opinion on evolution essay

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

13.7 Cosmos & Culture

Why do so many have trouble believing in evolution.

Marcelo Gleiser

Sometimes the fossil record comes with teeth: Mapusaurus roseae on display in the "Dinosaurs of Gondwana" exhibit in 2009 at the National Museum of Nature and Science in Tokyo. Junko Kimura/Getty Images hide caption

Sometimes the fossil record comes with teeth: Mapusaurus roseae on display in the "Dinosaurs of Gondwana" exhibit in 2009 at the National Museum of Nature and Science in Tokyo.

Updated on Thursday at 1:15 p.m.: After reading your comments, I feel it's important to clarify a couple of points concerning human hereditary descent and horizontal gene transfer. Please see the bracketed additions below.

The evidence is clear, as in a February 2009 Gallup Poll , taken on the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birthday, that reported only 39 percent of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36 percent don't have an opinion either way.

The same poll correlated belief in evolution with educational level: 21 percent of people with a high school education or less believed in evolution. That number rose to 41 percent for people with some college attendance, 53 percent for college graduates, and 74 percent for people with a postgraduate education.

Clearly, the level of education has an impact on how people feel about evolution.

Another variable investigated by the same poll was how belief in evolution correlates with church attendance. Of those who believe in evolution, 24 percent go to church weekly, 30 percent go nearly weekly/monthly, and 55 percent seldom or never go.

Not surprisingly, and rather unfortunately, religious belief interferes with people's understanding of what the theory of evolution says.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It's in the fossil record, carefully dated using radioactivity, the release of particles from radioactive isotopic decay, which works like a very precise clock. Rocks from volcanic eruptions (igneous rocks) buried near a fossil carry certain amounts of radioactive material, unstable atomic nuclei that emit different kinds of radiation, like tiny bullets. The most common is Uranium-235, which decays into Lead-207. Analyzing the ratio of Uranium-235 to Lead-207 in a sample, and knowing how frequently Uranium-235 emits particles (its half-life is 704 million years, the amount half a sample decays into Lead), scientists can get a very accurate measure of the age of a fossil.

But evidence for evolution is also much more palpable, for example in the risks of overprescribing antibiotics: the more we (and farm animals) take antibiotics, the higher the chance that a microbe will mutate into one resistant to the drug. This is in-your-face evolution , species mutating at the genetic level and adapting to a new environment (in this case, an environment contaminated with antibiotics). The proof of this can be easily achieved in the laboratory (see link above), by comparing original strands of bacteria with those subjected to different doses of antibiotics. It's simple and conclusive, since the changes in the genetic code of the resistant mutant can be identified and studied.

However, there are creationist scientists who claim that mutation is not the true mechanism of resistance. Instead, they claim that bacteria already had those genes in some sort of dormant state, which were then activated by their exposure to antibiotics. For example, Dr. Georgia Purdom argues that this inbuilt mechanism is "a testimony to the wonderful design God gave bacteria, master adapters and survivors in a sin-cursed world." I couldn't identify [ in her paper ] any data to back her hypothesis that bacterial resistance to antibiotics comes [ exclusively ] from horizontal gene swap and not mutation. [ Clearly, horizontal gene transfer is a primary reason for bacterial antibiotic resistance. It's just not the only one, as Dr. Purdom argues. ]

Does evolution really need to be such a stumbling block for so many? Is it really that bad that we descended from monkeys? [ Formally, we didn't "descend from monkeys" but shared a common ancestor with monkeys in the past. In fact, all common living species shared a single common ancestor, known as LUCA, for Last Universal Common Ancestor. LUCA was probably a single-celled organism. ] Doesn't that make us even more amazing, primates that can write poetry and design scientific experiments? Behind this strong resistance to evolution there is a deep dislike for a scientific understanding of how nature works. The problem seems to be related to the age-old God-of-the-Gaps agenda, that the more we understand of the world the less room there is for a creator God. This is bad theology, as it links belief to the development of science.

Even though I'm not a believer, I wonder why those who are need to equate God with the hard work of designing people, bacteria, dinosaurs, or some 900,000 known species of insects. (Probably there are more than 10 million in total.) Surely there are better ways to find God or other paths toward spiritual meaning in life?

• Gallup Poll
• Charles Darwin

Introductory essay

Written by the educator who created What Makes Us Human?, a brief look at the key facts, tough questions and big ideas in his field. Begin this TED Study with a fascinating read that gives context and clarity to the material.

As a biological anthropologist, I never liked drawing sharp distinctions between human and non-human. Such boundaries make little evolutionary sense, as they ignore or grossly underestimate what we humans have in common with our ancestors and other primates. What's more, it's impossible to make sharp distinctions between human and non-human in the paleoanthropological record. Even with a time machine, we couldn't go back to identify one generation of humans and say that the previous generation contained none: one's biological parents, by definition, must be in the same species as their offspring. This notion of continuity is inherent to most evolutionary perspectives and it's reflected in the similarities (homologies) shared among very different species. As a result, I've always been more interested in what makes us similar to, not different from, non-humans.

Evolutionary research has clearly revealed that we share great biological continuity with others in the animal kingdom. Yet humans are truly unique in ways that have not only shaped our own evolution, but have altered the entire planet. Despite great continuity and similarity with our fellow primates, our biocultural evolution has produced significant, profound discontinuities in how we interact with each other and in our environment, where no precedent exists in other animals. Although we share similar underlying evolved traits with other species, we also display uses of those traits that are so novel and extraordinary that they often make us forget about our commonalities. Preparing a twig to fish for termites may seem comparable to preparing a stone to produce a sharp flake—but landing on the moon and being able to return to tell the story is truly out of this non-human world.

Humans are the sole hominin species in existence today. Thus, it's easier than it would have been in the ancient past to distinguish ourselves from our closest living relatives in the animal kingdom. Primatologists such as Jane Goodall and Frans de Waal, however, continue to clarify why the lines dividing human from non-human aren't as distinct as we might think. Goodall's classic observations of chimpanzee behaviors like tool use, warfare and even cannibalism demolished once-cherished views of what separates us from other primates. de Waal has done exceptional work illustrating some continuity in reciprocity and fairness, and in empathy and compassion, with other species. With evolution, it seems, we are always standing on the shoulders of others, our common ancestors.

Primatology—the study of living primates—is only one of several approaches that biological anthropologists use to understand what makes us human. Two others, paleoanthropology (which studies human origins through the fossil record) and molecular anthropology (which studies human origins through genetic analysis), also yield some surprising insights about our hominin relatives. For example, Zeresenay Alemsegad's painstaking field work and analysis of Selam, a 3.3 million-year old fossil of a 3-year-old australopithecine infant from Ethiopia, exemplifies how paleoanthropologists can blur boundaries between living humans and apes.

Selam, if alive today, would not be confused with a three-year-old human—but neither would we mistake her for a living ape. Selam's chimpanzee-like hyoid bone suggests a more ape-like form of vocal communication, rather than human language capability. Overall, she would look chimp-like in many respects—until she walked past you on two feet. In addition, based on Selam's brain development, Alemseged theorizes that Selam and her contemporaries experienced a human-like extended childhood with a complex social organization.

Fast-forward to the time when Neanderthals lived, about 130,000 – 30,000 years ago, and most paleoanthropologists would agree that language capacity among the Neanderthals was far more human-like than ape-like; in the Neanderthal fossil record, hyoids and other possible evidence of language can be found. Moreover, paleogeneticist Svante Pääbo's groundbreaking research in molecular anthropology strongly suggests that Neanderthals interbred with modern humans. Paabo's work informs our genetic understanding of relationships to ancient hominins in ways that one could hardly imagine not long ago—by extracting and comparing DNA from fossils comprised largely of rock in the shape of bones and teeth—and emphasizes the great biological continuity we see, not only within our own species, but with other hominins sometimes classified as different species.

Though genetics has made truly astounding and vital contributions toward biological anthropology by this work, it's important to acknowledge the equally pivotal role paleoanthropology continues to play in its tandem effort to flesh out humanity's roots. Paleoanthropologists like Alemsegad draw on every available source of information to both physically reconstruct hominin bodies and, perhaps more importantly, develop our understanding of how they may have lived, communicated, sustained themselves, and interacted with their environment and with each other. The work of Pääbo and others in his field offers powerful affirmations of paleoanthropological studies that have long investigated the contributions of Neanderthals and other hominins to the lineage of modern humans. Importantly, without paleoanthropology, the continued discovery and recovery of fossil specimens to later undergo genetic analysis would be greatly diminished.

Molecular anthropology and paleoanthropology, though often at odds with each other in the past regarding modern human evolution, now seem to be working together to chip away at theories that portray Neanderthals as inferior offshoots of humanity. Molecular anthropologists and paleoanthropologists also concur that that human evolution did not occur in ladder-like form, with one species leading to the next. Instead, the fossil evidence clearly reveals an evolutionary bush, with numerous hominin species existing at the same time and interacting through migration, some leading to modern humans and others going extinct.

Molecular anthropologist Spencer Wells uses DNA analysis to understand how our biological diversity correlates with ancient migration patterns from Africa into other continents. The study of our genetic evolution reveals that as humans migrated from Africa to all continents of the globe, they developed biological and cultural adaptations that allowed for survival in a variety of new environments. One example is skin color. Biological anthropologist Nina Jablonski uses satellite data to investigate the evolution of skin color, an aspect of human biological variation carrying tremendous social consequences. Jablonski underscores the importance of trying to understand skin color as a single trait affected by natural selection with its own evolutionary history and pressures, not as a tool to grouping humans into artificial races.

For Pääbo, Wells, Jablonski and others, technology affords the chance to investigate our origins in exciting new ways, adding pieces into the human puzzle at a record pace. At the same time, our technologies may well be changing who we are as a species and propelling us into an era of "neo-evolution."

Increasingly over time, human adaptations have been less related to predators, resources, or natural disasters, and more related to environmental and social pressures produced by other humans. Indeed, biological anthropologists have no choice but to consider the cultural components related to human evolutionary changes over time. Hominins have been constructing their own niches for a very long time, and when we make significant changes (such as agricultural subsistence), we must adapt to those changes. Classic examples of this include increases in sickle-cell anemia in new malarial environments, and greater lactose tolerance in regions with a long history of dairy farming.

Today we can, in some ways, evolve ourselves. We can enact biological change through genetic engineering, which operates at an astonishing pace in comparison to natural selection. Medical ethicist Harvey Fineberg calls this "neo-evolution". Fineberg goes beyond asking who we are as a species, to ask who we want to become and what genes we want our offspring to inherit. Depending on one's point of view, the future he envisions is both tantalizing and frightening: to some, it shows the promise of science to eradicate genetic abnormalities, while for others it raises the specter of eugenics. It's also worth remembering that while we may have the potential to influence certain genetic predispositions, changes in genotypes do not guarantee the desired results. Environmental and social pressures like pollution, nutrition or discrimination can trigger "epigenetic" changes which can turn genes on or off, or make them less or more active. This is important to factor in as we consider possible medical benefits from efforts in self-directed evolution. We must also ask: In an era of human-engineered, rapid-rate neo-evolution, who decides what the new human blueprints should be?

Technology figures in our evolutionary future in other ways as well. According to anthropologist Amber Case, many of our modern technologies are changing us into cyborgs: our smart phones, tablets and other tools are "exogenous components" that afford us astonishing and unsettling capabilities. They allow us to travel instantly through time and space and to create second, "digital selves" that represent our "analog selves" and interact with others in virtual environments. This has psychological implications for our analog selves that worry Case: a loss of mental reflection, the "ambient intimacy" of knowing that we can connect to anyone we want to at any time, and the "panic architecture" of managing endless information across multiple devices in virtual and real-world environments.

Despite her concerns, Case believes that our technological future is essentially positive. She suggests that at a fundamental level, much of this technology is focused on the basic concerns all humans share: who am I, where and how do I fit in, what do others think of me, who can I trust, who should I fear? Indeed, I would argue that we've evolved to be obsessed with what other humans are thinking—to be mind-readers in a sense—in a way that most would agree is uniquely human. For even though a baboon can assess those baboons it fears and those it can dominate, it cannot say something to a second baboon about a third baboon in order to trick that baboon into telling a fourth baboon to gang up on a fifth baboon. I think Facebook is a brilliant example of tapping into our evolved human psychology. We can have friends we've never met and let them know who we think we are—while we hope they like us and we try to assess what they're actually thinking and if they can be trusted. It's as if technology has provided an online supply of an addictive drug for a social mind evolved to crave that specific stimulant!

Yet our heightened concern for fairness in reciprocal relationships, in combination with our elevated sense of empathy and compassion, have led to something far greater than online chats: humanism itself. As Jane Goodall notes, chimps and baboons cannot rally together to save themselves from extinction; instead, they must rely on what she references as the "indomitable human spirit" to lessen harm done to the planet and all the living things that share it. As Goodall and other TED speakers in this course ask: will we use our highly evolved capabilities to secure a better future for ourselves and other species?

I hope those reading this essay, watching the TED Talks, and further exploring evolutionary perspectives on what makes us human, will view the continuities and discontinuities of our species as cause for celebration and less discrimination. Our social dependency and our prosocial need to identify ourselves, our friends, and our foes make us human. As a species, we clearly have major relationship problems, ranging from personal to global scales. Yet whenever we expand our levels of compassion and understanding, whenever we increase our feelings of empathy across cultural and even species boundaries, we benefit individually and as a species.

Get started

Zeresenay Alemseged

The search for humanity's roots, relevant talks.

Spencer Wells

A family tree for humanity.

Svante Pääbo

Dna clues to our inner neanderthal.

Nina Jablonski

Skin color is an illusion.

We are all cyborgs now

Harvey Fineberg

Are we ready for neo-evolution.

Frans de Waal

Moral behavior in animals.

Jane Goodall

What separates us from chimpanzees.

The study of evolution is changing - is that a good thing?

Evolutionary biology today is a messy patchwork of several loosely connected subfields. Image:  Unsplash/Suzanne D. Williams

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Erik Svensson

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Science is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:.

• Researchers who study evolution are seeing how ecosystems will adapt to climate change in the future as the planet heats up.
• Some biologists and philosophers claim evolutionary biology needs reform, arguing that traditional explanations are holding back novel findings.

Some go so far as to say that evolutionary theory itself is in crisis and must be replaced with something new.

• Here, an ecologist explains why evolutionary biology today is a messy patchwork of several loosely connected subfields.

How will life on Earth and the ecosystems that support it adapt to climate change? Which species will go extinct – or evolve into something new? How will microbes develop further resistance to antibiotics?

These kinds of questions, which are of fundamental importance to our way of life, are all a focus for researchers who study evolution and will prove increasingly important as the planet heats up.

But finding the answers isn’t the only challenge facing evolutionary biology. Charles Darwin’s theories might be over 150 years old but major questions about how evolution works are far from settled.

Evolutionary biology is now undergoing one of the most intense debates it has had for more than a generation. And how this debate plays out could have a significant impact on the future of this scientific field.

Some biologists and philosophers claim that evolutionary biology needs reform , arguing that traditional explanations for how organisms change through time that scientists have assumed since the 1930s are holding back the assimilation of novel findings.

Contemporary evolutionary biology, a vocal minority argue , is incomplete. The dominant and traditional view of the field is too preoccupied with how the genes in a population change over time. This neglects, these critics argue, how individual organisms shape their environments and adjust themselves during their lifetimes to survive and reproduce.

Not all biologists are convinced . Some argue that repeated calls for reform are mistaken and can actually hinder progress .

Modern evolutionary theory

The version of evolutionary biology that is still largely taught in schools has its origin in the modern synthesis . This fused Gregor Mendel’s theory that organisms inherit discrete particles (what we now call genes) with Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Darwin suggested that environmental conditions weed out heritable traits which are unhelpful and promote those which offer organisms an advantage.

The modern synthesis aimed to unify biology, but it was dominated by a few subfields, particularly genetics and paleontology, and focused on how populations change their genetic make-up over time. From this perspective, organisms are objects and the raw material for natural selection.

Notably, the modern synthesis did not incorporate all fields. The study of how embryos develop and how organisms interact with each other and their environment (ecology) were largely left out.

Organisms are not, critics of the modern synthesis argue, passive objects of natural selection. Instead, they say, organisms are agents that change those environments .

A famous example is the beaver, which builds dams to survive and reproduce, changing its surroundings in the process. This tinkering in turn influences natural selection on itself and other species, thereby changing the beaver’s long-term evolution.

Organisms also inherit more than DNA . This challenges the modern synthesis’s assumption that traits an organism acquires during a single lifetime cannot be passed down.

There is cultural transmission: killer whales teach their children and grandchildren hunting skills and food preferences. Songbirds transfer nutrients to new generations in eggs just as humans give their offspring antibodies through breast milk. Some biologists say that these endowments can revitalise the study of evolutionary biology, diverting our attention from strict genetic inheritance.

Diversity is a strength

As an evolutionary ecologist with an interest in how organisms adapt to their environments, I am not as worried as some that the current version of evolutionary biology is incomplete. Neither am I particularly concerned about the limitations of population genetics.

Evolution can clearly be described as changing gene frequencies between generations. But this does not mean that population genetics is the only useful way to study evolution.

Biologists might disagree on what constitutes an evolutionary process , with natural selection and random changes in DNA being the two best studied processes. Evolutionary processes are not the only interesting aspect of evolution, though.

Evolutionary outcomes and the products of evolution – organisms and how they develop – also keep biologists busy. We have come to understand more about how genes and environments interact to shape the development of organisms. These insights from evolutionary developmental biology have clearly enriched our field.

That evolutionary biology is increasingly fractured does not worry me either, as long as we recognise that a plurality of approaches is not a weakness, but a strength. If physicists cannot agree upon a grand unified theory of the universe, why should biologists expect to agree on one beyond what we have already achieved? After all, organisms are much more complex than physical particles and processes.

To take another example from physics, light can be viewed either as a particle or a wave. This duality reflects how a single descriptor is not enough to fully describe the complex phenomenon of light.

If this works for physicists, why could evolutionary biologists not also use multiple ways of studying a process as complex as evolution, and things as complex as organisms? Why can we not see organisms as either agents capable of modifying their environments or objects subject to natural selection, depending on the context? These are two valuable and complementary perspectives.

Evolutionary biology today is a messy patchwork of several loosely connected subfields . This reflects the enormous diversity of phenomena that we study and the many interests of biologists.

We are united in accepting that natural selection on inheritance and random factors have jointly shaped organisms – but not by much more. Maintaining a coherent overview, either the modern synthesis or some extension to it, seems increasingly hopeless.

Giving up the search for a grand unified evolutionary theory will not hurt our field, but rather, liberate us. It will enable biologists to think more freely about the endless forms most beautiful that are constantly evolving and will continue to do so.

Climate change poses an urgent threat demanding decisive action. Communities around the world are already experiencing increased climate impacts, from droughts to floods to rising seas. The World Economic Forum's Global Risks Report continues to rank these environmental threats at the top of the list.

To limit global temperature rise to well below 2°C and as close as possible to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, it is essential that businesses, policy-makers, and civil society advance comprehensive near- and long-term climate actions in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change.

The World Economic Forum's Climate Initiative supports the scaling and acceleration of global climate action through public and private-sector collaboration. The Initiative works across several workstreams to develop and implement inclusive and ambitious solutions.

This includes the Alliance of CEO Climate Leaders, a global network of business leaders from various industries developing cost-effective solutions to transitioning to a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy. CEOs use their position and influence with policy-makers and corporate partners to accelerate the transition and realize the economic benefits of delivering a safer climate.

Contact us to get involved.

Have you read?

How britain’s backyard bird feeders are shaping evolution, how many species face extinction from climate change, don't miss any update on this topic.

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:

The agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Climate Action .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

From Athens to Dhaka: how chief heat officers are battling the heat

Angeli Mehta

May 8, 2024

Funding the green technology innovation pipeline: Lessons from China

4 ways the climate crisis could be coming for your income

Simon Torkington

Floods in the Arabian Gulf remind us that investing in climate mitigation cannot wait

Neeshad Shafi

May 1, 2024

More people now cycle than drive in central Paris

70% of workers are at risk of climate-related health hazards, says the ILO

Johnny Wood

• Book Review
• Open access
• Published: 18 March 2010

Thirteen Essays on Evolution and Creationism in Modern Debates

Stephen C. Barton and David Wilkinson (eds): Reading Genesis after Darwin. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. pp. xiv + 254. S/b $24.95

• Kim Paffenroth 1  

Evolution: Education and Outreach volume  3 ,  pages 297–299 ( 2010 ) Cite this article

11k Accesses

9 Altmetric

Metrics details

This anthology consists of 13 essays written by professors trained in biblical studies or theology, writing on the interpretation of Genesis (by which they almost exclusively mean the first chapter of Genesis) since Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859). After a brief Introduction by the editors, the book is then divided into three parts: “Engaging again with the Scriptures,” “Understanding the History,” and “Exploring the Contemporary Relevance.” It includes an index of modern authors and a subject index. References of works cited are included in the notes for each chapter, though a bibliography at the end would’ve been a welcome addition.

Section 1, “Engaging again with the Scriptures,” includes four essays. In “How Should One Read the Early Chapters of Genesis?” Walter Moberly discusses the implications of taking Genesis as “a literary phenomenon.” His conclusion is probably unremarkable to anyone trained in modern, liberal biblical criticism, and it will recur in similar terms in several of the other essays: Moberly challenges us to see in Genesis biblical ideas such as “wonder and delight of the world, creaturely contingency, creaturely responsibility, the gift of relationship between creature and Creator, and the difficulty that humans have in genuinely trusting God as a wise Creator and living accordingly”. I think he is quite correct that this view maintains the text’s meaning and relevance, without insisting on a literal reading of it.

Francis Watson takes the history of controversy much further back, in his essay, “Genesis before Darwin: Why Scripture Needed Liberating from Science.” He traces what he calls the “annexation” of the Bible by astronomy and geology in the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries: harmonization of the biblical account with scientific findings (e.g. the “days as eons” solution) was done to the detriment or obfuscation of both. Darwin put forth his theory with no reference to Genesis, and according to Watson, this shows a more fruitful and beneficial relationship between Genesis and science—separation or liberation from one another.

In “The Six Days of Creation according to the Greek Fathers,” Andrew Louth discusses the interpretation of Genesis by Theophilos of Antioch and Basil. Louth’s conclusions echo Moberly’s, in that he counsels some of the same attitudes toward creation, showing how ancient theologians regarded the created world with “wonder” and “humility” and were convinced of its “interconnectedness”.

In “The Hermeneutics of Reading Genesis after Darwin,” Richard S. Briggs examines the comparison of Genesis with other ancient Near Eastern texts (a method of biblical study that was coming into vogue contemporaneously with Darwin), concluding that the process and implications of such “triangulating” are similar, whether one is comparing Genesis to the Enuma Elish or to Darwin.

Section 2, “Understanding the History,” includes three essays. It starts with John Rogerson’s “What Difference Did Darwin Make?: The Interpretation of Genesis in the Nineteenth Century,” which examines some biblical commentaries published shortly before and shortly after Darwin’s work, to see what effect (if any) it had on their interpretation of the Genesis text. The examination does a good job of showing there was no unanimity among interpreters as to the meaning of Genesis, and a range of interpretations were advocated, both before and after Darwin. Perhaps even more interestingly, even within the group that rejected his theory, interpretations of Genesis often differed.

John Headley Brooke, in “Genesis and the Scientists: Dissonance among the Harmonizers,” returns to some of the scientific controversies already examined in Watson’s essay, concluding similarly that Darwin’s theory may be more amenable to Christianity than attempts at harmonizing Genesis with current scientific theories, since Darwin “purged it [Christianity] of a semi-deistic position”. This is an important distinction for those who would “defend” the Bible, who too often seem to be defending a deistic position that God created the universe and let it go on its own subsequently, rather than defending the idea of a God who wishes to be in communion with humans (the more narrowly biblical concept of God, in either Jewish or Christian interpretation). He also speaks in terms similar to Moberly and Louth, counseling a “nonliteral reading of the text”, and focusing on the text’s primary relevance to “our human existential condition”. David Brown concludes the section with a discussion of some paintings in his essay, “Science and Religion in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Landscape Art.” The most familiar of these to readers is probably Dali’s “The Sacrament of the Last Supper.”

Section 3, “Exploring the Contemporary Relevance,” includes six essays. David Wilkinson’s “Reading Genesis 1-3 in the Light of Modern Science” gives perhaps the fullest summary of the interpretive issues, compared to the other essays in this collection. He puts Darwin in the context of other, sometimes more fundamental and intractable controversies with the Bible; he briefly describes the creationist alternative (pp. 132-135); he traces the various attempts at harmonization, with their pros and cons; and he lays out possible points where Genesis may still speak to the human condition and understanding. Echoing previous essays in the volume, his conclusion is that a primarily literary approach is needed to understand or appreciate the text, and this will yield an interpretation that does not address cosmogonic or biological data, but rather our “unique conscious intimacy with God”.

In “All God’s Creatures: Reading Genesis on Human and Nonhuman Animals,” David Clough argues that in light of evolution (and other observations of animal consciousness and rationality), Christians should abandon anthropocentric readings of Genesis (what he calls “human-separatist” readings throughout). Jeff Astley argues in “Evolution and Evil: The Difference Darwinism Makes in Theology and Spirituality” that evolution exacerbates the problems of theodicy by making suffering (and large amounts of it) intrinsic to creation.

In “’Male and Female He Created Them’ (Genesis 1:27): Interpreting Gender after Darwin,” Stephen C. Barton examines constructions of gender in the classical world, in the Bible, and in subsequent biblical interpretation, contrasting these with modern and postmodern analyses. Ellen F. Davis looks at how organisms fit into their environment in her essay, “Propriety and Trespass: The Drama of Eating,” drawing some conclusions for our current environmental situation and its (un)sustainability. Finally, Mathew Guest’s essay, “The Plausibility of Creationism: A Sociological Comment,” examines the current popularity of creationism in the USA (and to a much lesser degree in the UK), suggesting some sociological forces that may contribute to its acceptance, despite its logical or factual shortcomings.

Although I was excited when I first began reading this volume, this wore off in the course of study. I would single out three essays for praise. Moberly’s is a very helpful look at how believers could still maintain the importance and sacredness of the biblical text, without interpreting it literally. Rogerson’s is a wonderful and suggestive illustration of how Christian belief and interpretation are never monolithic, and never a matter of “good guys” versus “bad guys.” Wilkinson’s is a thorough and accessible discussion of the issues at stake. But overall, I was struck by how little the book deals with Darwin: it could be entitled “Reading Genesis in the Modern World” with little loss of focus. Several of the essays make only the barest nod toward Darwin before moving on to some topic only tangential to his work. The suggestions for the future interpretation of Genesis (literary criticism, a reading that encourages a sense of wonder and humility, the acknowledgment of human incompleteness and contingency, etc.), while sober and encouraging, are repeated by several contributors without much expansion or specificity (Moberly, Louth, Brooke, Wilkinson); such heuristic suggestions are also commonplace in biblical studies, so I found little new here that couldn’t be found in many introductory classes or texts on Genesis.

Several essays were much more deficient, in my estimation. Briggs’s idea that comparing Genesis to other, contemporaneous myths, and comparing it to a scientific treatise written 2,500 years later, are somehow similar comparisons, and the two interpretive acts can shed light on one another, struck me as odd, if not misleading. It overlooks the more fundamental difference in genre: comparing Genesis to other myths (contemporary with it or not) is probably more helpful to understanding it, than comparing it to scientific writings (from whatever time period, though especially a work that eschews teleological questions, and therefore has a completely different outlook than Genesis). Brown’s essay has little to do with the topic of this collection and barely mentions Darwin or Genesis: its observations would make a fine beginning to a chat about “art and spirituality,” but it has no place here. Clough’s essay doesn’t deal with “stewardship,” which many interpreters today would see as the crucial way to understand the biblical teaching on how humans differ from, and yet are immersed in, the created order. Neither Clough’s nor Barton’s essay deals with the differences between Genesis 1 and 2, again a crucial interpretive issue for understanding the text’s ambiguities (and discrepancies) on anthropocentrism and gender.

I say all this from the perspective of a biblical scholar of a decidedly liberal Protestant bent, for whom these issues are well-worn. Perhaps if I try to step outside of this context (and many of the essays in this collection properly remind us of how much context determines meaning), I might better see where some of these essays could fit into a useful discussion. I’d say that for someone who thinks (as many of my atheist and agnostic friends do) that all Christians are creationists, that all Christians immediately opposed Darwin’s ideas and continue to do so today, or that there is only one way to interpret Genesis—for a reader with such impressions, the better written, more thorough of these essays would prove enlightening, and might promote a dialogue that goes beyond secularists versus Biblicists, those who would discard the text versus those who cling to a literal interpretation of it. Such a dialogue might even become a mutual search for truth, conducted with real exchange, understanding, and respect.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Iona College, 715 North Ave., New Rochelle, NY, 10801, USA

Kim Paffenroth

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kim Paffenroth .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0 ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Paffenroth, K. Thirteen Essays on Evolution and Creationism in Modern Debates. Evo Edu Outreach 3 , 297–299 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-010-0215-3

Download citation

Published : 18 March 2010

Issue Date : June 2010

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-010-0215-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Evolution: Education and Outreach

ISSN: 1936-6434

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]

Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998)

Chapter: chapter 5: frequently asked questions about evolution and the nature of science, 5 frequently asked questions about evolution and the nature of science.

Teachers often face difficult questions about evolution, many from parents and others who object to evolution being taught. Science has good answers to these questions, answers that draw on the evidence supporting evolution and on the nature of science. This chapter presents short answers to some of the most commonly asked questions.

Definitions

What is evolution?

Evolution in the broadest sense explains that what we see today is different from what existed in the past. Galaxies, stars, the solar system, and earth have changed through time, and so has life on earth.

Biological evolution concerns changes in living things during the history of life on earth. It explains that living things share common ancestors. Over time, evolutionary change gives rise to new species. Darwin called this process "descent with modification," and it remains a good definition of biological evolution today.

What is "creation science"?

The ideas of "creation science" derive from the conviction that God created the universe—including humans and other living things—all at once in the relatively recent past. However, scientists from many fields have examined these ideas and have found them to be scientifically insupportable. For example, evidence for a very young earth is incompatible with many different methods of establishing the age of rocks. Furthermore, because the basic proposals of creation science are not subject to test and verification, these ideas do not meet the criteria for science. Indeed, U.S. courts have ruled that ideas of creation science are religious views and cannot be taught when evolution is taught.

The Supporting Evidence

How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?

This question reflects a narrow view of how science works. Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented on. Archaeologists study past cultures by examining the artifacts those cultures left behind. Geologists can describe past changes in sea level by studying the marks ocean waves left on rocks. Paleontologists study the fossilized remains of organisms that lived long ago.

Something that happened in the past is thus not "off limits" for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions. Furthermore, many key aspects of evolution occur in relatively short periods that can be observed directly—such as the evolution in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics.

Isn't evolution just an inference?

No one saw the evolution of one-toed horses from three-toed horses, but that does not mean that we cannot be confident that horses evolved. Science is practiced in many ways besides direct observation and experimentation. Much scientific discovery is done through indirect experimentation

and observation in which inferences are made, and hypotheses generated from those inferences are tested.

For instance, particle physicists cannot directly observe subatomic particles because the particles are too small. They must make inferences about the weight, speed, and other properties of the particles based on other observations. A logical hypothesis might be something like this: If the weight of this particle is Y , when I bombard it, X will happen. If X does not happen, then the hypothesis is disproved. Thus, we can learn about the natural world even if we cannot directly observe a phenomenon—and that is true about the past, too.

In historical sciences like astronomy, geology, evolutionary biology, and archaeology, logical inferences are made and then tested against data. Sometimes the test cannot be made until new data are available, but a great deal has been done to help us understand the past. For example, scorpionflies ( Mecoptera ) and true flies ( Diptera ) have enough similarities that entomologists consider them to be closely related. Scorpionflies have four wings of about the same size, and true flies have a large front pair of wings but the back pair is replaced by small club-shaped structures. If Diptera evolved from Mecoptera , as comparative anatomy suggests, scientists predicted that a fossil fly with four wings might be found—and in 1976 this is exactly what was discovered. Furthermore, geneticists have found that the number of wings in flies can be changed through mutations in a single gene.

Evolution is a well-supported theory drawn from a variety of sources of data, including observations about the fossil record, genetic information, the distribution of plants and animals, and the similarities across species of anatomy and development. Scientists have inferred that descent with modification offers the best scientific explanation for these observations.

Is evolution a fact or a theory?

The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch'' as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

Why isn't evolution called a law?

Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur.

Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science.

Don't many famous scientists reject evolution?

No. The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming. Those opposed to the teaching of evolution sometimes use quotations from prominent scientists out of context to claim that scientists do not support evolution. However, examination of the quotations reveals that the scientists are actually disputing some aspect of how evolution occurs, not whether evolution occurred. For example, the biologist Stephen Jay Gould once wrote that "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." But Gould, an accomplished paleontologist and eloquent educator about evolution, was arguing about how evolution takes place. He was discussing whether the rate of change of species is constant and gradual or whether it takes place in bursts after long periods when little change occurs—an idea known as punctuated equilibrium. As Gould writes in response, "This quotation, although accurate as a partial citation, is dishonest in leaving out the following explanatory material showing my true purpose—to discuss rates of evolutionary change, not to deny the fact of evolution itself."

Gould defines punctuated equilibrium as follows:

Punctuated equilibrium is neither a creationist idea nor even a non-Darwinian evolutionary theory about sudden change that produces a new species all at once in a single generation. Punctuated equilibrium accepts the conventional idea that new species form over hundreds or thousands of generations and through an extensive series of intermediate stages. But geological time is so long that even a few thousand years may appear as a mere "moment" relative to the several million years of existence for most species. Thus, rates of evolution vary enormously and new species may appear to arise "suddenly" in geological time, even though the time involved would seem long, and the change very slow, when compared to a human lifetime.

Isn't the fossil record full of gaps?

Though significant gaps existed in the fossil record in the 19th century, many have been filled in. In addition, the consistent pattern of ancient to modern species found in the fossil record is strong evidence for evolution. The plants and animals living today are not like the plants and animals of the remote past. For example, dinosaurs were extinct long before humans walked the earth. We know this because no human remains have ever been found in rocks dated to the dinosaur era.

Some changes in populations might occur too rapidly to leave many transitional fossils. Also, many organisms were very unlikely to leave fossils, either because of their habitats or because they had no body parts that could easily be fossilized. However, in many cases, such as between primitive fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, and reptiles and birds, there are excellent transitional fossils.

Can evolution account for new species?

One argument sometimes made by supporters of "creation science" is that natural selection can produce minor changes within species, such as changes in color or beak size, but cannot generate new species from pre-existing species. However, evolutionary biologists have documented many cases in which new species have appeared in recent years (some of these cases are discussed in Chapter 2 ). Among most plants and animals, speciation is an extended process, and a single human observer can witness only a part of this process. Yet these observations of evolution at work provide powerful confirmation that evolution forms new species.

If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

Humans did not evolve from modern apes, but humans and modern apes shared a common ancestor, a species that no longer exists. Because we shared a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas, we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with the African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes—orangutans and gibbons—and even less similar to monkeys, because we shared common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past.

Evolution is a branching or splitting process in which populations split off from one another and gradually become different. As the two groups become isolated from each other, they stop sharing genes, and eventually genetic differences increase until members of the groups can no longer interbreed. At this point, they have become separate species. Through time, these two species might give rise to new species, and so on through millennia.

Doesn't the sudden appearance of all the "modern groups" of animals during the Cambrian explosion prove creationism?

During the Cambrian explosion, primitive representatives of the major phyla of invertebrate animals appeared—hard-shelled organisms like mollusks and arthropods. More modern representatives of these invertebrates appeared gradually through the Cambrian and the Ordovician periods. "Modern groups" like terrestrial vertebrates and flowering plants were not present. It is not true that "all the modern groups of animals" appeared during this period.

Also, Cambrian fossils did not appear spontaneously. They had ancestors in the Precambrian period, but because these Precambrian forms were soft-bodied, they left fewer fossils. A characteristic of the Cambrian fossils is the evolution of hard

body parts, which greatly improved the chance of fossilization. And even without fossils, we can infer relationships among organisms from biochemical information.

Religious Issues

Can a person believe in God and still accept evolution?

Many do. Most religions of the world do not have any direct conflict with the idea of evolution. Within the Judeo-Christian religions, many people believe that God works through the process of evolution. That is, God has created both a world that is ever-changing and a mechanism through which creatures can adapt to environmental change over time.

At the root of the apparent conflict between some religions and evolution is a misunderstanding of the critical difference between religious and scientific ways of knowing. Religions and science answer different questions about the world. Whether there is a purpose to the universe or a purpose for human existence are not questions for science. Religious and scientific ways of knowing have played, and will continue to play, significant roles in human history.

No one way of knowing can provide all of the answers to the questions that humans ask. Consequently, many people, including many scientists, hold strong religious beliefs and simultaneously accept the occurrence of evolution.

Aren't scientific beliefs based on faith as well?

Usually "faith" refers to beliefs that are accepted without empirical evidence. Most religions have tenets of faith. Science differs from religion because it is the nature of science to test and retest explanations against the natural world. Thus, scientific explanations are likely to be built on and modified with new information and new ways of looking at old information. This is quite different from most religious beliefs.

Therefore, "belief" is not really an appropriate term to use in science, because testing is such an important part of this way of knowing. If there is a component of faith to science, it is the assumption that the universe operates according to regularities—for example, that the speed of light will not change tomorrow. Even the assumption of that regularity is often tested—and thus far has held up well. This "faith" is very different from religious faith.

Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.

Legal Issues

Why can't we teach creation science in my school?

The courts have ruled that "creation science" is actually a religious view. Because public schools must be religiously neutral under the U.S. Constitution, the courts have held that it is unconstitutional to present creation science as legitimate scholarship.

In particular, in a trial in which supporters of creation science testified in support of their view, a district court declared that creation science does not meet the tenets of science as scientists use the term ( McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education ). The Supreme Court has held that it is illegal to require that creation science be taught when evolution is taught ( Edwards v. Aguillard ). In addition, district courts have decided that individual teachers cannot advocate creation science on their own ( Peloza v. San Juan Capistrano School District and Webster v. New Lennox School District ).

Teachers' organizations such as the National Science Teachers Association, the National Association of Biology Teachers, the National Science Education Leadership Association, and many others also have rejected the science and pedagogy of creation science and have strongly discouraged its presentation in the public schools. (Statements from some of these organizations appear in Appendix C .) In addition, a coalition of religious and other organizations has noted in "A Joint Statement of Current Law" (see Appendix B ) that "in science class, [schools] may present only genuinely scientific critiques of, or evidence for, any explanation of life on earth, but not religious

critiques (beliefs unverifiable by scientific methodology)."

Some argue that "fairness" demands the teaching of creationism along with evolution. But a science curriculum should cover science, not the religious views of particular groups or individuals.

Educational Issues

If evolution is taught in schools, shouldn't creationism be given equal time?

Some religious groups deny that microorganisms cause disease, but the science curriculum should not therefore be altered to reflect this belief. Most people agree that students should be exposed to the best possible scholarship in each field. That scholarship is evaluated by professionals and educators in those fields. In science, scientists as well as educators have concluded that evolution—and only evolution—should be taught in science classes because it is the only scientific explanation for why the universe is the way it is today.

Many people say that they want their children to be exposed to creationism in school, but there are thousands of different ideas about creation among the world's people. Comparative religions might comprise a worthwhile field of study but not one appropriate for a science class. Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution states that schools must be religiously neutral, so legally a teacher could not present any particular creationist view as being more "true" than others.

Why should teachers teach evolution when they already have so many things to teach and can cover biology without mentioning evolution?

Teachers face difficult choices in deciding what to teach in their limited time, but some ideas are of central importance in each discipline. In biology, evolution is such an idea. Biology is sometimes taught as a list of facts, but if evolution is introduced early in a class and in an uncomplicated manner, it can tie many disparate facts together. Most important, it offers a way to understand the astonishing complexity, diversity, and activity of the modern world. Why are there so many different types of organisms? What is the response of a species or community to a changing environment? Why is it so difficult to develop antibiotics and insecticides that are useful for more than a decade or two? All of these questions are easily discussed in terms of evolution but are difficult to answer otherwise.

A lack of instruction about evolution also can hamper students when they need that information to take other classes, apply for college or medical school, or make decisions that require a knowledge of evolution.

Should students be given lower grades for not believing in evolution?

No. Children's personal views should have no effect on their grades. Students are not under a compulsion to accept evolution. A grade reflects a teacher's assessment of a student's understanding. If a child does not understand the basic ideas of evolution, a grade could and should reflect that lack of understanding, because it is quite possible to comprehend things that are not believed.

Can evolution be taught in an inquiry-based fashion?

Any science topic can be taught in an inquiry-oriented manner, and evolution is particularly amenable to this approach. At the core of inquiry-oriented instruction is the provision for students to collect data (or be given data when collection is not possible) and to analyze the data to derive patterns, conclusions, and hypotheses, rather than just learning facts. Students can use many data sets from evolution (such as diagrams of anatomical differences in organisms) to derive patterns or draw connections between morphological forms and environmental conditions. They then can use their data sets to test their hypotheses.

Students also can collect data in real time. For example, they can complete extended projects involving crossbreeding of fruit flies or plants to illustrate the genetic patterns of inheritance and the influence of the environment on survival. In this way, students can develop an understanding of evolution, scientific inquiry, and the nature of science.

Today many school students are shielded from one of the most important concepts in modern science: evolution. In engaging and conversational style, Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science provides a well-structured framework for understanding and teaching evolution.

Written for teachers, parents, and community officials as well as scientists and educators, this book describes how evolution reveals both the great diversity and similarity among the Earth's organisms; it explores how scientists approach the question of evolution; and it illustrates the nature of science as a way of knowing about the natural world. In addition, the book provides answers to frequently asked questions to help readers understand many of the issues and misconceptions about evolution.

The book includes sample activities for teaching about evolution and the nature of science. For example, the book includes activities that investigate fossil footprints and population growth that teachers of science can use to introduce principles of evolution. Background information, materials, and step-by-step presentations are provided for each activity. In addition, this volume:

• Presents the evidence for evolution, including how evolution can be observed today.
• Explains the nature of science through a variety of examples.
• Describes how science differs from other human endeavors and why evolution is one of the best avenues for helping students understand this distinction.
• Answers frequently asked questions about evolution.

Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science builds on the 1996 National Science Education Standards released by the National Research Council—and offers detailed guidance on how to evaluate and choose instructional materials that support the standards.

Comprehensive and practical, this book brings one of today's educational challenges into focus in a balanced and reasoned discussion. It will be of special interest to teachers of science, school administrators, and interested members of the community.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu'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?

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

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

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.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

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

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

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

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

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Special Collections
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Reasons to submit
• About BioScience
• Journals Career Network
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Potentially Offensive Content
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

References cited.

• < Previous

Evolution: Evidence and Acceptance

Ross H. Nehm ( [email protected] ) is an associate professor of science education and evolution, ecology, and organismal biology at The Ohio State University, in Columbus. His research on evolution education was recently highlighted in Thinking Evolutionarily: Evolution Education Across the Life Sciences (National Academies Press, 2012).

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Ross H. Nehm, Evolution: Evidence and Acceptance, BioScience , Volume 62, Issue 9, September 2012, Pages 845–847, https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.9.13

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The Evidence for Evolution. Alan R. Rogers. University of Chicago Press, 2011. 128 pp., illus. $18.00 (ISBN 9780226723822 paper).

A lthough scientists view evolution as an indisputable feature of the natural world, most Americans simply do not believe that it occurs, or they reject naturalistic explanations for biotic change. Empirical studies have revealed that students and teachers often know quite a bit about evolution but still do not accept it. This somewhat counterintuitive finding has been empirically corroborated and has led science educators to investigate this pattern in order to provide suggestions for effective evolution instruction (e.g., Rosengren et al. 2012 ). Within the lucid, compact, up-to-date, and highly readable pages of The Evidence for Evolution , author Alan R. Rogers takes an approach that most science educators have found inadequate: exclusively using logic, parsimony, and the force of evidence to precipitate conceptual change about evolutionary belief. Reactions from both supportive and dissenting readers to this nicely written text will depend on how much faith they place in the use of logic to challenge the worldviews of intelligent-design creationists.

Two premises appear to frame this short book: Biology courses and textbooks are focused on evolutionary mechanisms at the expense of the evidence for evolution, which most people are not aware of, and once disbelievers of evolution are exposed to the massive amount of evidence that exists, they will change their beliefs. I am not sure whether most biologists would agree with the first premise, given the increasingly elaborate coverage of evolution in textbooks. Indeed, having reviewed some of the best-selling introductory biology books ( Nehm et al. 2009 ), I know that many topics that Rogers discusses are, in fact, covered in these texts. I am also doubtful as to whether science educators would agree with the second premise: Empirical studies have shown that learning more about evolution often fails to precipitate a meaningful belief change.

Within the 10 chapters that form the structure of The Evidence for Evolution , the choice of topics is excellent. Also noteworthy are the use of fresh empirical examples, the integration of phylogenetic trees, and the inclusion of paleontological patterns, radiometric dating, and genomic data. The evidence for evolution is vast, and choosing appropriate examples for a short book is no small task.

Writing about evolution can be quite challenging, given that many students and teachers view teleological factors as sufficient explanations for evolutionary change. It is important, therefore, to clarify what we mean when we use such language ( Rector et al. 2012 ). At times, Rogers uses intentional or teleological language: “Every living thing must solve many engineering problems just to stay alive” (p. 34). Although biologists will understand what Rogers means, the same may not be true of novice readers. Individual organisms cannot willfully change the traits that they have (e.g., they cannot intentionally modify a phenotypic feature).

Language may also invoke ideas that are at odds with current scientific thinking, and although Rogers writes with precision and clarity, some exceptions are worth mentioning. Trait loss, for example, has been shown to be a particularly difficult concept for students and teachers to understand ( Nehm and Ha 2011 ). When describing the loss of whale limbs (“Over the next few million years, whales relied less and less on their legs,” p. 20, or “Hind limbs dwindled,” p. 22), his language may be in greater alignment with common misconceptions about use and disuse than with natural selection. When writing about evolution, scientists need to be more cognizant of readers' potential interpretations of the language that we use.

One literary device employed throughout the text is the contrast of supernatural explanations (e.g., “Perhaps we sprang from the hand of God,” p. 81) with naturalistic, evolutionary explanations. Although this approach makes the text engaging, it makes little sense from my perspective and has the potential to exacerbate readers' existing confusions about core ideas relating to the nature of science (NOS). Most students and teachers remain unaware of the ontological presuppositions that undergird the scientific process (e.g., methodological naturalism). By definition (e.g., from the National Academy of Sciences), science cannot speak to or evaluate the relative merits of supernatural explanations; no amount of evidence will ever be able to tip the scale in favor of a naturalistic explanation relative to a supernatural one or vice versa. It is not clear why Rogers takes this approach.

Students' and teachers' evolutionary acceptance levels are known to be related to their understanding of the NOS. Because many Americans are deeply confused about NOS concepts such as observation , inference , testability , theory , law , model , proof , experiment , and hypothesis ( Lederman 2007 ), addressing NOS misconceptions has become de rigueur in evolution education. I was surprised, therefore, to find that The Evidence for Evolution does not discuss what evidence is or how the term is used in evolutionary science. More problematic is the somewhat careless use of NOS terms (e.g., “this experiment proved that,” p. 12, emphasis added, and “we can also see new species forming ,” p. 16, emphasis added). In order to prevent the reinforcement of such NOS misconceptions (e.g., that scientific knowledge is certain because it is proven ; or the conflation of observation and inference ), the meanings of everyday and scientific terms must be carefully distinguished for readers.

To make the most of Rogers's important contribution, pairing The Evidence for Evolution with a textbook about the NOS (e.g., Espinoza 2012 ) is much more likely to achieve what the author admirably aspires to: an understanding, acceptance, and appreciation of evolutionary science. Facts, logic, and parsimony are unlikely, on their own, to affect most people's perceptions of the plausibility of evolution.

Espinoza F . 2012 . The Nature of Science: Integrating Historical, Philosophical, and Sociological Perspectives . Rowman and Littlefield .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Lederman NG . 2007 . Nature of Science: Past, Present, and Future . Pages 831 – 880 in Abell SK Lederman NG , eds. Handbook of Research on Science Education . Erlbaum .

Nehm RH Ha M . 2011 . Item feature effects in evolution assessment . Journal of Research in Science Teaching 48 : 237 – 256 .

Nehm RH Poole TM Lyford ME Hoskins SG Carruth L Ewers BE Colberg PJS . 2009 . Does the segregation of evolution in biology textbooks and introductory courses reinforce students' faulty mental models of biology and evolution? Evolution: Education and Outreach 2 : 527 – 532 .

Rector MA Nehm RH Pearl D . 2012 . Learning the language of evolution: Lexical ambiguity and word meaning in student explanations . Research in Science Education . Forthcoming. (3 July 2012; www.springerlink.com/content/4117121q46082l30 ) doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9296-z

Rosengren KS Brem SK Evans EM Sinatra GM eds. 2012 . Evolution Challenges: Integrating Research and Practice in Teaching and Learning about Evolution . Oxford University Press .

Author notes

Email alerts, citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1525-3244
• Copyright © 2024 American Institute of Biological Sciences
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate

Tuesday is the 210th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth, a day now celebrated by some as Darwin Day. Darwin is best known for his theory of evolution through natural selection . When Darwin’s work was first made public in 1859, it shocked Britain’s religious establishment. And while today it is accepted by virtually all scientists, evolutionary theory still is rejected by many Americans, often because it conflicts with their religious beliefs about divine creation.

While not an official holiday, Darwin Day has been adopted by scientific and humanist groups to promote everything from scientific literacy to secularism. This year, dozens of events have been planned worldwide, many of them anchored by scientific talks or symposiums.

To mark the occasion, here are six facts about the public’s views on evolution, as well as other aspects of the debate in the U.S. and elsewhere:

Roughly eight-in-ten U.S. adults (81%) say humans have evolved over time , according to data from a new Pew Research Center study . This includes one-third of all Americans (33%) who say that humans evolved due to processes like natural selection with no involvement by God or a higher power, along with 48% who believe human evolution occurred through processes guided or allowed by God or a higher power. The same survey found that 18% of Americans reject evolution entirely, saying humans have always existed in their present form. (See the full report for a deeper look at the ways question wording and format can affect survey results on evolution.)

Around four-in-ten white evangelical Protestants (38%) say humans have always existed in their present form, and about a quarter (27%) of black Protestants share this view,  according to the new study. Among white mainline Protestants, just 16% say humans have always existed in their present form. Similar shares of Catholics (13%) and the religiously unaffiliated (11%) say the same. Only among the religiously unaffiliated – those who describe their religion as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” – do a majority (64%) accept evolution via natural selection with no involvement from God or a higher power. Both Protestants and Catholics are considerably more likely to say evolution was guided or allowed by God than they are to say that humans evolved due to processes such as natural selection, or to say that humans have always existed in their present form.

Scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans evolved over time, and most Americans are aware that this is the case . Among scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 98% say they believe humans evolved over time. Roughly three-quarters (76%) of Americans perceive that most biological scientists hold this view, according to the new study . Those in the general public who reject evolution are divided on whether there is a scientific consensus on the topic: 46% say most biological scientists think humans have evolved due to processes such as natural selection, and 52% say most biological scientists think humans have always existed in their present form.

A series of court decisions have prohibited the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in public schools.  In spite of efforts in many American states and localities to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools – or to teach alternatives to evolution – courts in recent decades have consistently rejected public school curricula that veer away from evolutionary theory. In Edwards v. Aguillard  (1987), for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring public school students to learn both evolution and creation science violated the Constitution’s prohibition on the establishment of religion.

While most Americans (59%) say science and religion are often in conflict, those who are more religiously observant are less likely than others to see this clash between faith and science ,   according to a 2015 Pew Research Center survey . Among those who attend church at least once a week, half (50%) view religion and science as in conflict, compared with nearly three-quarters (73%) of those who seldom or never attend worship services. At the same time, most people (68%) say that their own personal religious beliefs do not clash with accepted scientific doctrine.

Outside the U.S., there are many other countries where sizable shares of the population reject evolution.   In Latin America , for example, roughly four-in-ten or more residents of several countries – including Ecuador, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic – say humans and other living things have always existed in their present form. This is true even though the official teachings of Catholicism, which is the majority religion in the region, do not reject evolution . In Central and Eastern Europe, evolution is broadly accepted , but roughly half or more of adults in two countries – Armenia and Bosnia – reject it. Meanwhile, Muslims in many nations  are divided on the topic, although majorities of Muslims in countries such as Afghanistan, Indonesia and Iraq reject evolution.

It’s important to note that our international surveys have used a different approach to ask about evolution, so results are not directly comparable to our new U.S. survey (although some of our older U.S. surveys used similar questions).

Note: This is an update to a post originally published on Feb. 12, 2015.

• Beliefs & Practices
• Religion & Politics
• Religion & Science

David Masci is a former senior writer/editor focusing on religion at Pew Research Center .

How common is religious fasting in the United States?

8 facts about atheists, spirituality among americans, how people in south and southeast asia view religious diversity and pluralism, religion among asian americans, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

• Essay Topics
• Homework Help
• Essay Types
• Essay Examples
• Become a Tutor

100 Evolution Essay Topics + Essay Writing Guide

Even though most of us know enough about evolution, finding a good and a unique topic can quickly become a challenge! The trick here is to determine a unique framework for your future paper, so you know what structure to follow to keep up with all the essay writing rules. Looking through the countless Biology and Life Sciences essays of the actual students and reading through essay revisions of college and university professors in our time, I have made a list of 100 excellent evolution essay topics and wrote down all the “Do’s” and “Don’t’s” of evolution essay writing.

Trust me, choosing a good topic becomes much easier when you understand how the evolution works and realize that it deals with much more than explaining how we all got here. It is not only about us, human beings, as evolution also deals with all flora and fauna and the changes that take place in our society. As you read through the topics below, think of evolution as of diversity in nature that provides a framework for the determination of the ways how the species develop their distinguishable differences!

Contents (Clickable)

      What is an Evolution Essay?

Evolution essay is a paper that focuses on any aspect related to the evolution theory and diversity in nature. Since it is a scientific theory that is fundamental for the modern biological theory, an evolution essay also includes the facts, theories, hypotheses, and the history of the evolution theory among other topics. Evolution essay is first and foremost, a scientific work, therefore, it is extremely important to include verified facts, backed up with the help of academic journals and the books with a correct format and the references.

      Evolution and Theory of Evolution

A bit more theory that will help you to understand the topics in a better way! Trust me; I’ll keep it short!

Evolution refers to changes in heritable characteristics in species over successive generations. This process ultimately results in the occurrence of biodiversity (this is the reason why the presence of Biodiversity in your research paper is so important!). In basic terms, evolution is a process that occurs in all species on Earth, which are currently estimated at mind-blowing 2 million . In other words, it means all the species, starting with miniscule bacteria and up to the evolution of human beings.

Theory of evolution refers to a scientific theory that explains the origin of different species by evolution. Charles Darwin is considered to be the father of the theory of evolution and the one behind the foundation of the theory explained in the famous On the Origin of Species book published in 1859.

      Actual Research Essay Examples on Topic!

Before we move on to the list of 100 evolution essay topics, I want to share four actual essay examples related to evolution, biology, and the life sciences, so you can get a better idea about how particular ideas can be implemented in practice for the best results. Looking through our vast essay database written and shared by students, I came up with these diverse examples:

• Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? – Evolution explored through the phenomenon of global warming. Is it a fact or a fiction? This essay’s author came up with an excellent research topic and argumentation!
• Environmental Science Q&A – Here we have an example of environmental issues related to evolution and the changes that we can observe. See how the questions are addressed and how the structure is kept.
• Genetically Modified Food – As surprising as it may be, it is also an issue related to evolution because the microorganisms and the species go through mutation, which is, essentially, an evolution process and a relevant social issue.
• Geographical Characteristics of the Streams in Urban Areas and Forested Areas – see how the changes of evolution impact the geographical aspect in both urban and the forested areas.

As you can see from the examples, evolution is an expansive concept and a field of research, so you do not have to limit yourself with a strict list of biology or microorganisms-related topics. Be creative and try to make your evolution essay feel interesting and inspiring!

     100 Evolution Essay Topics

Let us start with the human evolution, so we can see how broad and many-sided the evolution essay writing can be!

      Human Evolution Essay Topics

• Why do human beings laugh?
• Why did human species develop to be dominant on the planet?
• What distinguishes human brain from the other species?
• Evolution of human eye.
• Why do human beings perceive beauty?
• How does evolution theory explain the existence of language and speech?
• Recent mutations the humans underwent.
• The current mutations humans are going through.
• Geodakyan evolutionary theory of sex.
• Evolution of sexual reproduction.
• Red Queen hypothesis.
• Evolution of human intelligence.
• Evolution of monogamy.
• Evolutionary medicine.
• Social effects of evolutionary theory.
• Evolution of immunity.
• Evolution of the human nervous system.
• Evolution of sex differences in cognition.
• Sexual selection.
• Sexual conflict.
• Host-parasite coevolution in human malaria.
• Variation in evolution.
• Evolutionary stance on art.
• Why did humans start walking on two feet?
• What is the evolutionary benefit of forming the society?
• As you can see from these examples, evolution is not only about biology and the life sciences!

Okay, so you want something more traditional? Here we go below:

      Evolution of Flora and Fauna Essay Topics

• Evolution of dogs/cats/whales/ or any other species of your choice.
• Parallel evolution in the animal kingdom.
• Earliest life forms.
• Cladistics in the animal kingdom.
• Evolutionary ecology of parasites.
• Host-parasite coevolution in animals.
• Evolution of birds.
• An impact of climate on evolution.
• Evolution of fungi.
• The hair evolution.
• Notable cases of adaptation.
• Evolution of mimicry.
• Natural selection in the animal kingdom.
• Co-operation development.
• Early animal evolution.
• Polyps and medusas evolution.
• “Savannah” hypothesis of early bilateral evolution.
• Why the invertebrates became more complex?
• Evolution of the animal genome.
• Early evolution of neurons.
• Plant population genetics and evolution.
• Reconstruction of sexual modes throughout evolution.
• The role of chromosomal change in plant evolution.
• Evolution during the domestication of animals.

Have an essay due? Need to write a college essay? Let Homework Lab help you with your task:

• Register at Homework Lab
• Plan and schedule your task
• Work on your own or request help from a Geek

Help With My Essay

Let’s continue with more biology-related topics!

      Evolutionary Biology Essay Topics

• Gene-centered view.
• Theory of stellar evolution.
• The social impact of evolutionary biology.
• Evolution of multicellular organisms.
• Genetic architecture of adaptation.
• Evolutionary robotics.
• Evolution of cooperation.
• Paleobiology.
• Bayesian inference of phylogeny and its impact on evolutionary biology.
• Evolutionary biology of aging.
• Neuroscience in evolutionary biology.
• Optimality theory.
• Morphometrics.
• Biological conservation.
• Evolutionary biology and ecology.
• Evolutionary biology and immunology.
• Conceptual issues in evolutionary biology.
• Evolutionary biology and population genetics.
• Evolutionary biology and phylogenetics.
• Mathematical models in evolutionary biology.
• The evolutionary perspective on sperm biology.
• Plant speciation.
• Marine speciation.
• Morphological evolution.

      Theory of Evolution Essay Topics

• How did Darwin come up with his theory?
• Theories that can potentially debunk an evolution theory.
• Common misconceptions about evolution that everyone still believes.
• Influence of Darwin’s theory on the science.
• History of evolutionary thought.
• Theories about evolution that existed before Darwin’s “ The Origin of Species”
• Essentialism.
• Tree of Life Concept.
• Are we all related?
• Adaptation theory.
• Lamarck’s theory of evolution.
• Evolution as fact and the theory.
• Somatic selection.
• Synthetic theory of evolution.
• Why is evolution still considered a theory?
• Evolution theory of a social change.
• Evolutionary psychology.
• Mutation theory by De Vries.
• Neo-Darwinism.
• The types of evolutionary theories.
• The contribution of Alfred Wallace in the evolution theory.
• Who should be credited for evolution theory – Wallace or Darwin?
• Objections to evolution theory.
• Proof of evolution.
• How does evolution explain morality?

      How to Write an Evolution Essay

1 Evolution Essay Structure

The structure of an evolution essay is what you should know even before you decide on a topic and there is a good reason for that! There are three major elements that your essay structure should include to make sure that your professor will not decrease your future grade:

• Introduction . It provides the readers with a brief outlook on your topic, your essay structure, the elements included, and the main idea that you want to communicate. It is where your strong thesis statement or an argument go to! Make sure your introduction contains the following:
• A strong hook sentence – an attention-grabbing element that is usually in the first 1-2 sentences of the essay. Since we have to write an essay about the evolution theory, we will choose a scientific fact or refer to an impressive discovery that refers to evolution. A reason why hook should be there is to capture your reader’s interest and attention!
• Overview of your major argument and topic – let the readers know what they are about to find out and learn as they read your evolution essay!
• A brief overview of the essay structure – explain how and in what order you are planning to develop each part of your paper.
• Thesis statement – the main idea or the quintessence of your essay. Make sure to write several thesis statements and choose the one that not only sounds best but the one that you can back up and explain with the help of scientific data and credible references.
• Body paragraph includes the consistent and logical sequence of paragraphs that reveal all the facts and arguments that you use to support your thesis statement.

Make sure to:

• Use verified sources – evolution theory is a scientific theory that has plenty of evidence, so make sure that you include as many credible references as necessary!
• Be logical and consistent – let your readers follow your logic easily. Remember that your audience may differ, so make sure to write a sentence or two that explains your vision and the concepts you are discussing. If it requires more work or a reference to a case study, make sure to include it in your paper.
• Start every paragraph with a topic sentence – it will be much easier for you to write each section if you start writing them with a thesis that reflects the content of the paragraph.
• Explain the facts included in the essay – demonstrate your understanding of the facts you use in the essay and their relevance to the main topic and thesis statement
• Avoid plagiarism – copying someone else’s work without reference is not cool while using numerous sources to support your thought with an academic claim is entirely another thing that makes your essay look credible and professional!
• Conclusion part is where you summarize the whole essay without the introduction of any new ideas . Remind your readers of the most important facts and the findings they should remember when they are done reading your essay. Restate your thesis statement in other words to make the essay sound logical and integrated.

2 Argumentative Essay on Evolution Writing Tricks

When you have to write an argumentative essay on evolution, there are some writing tricks that you should mind to avoid trouble with your paper and impress your college or university professor.

• Include your own opinion on an issue that you discuss – an argumentative essay requires having your own stance on a problem or what most college professors call “a voice of the writer.” Ask yourself about how can YOU contribute to the issue since it is your paper and it has to stand out!
• Defend your view on the issue using as many verified facts as you can!
• Include the viewpoints that oppose yours – and prove them wrong . Do so with the facts and use strong reasoning.
• Do not simply restate thesis statement in conclusion , but readdress it using the evidence you accumulated through the body paragraphs.
• Use classic 5-paragraph essay format (if you are not required to do otherwise) – Introduction, 3 Body Paragraphs, and Conclusion. Such an approach will help you to see where all that information belongs!

      Evolution Essay “Do’s and Dont’s”

• Research your facts, the background of the issue, and the case studies (if relevant) as you choose your future topic and read the list of topic examples below.
• Include scientific facts in your essay and use professional language.
• Start your introduction with an interesting hook by stating why is the topic of choice relevant to you and society.
• Use strong thesis statement as your guideline to make sure that you don’t deviate from the topic.
• Double-check your facts and always back up your paper with academic journals and credible references.
• Do not underestimate the use of drafts as you write the paper.
• Do not use the same wording for the thesis statement as for your hook sentence. These are two different matters where one of them is an introduction, and the other one is the reason for your research.
• Do not simply copy scientific information without your personal comment and consideration. If it has to be there, explain how and why.
• Do not underestimate the importance of an outline, format, and the body structure.
• Do not ignore the importance of proofreading because it will help you to eliminate typos, grammar mistakes, and accidental repeating of the same sentence.

      Help! I’m Still Stuck!!!

Sometimes even the list of helpful topic ideas and the essay writing guides are still not enough because the deadline is coming up and you have not yet started. In other cases, it is way too difficult to find the right sources, and you need just a bit of help to get your paper done. It is exactly the moment when you need professional help and someone who can help you get out of this “I’m Stuck!” mode.

The help is already here for you as our skilled team of biology and life sciences experts, as well as professionals in the other fields of science, are ready to help you work through the most complex assignments and be there to make you come up with a great topic idea! All you have to do is tell us of your homework task, fill in the simple form, and we shall connect you with a skilled geek who knows how to help and do so timely! It is absolutely safe and confidential, let alone that it is fine to ask for help when you need it! Our team knows how much challenging all of these tasks are, so it is guaranteed that you will be guided through each problem and issue that you have to deliver a great final paper. No matter what your problem may be, we are ready to help you identify and deal with it!

I am sincerely hoping that my 100 evolution essay topics and the writing guide article have helped you to get an idea of how to write your paper. If not, remember what I have mentioned in a paragraph above! 🙂 In case you have something to add or want to share something important, feel free to post in the comments below! I wish you the best of luck and let us make an evolution with a truly awesome paper!

Related articles

Popular articles

The Biology Corner

Biology Teaching Resources

Evolution: Fact, Fiction, or Opinion

This lesson can be used to introduce evolution and establish what your students already understand (or misunderstand) about evolutionary theory.   

Statements can be printed and cut into slips and students work in small groups to categorize each statement as either Fact, Fiction, or Opinion.   

The included answer key has quick explanations as well as links to authoritative sources to explain the positions, sources from Berkeley’ Understanding Evolution and New Scientist .

Evolution misconceptions are fairly common for beginning biology students.  For example, many think that evolution leads to greater complexity, or that natural selection is the only process that results in evolution.   

What your students know depends greatly on how much was covered (or not covered) in previous classes.

A google doc link is included for editing or adding new statements.

The exercise also serves as a starting point for discussions about what facts, models, and theories are within the context of science.

HS-LS4-1  Communicate scientific information that common ancestry and biological evolution are supported by multiple lines of empirical evidence

• Writing services
• Proofreading
• Math/Science
• Copywriting
• Dissertation services
• Admission services
• Our Writers

Creation vs. Evolution Persuasive Essay

Table of contents:

• Introduction
• Body paragraphs

The topic of creation vs. evolution is a very controversial one, and therefore extremely popular for the persuasive essay writer. Because the ground has been covered so much, it can be difficult to find a new take on the controversy, and also because it’s such a wide and far-ranging debate, it can be hard to narrow down exactly what you’re going to write about.

Don’t try to tackle the whole discussion. Limit yourself to a few salient points. Make your thesis clear and direct. In debate like this, where for or against can get so heated, you’ll do better by keeping calm and arguing the pros and cons with a rational head on.

Introduction examples

Pro Evolution: Considering the evidence of how we got to where we are today and how things develop over time, the theory of evolution is the more likely one to be true.

Pro Creation: With the enormous complexity of the world, it seems impossible that it all just happened by chance. A Creator is the only way that something so beautiful and improbable could have come about.

Once you’ve established your thesis, you need to move on into the body of your essay. Here you will make your points, laying them out one by one in separate paragraphs, with your evidentiary information as well. On a topic like this, it’s best to try and stick as close to facts as possible, although, as neither creation nor evolution is established fact, you will have to move at some point into the realm of belief.

Body paragraphs examples

Pro Evolution: If we look back at the history of breeding animals, it’s easy to see that we can selectively breed for different traits in species such as dogs. It’s hard to believe that Chihuahuas and Saint Bernards are the same species, but they are, and have simply been bred differently over the years until one is very small and decorative, and the other is a very large working dog. This is evolution in action. If micro-evolution can happen, so can macro-evolution.

Pro Creation: Archaeology is a field ripe with fraud, and many “missing links” have appeared over the years purporting to prove beyond a doubt that evolution is true, but many of them have been found out later to be lies. However, the Bible never lies, and in the Bible, God created the heavens and the earth. This is the only explanation that can be true without needing “missing links” or a spotty fossil record to explain it.

When you are concluding your essay, once you’ve made all your points, it’s important to just repeat back in a concise way what you’ve already said. Then end with a “call to action,” giving your reader the opportunity to see how they feel about evolution vs. creation themselves.

Conclusion examples

Pro Evolution: Evolution as a theory is perfectly cogent and reasonable. It makes sense to look around at the world and see how things change over time. If we can breed plants and animals more towards how we want them, then it makes sense that nature would do the same.

Pro Creation: You don’t need a missing link or a theory. All you need is belief to know that Creation is true.

• Essay samples
• Infographics
• Essay writing
• Crafting a Powerful Essay on Political Polarization
• Oral Health Overview Essay: Preventing Tooth Decay in Australia
• How to Write a Good Expository Essay About Macbeth
• How to Write An Expository Essay About Love
• How to Write a Great Expository Essay About Life

Price per page

Total price:

Limitless Amendments

Bibliography

Plagiarism Report

Get all these features for A$93.12 FREE

If you don't know exactly what type of paper you need or can't find the necessary one on the website - don't worry! Contact us and we'll help you out!

• Terms of Use
• Money Back Guarantee
• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Write My Essay
• Custom Essay
• Essay Writer
• Do My Essay
• Type My Essay
• Pay For Essay
• Cheap Essay
• Write My Paper
• Write My Assignment
• Assignment Writer
• Buy Assignment
• Assignment Help
• Do My Assignment
• Nursing Essay Writing Service
• Management Essay
• Business Essay
• Law Essay Writing Service
• Education Essay Service
• Marketing Essay
• Accounting Essay
• Sociology Essay

Before continuing to use our service please make sure you got acquainted with our Cookie Policy and accepted it by clicking OK

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Chicken or egg? One zoologist’s attempt to solve the conundrum of which came first

The writer of a new book about life on Earth seen through the prism of the egg says the age-old paradox actually leads us back a billion years – to the bottom of the ocean

T he chicken or the egg? Sometimes, as a zoology author, I am asked this question by the kid at the front with the raised hand and large questioning eyes. Sometimes it’s the older guy at the back with a glint in his eye. Sometimes it’s a student who approaches the lectern at the end of a lecture while everyone else files out. The same mischievous eyes, the same wry smile. “So which came first?” they ask, beaming, unaware that this is not the first time I have been asked.

I hadn’t foreseen, years ago, when I began exploring the evolution of the animal egg and the role it has played in the long history of life on this planet, that it would become pretty much the only question I would be asked. I spent years reframing the evolution of life on Earth as a story told from the egg’s perspective, tracing this strange vessel’s adaptation to land, its movement across continents, the evolution of the umbilical cord, the evolution of the placenta, menstruation, menopause… but even now, having finally turned this journey into a book, I expect that a great deal of my dialogue with readers will be chicken-based.

Luckily, I consider chickens a fascinating gateway species for anyone who has never really stopped to think about how strange and beautiful animal eggs are when you consider them for a moment.

So, the question at hand – chicken or egg? Which really came first?

Like an egg, the question itself needs some space to breathe. The chicken and egg paradox – the classic causality dilemma – playfully expresses the difficulty that human minds have in sequencing actions where one thing depends on the other being done first and vice versa. Aristotle, writing in the fourth century BC, considered it to be an example of an infinite sequence, with no true beginning. It was a way of imagining what infinity represents. Later, Plutarch, the Greek historian and biographer, talked of the chicken and egg being a “great and weighty problem” that forced philosophers to engage in questions about whether the world had a beginning or whether it would ever end. The chicken and the egg were, in a way, precursors to modern-day questions about cosmology, deep time and physics. Later, through a series of exciting discoveries in the 19th century (particularly the ideas of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, co-discovers of natural selection), biologists and geologists were able to offer a more evidence-based perspective on the age-old question. And so, what follows in the next paragraph is the standard response you are likely to get should you throw a “chicken or egg” question at a modern-day zoologist.

If you think of an egg as something with a hard shell that you can crack with a spoon, then the egg did arrive long before chickens. Because birds, which all lay eggs, go back a long time in history, many millions of years, whereas chickens, according to DNA studies and archaeological evidence , have been around for less than 10,000 years. So the answer to the paradox is a simple one. Egg wins. By a country mile. In fact, shelled eggs evolved in some ( but not all ) dinosaur groups, one of which was the ancestor of modern-day birds, about 160m years ago. Other dinosaur groups, including the earliest long-necked dinosaurs known as sauropods, may have evolved shelled eggs 195 million years ago . And so, in a very real way, there you have it: the egg, almost 200m years and counting, is considerably older than the chicken, which is, at most, around 0.01m years old.

But that doesn’t feel satisfying. My problem with this go-to zoological response is that it shortchanges the egg. Because eggs are very varied indeed. These numerous organic vessels, whose primary function is to fire genetic lineages forward through time, deserve a little more space to… cook. So, when asked this question, I like to elaborate.

A more thought-provoking way of approaching the question is to ask: “What came first, the egg or the egg tube?” For it is not chickens, but egg tubes (known as oviducts; fallopian tubes in humans) that make many eggs look the way that they do. Egg tubes abound across the animal kingdom. From egg tubes that leak milk from their walls like the eyes of holy statues (see: some flies), to egg tubes that paste cement-like glue all over the eggs, so that they can be stuck on to human hair (see: head lice). There are egg tubes where embryos wrestle and fight to the death (see: some sharks ); egg tubes inhabited by blood-sucking placentae (see: some mammals); egg tubes flanked by paired vaginas (see: marsupials).

after newsletter promotion

The chicken’s egg tube really is astonishingly beautiful. Every chicken’s egg you have ever held was first dressed in a dizzying, constricted, complicated life-corridor. Every egg you’ve ever cracked into a mixing bowl or boiled and served with soldiers graduated from it. Deep within the chicken, the egg you held in your hand began as a gloopy, slimy blob. As it passed through the egg tube, it was tended to by glands in the walls of the egg tube which sprayed different chemicals on to the egg, almost as if it were a vehicle passing through a car wash. Some nozzles sprayed a foamy calcium-rich layer that hardened into shell. Some sprayed tiny pencil-like markings on the eggshell; others painted constellations of dots and spots. In some birds, the eggs can be made all manner of blues and greens by these tiny nozzles. The blackbird egg (laid in spring and early summer in a shrub near you) looks almost as if it has been carved in jade. There are even pores in the wall of the chicken’s egg tube that secrete a waxy layer to the external shell of the egg, to protect it from microbes. And then the egg is delivered, like a shiny executive wagon on a car forecourt, polished and ready to go.

Which came first, the egg or the tube that made it? Why would an egg tube evolve if there were no egg for it to serve? How could there be an egg if there were no egg tube? Deeper we go. The truth is that the egg came a long way before the evolution of the egg tube, and by an extensive margin – many millions of years, clearly visible in the fossil record. In jellyfish, among the very first animals thought to have evolved, eggs are grown in the body and then shed directly into the water, often in their thousands. Perhaps the earliest eggs were shed this way.

Eggs are truly ancient. They go back 600m years or more, as documented by discoveries of sphere-like specimens found in slabs of ancient sea floors. Barely a millimetre or so across, some appear surprisingly intact . Some even have what are argued to be primitive cells within them – two, four, eight, 16 – dividing to become new life: an embryo, a hatchling, a generation. The truth is that we don’t yet know much about the animals that hatched from these mysterious prehistoric eggs. Some are claimed to be jellyfish; others may have been primitive marine worms. Either way, these eggs are very old. Far older than chickens or egg tubes. These fossil eggs go back to the Ediacaran period, about 100m years before animals (as we know them) really got going. The very idea of the existence of a chicken – a walking, squawking, feathered thing with an internal mineral-enriched skeleton, eyes and a beak – would have been unimaginable to anything capable of imagination back then. Yet, incredibly, the egg probably goes back further in time even than this.

If you expand the parameters of the question to allow the inclusion of sex cells (gametes), eg ova and sperm, then eggs beat chickens by, give or take, 1bn years. The uniformity and commonality of sex among distantly related modern-day groups, such as algae, plants and animals (then mostly little more than single-celled specks, hoovering detritus from rocks), suggests that eggs and sperm likely evolved at some time around 1bn years ago. This leads us to conclude that there were eggs and sperm on this planet long before animals as we know them today evolved. This was long, long, before egg tubes.

And so, in this great paradox of recent millennia, it’s the egg. Always the egg. The egg is older than the chicken. That’s what I’ll say next time I am asked, before readying myself for a final flourish. Because the paradox, like the egg, still has many fascinating layers that continue to attract human minds.

There is the genetics to consider, for instance. There must have been a moment when the chicken’s ancestor, wild jungle fowl laid a fertilised egg, within which were the exact combination of mutations that gave rise to the lineage that was then given the spoken label “chicken” (or its early language equivalent). And what is a “chicken”, exactly? The chicken of old, striding around back yards pecking at grain? Or the modern-day broiler, the monstrous perversion bred into existence by the poultry industry? What we call a “chicken” is really, when viewed across millennia, a tumbling river of genes and genetic lineages flowing forwards in time, shuffling in and out of novel combinations as generations pass, chiselled and finessed by the whims of unthinking planetary surface forces or, more commonly for this species, the sculpting, selective hands of industry. Like countries upon continents, the concept of “chicken” only exists because there is an upright ape on this planet with a kink for categories and a fondness for labelling things as they stand at this precise geological moment in Earth’s history. And what are animals, really? Are animals organisms that produce eggs in order to make more animals? Or are animals the vessels that eggs use, in an evolutionary way, to make more eggs?

Chicken or egg? Eggs or egg tubes? Eggs or animals? An enduring paradox, dreamed up 2,000 years ago, remains, in my eyes at least, as delicious and thrilling as ever to consider. We are living in an age of science, of rigorous evidence and journals and discoveries galore, yet still this simple question has the potential to exercise the mind in a very satisfying way. And so, long live the egg, the leftmost bookend to every animal life. Modern graduate of the egg tube. A truly marvellous thing.

Infinite Life: A Revolutionary Story of Eggs, Evolution and Life on Earth by Jules Howard is published by Elliott & Thompson (£20). To support the Guardian and Observer order your copy at guardianbookshop.com . Delivery charges may apply

• The Observer
• Science and nature books

Comments (…)

Most viewed.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Nuclear Power as a Clean Energy Tool?

More from our inbox:, quality at boeing, a bathroom sign, running, fast and slow.

To the Editor:

Re “ Reviving Nuclear Energy Is a Fantasy ,” by Stephanie Cooke (Opinion guest essay, April 24):

Meeting the climate crisis and achieving net zero by 2050 without nuclear energy is a fantasy. The reality is that the United States must deploy every tool at its disposal to reach our clean energy goals.

Nuclear power has delivered clean energy for over half a century. It also provides nearly half of the United States’ clean energy today. A resurgence in global, bipartisan support illustrates that nuclear energy’s vital signs are as strong as ever.

Recent commitments made at the U.N. Climate Change Conference and the International Atomic Energy Agency Summit show that world leaders recognize we’ve only begun to see nuclear power’s potential to complement renewable energy sources in the race to net zero.

Here at home, the Inflation Reduction Act’s investment in the existing fleet is a vote of confidence, and state legislatures have considered about 330 nuclear-energy-related bills since 2023.

During my time as E.P.A. administrator, I focused on developing sustainable solutions to protect our air, land and water. As my perspective on nuclear energy evolved, so did my understanding that we cannot take any clean energy sources off the table.

It is our responsibility to live in the real world and pursue all climate solutions, including nuclear energy.

Carol Browner East Wallingford, Vt. The writer is the former director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy in addition to being a former E.P.A. administrator and current member of the Nuclear Matters Advocacy Council.

The enormous costs and lengthy delivery time are not the only (or even the main) reasons that nuclear power is a fantasy. Being carbon-free does not make it clean energy. In fact, nuclear energy is extremely environmentally unfriendly.

All nuclear power plants regularly emit low-level radiation into the atmosphere and waterways, and no one knows for sure whether this increases cancer rates in surrounding communities. Women and children are far more vulnerable to ionizing radiation.

The National Academy of Sciences proposed cancer research surrounding nuclear power plants back in 2014, but so far no government agency is willing to sponsor the research. This is puzzling when the Biden administration expresses concern about cancer, the No. 1 killer in most of the country.

We know that the mining and milling of uranium have caused cancer streaks and have forced entire towns to be evacuated and bulldozed into oblivion. We know that the nation now has over 100,000 tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste scattered around the country with no plans on how or where to store it safely. Some of it will remain lethal for thousands or millions of years.

Why do we want to produce more nuclear power when the supposed benefits are a complete fantasy?

Roger Johnson San Clemente, Calif.

“Reviving Nuclear Energy Is a Fantasy” made good points about unrealistic assertions concerning the nuclear power industry, but failed to mention the important point that production of nuclear power requires enormous amounts of water.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists , nuclear power plants “need water all of the time” and they use “vast amounts of water” during their normal operations. Moreover, although some plants rely on cooling towers to reduce their need for water, “even the reduced needs can require tens of thousands of gallons per minute.”

For states like New Mexico, use of water matters. As your recent series on groundwater pointed out, many states are using their groundwater faster than it is being recharged. New Mexico is one of those states.

For that reason and because New Mexico’s surface water supplies are limited, the vast amounts of water that would be needed by a nuclear power plant is a critical issue here.

Douglas Meiklejohn Santa Fe, N.M. The writer is a water quality and land restoration advocate for Conservation Voters New Mexico.

Re “ Ex-Boeing Manager’s Loyalty, and Unease ” and “ Crisis Leads to a Loss for Boeing ” (Business, April 25):

So, what will be needed at Boeing?

Articles in The New York Times have documented how in recent years the company has made significant operational changes that have sacrificed quality to obtain profits. Although Boeing’s chief executive, David Calhoun, is to leave the company at the end of the year, that won’t be enough.

As Merle Meyers, a quality control manager, told The Times, Boeing didn’t listen to his concerns about quality and eventually reprimanded him, causing him to leave after advancing at the company for the better part of three decades.

To return to focusing on quality and to better control its product quality, Boeing will have to do more than remove a few senior executives. It will also need to eventually move out-of-state manufacturing to Washington to be closer to executives and engineers in Seattle, to hire new senior executives with engineering experience, and to make use of the skills, advice and knowledge of the work force, including management.

To stay on top of problems with quality, workers can’t fear being fired. Boeing also needs to see the union that represents its engineers and many other workers as a partner to help fix current problems, not an organization to work around.

Peter Lazes Stockbridge, Mass. The writer is a visiting professor at the School of Labor and Employment Relations, Penn State.

Re “ This Is the Most Infamous Public Toilet in America, ” by Ezra Klein (column, May 1):

I was recently in a foreign country and entered a cafe to use the bathroom.

I went to the bathroom without asking permission, but was pleasantly surprised to find a nice little sign on the bathroom door that read:

“Even if you are not eating here, you are welcome to use our bathrooms. Our hospitality is free, but supplies and cleaning crew are not. Please consider leaving a small donation with the cashier on your way out.”

I did, and told the cashier I thought the establishment’s approach was brilliant and civilized. Here is a modest proposal: Can the City Council and the mayor come up with an ad campaign or some public announcement suggesting that our restaurants and cafes introduce a similar approach?

I, for one, would be happy to reward those establishments that do with my patronage.

Bob Raber New York

“ Add a Dash of Sprinting to Exercise ” (Well, Science Times, April 30) is absolutely correct. I have been running since 1980, and back then there was not a lot of science about running but a lot of just plain running.

The term “ fartlek ” (Swedish for “speed play”) was used then. It is a series of running exercises in which, in one version, you go all-out between 10 lampposts, then very slow for another 10. And repeat. It works. Fewer injuries and better performance.

I have run numerous marathons, 10K and 5K races, and competed in triathlons. And at 72, I still do this workout.

Training like this benefits everyone and for whatever you are going to do.

Jeffrey Salgo Queens

"Essay - The Challenges of Black Students..."

Our Top Proficient Writers At Your Essays Service

What is the best custom essay writing service.

In the modern world, there is no problem finding a person who will write an essay for a student tired of studying. But you must understand that individuals do not guarantee you the quality of work and good writing. They can steal your money at any time and disappear from sight.

The best service of professional essay writing companies is that the staff give you guarantees that you will receive the text at the specified time at a reasonable cost. You have the right to make the necessary adjustments and monitor the progress of the task at all levels.

Clients are not forced to pay for work immediately; money is transferred to a bank card only after receiving a document.

The services guarantee the uniqueness of scientific work, because the employees have special education and are well versed in the topics of work. They do not need to turn to third-party sites for help. All files are checked for plagiarism so that your professors cannot make claims. Nobody divulges personal information and cooperation between the customer and the contractor remains secret.

Creationism vs. Evolution Essay

A clear-cut explanation of how life and everything on earth originated has remained a puzzle to humanity for a long time. Scholars have given their own versions of this origin. However, all the attempts have been marked by a weakness of some sort. The real origin hence remains a question that runs in the minds of many people.

A piece of art showcases the aptitude of an artist, so does the earth and the universe that imply the reality and the potentiality of its stylist. This paper seeks to gain insight into the creation theory and evolution theory thereby finding out which of the two tends to carry more logic.

Creation theory everything within this earth is a product of creative power of the gods. In Genesis, it says that God created the world, man and woman in seven days. This is called creationism. It is mostly associated with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all from Abrahamic religion.

In the first two chapters of Genesis, the book looks at creation in depth. The first one describes all substantial proceedings of creation. In the second chapter, it touches on creation of human beings more strongly. The first chapter of Genesis opens with a sentence purporting pointing out God creating the globe and heaven. But then the earth was without form and it was filled with darkness. He goes on to separate darkness from light thus day and night coming into existence. This was done on the first day. On the second day, he divides firmament to bring about heaven and he collects the waters in one place leaving a dry area which is called earth, the waters were called seas (Slusher 35).

The third day was spent on creation of vegetation. On the fourth day, the heavenly bodies were created. He goes on to create water creatures and bird of the air and also makes living creature like cattle, the beasts to be on dry land. This was on the fifth day.

On the sixth day, man and woman came into existence and were placed to have dominion over the earth. Interestingly, this creation from genesis, concurs with that one of Hugh Ross an astronomer. His argument is based on the big bang evolutionary theory which will be talked about later.

It is worth noting that creation theory has other theories to it. These include young earth creationism. These theorists purport that the earth was created by God about sixty to 100 centuries ago. They offer this argument based on family lineages as explained in the bible.

This theory argues out that the earths age is relatively young, a point disapproved by Christians and scientists who say that the earth is billions of years old. This group argues that dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible and they are still in existence in Central America. Different races did settle in the current locations after the destruction of the tower of Babel, a second argument they have used to support their theory.

Omphalos hypothesis argues that the earth was created in its mature form. These theorists tend to refute the scientific evidence of growth rings. They argue that these rings were placed on earth during the process of creation and that they cannot be used to determine the age of earth (Vardiman 67).

Other inclusions in the creationism theory are old earth creation theory. It accepts the fact that God created the universe but refused to accept the genesis creation. It is further categorized into three groups namely the gap, day age and progressive creationism.

Gap creation argues that there is a large gap between genesis 1:1and genesis 1: 2-31. Day-Age Creationism asserts that the days in the Biblical creation story are symbolic. It goes on to say that these days might have taken millions or billions of years. Progressive creationism, states that God created the Earth and life gradually. It is through Gods intervention by Progressive that a new species comes by.

There is theistic theory that uses the natural selection and Darwin’s theory to explain itself. It believes that the creation of species is due to survival for the fittest and that species get adapted and changes over a period of time.

Neo creationism is another form of creation theory although it distances itself from use of scriptures. It therefore means that it debates the origin of life in a non religious way. In their perspective, it is argued that science does negate some things that point towards supernatural powers. They have rejected naturalism and Darwinism.

Intelligent design has come to be placed as one of creationism theory. This is because it replaces the scientific method with Christian and theistic that leads towards paranormal explanations.

Hinduism and Islam have their own creationism that is based on their holy books.

Creation theory has been discussed in terms of biblical creation theory but in other religions, it is discussed in their own ideas and views. Creationists believe that creature were distinct and separate organs when God created them. Although they have the potential to adapt to an environment, creationists say that creatures cannot change completely into a different form through evolution (Thompson 34).

The creationists differ completely with evolutionist because they don’t see how a species can become completely different because of evolution. This is something that is not recorded in history at any time. Furthermore, the creationists say that there is no evidence of gradual change in the fossils collected. Methods used like carbon dating might have had some errors hence not completely perfect. And lastly, the genetic material tests sometimes are contradictory.

Before the comparison comes up, it is of importance to look at what evolution theory talks about. To start it off, Darwin’s theory of evolution will elaborate it more. To begin, Darwin’s theory believes that all life is related having one common descendant. There is development of life from non life. He uses the theory of natural selection to elaborate. In natural selection, animals change overtime while preserving the much needed behavior while discarding the less required behavior. Hence species evolved due to the environment in which they were based in. this evolution was to help them survive. Random genetic mutations occur and the one needed are preserved to be passed on to the generation that follows. With time, there is accumulation of this genetics that result in a completely new being.

When an organism develops a handy benefit it is preserved and passed on to the offspring’s who inherit it more so passing it on to their offspring’s. Those disadvantaged species don’t survive and hence fade away. It therefore means that natural selection eliminates substandard species over time. This theory is a slow process over time.

With this in mind, it is good to note that creationism is based on belief and evolution is purely based on science. The theories of evolution and creation will continue to cause a heated debate culminating it down to religion versus science. The evolution theory talks of evolution being caused by solely ordinary forces, and is not controlled by any contribution from a supernatural power, force or being. However creationism talks otherwise with its stand being that God created the world and is in charge of any evolution process that takes place.

Creationism says that God is the creator and has been since the beginning of time. However, the evolution theory has come to question this. Science has come to contradict the creationism theory and so one needs to believe what they like. Creation theory however can’t be proved wrong because it is religious in nature. The evolution theory needs to go a step further and try to prove to the world that it has a benefit of doubt.

Darwin’s thoughts of natural distinction and selection and Mendel’s model of hereditary inheritance the basis of naturalistic evolution. They could however not come and say how it occurs. Observing human evolution according to scientists is almost an impractical undertaking. This is because one cannot rely on fossils for reasons of having many interpretations.

In the evolution theory, there are two parts called macro evolution which is just about living things coming into existence from non living matter. The other part is micro evolution that is all about living things adapting to the environment they leave in. However, when you talk of evolution, you need to base on macro evolution and not micro evolution.

If one believes in evolution theory then it needs to be understood that it is all about coming from non living matter that came from the big bang. The big bang theory is based on assertions that the universe came into existence without presence of any form before it.

This universe came into existence in something called a singularity. It was initially small and hot. As time passed by, it gradually cooled and expanded. This is going round in a galaxy with so many stars. This big bang is sometime thought to have exploded but in reality there was only expansions and cooling (Slusher 46).

The big bang theory can be given substantive evidence because there must have been a beginning to the universe. Secondly, the estimated speed at which galaxies move from us can perfectly fit in the grid of current distances. Third, if the heat was there, then we can get the evidence by use of cosmic microwave background radiation that ascertains the truth. And last but not least. Hydrogen and helium in the cosmos are purported to sustain the big bang starting point.

Basing on the big bang and creation, it can still be said that they meet at one point. This is because there must have been a beginning in this universe. Therefore as creation theory insists on supernatural force and powers behind the formation of the universe, the evolution theory bases it upon the big bang theory. Evolutionist use time in a mush slow way so that everything might happen as stated. In the creation theory time given for God to clearly make the world is considerably small. Imagine a billion years that most of the evolutionists try to use to make it seen to be true (Johnson35).

As one can comes to think of, it can easily be thought that both the creation and evolution theories have been combined with the gap theory. Since God created the heavens and the earth in the creation theory, it has to be said that it goes on again to say that he said let there be light. That gap is what the evolutionist begin from and so might just happen to concur. However it must be understood that the two are said that they can never be combined to fit the purpose of a few majority.

Geologist can never accept the gap theory because it contradicts with their belief that the past can not be smooth all through with the current. This also shows something out of it that the evolutionists are by themselves not in agreement with their theories. It therefore requires a very well laid out evidence to support the theory of evolution.

Many at times, people have said that evolution is based on faith and the evolutionists view Darwin as a prophet. The creationists have come to distance themselves from the religious perspective. They have engaged themselves in being diverse but continually cannot accept the evolutionists work.

Evolutionary biology is a major conflict zone between the creationists and the scientists. It is perceived by the creationist that it can’t be true that living things are from one common ancestor, and that the macro evolution is in effect. It also argued that it’s not possible for human beings to have come from apes. With the evidence offered by the existence of fossils, this would not be real.

The theory of universal common descent has been accepted in several biologists’ circles. Darwin is the author of that theory. The biologists argue that the last descent of common ancestor was over 3.9 million years ago. But creationists diminish this point and say that the general design is attributed to one familiar man and that is God, the supernatural being. However the evolutionists counter this by their evidence on fossils, geographical distribution of species and facts like genetics.

Evolutionists believe that the evolution of man is dated from the fossils that suggest that man came from primates. Creationists have disputed this fact with reason that there is no substantive evidence to give a clear indication that human beings came from the primates. They have stood by the genesis creation that point at the first man being Adam. Further more, creationists have denied the fact that there is any macroevolution. This is because they have leaned more to the fact that for macroevolution to have occurred there had to be new body parts formed.

Creationists have gone ahead to dispute the fact that radiometric dating can be reliable in ascertaining the earths age. It is obvious that the use, family lineage found in the old testament to compile how long the earth must have been in existence. However, evolutionist use scientific ways to come up with approximate dates that they use in knowing when the earth came into existence.

Creationists have come out to say that Christianity and the belief in the bible are to be attributed to the scientific progress and discoveries. Many scientists have taken this to be false and argue out that they have evidence and are continually gaining more evidence on their work as time goes by.

As earlier stated, evolution of the universe came from nothing. How did it happen that the earth just came with the bang? That is a question many will ask.

It requires that these evolutionists come up with a more defined evidence to support their work and argument. However, the scientists have taken the data collected and are working to fill up the missing puzzles. The question remains if they will find out what is missing.

The question of complexity is also a centre of debate among the evolutionist and the creationists. The creationists say that the world was planned to be intricate by a stylist who is a supernatural being. On the other hand, evolutionists argue out that complexity was developed slowly with time. This is yet to be ascertained.

The evidence given by the evolutionists in a way or another doesn’t amount to enough evidence. As we can see at the fossil records they give, if evolution was a slow process over time, then so many fossils seen should not look exactly like the species that do exist now. Creationists say that these fossils are in agreement with their theory than with the evolution theory (Thompson 67).

The evolutionary group can’t say how parts on human beings or other complex organisms were formed. They have no idea apart from the fact that it is gradual change over time. On the other hand, the creationists have faith in what their religion tells them. It is just by the mere fact that on the sixth day God created man in his own image and likeness.

Creationists stand by the fact that some evolutionists collide in their thinking and so use this as a base to say evolution theory is in crisis. Much time is spent on them picking minor details from evolutionary and never gets their time to support their theory with evidence.

It is hard for the creationists to prove the great deal and part that the evolutionary have played in finding some evidence. Though not substantial, they have played a major role in giving insight of what might have taken place (Gish 56).

It has been also argued that scientific creationism is not a science but rather a religious belief. The evolutionists refute this and completely say that the things they talk about are talked of in the bible. Hence it is based more on faith. Evolutionists argue in most cases that teaching religion as proved facts is not acceptable. Creationists have not been left behind since they have come out in the open and said that evolutionism is just but a mere story.

In conclusion, it is now up to an individual to decide whether to follow the evolutionists or be with the creationists. If one is unscientific, then believe in the creation theory will make the day.

This is a decision one has to make for himself. If one is science oriented, then the evolution theory is his route to take. All there has to be said is that substantial evidence is vital in order to convince a person to believe in a certain theory. All in all there must have been a form of creation that caused human existence.

Works Cited

Gish, T. Duane. Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993. Print

Johnson, E. Phillip. Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds . Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1997. Print.

Slusher, S. Harold. Origin of the Universe . San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1980. Print.

Thompson, Bert, Creation Compromises . Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 1995. Print.

Vardiman, Larry. Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth . El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993. Print.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, May 24). Creationism vs. Evolution. https://ivypanda.com/essays/creationism-vs-evolution/

"Creationism vs. Evolution." IvyPanda , 24 May 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/creationism-vs-evolution/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Creationism vs. Evolution'. 24 May.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Creationism vs. Evolution." May 24, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/creationism-vs-evolution/.

1. IvyPanda . "Creationism vs. Evolution." May 24, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/creationism-vs-evolution/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Creationism vs. Evolution." May 24, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/creationism-vs-evolution/.

• Pseudoscience - Creational Science
• Creationism and Evolution Theories
• Aspects of Evolution and Creationism
• Dialogue Over the Interfaith Christian and Buddhist Perspectives
• Buddism: Ch’an Master Lin-chi I-hsuan Hui-chao
• Do I Need God to be Moral or Happy?
• Buddhism & Hinduism: Comparisons and Contractions
• Buddhism and Hinduism

Opinion Buck up, America. Help is on the way.

Today’s young people have the most at stake — so who better to lead the evolution of our nation?

More than a decade ago, I arrived in the nation’s capital on a White House fellowship. For a young military officer, it was a once-in-a-lifetime professional opportunity — the kind of posting that can lead to promotions and plum assignments. Among the many things I had hoped to experience, the most exciting prospect was to be in the rooms where the adults were. Life in the military’s tenured culture often depended on the graybeards with stars for rank who met behind closed doors to make decisions about our future. Those admirals and generals, in turn, took their orders from the people I was here to meet: the grown-ups in Washington.

They couldn’t possibly be the melodramatic political characters familiar from cable TV news — the ones busy demonizing everyone who sees the world differently. Surely, somewhere, there was a principled cohort working in rooms where partisanship and ambition were shelved in favor of doing the right thing for the country. A naive thought, perhaps, but democratic republics require public trust, so it’s natural to look for assurances.

Those articles of faith can be hard to come by. That’s especially true for young people. Data suggests they are more skeptical about democracy than older generations. They are more likely to believe the country should explore alternative forms of government . And they participate in elections less: Millennials and Gen Z have the lowest voter turnout rates and make up about two-thirds of nonvoters . Yet while Americans of all ages are split on whether democracy is working well, the young remain the most optimistic about its potential. They’re less partisan, committing to issues and causes more than to parties. For them, the real problem with democracy is the way the older generations use it.

I knew the feeling well. Low confidence in elected officials made it easy to opt out of elections until my 30s, entrusting my life to the military for more than a decade before investing my vote in a politician. No matter which candidates won the presidency or seats in Congress, life in the service depended on the officers appointed over us — a system that’s not at all democratic.

When I arrived in Washington and got a look inside the rooms where it happens, I was surprised by the number of young people there. That was naive, too. The newest generations have long powered the nation’s democratic institutions. In a country where the average age in the House of Representatives is 58 — and 65 for senators, and 79 for presidential nominees — the people doing the work that keeps these offices running are often two, even three, generations younger. The military is similarly structured: The average age of service members is a spry 28.5 , meaning millennials and Gen Z are the ones keeping us safe at night. Young people have always been in the halls of power.

And more often than they get credit for, they are the adults in the room — the ones putting politics and selfish pursuits aside to do the most good for the most people.

Age is so often associated with wisdom that it’s sometimes mistaken for the cause of it. Being older mostly means having more life experience, which is different than using experience to make sound — and, hopefully, principled — decisions. There’s no age requirement for wisdom. Poverty and abuse and illness teach their lessons quickly, and too often early. Other experiences — like future wars and an overheating planet — belong to a future in which today’s young people have the largest stake. Who better to apply their wisdom to the country’s evolution than the next generation?

Modern American history suggests that’s a loaded question. Our electoral system is fashioned in a way that keeps young representatives few and far between. So we often see them working for change outside of those Washington rooms. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was just 26 when he led the year-long Montgomery bus boycott. A century ago, young women in factories demanded the right to vote, sparking a cultural and social revolution still reverberating in our politics. Young people fight the nation’s wars and protest them the most, too. In pointing out the nation’s shortfalls and hypocrisies, the young become a moral conscience for a people.

Last summer, I was part of a bipartisan summit for young state legislators , all of them millennials and Gen Z. It’s an annual event hosted by Future Caucus, a national nonprofit that connects the youngest generation of elected officials to resources and each other. In Washington, the first millennial arrived in the Senate only in 2021, and the first Gen Z member of the House is a freshman. But the summit was a groundswell of talent in local and state governments.

As a Gen Xer, I felt odd being the oldest person in the room. But surrounded by our democracy’s freshest faces, representing all sides of public debate, I found their principled and pragmatic optimism — a wisdom in its own right — reassuring. Inspiring, even. Maybe enough to help the grown-ups in our nations’ capitals act like adults.