Thursday, October 24, 2019
A Rebuttal to Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Essay
If there’s one thing that would make the highly religious person infuriated, that one thing would probably be the Theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin. Quite a rugged assumption but a little true nonetheless.            Religion, as a social institution, derives much of its foundations on several bearings; the most important being the Theory of Creationism. Under this theory (or belief?), humanity, the universe and life in general were all created in their original form by an Almighty Being or by an Inevitable Force. Usually, this refers to the deity or deities of a certain commune’s religious beliefs.            The Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, portends that humanity, or life itself, emerged through a series of trial and errors wherein the fittest species among all others emerged victorious over nature’s anarchic character. The idea of a certain animal â€Å"branching off†from its original species to produce a different kind of breed is what the Theory of Evolution calls Natural Selection. By Natural Selection, the theory explains that certain unique features and/or characteristics possessed by a select few would inevitably allow them/it to have a higher chance of survival against those who do possess none of the same features and/or characteristics. For instance, assume that a species of birds uncannily produce a hatchling that possess a rather larger and longer beak than its original counterparts. By having this feature, the bird is now able to catch and eat more food as compared to the other birds of the same species that possess shorter and smaller (otherwise, â€Å"normal†) beaks. The theory claims that once this unique bird reproduces its own hatchlings, the unique features and characteristics it possessed would most likely be passed on; thus, eventually perpetuating the idea of the introduction of a different kind of species of birds that possess longer and larger beaks. And since having longer and larger beaks enables these birds (those which possess it) to catch, gather and eat more food, the natural balance of the food chain is automatically shifted unequally. Being that the birds with the shorter and smaller beaks will always be outcompeted by the new species with longer and larger beaks, the original species (otherwise, â€Å"old†) will probably end up being extinct. This idea is further supported by the theory’s most famous notion, â€Å"The Survival of the Fittest†. In the simplest sense, the theory states that those who are genetically â€Å"strong†as compared to the others will be the ones who will survive. As applied in the case of the birds, it was the newly developed species which seemed to be the â€Å"fittest†against their original counterparts. As such, their survival was ensured; branching off into a higher level of species and eliminating the rather â€Å"weak†species.            Understanding the Theory of Evolution in its general sense is not an easy task. For one thing, the theory itself is now including several different kinds of supposed facts to support Charles Darwin’s original theory (now referred to as Neo-Darwinism). Furthermore, its underlying principles and hypotheses do not lie alone on biology but also on genetics and others.            As if understanding the theory is hard enough, debunking the theory is an even harder task. Supporters of the Creationist Theory will always be under attack by the supporters of the Evolutionist Theory. This unbelievable dedication of faith and belief towards the Theory of Evolution is considered an awesome phenomenon similar to that of Catholicism’s rise as a predominant religion in the late Middle Ages. In other words, the Theory itself, ironically, is now becoming a religion in many ways. Henceforth, as hard as it is to debunk the Creationist Theory, the same will now be likewise to the Evolutionist Theory.            Going back to the theory’s initial stages, however, it would seem rather easy to refute Charles Darwin’s findings. Compared to the status of the Theory of Evolution at present, the status of Darwin’s theory in the past (as he presented it) remained attractive to questions of veracity and factuality. For many, though it seemed credible, it was also contestable.            First of all, Darwin’s Theory does not explain fully the derivation and/or origins of humankind as deduced from that of primates. Sure, there are many similarities existing between humans and Apes. But the Theory never really explained why or how humankind technically â€Å"branched off†from the original species of primates. Even if we use the notion of â€Å"Survival of the Fittest†, none of the pieces still seem to fit.            For instance, let us assume that a group of Chimpanzees produce an offspring that is clearly â€Å"smarter†than the rest of the clan. Now, that offspring immediately becomes the â€Å"fittest†among them. Still, it would be somehow impossible to deduce that this special primate would reproduce a couple more uniquely smart primates that would eventually start an hereditary cycle; causing the almost â€Å"accidental†creation of a new species. Even if that somehow became possible over a course of billions of years, it would still not explain how humankind developed a sense of wearing clothes, cook their food and establish a unique language that is clearly different to that of their original counterparts. Furthermore, some possible explanations regarding the loss of bodily hair, the shortening of the mandibles and other such anatomic inquiries remain in question for the theory.            Second, the development of a certain organ was never fully explained by the great man himself. Take a look at birds, for instance. The development of birds, from land creatures to fowls of the air, is clearly unsupported by the theory. As the theory explains, evolution occurs overtime through a course of millions of years. If so, how did the development of wings benefit the earliest species of birds? Imagine an ancient â€Å"bird†that started growing small â€Å"wings†. Of course, since these are small, it cannot benefit the animal in any way other than be a burden. As such, the status of â€Å"fittest†is automatically removed. Ultimately, the species – who were just starting to develop their own wings – would’ve become extinct and lost to the supposed â€Å"survival†. On the other hand, looking at the picture the other way around, it seems almost impossible that a group of land creatures would suddenly hatch (or give birth) to an hatchling that naturally or immediately possess wings – it would just not make sense. For the Theory of Evolution – and the notion of â€Å"Survival of the Fittest†– to work, organs and other characteristics must be present at once and not in a continual process that would take billions of years.            Finally, the Theory of Evolution never really explained how the complex development of the human mind occurred. Just how exactly did human beings develop a sense of rationalization? How did they come to have a sense of beauty? How about a sense of free will? If humans with mental disabilities continue to breed for thousands of years, would the existence of a unique race of mentally disabled men and women become a possibility? How did evolution come to develop a mind that is so complex and comprehensive as compared to other creatures? These are just some of the questions that truly pose a great threat to the Theory of Evolution (during Darwin’s time at least).            When Charles Darwin presented his Theory to the Academic Community, the Theory of Evolution was not as strong as it was today. By all means, it was easily contestable. After a couple of decades, however, the Theory gained so many supporters that even the Scientific Community now almost completely adheres to its principles.            Until the adherents of the Theory of Evolution do not find concrete answers to some of the questions posed above, the theory will forever only remain as such – a theory. Similarly, the Creationist Theory also possesses the same dilemma. Clearly, that is one reason why both theories – despite after several decades – still continue to battle each other out for supremacy (which is ironically a pun of the notion â€Å"Survival of the Fittest†itself). Cited Sources: Campbell, J. A. and Meyer, S. C. (2005) Evolution: Debate it. USA Today December 5, 2007 from Dean, C. (2005) Opting Out in the Debate on Evolution. The New York Times December 5, 2007 from Futuyma, D. J. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc. Scott, E. C. and Branch, G. (2005) Evolution: Just Teach it. USA Today December 5, 2007 from Smith, J. M. (1993) The Theory of Evolution. Cambridge University Press Weiss, R. and Brown, D. (2005) New Analyses Bolster Central Tenets of Evolution Theory Washington Post December 5, 2007 from Â
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.