Human Evolution and Religion

1. -In the minds of many nonbiologists there has been a controversial question as to whether a single-celled organism like this could turn into a human, given a few billion years of evolution. For biologists this is not controversial, but is a plain fact, like the revolution of the earth around the sun, or gravitational attraction between objects. -This is in fact a human zygote, which can turn into this developed human in only a few years. So what so many creationists doubt can happen over billions of years, actually happens in the development of every human being over only a few years; it�s just a different mechanism, that�s all. There�s no scientific reason why it should be controversial.-In the minds of many nonbiologists there has been a controversial question as to whether a single-celled organism like this could turn into a human, given a few billion years of evolution. For biologists this is not controversial, but is a plain fact, like the revolution of the earth around the sun, or gravitational attraction between objects. -This is in fact a human zygote, which can turn into this developed human in only a few years. So what so many creationists doubt can happen over billions of years, actually happens in the development of every human being over only a few years; it�s just a different mechanism, that�s all. There�s no scientific reason why it should be controversial.

2. Human Evolution and Religion Dr. David Lahti

3. Human Evolution and Religion(outline) Religious vs. scientific issues History of modern creation-evolution clash A few examples of evidence for shared human ancestry

4. Scientific vs. religious issues Science = Explaining natural phenomena by: Rational formulation of hypotheses Collection of data Testing of hypotheses against observations or experimental results Submitting conclusions to a broader community for review and further testing -Similarities & differences, pros and cons. -Given these understandings, there is no scientific problem with human evolution; i.e., all of the issues with evolution are religious in nature. In the scientific community that is devoted to understanding human origins, there is no doubt or debate about whether humans evolved from nonhuman organisms.-Similarities & differences, pros and cons. -Given these understandings, there is no scientific problem with human evolution; i.e., all of the issues with evolution are religious in nature. In the scientific community that is devoted to understanding human origins, there is no doubt or debate about whether humans evolved from nonhuman organisms.

5. -This tends to be the difference between the competing approaches to the study of origins.-This tends to be the difference between the competing approaches to the study of origins.

6. -Who has problems with the evolution of humans? Compare religious affiliation, religiosity, and education. Notice especially that those with a college education are much more likely to agree unless they are fundamentalist protestant.-Who has problems with the evolution of humans? Compare religious affiliation, religiosity, and education. Notice especially that those with a college education are much more likely to agree unless they are fundamentalist protestant.

7. -A perceived loss of human dignity is one major reason why people have problems accepting the fact that we are descended from other animals. -But in fact the three Abrahamic religions (the other 2 great religions don�t typically have a problem with evolution) do not require that humans be dignified naturally, but only in their relationship with God. As Genesis says, we�re created from dirt. As Psalms says, what is man that God should care about us? -A perceived loss of human dignity is one major reason why people have problems accepting the fact that we are descended from other animals. -But in fact the three Abrahamic religions (the other 2 great religions don�t typically have a problem with evolution) do not require that humans be dignified naturally, but only in their relationship with God. As Genesis says, we�re created from dirt. As Psalms says, what is man that God should care about us?

8. Three views of religion for people who understand science Contradiction: Science conflicts with religion and suggests that it is false Compartments: Science deals with truth, religion with meaning; so they can coexist Complements: Science and religion both deal with truth and meaning, but in different ways

9. Human Evolution and Religion(outline) Religious vs. scientific issues History of modern creation-evolution clash A few examples of evidence for shared human ancestry

10. Huxley-Wilberforce debate (1860) -late 1700�s, rise of geology, old earth gradually became accepted among scientists, even though many Christians believed a Bishop Usher�s claim that the earth started on October 22, 4004 BC. -After Darwin, many found a way to make the new science compatible with their faith. Others, however, saw evolution as leading to abandonment of biblical authority, or leading to immoral behavior (if we think we are descended from monkeys, we will start acting like them). -Debate at Oxford crystallized the worries of some, and the adamance of scientists (mention W�s joke and H�s reply).-late 1700�s, rise of geology, old earth gradually became accepted among scientists, even though many Christians believed a Bishop Usher�s claim that the earth started on October 22, 4004 BC. -After Darwin, many found a way to make the new science compatible with their faith. Others, however, saw evolution as leading to abandonment of biblical authority, or leading to immoral behavior (if we think we are descended from monkeys, we will start acting like them). -Debate at Oxford crystallized the worries of some, and the adamance of scientists (mention W�s joke and H�s reply).

11. Scopes� �Monkey Trial� (1925) -High school teacher John Scopes brought to trial in Dayton TN for preaching the descent of man from lower animals. Scopes lost, but won the moral victory, although the topic of human evolution was avoided in most biology textbooks until the 1960s (mention the Lawrence and Lee play)-High school teacher John Scopes brought to trial in Dayton TN for preaching the descent of man from lower animals. Scopes lost, but won the moral victory, although the topic of human evolution was avoided in most biology textbooks until the 1960s (mention the Lawrence and Lee play)

12. Evolution wins national education debate (1960s), Creationism goes underground -NSF education standards developed in late 1950s -Pope Pius IX OKs evolution begrudgingly -Reports indicated that Soviet science and technology education were outstripping ours; as a result, the country almost immediately supported evolution in the classroom. -Creationists have developed centers and publishing houses to put forth their views over the last forty years, but have produced no data challenging evolution, and are absent from research in relevant fields, such as human history and origins.-NSF education standards developed in late 1950s -Pope Pius IX OKs evolution begrudgingly -Reports indicated that Soviet science and technology education were outstripping ours; as a result, the country almost immediately supported evolution in the classroom. -Creationists have developed centers and publishing houses to put forth their views over the last forty years, but have produced no data challenging evolution, and are absent from research in relevant fields, such as human history and origins.

13. Creationism today Kansas school board decisions (1999-2005) �Day/Age�, �Gap�, �Old-Earth creationism�, etc. �Irreducible complexity� and �Intelligent Design theory� -Kansas school board voted to exclude evolution from biology textbooks in 1999, but there was such a public outcry and ridicule that the board was drastically changed after the next election in 2000, and their ruling was reversed. Now people are starting to take the threat from creationists seriously because they are beginning to have an effect on our children�s education. Dover case in Pennsylavania a success story. -Al of the concepts above are part of the creationist lexicon, and none of them are consistent with science. ID is the worst culprit because (1) their proponents present it in academic trappings, and (2) the movement ignores the fact that some evolutionists do believe in God, but also believe that science is still the only way to find out how the universe was made. ID theorists, on the other hand, are anti-science. -Some biologists in lay publications and debates with creationists have begun showing how the design of the universe is not so intelligent, such as all of the problems we humans have as a result of our recent evolution of an upright posture from a hunched ancestor, combined with modern ways of living (sitting, wearing soled shoes, sedentary lifestyle, etc.)-Kansas school board voted to exclude evolution from biology textbooks in 1999, but there was such a public outcry and ridicule that the board was drastically changed after the next election in 2000, and their ruling was reversed. Now people are starting to take the threat from creationists seriously because they are beginning to have an effect on our children�s education. Dover case in Pennsylavania a success story. -Al of the concepts above are part of the creationist lexicon, and none of them are consistent with science. ID is the worst culprit because (1) their proponents present it in academic trappings, and (2) the movement ignores the fact that some evolutionists do believe in God, but also believe that science is still the only way to find out how the universe was made. ID theorists, on the other hand, are anti-science. -Some biologists in lay publications and debates with creationists have begun showing how the design of the universe is not so intelligent, such as all of the problems we humans have as a result of our recent evolution of an upright posture from a hunched ancestor, combined with modern ways of living (sitting, wearing soled shoes, sedentary lifestyle, etc.)

14. Human Evolution and Religion(outline) Religious vs. scientific issues History of modern creation-evolution clash A few examples of evidence for shared human ancestry I will by no means go over all of the evidence for the descent of humans from other organisms; I will merely show some of the earliest or simplest areas of study that make the case very clearly.I will by no means go over all of the evidence for the descent of humans from other organisms; I will merely show some of the earliest or simplest areas of study that make the case very clearly.

15. One line of evidence is from comparative embryology. Ontogeny reflects phylogeny, although it doesn�t run through all previous adult stages as once believed. Organisms are more similar to each other in their embryonic stages, and then diverge through development into various adult forms. Embryonic humans have many features that we share with our ancestors, including a tail and gill pouches, that change in development, either being lost or transforming into something derived (not present in ancestral adults). -If we did not evolve from other animals, there is no reason to expect that we would develop from similar embryonic forms, nor that we would have features as embryos that look like our relatives, but that we would lose or transform as adults. One line of evidence is from comparative embryology. Ontogeny reflects phylogeny, although it doesn�t run through all previous adult stages as once believed. Organisms are more similar to each other in their embryonic stages, and then diverge through development into various adult forms. Embryonic humans have many features that we share with our ancestors, including a tail and gill pouches, that change in development, either being lost or transforming into something derived (not present in ancestral adults). -If we did not evolve from other animals, there is no reason to expect that we would develop from similar embryonic forms, nor that we would have features as embryos that look like our relatives, but that we would lose or transform as adults.

16. -Skeletal homology is another form of evidence. Tracing through the evolutionary tree, we see subtle changes in bone structure, so we see the same bones in related organisms, but evolved to different sizes or shapes or positions. Occasionally bones are lost. If humans did not evolve from other animals, there is no reason to expect that we would share all the same bones, and that they would be more similar in size and shape to the animals we are more closely related to.-Skeletal homology is another form of evidence. Tracing through the evolutionary tree, we see subtle changes in bone structure, so we see the same bones in related organisms, but evolved to different sizes or shapes or positions. Occasionally bones are lost. If humans did not evolve from other animals, there is no reason to expect that we would share all the same bones, and that they would be more similar in size and shape to the animals we are more closely related to.

17. -Vestigial organs are also cues to our animal heritage. There is no reason to expect that we should have these organs if we did not descent from other animals. It is not the fact that these organs are unused that is important, because we may someday find that they are serving some kind of purpose. Rather, it is the fact that they are much reduced structures that once performed a very different task in other species than they do in ours.-Vestigial organs are also cues to our animal heritage. There is no reason to expect that we should have these organs if we did not descent from other animals. It is not the fact that these organs are unused that is important, because we may someday find that they are serving some kind of purpose. Rather, it is the fact that they are much reduced structures that once performed a very different task in other species than they do in ours.

18. -the picture based on fossils and morphology and embryology nicely fits with newer information from DNA. This is an illustration of how DNA base pairs are more different in individuals that are more distantly related from each other.-the picture based on fossils and morphology and embryology nicely fits with newer information from DNA. This is an illustration of how DNA base pairs are more different in individuals that are more distantly related from each other.

19. -And, as predicted by evolutionary theory, organisms� DNA is nicely correlated with how close or distant they are related. -I didn�t even get to the best record: fossil evidence-- I�ll be back after a few lectures to talk a little more about that. Human Evolution and Religion picture credits: homoerectus.gif: http://www.biologycorner.com/quests/humanevolution.html zygote.bmp: http://w3.hwdsb.on.ca/delta/departments/Science/Grade%209/Bio/Fetal%20human%20development.htm chimp&human.jpg: http://sayer.lab.nig.ac.jp/~silver/photo/I&chimp.JPG person: http://www.imt.net/~rodeo/image/person.gif beliefchart: http://www.trinity.edu/mkearl/evolrelg.jpg creationistcartoon: http://www.sullivan-county.com/images/sci.gif huxwilber: http://home.insight.rr.com/jkmckee/creationism.htm antievolutionleague: http://www.assumption.edu/ahc/scopes/antievolutionleague.jpg darrow&bryan: http://coe.west.asu.edu/students/tvanburen/indexw.htm unintelligent: http://home.insight.rr.com/jkmckee/unintelligent.htm skeletalhomology: http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/160/homologous.jpg vestigialeye: http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ec&Ev_Distance_learning/Evidence/evidence_pix.htm appendix: http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ec&Ev_Distance_learning/Evidence/evidence_pix.htm human-chimpDNA: http://www.psy.plym.ac.uk/year3/psy339evaluation-evolutionary-psychology/evaluation-evolutionary-psychology.htm humanDNAdiffs: http://www.psy.plym.ac.uk/year3/psy339evaluation-evolutionary-psychology/evaluation-evolutionary-psychology.htm primatetree: http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/142021_Primata.jpg sixskulls: http://www.articulategraphics.com/StockImagePages/P_six_skulls.html hominidskulls: http://www.evcforum.net/RefLib/EvidencesMacroevolution1.html -And, as predicted by evolutionary theory, organisms� DNA is nicely correlated with how close or distant they are related. -I didn�t even get to the best record: fossil evidence-- I�ll be back after a few lectures to talk a little more about that. Human Evolution and Religion picture credits: homoerectus.gif: http://www.biologycorner.com/quests/humanevolution.html zygote.bmp: http://w3.hwdsb.on.ca/delta/departments/Science/Grade%209/Bio/Fetal%20human%20development.htm chimp&human.jpg: http://sayer.lab.nig.ac.jp/~silver/photo/I&chimp.JPG person: http://www.imt.net/~rodeo/image/person.gif beliefchart: http://www.trinity.edu/mkearl/evolrelg.jpg creationistcartoon: http://www.sullivan-county.com/images/sci.gif huxwilber: http://home.insight.rr.com/jkmckee/creationism.htm antievolutionleague: http://www.assumption.edu/ahc/scopes/antievolutionleague.jpg darrow&bryan: http://coe.west.asu.edu/students/tvanburen/indexw.htm unintelligent: http://home.insight.rr.com/jkmckee/unintelligent.htm skeletalhomology: http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/160/homologous.jpg vestigialeye: http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ec&Ev_Distance_learning/Evidence/evidence_pix.htm appendix: http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ec&Ev_Distance_learning/Evidence/evidence_pix.htm human-chimpDNA: http://www.psy.plym.ac.uk/year3/psy339evaluation-evolutionary-psychology/evaluation-evolutionary-psychology.htm humanDNAdiffs: http://www.psy.plym.ac.uk/year3/psy339evaluation-evolutionary-psychology/evaluation-evolutionary-psychology.htm primatetree: http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/142021_Primata.jpg sixskulls: http://www.articulategraphics.com/StockImagePages/P_six_skulls.html hominidskulls: http://www.evcforum.net/RefLib/EvidencesMacroevolution1.html