PART III
CHALLENGING THE CONCEPT
Few scientific concepts are as controversial as evolution, particularly human evolution. I have identified two primary reasons for this resistance through many years of discussion. Firstly, religious doctrines have established their narratives regarding the origin of humanity. The biblical account of creation, upheld by Christians, Jews, and Muslims, has long been a central tenet of Creationism. Secondly, many people struggle to understand the process of evolution itself.
During the 1950s and 1960s, this subject received little attention in typical science curricula. This lack of knowledge stems largely from the church’s steadfast refusal to accept the theory, as it challenges the role of God portrayed in Genesis. The Christian Church, in particular, has erected barriers against including evolution in educational settings. The infamous 1925 “Scopes Monkey Trial” exemplified the church’s substantial opposition to evolutionary teachings.
Since the time of Pope Pius XII, the Vatican has supported evolutionary theory, although not necessarily the Darwinian perspective. Pope Francis has notably advocated evolution, stating, “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.” This suggests he does not subscribe to “Natural Selection” as the driving force behind evolution, a viewpoint consistent with a God-centered belief.
In sectarian schools, the creation narrative—often referred to as Genesis—remains the norm. The church’s teachings on Genesis are presented as fact. When compromise does occur, it often involves teaching Creationism alongside evolution in these religious institutions. So, why is there such resistance to this concept? The answer is straightforward: Evolution implies that a divine being is unnecessary to create life. The diversity and complexity of life arise from a self-sustaining natural process, namely Natural Selection.
To provide some relevant statistics that illustrate the current state of Creationism versus evolution: 22% of Canadians believe in Creationism, compared to 40% of Americans. Nearly 17% of teachers believe that God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago, a distinctly creationist position. In America, this figure rises to 34%. In contrast, approximately 98% of scientists accept evolution as an undisputed fact.
Acceptance of evolutionary theory is influenced by four key factors: 1. Age—51% of young people support evolution, while only 22% of those aged 65 and older do. 2. Education—individuals with higher education levels are more likely to accept evolution. 3. Gender—men are slightly more likely to believe in evolution than women. 4. Religion—less religious individuals are more inclined to accept evolutionary theory.
How Does Creationism Reconcile with Scientific Facts?
The short answer is that it does not, and it can’t. In many cases, the explanations offered lack scientific validity. Let’s examine some examples:
Fossils indicate that organisms evolved over millions of years. They demonstrate adaptation to environments and highlight relationships between different species. The fossil record shows transitional forms that bridge gaps in the evolutionary timeline, such as between fish and
amphibians, reptiles and birds, and land mammals and whales. It also provides evidence of the progression from Australopithecus to Homo, illustrating the transition from ape-like to human-like features.
Considering the thousands of dinosaur fossils, these creatures roamed the Earth for approximately 165 million years. How can their existence be reconciled with the idea of a 10,000-year-old Earth?
Sedimentary rocks reveal changes in organisms from simple forms in lower layers to more complex forms in higher layers. The accounts in Genesis appear arbitrary; for example, fish and birds were supposedly created on the fifth day, while scientifically, fish appeared around 530 million years ago, and birds followed around 150 million years later.
Comparative Anatomy: You don’t need to be a biologist to notice that human bodies and internal organs follow similar patterns to other primates. Homologous structures, such as limb skeletons, resemble those of humans and other mammals. Additionally, some human structures are vestigial; the appendix, for instance, is a remnant of our evolutionary past and was once a functional part of the digestive system in other animals but is unnecessary for humans today.
Embryology: When comparing embryos from various species—such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, and other mammals—with human embryos, it can be difficult to distinguish which embryo belongs to which species. This presents compelling evidence of a shared ancestry from a common ancestor. Vertebrate embryos possess specific structures that, at certain developmental stages, disappear or transform into the adult form.
Direct Observation: Organisms with short generation times, like bacteria, allow us to observe mutations and natural selection directly. For example, the overuse of antibiotics has led to “superbugs,” bacteria that have developed resistance to previously effective antibiotics. In a relatively short period, effective treatments, like penicillin, have become useless against new strains, such as MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) or Klebsiella pneumoniae. **
Molecular Biology: The study of DNA and advances in understanding the genetic code among different organisms indicate closer evolutionary relationships. Analyses of DNA sequences reveal shared ancestry, while similarities in molecular structures and biochemical functions point to common origins. In summary, the evidence from fossils, comparative anatomy, embryology, direct observation, and molecular biology strongly support the theory of evolution, challenging the claims made by creationism.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN? REALLY?
“Intelligent Design,” a version of Creationism, assumes that organisms are perfectly suited to their environments, allowing them to thrive without any flaws that might hinder their survival. However, the Dodo bird is an example of an extinct species with physical characteristics that made it vulnerable to predators—highlighting instances of what could be perceived as “unintelligent” design.
Human anatomy and physiology also contain numerous examples of “unintelligent designs,” many of which have led to illnesses and deaths. Examples include vestigial structures like the appendix, tonsils, and wisdom teeth. Furthermore, the dual function of the pharynx and the internal location of male gonads before birth can also be seen as flaws. If our pharynx (the tube connecting the nasal passages to the lungs) were positioned higher, choking would occur much less frequently because food would have a lower chance of entering the pharynx.
Additionally, many men suffer from benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), which causes urinary difficulties in older age. In this case, the prostate gland, which adds secretions to semen, can become enlarged and constrict the urethra (the urinary tube). A better design might have been a urethra that does not pass through the prostate.
The positions of the pharynx and prostate, like the appendix and tonsils, are likely remnants of our evolutionary past and do not appear to have been “designed” to be where they currently are anatomically. Evolution does not strive for perfection; instead, it aims to enable organisms to be sufficiently fit to reproduce.
If choking and BPH lead to early deaths, the natural evolutionary process, through Natural Selection, will favour humans with different pharynx and prostate placements, potentially emerging through mutation. However, the likelihood of such mutations dominating the population could take thousands or millions of years. This illustrates the fundamental mechanics of evolution.
THE ORIGINS OF RACE, ACCORDING TO MY GRADE SCHOOL TEACHER
One of my earliest lessons about the origins of race came from a story narrated by my fourth-grade teacher about God’s sixth day of creation. She described how God struggled to mould clay into the shape of a man and ensure it was baked to perfection. The first creation was overdone and burned, resulting in the black man. The second was taken out half-baked, resulting in the white man. So, to be extra careful, God crafted a third figure, which came out perfectly and became the Filipino. This gave rise to the idiom, “Third time’s a charm!”
Instilling pride in our race through that story worked well for a nine-year-old. While the narrative was amusing, the biblical account of Genesis was taken seriously. In a highly religious community, Creationism was a serious matter. Adam and Eve were considered real people and the progenitors of humanity. Genesis also states that God infused Adam and Eve with “souls.” Adam was created from dust, and Eve was made from one of Adam’s ribs. This led to the common misconception that men have one fewer ribs. All of these ideas stemmed from human imagination. Who else would invent the concept of “original sin” as a result of Adam and Eve’s defiance of God’s decree? It is this kind of simplistic myth that fuels today’s secularism.
BLACK, WHITE, BROWN, AND IN-BETWEENS ORIGINATED FROM BLACK HOMO SAPIENS
The truth is that the common ancestors of modern humans, who lived about 200,000 years ago in Africa, were Black. Every white and brown person alive today is a descendant of Black Homo sapiens. Dark skin evolved as humans transitioned from Dryopithecus to Homo erectus around 1.2 million years ago. Darker skin developed in Africa to protect against high levels of UV radiation.
As populations began migrating north and south from the equator, natural selection favoured lighter skin, which absorbs UV rays more effectively to produce vitamin D. In areas with less sunlight, darker skin can inhibit the body’s ability to produce adequate vitamin D. Today, our technologically advanced lifestyles allow us to adapt to a wide range of environments. From artificial lighting to vitamin D supplements and various types of clothing, we have numerous ways to cope with different conditions. For example, despite their dark skin, the Inuit people of the north have successfully adapted to their environment thanks to a marine diet that provides sufficient vitamin D and reflects sunlight from the snow.
WITH SO MUCH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SUPPORTING EVOLUTION, WHY DO CREATIONISTS STILL PERSIST?
Religion and the stories of Genesis are deeply rooted in human culture and history, predating science and Darwin’s theory of evolution by thousands of years. The sectarian traditions enforced by the Christian (as well as Jewish and Muslim) churches are sustained by doctrines steeped in fear and subjugation. For centuries, no alternative accounts existed to the biblical narrative of God’s role in creation. The simplicity of a six-day creation story is culturally entrenched and easy to grasp, especially for children. Many priests lack a comprehensive understanding of Darwinism and natural selection, as their primary job is to preach the gospel and uphold God’s role in the creation of life.
Serious challenges to the primacy of Genesis did not emerge until the Enlightenment. This shift happened nearly 350 years ago, allowing a biblical mantra without scientific evidence to become a rallying point for secularism. Reason and skepticism eventually gave science a new voice.
Years of dedicated work from anthropologists, paleontologists, geneticists, and genealogists support scientific accounts of evolution. Modern advancements in DNA analysis, single-cell sequencing, stem cell culture, and genome analysis enable researchers to explore human evolution’s molecular and cellular basis.
Unlike creationism, the scientific narrative is evidence-based. Nonetheless, there are still holdouts because the scientific explanation of our origins requires more complex discussions than what the average priest delivers on a Sunday morning. However, information technology will eventually prevail, and the decline of creationism will become part of our spiritual evolution.
WOULDN’T EVOLUTION SUPPORT IMMORTALITY? WHY ARE WE STILL DYING?
Suppose Homo sapiens were not endowed with intelligence and had lived like our ancestral Homo erectus, our life expectancy would have followed nature’s design. Living longer doesn’t give us a reproductive advantage since reproduction occurs early in our life cycle. Once we reach the end of our reproductive capacity, we typically exhaust our lifespan, around forty years.
Although civilization has granted us some advantages, it has only added another ten years to our natural lifespan. Africa, the cradle of human evolution, still exhibits the lowest life expectancy in the world. For example, men born in Chad have a life expectancy of 53 years, while girls born in Nigeria can expect to live up to 55 years.
Intelligence alone has not given our African counterparts any significant lifespan advantage. Civilization is a double-edged sword — modernity’s economic and political challenges can be tragic. For the rest of us, human progress has doubled what nature intended for us. Instead of dying of old age after fulfilling our reproductive objectives, we continue to extend our lifespan, but this is a man-made, unnatural process.
Longevity, particularly the idea of immortality, could burden our population. Overpopulation might lead to the rapid depletion of resources and ultimately cause the collapse of our species. Evolution has not provided us with a reproductive advantage beyond a certain age. It will continue to influence our lifespan until natural selection imposes significant reproductive pressures that lead to evolutionary adaptations.
Another factor contributing to the notion of immortality is the ongoing challenges related to aging and cellular deterioration. Mutations that could alleviate these challenges may be counterproductive, leading to self-destructive outcomes. The idea that dying is integral to living has never felt more authentic.
HUMANS, 10,000 YEARS LATER
(referenced from the “Big Think” by Nicolas Longrich )
“Humanity is the unlikely result of 4 billion years of evolution.” (Nicolas Longrich)
Predicting what humans will become millions of years from now is speculative. The significant transformations we have experienced throughout our development result from millions of years of evolution and considerable environmental changes. We can predict diversity based on current trends, not hypothetical scenarios.
Ten thousand years ago, during the Neolithic Age, we transitioned from a hunting-gathering lifestyle to an agricultural one. Tools from the Stone Age improved to support the domestication of plants and animals. This shift toward domestication has made humans less aggressive, agreeable, and friendlier. Despite wars and nuclear threats, these dangers still affect our well-being today. Our rigid religious indoctrination is the root cause of many ongoing conflicts. However, the secularism trend will likely resolve this madness satisfactorily before another 10,000 years pass.
We have created unnatural environments — cities, culture, and technology. These developments, divorced from nature, have led to new diets and cultural practices, including work. We have prioritized hygiene, nutrition, and overall well-being. Living longer will likely become central to our future. Our genes could evolve to make a 100-year lifespan commonplace for the average person.
Lower mortality rates and changing sexual preferences may result in taller humans, a trend that is already evident. As we become more sedentary, our physical builds may become lighter, deviating from the strength and muscle mass needed for the physical labour of the past. Our bone density could decrease as we spend more time behind desks and in front of screens.
One critical future trend is the end of natural selection. We are no longer subject to famine, predators, or uncontrolled environmental pressures. We have tamed infections and diseases with vaccines and antibiotics. While evolution continues, civilization has imposed its own evolutionary pressures.
Increasing globalization will likely lead to a world of hybrids, resulting in a more uniform appearance across skin tones and facial features. Our brains might become smaller as tool use and language development require less cognitive power. This trend toward smaller brains results in more specialized jobs; we won’t need to be masters of everything.
Future generations may not fully adapt to the trends of virtual relationships. As people form countless relationships while moving from one workplace to another, they may encounter more significant mental health challenges, including anxiety, depression, and loneliness.
The most significant changes in humanity will stem from our ongoing technological and biological advancements. Genetic modifications to enhance our physical and mental abilities will become commonplace. The treatment of disorders and diseases will increasingly rely on artificial intelligence. After ten thousand years of research, we will likely improve our chances of overcoming cancer and other illnesses that currently affect humanity. However, history shows us that new threats will emerge. Germs and other pathogens are also evolving to adapt and survive, creating a continuous cycle of challenge and response.
Could Homo sapiens evolve into different human species? In the past, this would occur through reproductive isolation and interbreeding, but none of these scenarios appears likely. Currently, we have only one human species. During the time of Homo erectus, there were nine. The world is relatively small today, and no groups can achieve true reproductive isolation. While genetically distinct groups may arise from cultural differences, this is unlikely to create new, distinct physical traits.
If a significant catastrophic event were to alter the environment, such as an asteroid impact similar to the one that killed the dinosaurs, the outcome could change entirely. In that case, the survivors would have to adapt to new environmental pressures, which might lead to new body plans suited to different conditions. However, it’s important to note that this process will not happen overnight. Evolution by natural selection is always gradual, as you may have learned in this essay, “Thoughts on Evolution.”
For feedback, please contact me at edwingdeleon@gmail.com.