I'D LIKE to respond to Harris Freier's Jan. 18 column, "Unnatural selection of creationism in non-religion college courses," regarding the theory of evolution and creation and their place within the education system. I certainly won't deny Freier the right to have faith in the theory of evolution; undeniably he deserves respect both for thinking concretely about the question of creation and for openly expressing his opinion. However, what Freier lacks is the willingness to afford others the same right.
Perhaps a few points raising the slightest skepticism about evolution will inspire Freier and others like him to think a bit more deeply about a topic that transcends logic, lies beyond science, and inevitably relies on elements of faith (be it in evolution, Creationism or something else) to be understood.
Hoaxes: Contrary to what we're taught to believe, much of the evidence our elementary school textbooks provided to teach us about evolution have been proven false, and in many cases, uncovered as blatant lies. Ernest Haeckel, for example, created drawings of the embryos of men, apes, dogs and rabbits to show striking similarities in their development. Sadly, though, Haeckel chopped and added bits and pieces of the pictures in order to make them appear identical. He was charged with fraud and convicted in court. What's worse is that Haeckels' findings - and many others like his - still can be found in today's science books.
Micro- vs. Macro-Evolution: Darwinism argues for macro-evolution, the idea that one animal type can convert to another type over time. At the most basic level, Darwin's theory of evolution (in conjunction with the big bang theory) contends that life began as a primordial soup that eventually formed a cell, that in turn evolved into a fish and then into a bird, etc. On the other hand, micro-evolution (which is consistent with the Biblical notion of Creation) states that while animals do adapt and change within their particular species (for example, long-haired vs. short-haired dogs, black vs. white moths), an animal never will evolve from one species into another.
Fossils: Darwin's theory of evolution claims, ultimately, that fish transformed into land creatures by growing tiny arms and legs over billions and billions of years. If this were true, there should be countless fossils of fish with undeveloped arms and legs. This is not the case. In fact, scientists lack any comprehensive evidence of fossils in the transition phases.
Genes: We all know that organisms develop their specific parts and characteristics because of the genes they possess. For instance, birds have feathers because they have the genes to grow feathers; reptiles have scales because they have the genes that produce scales. Consequently, of course, fish could not develop arms and legs without the genes to create arms and legs (just as birds do not develop scales because they lack the genes for them, and reptiles lack feathers for the same reason). Scientifically speaking, then, even after millions and billions of years, organisms would not produce genes of another species sporadically.
Mutations: In order to explain how such macro-evolution might occur, evolutionists refer to mutations (abrupt alterations in genes or chromosomes). Although mutated genes are incredibly rare (scientists estimate that the probability is less than one in a million), Darwinists argue that these mutations are the source of natural selection.
The problem with this thinking, however, is that mutations essentially are universally harmful. For instance, mutations are the cause of birth defects such as cystic fibrosis, Down syndrome, and sickle cell anemia, which often result in sterility or death. They modify or destroy existing genetic information; never do they create new or improved information or abilities within a gene. Yet somehow, Darwinists frequently cite these mutations to explain how the fittest survive.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming expertise about evolution or creation, nor am I attempting to disprove Darwinism or force opinions down anyone's, including Mr. Freier's, throat. I raise these few points only to emphasize that Darwin's theory of evolution simply is that: a theory. It may be widely accepted among schoolteachers and their pupils who happen not to know otherwise as well as close-minded academics who'll do back-flips to avoid a conversation about God, but the evolution debate is not a closed case, and most likely, it never will be. Perhaps, though, those most at risk of being duped are not those who question the theory of evolution, but those who do not.
(Meghan Carroll is a 2001 graduate of the College of Arts and Sciences.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 2 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
