Evolution… An idea which causes a great deal of strife in this country. Many people do not believe in Darwinian Evolution, some have gone as far as to create organizations to debunk the theory of Evolution. Although questioning and trying to refute scientific theories are encouraged in the scientific community, in fact they help to strengthen the foundation of a said theory; the methodology of the opponents of evolution are often considered hypocritical and in many cases, unethical.
A scientific theory as defined by Stephen Jay Gould is a tool that “explains and interprets facts” the fact being evolution, natural selection is the theory. Thomas Henry Huxley derives his definition of theory from Sir Francis Bacon as “a scientific theory is confirmed by accumulated empirical evidence in its favor” this combined with the lack of “counterevidence” help to validate a theory. Gould brings up an interesting point in saying that many creationists claim to be scientific in their pursuits to destroy Evolution by trying to “falsify” it. Both Gould and Huxley would agree that this is only partially true to a scientific approach and also unethical. A main argument illustrated by Gould brings up the approach of creationists to discredit Evolution by simply playing a game of semantics by pointing out it is “only a theory”. Although in American English, the word theory has the definition of an idea that may not be completely false and is often incorrect, the scientific definition as given by Gould and Huxley is quite different.
Creationists often align the words “fact” and “theory” together as if there is a hierarchy of scientific terms and theory is just an idea until proven. Once again, vernacularly speaking this is certainly the case, but scientifically they are completely different. A fact in science is something that is present and observable, completely irrefutable. Gravity is a fact, it exists, we see its effects every instant of every day. How gravity works, on the other hand is different; there are many theories as to how gravity works. Isaac Newton wrote his Law of Universal Gravitation in 1687, which outlined the dynamics and function of gravity for hundreds of years until Einstein published his Theory of General Relativity in 1916. We are still using Einstein’s theory to this day to understand gravity. Gould makes a somewhat comical quip to the shift from Newton's law to Einstein's theory by saying “apples did not suspend themselves mid-air pending the outcome”. A theory is simply the means of how a fact came to be, and it is always open to debate. The problem is that creationists are trying to refute the fact of evolution, not the theories of Darwin.
Gould, just as any scientist welcomes criticism because it will ultimately benefit the scientific community. The criticism coming from the creationism platform is completely off based. It is attacking the theories associated with evolution because they interfere with their religious or moral beliefs. Not only is this criticism unwarranted but it also fails to provide a counter solution. Gould carefully structures his paper Evolution as Fact and Theory as to not defend Charles Darwin; in fact he takes a few jabs at him. Instead he staunchly defends the fact of evolution. He provides many clear examples of evidence to support evolution. He also responds to many creationist rebuttals, and frankly dismisses them. He provides many examples to prove the process of natural selection and therefore evolution. The first being a relatively recent evolutionary change of the British moth from white to black in the mid 1800s to camouflage itself on the surface of trees covered in black soot.
Gould also punches holes in the viewpoints of creationists. He both helps to further validate evolution while discrediting the creationist belief of a creator; he says “the imperfection of nature reveals evolution” and “perfection could be imposed by a wise creator…perfection covers the tracks of past history” he is saying that if in fact the biodiversity of planet earth was actually created by a being, every species would be, or should be, perfect. There should be no need for evolution and in turn no fossil record to lead us to believe in evolution.
Another arguing point for creationists is their own misunderstanding of the theories associated with evolution. They improperly attempt to use the idea of punctuated equilibrium along with the “hopeful monster” theory of Richard Goldschmidt as an example that disproves evolution. Gould brings up the quote by Duane Gish “according to Gould, a reptile laid an egg from which a bird, feathers and all, was produced.” This line is based on the misunderstanding of the term “geologically sudden”. In common language sudden means instant or immediately occurring, however in the study of geology time is dilated, several years or even hundreds of years are very very small periods of time in the reference frame of geology. Geology is studied over hundreds of thousands of years, often more.
Stephen Gould wraps up his paper with, for lack of a better word, a plea. He goes to state that although the scientific community may have been labeled as “elitist” and he admittedly accepts that label. He believes that the only thing that will come of the debate on evolution is that it may not be taught in schools. It will in his opinion obstruct scientific progress, he calls evolution “one of the half dozen great ideas developed by science” it is a portal through which we may be able to come closer to asking the fundamental questions of where we came from, how we came to be, and the multitude of question concerning our genesis into this world.
Constructive criticism is an essential part to developing and understanding scientific principles. Ever since the dawn of scientific thinking there have been a huge number of debates and point, counterpoint discussions towards every discovery. Be it in the field of Physics, Math, Biology, Chemistry; people are always questioning theories. This questioning is fundamental to refining and strengthening our overall understanding of the world. These arguments have, in essence, unwritten rules; they are often caused by a difference in theory as to how something came about, while providing an alternate theory. Creationists attempt to disprove the fact of evolution. This is much akin to the people saying the earth is flat (which a surprising number of people still believe) or someone trying to disprove gravity. The attack on the actual fact, instead of the theory separates them from the critical community and in a way ostracizes them from an intelligent discussion. The way they go about attempting to disprove evolution is a violation of the scientific ethics that form the foundation of scientific development.
