Women

Women and Equality


The current debate on women's rights has until now been predominantly shaped by its progress in the west. Whilst attitudes towards women have changed significantly in the west through the endeavours of feminists and women's rights movements of different philosophical persuasions, Akmal Asghar questions some of the assumptions - and their universality - as well as the broader impact of their successes.The treatment of women in any society has become, without doubt, a key marker in evaluating its progress. The accepted framework of the debate on women's rights has centred around the need for 'equality', to redress a historic imbalance that has empowered men considerably more than it has women, and to undermine patriarchy and societies modelled on its assumptions. It is without doubt that the perception, treatment and rights of women are now dramatically different to those of even the last century. But alongside the rapid changes that followed the 'domestic revolution', as some term it, a number of very key questions remain unanswered. While historical prejudices and assumptions may be slowly eroding in areas of opportunity, employment conditions, political rights, and marriage-particularly in the West-it would be difficult to argue that the debate on women's rights is now over. Many feminists and women's rights activists, while welcoming the changes of the last century, believe that there are many battles still to be fought, although they remain deeply divided on which battles they are.These unanswered questions not only relate to the rights of women, but to the impact that the successes of women's movements have had on society as a whole. Their progress has fuelled increasingly complex dilemmas on issues such as the rights of children, relationships with the opposite sex, and the escalation of previously rare social problems. They have exposed shortcomings in the accepted framework and in its very assumptions, illustrated by the bitter divisions that plague post-feminist movements. Critically, one must ask if the discussions in the West-promoted as a template and international standard-have addressed the core issues of the debate. If, however, they have overlooked them we are in need of a new perspective.The contextThe currently accepted framework of debate on women's rights originated shortly after Europe's age of enlightenment. It was Mary Wollstonecroft, influenced by her company of liberal thinkers, who first applied the conclusions of the enlightenment to the issues of women in her 'Vindication of the Rights of Women' in 1792. It followed the publication of 'The Rights of Man' by her close friend Thomas Paine and challenged the 'domestic tyranny of men' as Paine had challenged the 'divine right of kings'. After nearly a century of campaigning, and through the turbulence of the French Revolution, another landmark work on the rights of women was the publication of 'The Subjugation of Women' by John Stuart Mill.'Modern' perspectives on the rights of women are largely based on the liberal conclusions first articulated by Wollstonecroft and Mill. Also termed 'constructivism', liberal positions assert that men and women are fundamentally-'perfectly' as Mill puts it-equal. Accepting anything less is to promote the oppression of one sex over the other, rendering the other subordinate. Observed differences between men and women, they asserted, are neither biological nor innate but the product of centuries of conditioning. This is why feminists are keen to differentiate between 'gender' as a social construct and 'sex'. Simone De Beauvoir, one of the most significant voices after Wollstonecroft, famously remarked in her book 'The Second Sex': "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman". Equality translated to equal political, economic, and social rights and opportunities, such as those to independent education, employment and political representation. The 'division of labour', between housewife female and breadwinning male, was deplored as a symbol of subjugation and patriarchy (male dominated society) and a consequence of the growing injustices of the industrial revolution. Liberal individualism, therefore, was the bedrock on which classical theories of women's emancipation were founded and which now form the foundations of modern perceptions.The traditionalists, or essentialists, who maintained that the differences between men and women were a biological fact and not a social construct, are now less prominent in the debate on women's rights. Advocates such as James FitzJames Stephen, a contemporary of Mill, in his book 'Liberty, Equality and Fraternity' held that differing political, social and economic rights should follow from these determined differences. The Victorians held that men and women should operate in two separate spheres (with the women confined to the home) based on the long-established belief of the world as a naturally ordered whole, in which all was harmonious as long as things stayed in their ordained places. This is the division of labour feminists deplored. Although conservatives and traditionalists still maintain similar arguments, the liberals have the victory in the debate thus far.Equality: The European contextGreat significance and importance has been assigned to the discussion of 'equality', and to the specific meaning it has come to assume, by western writers. But its symbolism as a key tenet in the debate on women's rights, such that it has become the very prism through which emancipation is measured, is largely because of its European context. Movements who championed women's emancipation were defined by their struggle against a distinctly European mindset and the inconsistency with which it treated women in relation to men, particularly during its medieval to post-industrial period. It is events in Europe and post-revolution America-both of whom share a common European tradition-which have defined the accepted framework of the debate on women.A number of contributions forged the historical context in which equality between the sexes was first suggested in Europe. Christian theology, a pillar of Europe's medieval monarchies, played a pivotal role in forming Europe's confused perspectives on women. The Decretum Gratiani, which formed the basis of Church law for nearly eight hundred years between 1140 and 1917, assigned roles and duties on the basis that "sin came into the world through them [women]" and that "because of original sin they [women] must show themselves submissive".i Apart from blaming Eve for original sin, and so condemning women, the belief that Eve was created out of the bent rib of Adam popularised their secondary nature. Indeed, even after the Reformation, the works of theologians that asserted women possessed an innately evil capacity, and that even their humanity was questionable convinced monarchs and senior clergy. Pope Innocent VIII's endorsement of the book 'The Hammer of the Witches' in 1484, which asserts: "What else is woman but a foe to friendship, an inescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, a domestic danger, a delectable detriment, an evil of nature, painted with fair colours",ii resulted in thousands of women being burned at the stake.These theological traditions positioned women at the start of the industrial revolution. Industrialisation, however, did not liberate women from their historical treatment but merely compounded their subordination. The considerable wealth generated during the industrial age created a growing male middle class who increasingly disregarded women. Women either found themselves working for a pitiful wage in the large factories brought on by industrialisation or married to the expanding group of middle class industrialists to whom they deferred ownership of their property, control over wages they earned independently, and the major part of their marriage rights. Accompanying the increasing power middle class men enjoyed, was domestic abuse and violence. Women bemoaned their treatment at the hands of men, who justified their typically drunk and unruly behaviour on the pressures of increasing competition in commerce and industry and showed no interest in domestic matters other than to demand that their needs were met. Indeed, it was this situation in industrial Europe that formed the key notion of patriarchy, or male dominated societies, that feminists have opposed ever since.Even the enlightenment's most eminent thinkers spoke of the subject in a manner reflective of more traditional attitudes. Rousseau in 'Emile', his seminal work on education, wrote: "Men and women are made for each other, but their mutual dependencies are not equal. We could survive without them better than they could without us. They are dependent on our feelings, on the price we put on their merits, on the value we set on their attractions and on their virtues. Thus women's entire education should be planned in relation to men. To please men, to be useful to them to win their love and respect…"iiiIn this historical context, equality was significant and indeed very controversial when first suggested. The equality debate established the framework by which Europe dealt with the subjugation of its women, corrected perceptions of their inferiority and founded movements that worked for their emancipation. But if we separate the long history that formed the backdrop to the notion of equality, we find the assertion that neither men nor women are inferior to one another is a very simple, indeed obvious, truth. Correcting historical prejudice alone cannot be a basis for defining a relationship between people.Evaluating the idea of equalityThe simple assertion that men and women are equal-that women are not inferior to men-alone articulates very little if considered outside its historical context; it leaves a number of unanswered questions. It does not address how best men and women can cooperate to forge a socially cohesive society. In the wider context of human relationships, we are in need of more than just this simple assertion of equality to handle the disputes and organise the relationships that naturally arise between people. Indeed, we are in need of a body of additional ideas and principles.Liberal individualism, however, may regard this an irrelevant criticism; it considers men and women as individuals and the unanswered questions justified because they represent the personal freedom for both men and women to conduct their lives in the way they see fit. The issue of social cohesion may, therefore, be of marginal importance if it means restricting the choices of individuals in the name of the health of the collective.There are two important issues to consider in responding to liberal objections. Firstly, the need for a framework of additional ideas and principles arises from no more than human interactions that occur within families, social groups, and society as a whole. Liberal individualism, characterised sometimes as putting the 'individual before society', would articulate a deficient political theory if it were to ignore relationships that are often not a matter of much choice. Individuals could always choose to isolate themselves from family and society, but we are born with family and relatives and so naturally relate with them; we engage in social activity with friends, and relationships between men and women determine the very future of the human race through human reproduction. Some framework is needed to articulate rights, indeed responsibilities, that men, women and their offspring should be appropriated in order to produce a socially coherent society.Secondly, the issue of difference. Differences between men and women can lead to specific needs and complex disputes, whose management is a key element of ensuring social cohesion. Any failure to acknowledge or manage them effectively in the name of equality can be just as oppressive and detrimental as believing they symbolise the superiority of one sex over the other. A simple assertion of human equality provides limited guidance on the issue of difference and gives rise to a need for additional, more elaborate, ideas and principles.Differences between men and womenElaborating on each of these points, let us briefly consider the issue of difference. Often received with scepticism, liberal and feminist thinkers asserted that perceived differences between men and women were a social construct, not biological fact, and that the discussion of differences had been used historically as a tool for condemning women to subordinate roles. Historically in Europe, there have been some perceived differences between men and women (whether or not women possessed deficient intelligence, reduced capability for sound verdicts, and a lower capacity to learn and reason) which were assumptions, not facts, about women. The distinction between gender and sex therefore appears justifiable and a helpful way to separate social construct from biological fact. But rejecting all differences by attributing them to the product of social conditions may equally result in a dishonest account of human nature.There are observable differences between men and women, the nature of which have been the subject of many contemporary debates in science, indeed the themes of philosophical discourse over many millennia: from studies by evolutionary psychologists and neuroscientists, to the conclusions of Plato and Aristotle.iv In fact, among the increasingly fragmented post-feminist movements are those who assert, rather than deny, differences between men and women. They draw on differences between men and women to identify the uniqueness of women and refuse male assimilation that results from interpreting female characteristics in male terms. They assert femininity and characterise contemporary thinking in many ways.The ‘Poet Psyche’ attempted to understand the uniqueness of women through the use of Freudian, amongst other, psycho-analyses. The early eighties saw the emerging popularity of the 'difference feminists', after the publication of Carol Gilligan's 'In a Different Voice' in 1982, following conclusions by Nancy Chodorow published in 'The Reproduction of Mothering'. Gilligan attempted to assert that women possessed a different type of intelligence, a more caring and emotionally sophisticated psyche that was uniquely different-although some went on to assert it more superior-to that of men.The conclusions of these scientific and philosophical studies have been disparate and varied-some clearly disproved and erroneous, as have some of the methods used to understand them, particularly Freudian tools or Gilligan's surveys (as well as the questionable relevance of knowledge of the precise nature of differences in solving practical social problems). However, these discourses demonstrate that differences between men and women have been consistently observable and are not recent phenomena. It is crucial to note that unlike some conservative conclusions,v differences do not translate to the inferiority or superiority of either sex and must be considered in this context.Addressing differences and relationships between men and womenEquality alone appears an unsophisticated conclusion in dealing with differences. This is because they may result in a demand for different treatment, indeed additional rights under certain circumstances. For example, it is women that give birth and carry the physical impact of doing so during pregnancy and delivery, just as they carry the burden of doing what they can to give birth to a healthy child. This may require specific medical treatment and care arrangements during pregnancy and after the birth of the child, for both mother and child. These are requirements that men will never need as the difference in treatment arises from biological differences between men and women. In simple equality terms, this may appear an endorsement of unequal treatment, and so demanding equality alone can be misleading.Leaving aside simple differences due to biology, the issue is more complex when dealing with disputes. The issue of children is particularly divisive if not managed correctly, as they involve a collective group of individuals and the relationships between them. For example, if a couple decide to separate after the birth of their child, or even some time after that, who takes responsibility of the child if both want to do so? If one does take custody, what governs the relationship, access, the amount of time spent, financial assistance the mother or father have with that child if they are not the ones granted custody? Women may consider they have a greater right over the child because of the physical impact they endured carrying the child during pregnancy, a demand that asserts biology can justify different, indeed additional, rights. Such disputes have proven a challenge for western legislators, and lucrative for its legal profession; among other things, the increasing divorce rates present a number of complex scenarios. The failures of the current system (discussed in detail later) to deal with such situations have left both sexes, in different situations, complaining of unfair treatment. The 'Fathers for Justice' campaign in Britain is one public example of parents expressing their sense of anger at the unfairness with which they believe the system has treated them in relation to women. Such feelings of unfairness are unfortunate, as fairness rests at the heart of any pursuit for, or perception of, equality.Indeed, a number of problems naturally confront men and women, regardless of the precise nature or extent of differences between them, simply because of the fact that the continuation of the human species depends on their mutual coming together. Politicians and thinkers have not only been preoccupied with disputes, but also with the ideal setting for their convening and the impact that fractured relationships can have on both sexes and society as a whole.The need for a social frameworkA simple assertion of equality alone, therefore, has limited practical use; there is a need for something more detailed and sophisticated. It provides limited insight into the rights either sex should be appropriated in such disputes. As the philosopher J R Lucas points out: "It is clear that formal Equality by itself establishes very little… Many of these differences we may wish to rule out as not being relevant, but since the principle of formal Equality does not provide, of itself, any criteria of relevance, it does not, by itself, establish much. It gives a line of argument, but not any definite conclusion".vi The words of Peggy Antrobus resonate these limitations as she describes 'equality vs difference' being amongst the woman's movement's "paradoxes and dilemmas"vii in her book 'The Global Woman's Movement'.We are therefore in need of a social framework comprising additional, more elaborated, ideas and principles that tackle justice, rights and responsibilities, and how to administer them. Terms such as 'justice', 'equality', 'unequal', and 'fair' are closely associated, and do not always carry reciprocal meanings as has been briefly illustrated, but exactly how depends on this framework. Critics also point to the fact that a principle of equality provides insufficient guidance in, for example, arbitrating justice.viiiCriticising through the prism of equalityIndeed, feminist activists and thinkers implicitly acknowledge this. The meaning of 'equality' is heavily contested exactly because it has come to include perspectives on the ideal social framework, and how to attain it. For liberal feminists, it is largely correcting prejudices in the prevailing, western system; for some radical feminists it is primarily fighting patriarchy; for socialist feminists it is equalising economic conditions; for some it is even reasserting motherhood, and all these are among many others. These disagreements and disputes all centre on translating or 'practicalising' equality, which often results in fundamentally opposing conclusions. For example, the use of the women's body in advertising or pornography; whether to correct, undermine or replace the current system; whether or not to assert difference or to regard it as having no bearing in the appropriation of rights; whether or not the domestic mother is a subjugated role or a symbol of distinct femininity; whether or not the terms 'feminine' or 'femininity' themselves inherently depict subjugation and should be rejected, are just a few of the subjects that deeply divide contemporary feminist thought.But although termed 'equality', it is essential to separate it from opinions on social framework and policy. Asserting that neither men nor women are inferior to each other can be accepted as universal; current opinions on social policy are not. Therefore, approaching the subject of women's right through the term 'equality' can be ambiguous, if not misleading, as can criticising alternative perspectives on women's rights through its use. The substantive debate is thus over the social frameworks used to manage the relationships between men and women, and not the somewhat nebulous labels used to describe them.Failures of the current social frameworkThe predominant approach to social framework, labelled 'equality', in western liberal democracies has been to grant women the rights and opportunities that men have enjoyed historically. It has translated into a demand for equal employment, political, economic, and social rights and opportunities, and attempts to combat sexist prejudices. It is an approach that seeks to equalise rights and opportunities in the context of the existing system; not to replace it, but to equalise treatment under it.However, a policy that seeks simply to equalise treatment in an existing system may also be oppressive. In fact, a considerable segment of feminist thought rejects it as a counterproductive approach. It does not correct inherent errors in the values that form the existing system, but assimilates women into them. Particularly if the existing system is institutionally at the service of men, women continually refer to their rights in male terms as they play catch-up in a system that is accepted as preferential to and prejudicing men, therefore institutionalising their disadvantaged status.The issue of employment opportunities and rights has featured significantly in this approach. Feminist thinkers considered financial independence from men a key part of emancipation; that men's monopoly over earnings has meant that power has rested with the male half of humanity historically. Promoting economic independence, however, has led to difficulties of other kinds. For those couples, or single mothers, with children, liberation against domestication through pursuing paid employment has often made little financial sense, and has created concerns over relationships with children. Alongside increases in the number of women in paid employment has been an increase in demand for childcare, and with it substantial costs of hire, compounded by current shortages.ix The cost of day nurseries in the UK, nationally, is estimated to be nearly £7000 a year for a 2 year-old child, peaking to £168 per week in London,x and the cost for a nanny is estimated at averaging over £21,000 a year,xi above the national average wage. Even for most dual-income families this is a considerable financial burden, and says nothing of the mental and physical effort that is required to combine paid employment with responsibility for children. Indeed, the situation is rather ironic. A mother seeking employment creates an employment opportunity in doing so, through the need for someone to mind her child whilst at work; hiring the child-carer costs a considerable proportion of her own wage, and more often than not will hire a woman.xii Superficially, it appears a rather complicated reshuffle but with the same net effect-someone must care for the child. If the mother, or father, had remained at home it would not have considerably altered her, or the couple's, income or costs. But as current employment debate demonstrates, despite the financial paradox, employment has become an icon of empowerment and is demanding that women's child-bearing nature should not put them at any career disadvantage to men.It is not only financial pressures that women and couples have come to endure. The onset of a number of social dilemmas and problems can be traced back to confusion and a lack of guidance over social responsibilities, although liberal individualists may interpret such shortcomings as welcome freedom. Men and women may lead independent, indeed irresponsible, lives but the birth of a child brings with it a shared responsibility that needs to be managed. Working parents have a limited amount of time with their children, an issue of considerable regret as surveys indicatexiii and there is confusion over responsibilities towards children in respect of time, commitment, values, and whether or not to divide or share tasks between couples. While women increasingly confront the assumption that they are primarily responsible for the care of children, it appears that the popular perception among men is that they are not.xiv Some couples may share responsibilities but the numbers of single parent families are rising, as are children available for adoption, teenage pregnancies, abortions, and 'unintended' births. The impact has been to burden parents with numerous social and financial dilemmas and to burden society with the impact of their inevitable mistakes.A Great Disruption?In his book 'The Great Disruption', Francis Fukuyama points to the, "…negative social trends, which together reflect a weakening of social bonds and common values in Western societies…" understanding the causes of which he dedicates a book. He contends that the onset of service based industries and the independence provided by the invention of oral contraceptives in the 60s and 70s unleashed women to the labour markets, a trend which has subsequently compromised traditional family structures. The breakdown in family structures and the loss of 'social capital' in the west he asserts, has subsequently created crime, insecurity and moral decline. But the technological advances which delivered the computer and the pill were not the cause of women entering employment; but rather tools for advocates of women's liberation, as the Economist magazine points out.xv It is ironic, that while heralding the triumph of liberal democracies in 'The End of History and the Last Man', Fukuyama admits that individualism (which consequently led to the basis of feminism) now compromises social stability: "The tendency of contemporary liberal democracies to fall prey to excessive individualism is perhaps their greatest long-term vulnerability and is particularly visible in the most individualistic of all democracies, the United States".xviThis increasing confusion over social responsibility has prompted some to attempt to identify the most appropriate social setting for children, families and society as a whole. Indeed, none other than Jack Straw, when he was British home secretary, wrote in his introduction to 'Supporting Families': "The evidence is that children are best brought up where you have two natural parents and it is more likely to be a stable family if they are married. It plainly makes sense for the government to do what it can to strengthen the institution of marriage", a view fought vociferously by radical feminists in his own party.xvii But promoting 'stable' family structures in the context of expanding dual income families, as women seek empowerment in the labour markets, and the costs of childcare, is fraught with dilemmas, complications, and apparent paradoxes.The heart of the problem in the current framework lies in the paradox created by trading-off liberal individualism and the need for social cohesion; liberating women from traditional family settings and the need for stable homes; challenging men's monopoly on earnings and the disadvantage created by women's child-bearing nature; seeking equality with men and appropriating for human differences. The logic of each creates an impasse.Roles & ResponsibilitiesWestern societies have increasingly rejected the notion of different roles and responsibilities between men and women to handle their increasing social dilemmas, as part of a social construct of gender and a disadvantageous division of labour. However, the questioning of social construct, both social roles and policy, by feminist thinkers has largely been to undermine historically western assumptions about women. No right to vote; to own property or to dispose of income as one wishes; denied access to education and work; considered meaningless in political and intellectual circles; regarded as inferior to men-all these describe the condition of women in European history. It seems appropriate to undermine these assumptions, indeed to reject them, as it does challenge this subjugated feminine construct. But it would be short-sighted to reject all beliefs about social relationships between men and women on the back of European experience and the roles it appropriated its women.From the discussion on managing differences, it appears that even after deconstructing social roles and constructs, the reality of men and women lead us back to conclude that some social system is needed to regulate their relationships, to prevent subjugation, abuse of rights and manage disputes between them. A framework is needed to articulate responsibilities and rights that men, women and children have towards each other. Thus, should we reject the notion of a 'social construct' per se, or specifically those false 'social constructs' that lead to the subjugation of either sex?But in a secular framework, an answer is difficult as it is trapped in gender polarisation. Either it is men that decide roles and responsibilities, or women. Whoever decides, they will fuel accusations of bias, preference, and privilege towards the deciding sex, by strengthening either patriarchy or matriarchy. In the development of the debate in the West these are the accusations that arguably rendered the appropriation of roles irrelevant in the first place.Questioning the assumptions & presenting alternativesThe story of the modern woman is one of her journey through the history of Western Europe and North America. Whether the depiction of Mary Wollenstonecroft as the 'first feminist', the French revolution, Mill's work on the 'Subjugation of Women', the Pankhurst's and the suffragettes, or the 'successes' of 'second wave' feminism in the 60s and 70s; it is the European experience that has been taken as the global model for women's emancipation. It inspires, indeed defines, feminism in other parts of the world. But its European context has entrenched a number of Eurocentric assumptions.This is most apparent when considering alternatives, such as the Islamic social framework. It is true that in the industrial middle class, men translated economic prowess as power both in society and in family, and the domestic mother in the context of advent of liberalism and capitalism came to represent a subjugated role. However, a domestic mother in the Islamic social framework is in an empowered and honoured position. She is afforded rights to property, is encouraged to learn and gain scholarship, to be politically active-indeed is granted the vote-and is afforded a number of marriage rights including access to divorce. This Islamic framework does not measure worth in terms of wealth or access to it, as has increasingly been the case in the West since the advent of liberal Capitalism, and so motherhood is valued no less, and often more so, than a highly paid role.By the same token, Islam does not consider men predominating in the work place as representing patriarchy, or placing society at the service of men's needs. The Islamic framework is built on accepting that men and women are equally human, neither inferior to the other (indeed it did so well before Europe's enlightenment) and are judged equally before their Creator. Both men and women may choose to work and earn, and those earnings are measured by merit and not by sex; women will earn the same as men if undertaking the same work. Likewise, the validity of opinions is not measured by assumptions about the advocating sex, but as the product of human reasoning. It promotes different roles for men and women, but does not suffer from gender polarisation as it is not men or women who decide the preferred roles and responsibilities but their Creator.It is common to hear criticisms of Islam's treatment of women because of the difference in, for example, dress code. This is interpreted as representing inequality and subjugation to men, or even sexist. But as the discussion earlier demonstrates, criticising difference as inequality is an unsophisticated outlook and practical views on equality are actually views on social framework. And so labelling Islam's social framework as promoting inequality is to do no more than say it is different; alone it represents no universal criticism as views on social framework are particular to broader viewpoints of ideology and disputed among feminists themselves.

Evolution

Exposing the flaws in the Theory of Evolution

This article will describe and explore the Theory of Evolution. It will attempt to describe the theory, defining its main elements, and also take a brief look at the historical changes to the Theory – a kind of evolution of the Theory of Evolution! In addition, the article will seek to discuss the evidences used by the proponents of this theory and then provide a synopsis of the counter arguments.

Introduction

The Theory of Evolution has become the de facto standard used in the West, and indeed beyond, to explain the existence of creation and life. It is described as rational and scientific; many statements are made to demonstrate the strength of the Theory – such as the number of scientists who have given it their blessings and its widespread acceptance beyond the scientific community. Nonetheless, there is a strong perception existing in our day and age of the credibility of the Theory of Evolution. To some extent, it is discussed and taught in schools and educational establishments and promoted in the mainstream media. In stark contrast, other arguments that explain the existence of life are considered to be irrational, backward and steeped in ignorance borne out of belief in religion. In other words, there are essentially two clear camps: the ‘scientific’ and progressive camp which espouses the virtues of the Theory, and the apparently ‘unscientific’ contingent which clings to outmoded explanations such as the existence of a Creator. In recent times, thanks in no small part to various Christian elements in the U.S., the clashes between these two sides have become more visible and the tempo seems to have been raised. There have been calls for a restructuring to the way in which the Theory is taught to children, or at the very least provision for a balanced approach, so that the young are taught about other explanations as well. Many establishments have insisted on giving religious teaching the priority, leading to conflict with those who believe religion should have no such role in schools.

The Theory of Evolution

The theory of evolution is sometimes described using complex and convoluted language, which can be a significant source of confusion. What adds to the confusion is the fact that aspects of the theory do undergo change and revision. In this article I will try to explain the main points that constitute the theory, on which those who propose this theory are agreed, without getting bogged down in the finer details or indeed the many arguments and assumptions in relation to areas where there may be some difference of opinion and divergence of views. I have also tried to simplify the description so it can be understood without recourse to a dictionary and constant definition of scientific terminology.To understand the thrust of the theory, it is useful to have an idea of some of the concepts that are used and an appreciation of the context.

Firstly, the definition: biological evolution is defined as descent with modification from a common ancestor. In this context, descent means going down from one generation through to the following generations. Modification alludes to alterations in genetic make-up and changes in gene frequencies. This definition encompasses what is known as small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).Of course biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

Secondly, a key central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as our cousins and we share a common grandmother. It is argued that through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we are all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.The process of evolution produces a pattern of relationships between species. As lineages evolve and split and modifications are inherited, their evolutionary paths diverge. This produces a branching pattern of evolutionary relationships. These relationships can be reconstructed and represented on a "family tree," called a phylogeny.

As a consequence of this ‘family tree’ understanding, it is important to remember that:

1. Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. Humans and chimpanzees are evolutionary cousins and share a recent common ancestor that was neither chimpanzee nor human.

2. Humans are not "higher" or "more evolved" than other living lineages. Since these lineages split, humans and chimpanzees have each evolved traits unique to their own lineages.

Thirdly, another important aspect of evolution is the linking of speciation events to time i.e. trying to understand when different species evolved. Using various methods, such as radiometric dating, scientists are able to conclude that life began 3.8 billion years ago, and insects diversified 290 million years ago, but the human and chimpanzee lineages diverged only five million years ago.To give an analogy for this, imagine squeezing the billions of years of the history of life on Earth into a single minute. Then it would take about 50 seconds for multi-cellular life to evolve, another four seconds for vertebrates to invade the land, and another four seconds for flowers to evolve — and only in the last 0.002 seconds would "modern" humans arise.

So, the claim is made that evolution is the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient ancestors. Evolution is apparently responsible for both the remarkable similarities we see across all life and the amazing diversity of that life — but exactly how does it work?Fundamental to the process is genetic variation upon which selective forces can act in order for evolution to occur. Evolution only occurs when there is a change in gene frequency within a population over time. These genetic differences are heritable and can be passed on to the next generation — which is what really matters in evolution: long term change. Therefore, we need to examine the actual mechanisms of evolution.In essence there are four basic processes, which constitute the mechanisms of evolution. These are mutation, migration, genetic drift and natural selection.

Mutation refers to the actual changes in the DNA within cells. The DNA affects how an organism looks, behaves and so on. Thus a change in the DNA can alter all aspects of its life.When cells divide the DNA is copied exactly as it is. However, on occasion, it is possible for they’re to be a discrepancy in the copying of the DNA. This difference is considered a mutation. It must be kept in mind that mutations are random – and so do not normally depend on external factors. That said, it is possible for there to be mutation as a result of exposure to radiation or chemicals, causing the DNA to break down. In this case, when the cells repair the DNA, the result is not a perfect repair – and so the resultant DNA is a mutation.Whether a particular mutation occurs is not related to how useful that mutation would be. The mutation in the genes can yield a beneficial, neutral or harmful change for the organism.

Although mutation can occur with any gene, it is the mutation that affects genes, which can be transmitted from one generation to the next that is of interest, since this is a form of evolution. If genes mutate and cannot be passed to future generations, then these mutations cannot be considered as having any relation to evolution. These are called Somatic Mutations and occur in non-reproductive cells. Hence the genes that are affected by mutation related to biological evolution are the reproductive cells, like eggs and sperm. Any mutations in the sex cells mean that potentially the change (the mutation) can be passed onto following generations. These mutations are labelled Germ Line Mutations.Migration is the flow of genes from one population to another. This Gene Flow can include various different events, such as pollen being blown to a new destination or people moving to new cities or countries. In a situation where genes are carried to a population where those genes previously did not exist, gene flow becomes a very important source of genetic variation.

Thus, as well as being mechanisms of evolution, Mutation and Migration also constitute sources of genetic variation. Another source of genetic variation is sex, which can introduce new gene combinations into a population.Genetic drift refers to the situation where, just ‘by chance’, some individuals leave behind a few more descendents and thus genes than other individuals. This happens to all populations since there can be no avoidance of chance. So for example, every time somebody steps on an insect with a certain characteristic, this reduces the number within that particular population and hence means there is one less insect remaining to pass on its genes to a new generation. Conversely, this also means that there are now more insects with different characteristics within the same population, who are able to pass on their genes. Clearly, this shows that genetic drift affects the genetic makeup of a population through entirely random means.Natural Selection is the fourth cog in the wheel of evolution. This in itself requires three components: variation in traits, differential reproduction and heredity. To understand this, consider a population of beetles. Some beetles are brown and others are green – this is a variation in a trait or a characteristic.

The environment is not able to support unlimited growth of the population and so not all individuals are able to reproduce to their full potential. For example, we could say that green beetles are easily visible on the ground and so tend to get eaten more by birds – so less survive to reproduce compared to brown beetles. In other words, we have differential reproduction.Finally, the brown beetles have brown baby beetles since this trait has a genetic basis i.e. they pass on a gene that determines the colour to be brown. This is what is meant by heredity. Putting these components together, evolution by natural selection is seen at work. The more advantageous trait of brown colour becomes more common in the population with time and if this process continues, then eventually all the beetles will be brown.

It is claimed that natural selection is also able to shape behaviour. The mating rituals that many birds have, the wiggle dance that bee’s do or the human capacity to learn language, have genetic components.In some cases, natural selection can be observed directly. Data shows that the shape of finches' beaks on the Galapagos Islands is related to weather patterns: after droughts, the finch population has deeper, stronger beaks that let them eat tougher seeds.In other cases, human activity has led to environmental changes that have caused populations to evolve through natural selection. A striking example is that of the population of dark moths in the 19th century in England, which rose and fell in parallel to industrial pollution. These changes can often be observed and documented.

‘Fitness’ is a concept used to describe how good a particular organism is at leaving its set of genes in the next generation compared with others with a different set of genes. Going back to the example of beetles, if brown beetles were to consistently leave more off spring than green beetles, then they would be considered to have a higher fitness. Fitness however does depend on the environment in which an organism lives. Also, from this perspective, the fittest individual is not necessarily the strongest, fastest or biggest. What matters is leaving it’s genes in the next generation and so survival ability, finding a mate and producing off spring is more important. This sub-category of natural selection in relation to finding a mate and reproductive behaviour is labelled sexual selection.Another category of natural selection is artificial selection. This is where, instead of nature, humans consciously select for or against particular features in organisms. For example, the human may allow only organisms with the desired feature to reproduce or may provide more resources to the organisms with the desired feature. Historically, farmers and breeders have used this idea of selection to cause major changes in the features of their plants and animals.

One key aspect of natural selection is known as adaptation. An adaptation is a feature that is common in a population because it seems to provide an improved function. Adaptations can take many forms: a behaviour that allows better evasion of predators, a protein that functions better at body temperature, or an anatomical feature that allows the organism to access a valuable new resource — all of these might be adaptations. For example, mimicry of leaves by insects is an adaptation for evading predators or the use of echolocation by bats to help them catch insects. Similarly, the creosote bush is a desert-dwelling plant that produces toxins that prevent other plants from growing nearby, thus reducing competition for nutrients and water.To summarise, all of the mechanisms discussed above (mutation, migration, genetic drift and natural selection) can cause changes in the frequencies of genes in populations, and so all of them are mechanisms of evolutionary change. However, it is worth keeping in mind that natural selection and genetic drift cannot operate unless there is genetic variation — that is, unless some individuals are genetically different from others.

A historical perspective

Although Charles Darwin is synonymous with the Theory of Evolution, he was not the first naturalist to propose that species changed over time into new species i.e. that life evolves. In the eighteenth century, a naturalist called Buffon along with others began to introduce the idea that life might not have been fixed since creation. By the end of the 1700s, palaeontologists had swelled the fossil collections of Europe, offering a picture of the past at odds with an unchanging natural world. And in 1801, a French naturalist named Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet; Chevalier de Lamarck took a great conceptual step and proposed a full-blown theory of evolution.Lamarck was struck by the similarities of many of the animals he studied, and was impressed too by the burgeoning fossil record. It led him to argue that life was not fixed. When environments changed, organisms had to change their behaviour to survive. If they began to use an organ more than they had in the past, it would increase in its lifetime. If a giraffe stretched its neck for leaves, for example, a "nervous fluid" would flow into its neck and make it longer. Its offspring would inherit the longer neck, and continued stretching would make it longer still over several generations. Meanwhile organs that organisms stopped using would shrink (called vestigial structures).

Lamarck was mocked and attacked by many of his contemporary naturalists such as Cuvier. While they questioned him on scientific grounds, many of them were also disturbed by the theological implications of his work. Lamarck was proposing that life took on its current form through natural processes, not through miraculous interventions. For British naturalists in particular, steeped as they were in natural theology, this was appalling. They believed that nature was a reflection of God's benevolent design. To them, it seemed Lamarck was claiming that it was the result of blind primal forces. Shunned by the scientific community, Lamarck died in 1829 in poverty and obscurity.In many ways, Darwin's central argument was very different from Lamarck's. He argued that complexity evolved simply as a result of life adapting to its local conditions from one generation to the next. He also argued that species could go extinct rather than change into new forms. But Darwin relied on much the same evidence for evolution that Lamarck did and Darwin wrongly accepted that changes acquired during an organism's lifetime could be passed on to its offspring.

Lamarckian inheritance remained popular throughout the 1800s, in large part because scientists did not yet understand how heredity works. With the discovery of genes, it was finally abandoned for the most part. But Lamarck, whom Darwin described as "this justly celebrated naturalist," remains a major figure in the history of biology for envisioning evolutionary change for the first time.Throughout the nineteenth century, heredity remained a puzzle to scientists. How was it that children ended up looking similar to, but not exactly like, their parents? These questions fascinated and frustrated Charles Darwin deeply. After all, heredity lies at the heart of evolution.Ironically, it was just as Darwin was publishing the Origin of Species in 1859 that someone got the first real glimpse of the biological machinery behind heredity. In a secluded monastery in what is now the Czech Republic, a monk named Gregor Mendel was studying heredity in a garden of peas. Through his experiments, Mendel discovered what later scientists called "dominant" and "recessive" alleles i.e. part of genetics.

Darwin and a British biologist called Alfred Russel Wallace had independently conceived of a natural, even observable, way for life to change: a process Darwin called natural selection. Within a few decades, most scientists accepted that evolution and the descent of species from common ancestors were real. But natural selection had a harder time finding acceptance.Even in 1900, whilst many scientists were rediscovering Mendel's insights, they continued to remain opposed to natural selection. After all, Darwin had talked of natural selection gradually altering a species by working on tiny variations. But the Mendelist’s found major differences between traits encoded by alleles. In order to jump from one allele to another, evolution must make giant jumps—an idea that seemed to clash with Darwin.But in the 1920s geneticists began to recognize that natural selection could indeed act on genes. For one thing, it became clear that any given trait was usually the product of many genes rather than a single one. A mutation to any one of the genes involved could create small changes to the trait rather than some drastic transformation. Just as importantly, several scientists — foremost among them Ronald Fisher, JBS Haldane and Sewall Wright — showed how natural selection could operate in a Mendelian world. They carried out breeding experiments like previous geneticists, but they also did something new: they built sophisticated mathematical models of evolution.

Known as "population genetics," their approach revealed how mutations arise and, if they are favoured by natural selection, can spread through a population. Even a slight advantage can let genes spread rapidly through a group of animals or plants and drive other forms extinct. Evolution, these population geneticists argued, is carried out mainly by small mutations, since drastic mutations would almost always be harmful rather than helpful.Thus, population genetics became one of the key elements of what would be called the Modern Synthesis.In 1937, a Soviet-born geneticist named Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote a landmark book called Genetics and the Origin of Species. Dobzhansky's ability to combine genetics and natural history attracted many other biologists to join him in the effort to find a unified explanation of how evolution happens. Their combined work known as "The Modern Synthesis" brought together genetics, palaeontology and many other sciences into one powerful explanation of evolution, showing how mutations and natural selection could produce large-scale evolutionary change.

While evolutionary biologists were fashioning the Modern Synthesis, geneticists around the world searched furiously for the molecules that carried genetic information. They knew that cells contained several different types of molecules, such as proteins and nucleic acids. But which had the capacity to bear information and be copied into new cells?The answer came through the discovery of DNA by Francis Crick and James Watson, which revolutionized evolutionary biology. Mutations, researchers realized, change the structure of the DNA. A single base pair may change, or a set of genes may be duplicated. Hence, those mutations that confer a selective advantage to an individual become more common over time, and ultimately these mutant genes could drive the older versions out of existence.

Evidences used by the proponents of the Theory

The mechanisms covered thus far are the basic building blocks of the theory of evolution. The next logical step is to look at the evidence that is given to claim these processes are responsible for both micro and macroevolution. In other words, what evidence is there that evolution has occurred and is responsible for the variety of life around us, and also is there evidence that demonstrates the mechanisms discussed in this article are indeed behind all these changes?

Those who support the theory of evolution present proofs that can loosely be gathered into a number of categories. We will examine these in turn.The primary source of proof for the theory comes from Fossil Evidence. The argument is that fossil records provide excellent snapshots of the past and when assembled they illustrate evolutionary change over many millions of years.As well as being actual remains of organisms, and thus giving an understanding as to the shape, appearance and skeletal structure, fossils can give additional clues. For example, they can indicate interactions that took place many years previously. A fossil may contain punctures or holes that could be teeth records of various animals, allowing scientists to extrapolate about what kind of organism may have been responsible, the shape of its jaws, and so on.Fossils can tell us about the growth patterns in ancient animals. For example, examining a cross section of a bone that has been found, it is possible to see the number of blood vessels; this in turn would indicate the speed of growth and so on.

An important section of fossil records are transitional forms. These are fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between ancient organisms and their descendents. Since scientists have found so many transitional forms, it is claimed there is an abundance of evidence for evolution. An example of this is the case of the beluga whale. The beluga whale has its nostrils at the top of its skull. A fossil record of an animal that is considered to be related to today’s whales and dolphins, called Pakicetus, had its nostrils at the front of its skull. This animal lived about 50 million years ago. So scientists would expect that there might be a transitional form i.e. an animal that had some variation in the position of its nostrils compared to Pakicetus and the beluga whale. In fact, fossil records have been discovered of a skull, about 25 million years old, where the nostrils are in the middle of the skull. This animal has been labelled Aetiocetus.So Aetiocetus could plausibly be the transitional form, linking Pakicetus to the beluga whale and demonstrating a steady evolution.

The second source of evidence is garnered from studying homologies. Evolutionary theory predicts that organisms that come from the same ancestor will share similarities. These similar characteristics are known as homologies. As mentioned earlier, the logic is essentially that historically every species shares a common ancestor. As we move forward in time, new species evolve, but since they share a number of common ancestors, so we would expect them to share some characteristics that exist or existed in those ancestors. A crude example would be that of humans and apes. At some stage, going back in time, there was a common ancestor from which both species evolved. So humans and chimpanzees would have similar characteristics, based on the fact that they share common ancestors. Another example of homology is that of leaves. If we were to examine the leaves of say the pitcher plant (which has leaves shaped to capture insects), the Venus Flytrap, the Poinsettia (which has bright red leaves) and the cactus plant (where its leaves are essentially spines) then we would see that each type of leave has a different shape and function. Yet they are all derived from a common ancestral form.

Yet another example of homology is the forelimb of tetrapods (vertebrates with legs). Frogs, birds, rabbits and lizards all have different forelimbs, reflecting their different lifestyles. But those different forelimbs all share the same set of bones - the humerus, the radius, and the ulna. These are the same bones seen in fossils of the extinct transitional animal, Eusthenopteron, which demonstrates their common ancestry.Comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences and studying embryological development can reveal homologies.

Studying the embryological development of living things (i.e. prior to birth) provides clues to the evolution of present-day organisms. During some stages of development, organisms exhibit ancestral features in whole or incomplete form. For example, some species of living snakes have hind limb-buds as early embryos but rapidly lose the buds and develop into legless adults. The study of developmental stages of snakes, combined with fossil evidence of snakes with hind limbs, supports the hypothesis that snakes evolved from a limbed ancestor.Similarly, toothed whales have full sets of teeth throughout their lives. Baleen whales, however, only possess teeth in the early foetal stage and lose them before birth. The possession of teeth in foetal baleen whales provides evidence of common ancestry with toothed whales and other mammals. In addition, fossil evidence indicates that the late Oligocene whale Aetiocetus (the same Aetiocetus - our transitional friend with the nostrils in the middle of its skull), which is considered to be the earliest example of baleen whales, also bore a full set of teeth.

From a cellular and molecular level we find fundamental similarities between the cells of living things, which can be explained by the theory of evolution. All organisms are made of cells, which consist of membranes filled with water containing genetic material, proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, salts and other substances. The cells of most living things use sugar for fuel while producing proteins as building blocks and messengers. Comparing a typical animal cell with that of a plant, there are only three structures unique to one or the other (these are the cell wall, the centriole and the chloroplast). All other aspects are similar, such as the nucleus, cytoplasm and the vacuole.Comparison of genes between species also reveals striking similarities – for example, even roundworms share 25% of their genes with humans. In many ways, DNA is itself a homology for all living things – i.e. everything has DNA and so this is a common trait that must have come from a common ancestor.

In a nutshell, homologies are used as proof for the theory, since the existence of similarities between groups of organisms is an indication of common ancestors and thus evolution.A third source of evidence for evolution is the fact that there has been sufficient time for this process to have produced the diversity we see. The age of the earth has been determined through both relative dating (i.e. examining the different layers of rocks on the surface of the earth) and numerical dating which relies on the decay of radioactive elements such as uranium and potassium. The conclusion made is that the timescales involved are adequate for evolution to take its course.Artificial selection, mentioned earlier, is also an evidence for evolution. This is because people have been using selective breeding with plants and animals for many hundreds of years, and this breeding has shown how species can change dramatically. It can be argued that artificial selection has the ability to modify the forms and behaviours of populations to the point they are seemingly very different to their ancestors. So artificial selection is a model that helps with understanding natural selection.

The variation in the environment and ecology is also a proof of sorts. As predicted by evolutionary theory, populations evolve in response to their surroundings. In any ecosystem there are finite opportunities to make a living. Organisms either have the genetic tools to take advantage of those opportunities or they do not.For example, house sparrows arrived in North America from Europe in the nineteenth century. Since then, genetic variation within the population and selection in various habitats, have allowed them to inhabit most of the continent. House sparrows in the north are larger and darker coloured than those in the south. Darker colours absorb sunlight better than light colours and larger size allows less surface area per unit volume, thus reducing heat loss — both advantages in a cold climate. This is an example of natural selection acting upon a population, producing microevolution on a continental scale.

Finally, experiments also show that populations can evolve. As an example, John Endler of the University of California has conducted experiments with guppies (a type of fish) of Trinidad that clearly show selection at work. The scenario is as follows: female guppies prefer colourful males for mating purposes. Predatory fish also "prefer" colourful males, but for a less complimentary purpose — a source of food that is easy to spot. Some portions of the streams where guppies live have fewer predators than others and in these locations the males are more colourful. Not surprisingly, males in locations where there are more predators tend to be less colourful.When Dr. Endler transferred predatory fish to the regions with brightly coloured male guppies, selection acted rapidly to produce a population of duller males. So this demonstrates that persistent variation within a population provides the raw material for rapid evolution when environmental conditions change.

Arguments against the Theory of Evolution

The previous section outlined some of the proofs that are presented for the theory of evolution. We will now consider briefly a few of the arguments against the theory.1. The theory of evolution is usually described as fact, and many people see it like this due to a moulding of public opinion. Yet the trouble is that it is simply a theory. And like many theories it is wont to constantly chop and change. Indeed we can see on numerous occasions how it has changed over time and undergone revisions. For example, according to Darwin himself, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”.

Another example is the proposition of a slightly different model in recent times. Called "punctuated equilibrium", this model rejects the Darwinist idea of a cumulative, step-by-step evolution and holds that evolution took place instead in big, discontinuous "jumps". This is because those who ascribe to it believe the fossil record does not support gradual evolution. Sadly for the proponents, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Gould (American palaeontologists) their own theory is bankrupt – since for one thing, it conflicts with the understanding that genes cannot undergo radical mutations.

2. The sources of proof given for the theory essentially rely on retro-fitting the supposed evidence to the theory i.e. the theory states evolution occurred from a common ancestor, and then study of fossils and homologies is used to indicate that indeed the theory is correct and evolution does occur. But equally we could state there is a creator who created the amazing diversity of life and also the similarities between species – in fact this is more plausible. Thus fossils and homologies would just as much, if not more, support this ‘theory’ of a Creator.

3. Fossils are a record of what may have existed. They do not indicate anything more than this. By examining a fossil we could equally state that the organism was created as opposed to evolving from an ancestor. The fossil record is also very much incomplete – there are massive, gaping holes. This presents a staggering problem for proponents of the Theory. The somewhat weak argument is that the bulk of the fossil record may have been destroyed or is yet to be discovered. According to Neville George, a professor of Palaeontology at Glasgow University:

“There is no need to apologise any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration…” Yet he goes on to say, “The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps”.

Contrary to what evolutionists claim, there are only limited (if any) transitional forms. Importantly, for example, we don’t see transitional forms that show the alleged evolution of apes to humans [and to try and explain the many loopholes regarding this, there is a current debate among evolutionists themselves about whether it occurred in steps or smoothly which we alluded to earlier i.e. punctuated equilibrium]. The fossil record back then (and still today) is nearly totally void of transitional species. If species are continually mutating, never constant, why do we find several of the same, certain prehistoric creatures, but never any that appear to be in transition? Why do palaeontologists find lots of dinosaurs but never where dinosaurs come from, nor what they turned into?

In Darwin's own words, 'Why, if species have descended by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of species being, as we see them, well defined?' It is an excellent question, which he answers himself, 'I can give no satisfactory answer.'Indeed British evolutionist Derek Ager admits, “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find - over and over again - not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another”.

Yet another problem in using the fossil record as evidence for evolution is that under closer examination, it appears to be a proof for exactly the opposite argument – i.e. creation. For example, one of the oldest strata of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years. The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period seemed to emerge all of a sudden in the fossil record – there appeared to be no ancestors, although in relatively recent times palaeontologists believe fossils have been found dating from the preceding Vendian (or Ediacaran) period. The fossils found in the Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature.

“A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures. The large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and they were as distinct from each other as they are today”.And one of the most vociferous advocates for atheism and evolution in today’s age, Richard Dawkins, comments “the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists”.

4. The basic mechanism for gene variation is mutation. And it is known that mutations are random and limited in their scope. We should note that what is not a point of debate here is the fact that genes undergo mutation; neither is there a point of conflict with the various biological processes within organisms. For example, we know that insects can build up resistance against forms of pesticide over time – in fact, in the same manner humans have long believed that taking poison in small quantities can help survive what would normally be a fatal dose. These observations do not really constitute evolution. However, even if we agreed to define these particular cases as examples of microevolution, the fact is that they can be explained by what we have come to know through scientific study and resulting conclusions. The argument for a Creator also accepts scientific facts and conclusions – it no more denies the laws of biology being created, than it denies the laws of physics being put in place by the Creator. Hence, change within the framework of the laws of biology is possible – and there is sufficient evidence for this. The main problem however is with macroevolution. To even begin to consider macroevolution, mutations would need to be dramatic – trying to get round this, it is claimed that there has been sufficient time for many small scale mutations to eventually yield the different species we see. But frankly this isn’t plausible – we have seen no evidence to support such a claim - and so this is again nothing more than a pure hypothesis.

In addition, there are many other problems with the mutation argument. If mutations occur, they actually cause harmful effects and not beneficial ones. We can witness the effects of mutations caused in humans following radiation poisoning at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl – that is, a litany of death, disability and illness.According to the evolutionist scientist Warren Weavers commenting in the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that may have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:“Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are necessary parts of the process of evolution. How can good effects - evolution to higher forms of life - results from mutations practically all of which are harmful?”

Similarly, another scientist B.G. Ranganathan states in his book ‘Origins?’ that “Mutations are small, random, and harmful. They rarely occur and the best possibility is that they will be ineffectual. These four characteristics of mutations imply that mutations cannot lead to an evolutionary development. A random change in a highly specialised organism is either ineffectual or harmful. A random change in a watch cannot improve the watch. It will most probably harm it or at best be ineffectual. An earthquake does not improve the city, it brings destruction”.Finally, mutations do not actually add any new information to an organisms DNA. During a mutation, the genetic information is either destroyed or rearranged, but since there is no new information, it is impossible for mutations to cause a new trait or organ within a living organism.

5. Artificial selection (breeding) and sexual selection do produce new combinations but these are limited in their scope. They are restricted to a finite set of possible gene combinations. So breeding cannot introduce a radically new species – it simply gives a result based on the limited pool of combined genes. It cannot give a result outside of this. E.g. Horse plus donkey gives a mule. Or an African married to a Caucasian can result in off spring described as half-cast. The latter cannot produce a human whose skin colour is red or purple, etc.

6. The odds are heavily stacked against evolution. Evolution cannot answer where the first cell came from. The best guess is that came about through a random coincidence. Fred Hoyle, a well-known English mathematician and astronomer, and someone who believes in evolution, made the analogy that the chances of the first cell forming in this manner were comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials present. And according to Professor of Applied Mathematics and astronomy from University College (Cardiff, Wales), Chandra Wickramasinghe:

“The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence”. In other words the random formation of such a first cell is an impossibility.

But still let’s assume we suddenly have a cell. The first cell would then have to self-reproduce otherwise there would only ever be one cell. This becomes problematic for evolutionists so they suggest self-replication – i.e. the first cell has the ability to clone itself. However, organic matter can only self reproduces if it exists as a fully developed cell with existing support structures such as the particular environment and energy. This then requires more leaps of faith – so let’s make another assumption, this time that the cell does have a complex structure and the ability to reproduce. But, for evolution, mutation needs to happen. So firstly, since mutation is random, even given an absolute age, mutation might not occur. And secondly, mutation can only take place if the cell is forced to repair itself or if it makes a copy of itself. Thus, for a handful of cells, to copy and mutate successfully and form different cells and for this process to continue onwards to produce the complexity of life we see is something, which cannot happen. Leaving aside time, and the random nature of mutation, just the series of mutations necessary to produce even the simplest of species are impossible.

7. There is no actual hard evidence for the process of evolution itself. We don’t witness evolution. All that experiments (such as the one involving guppies) or observations in the field (such as the house sparrows example) demonstrate is a form of selection. But this is not real evolution – the fact that a population may change due to various factors (such as environment, predators, etc) or that it may become extinct is not a change from one species to another. So even if we can see natural selection of sorts, this is based on rational factors, and is not evolution.

8. Evolution cannot answer why only the human species has the clear faculty of intelligence, thought and reasoning that has allowed it to progress. It cannot explain the existence of emotions, except through an undefined notion such as chemicals within the body. And it is unable to offer any satisfactory explanation for issues such as the existence of the soul – indeed according to evolutionary theory, there cannot be a soul, rather life itself must be caused by the functioning of cells since after all everything has evolved from a single cell.

9. Adaptation is mentioned as a feature of evolution. That is, the manner in which organisms have evolved beneficial characteristics adapted to their environment, which help them survive. So one example we gave earlier was that of stick insects, where their body itself is a form of camouflage protecting them against predators. However, evolutionists themselves state that mutation is random and can lead to beneficial as well as harmful results. The environment cannot influence the occurrence or form of any mutation. So in this case, the evolutionary argument would have to be that today’s stick insects evolved from ancestors, which did randomly mutate to have this beneficial characteristic of camouflage. Those within the population that didn’t inherit this mutation would have died out due to their inability to survive. But once again, claiming that a series of mutations occurred, that lead to stick insects possessing characteristics that are suited to their environment, is nothing but conjecture. As before, we could equally state that a Creator has created various species and organisms of life with these inherent varying characteristics. So, organisms were in fact created with characteristics that we interpret as beneficial to them, instead of these traits evolving through time. Thus, the fact that many organisms seem well matched to their environments cannot be cited as any kind of proof or indication of evolution.

10. Let’s take a look at another argument that shows the fallacy of evolution. Many organisms and parts of organisms do not appear to have evolved from lesser things because they are 'irreducibly complex' life forms. Irreducible complexity is a concept that has been developed to describe something that is made of interacting parts that all work together. To understand this, take the example of a mousetrap. A mousetrap cannot be assembled through gradual improvement. You cannot start with a wooden base, catching a few mice, then add a hammer, and catch more, then add a spring, improving it further. To even begin catching mice one must assemble all the components completely with design and intent. Furthermore, if one of these parts changes or evolves independently, the entire thing will stop working. The mousetrap, for instance, will become useless if even one part malfunctions.

Likewise, many biological structures are irreducibly complex. Bats are a well-known example. They are said to have evolved from a small rodent whose front toes became wings. This presents a multitude of problems. As the front toes grow skin between them, the creature has limbs that are too long to run, or even walk well, yet too short to help it fly. There is no plausible way that a bat wing can evolve from a rodent's front toes. In fact, the fossil record supports this, because the first time bats are seen in the fossil record, they have completely developed wings and are virtually identical to modern bats.Consider another example, that of the eye. Suppose that before animals had sight, one species decided it would be advantageous to be able to decrypt light rays. So, what is evolved first? The retina? The iris? The eye is made of many tiny parts, each totally useless without the others. The probability that a genetic mutation that would create each of these at the same time, in the same organism, is zero. If, however, one organism evolved just a retina, then the logic of Darwin suggests that the only solution is to rid oneself of useless traits replacing them with beneficial ones, so the idea of the eye evolving one segment at a time is also bogus.

Conclusion

In a time where the theory of evolution has been catapulted to the level of fact, it is useful for us to have a firm grasp of what this theory is, and with the emerging discussion gaining more and more profile (that between creationism on the one side and evolutionary thought on the other) it is vital that we are able to show the strength of the correct argument.

One big problem of presenting the topic of evolution is finding a reasonable balance: on the one hand, simplifying and leaving out some of the terminology risks not being able to convey the subject matter accurately; on the other, by not revising and simplifying at all, there is a distinct possibility that only those with a solid understanding of biology and science will grasp what is being presented. This article has attempted to run through the basic mechanics of the theory, proofs that are presented for it and some of the arguments against evolution. Many points are too elaborate and wide ranging to touch upon in this discussion. In any event, there is an abundance of material available regarding the theory and surrounding issues that discuss these aspects in much more detail and is worth exploring for those that are interested in doing so. The theory is often cloaked in scientific language and complex terminology, and presented as a solid and viable explanation for the existence of life. Although the focus and objective of the article was not to prove the fallacy of the theory, but rather to be informative with respect to the whole discussion regarding evolution as a concept, nevertheless it has hopefully been shown that evolutionary understanding, far from being fact, is nothing more than speculation and hypothesis.