by In the 19th century, Charles Darwin brought about the definition and concept of natural selection into the world. This concept fundamentally highlighted our connection as a species towards evolution and how all species on earth are related through the selection of phenotypic and environmental factors. However, his claims were accepted by few and the Christian population was fundamentally appalled by his claims, as they were a direct inverse to the idea of a creator and higher being. Philosophers and academics who were skeptical of his claims still claimed his evidence had good support, such as the infamous finches, but the overall idea was too broad. Today, the introduction of evolutionary biology in high school has allowed for a good proportion people in America (heavily dependent on demographic) to believe in the fundamental roots of this concept.
There still remain a small portion of the general population who completely reject the theory of evolution. By all means, I believe that there are probably flaws to the scientific consensus of evolution. But, as a biologist, I look at a monkey and I literally cannot understand why people do not think we are related to it. The idea that humans are special and have a smart design is a pretty fundamentally flawed statement. You would fire the next engineer that made eating, drinking, and breathing out of the same hole, right? It’s not a hard thing to do either because dolphins (mammals) have two holes themselves. Still, I have met many in the scientific community who still practice their religious beliefs with respect to believing in evolution– religion serves as a ritualistic medium. They do not treat their respective holy scripture as their existence.
However, I would like to take a look at one extreme case of this denial of evolution from a proclaimed evolutionary scientist named Ken Ham. He is famously known through his debate against the mechanical engineer Bill Nye on the topic of Noah’s Ark and evolution. Ken Ham believes there is a difference between what you can observe in the present and test right now versus using technology and making quantitative analysis from the past. He claims that the debate over scientific and religious evolution is not based on the evidence being presented, rather it is based on the starting point that led to the evidence. While his initial claims of the “starting point” seem plausible, his evidence for all debate subjects lead to biblical scripture which is a logical fallacy– as his initial claim is that evidence from the past is flawed if you cannot see results in the present. This might not make sense to you readers, but I’ll give you an example. Ken ham is asked why he thinks that the ice age was 4000 years ago. His response was that it was according to the chronology in the bible, we can see that the Great Flood happened 4000 years ago which caused the ice age and since we can see glaciers in the present, it confirms the happening of the event. However, when Bill Nye was asked why Ken Ham was wrong, he brought up the evidence of looking at protons and oxygen atoms in Antarctica with respect to their half-life and ionization states. Two very different styles of argumentations and interpretation. Ken Ham believes the science only applies if you can see the result in the present, in which you can then use the evidence in the present to make assumptions about the past. However, his whole argument is based off of a logical fallacy because he chooses when to use evidence from the past as his assumption versus current evidence to support his hypothesis. Bill Nye always starts with the evidence in order to make assumptions about both the past and present– very straightforward. In the end of the interview, both debaters were asked ‘what the other side would need to see in order for their original idea to change.’ Ken Ham’s response was that there was absolutely nothing Bill Nye could say to convince him of evolution and natural selection. Bill Nye’s response was evidence.
Overall, we can see that the scientific consensus of evolution is most likely impossible as the extremes at both ends of the scientific and religious spectrum will differ greatly in the way they centralize the world around them. Certainly, you can check out how polarizing the debate between these two are on YouTube but I think it is interesting how those who disagreed with Darwin in the 19th century still acknowledged the evidence in his theory, instead of denying his evidence based on a logical fallacy as seen with Ken Ham.
Sources: