"