ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Life Sciences

Human Evolution: The Incontrovertible Controversy

Updated on March 12, 2014


Human evolution has been on trial in the educational system for decades. As proponents of teaching Intelligent Design continue to battle the proven science behind Evolution theory, their methods have evolved. Prior cases have upheld the teaching of evolution as scientifically sound, while creationism has been demonstrated as having no scientific basis – and therefore requires no educational mandate within the scope of a scientific study. As these trials continue, the education of young people is continually at risk by mainly religious proponents across the country. The stereotype lingers that religion is by necessity at odds with science and scientific learning. That is not necessarily the case. As studies have proven, the dichotomy of religious belief and science education is not as dire as initially believed. Those without religious beliefs have maintained the ideology that science is rational, while faith-based religion is irrational by default. Further investigation, however, brings some interesting observations to light. For example, acceptance of evolution increases along with the level of education – even among self-described religious fundamentalists. Furthermore, the stereotype that religion and science are automatically at odds dissapates the more students learn about science. (Scheitle, C.P., 2011, 50:175-186)

Proponents of Intelligent Design maintain that it is integral to the education of youth to be taught both sides of the issues. They therefore place intelligent design (the belief that evolution may have occurred naturally, but there was a “mind” or an intelligence that set the ball in motion) on equal footing with evolutionary theory, when in fact, they are not even on the same playing field at all. Creationists (the belief that macro evolution is false, though smaller micro evolutionary changes can occur, and that all “kinds” were created by a deity) maintain that teaching creation alongside with evolution will give students a firmer grasp on the issues, while simultaneously failing to recognize that creationism has no scientific background and cannot, by definition, be proven using verified scientific methods. If the creationist ideal were sound, it would mean one event in history that was unable to be tested, falsified or reproduced – which removes it from the scientific purview completely.

The most notable case on the subject comes from history in the 1925 Scopes Trial. At the onset of the trial, teaching evolution was outlawed by Tennessee’s Butler act. Although Scopes was eventually found guilty of teaching evolution and fined, the case went up the ladder to higher level courts and proved relevant to future trials focused on the evolution vs. creationism debate.

While the Scopes “Monkey” Trial was the most notable, other similar cases have followed. In December 2005, the Intelligent Design policy in place in Dover was overturned. In the judge's final decision, he maintained that Intelligent Design could not be uncoupled from its religious overtones, and therefore violated the establishment clause in the constitution. Furthermore, Judge Jones declared that Intelligent Design could not be considered a science since it had not been tested, proven or undergone the rigorous peer review process required to gain acceptance and understanding in the scientific community.

Despite the many cases of similar nature springing up across the nation and being overturned, adherents of creationism and intelligent design both continue to file lawsuites around the nation in an attempt to equate religious belief with scientific study. This presents a real danger to the education that should be standard for all youths nationwide by placing science and scientific means on trial and comparing it with something that, by definition, cannot be scientific – relying on miracles and divine mandates rather than naturalistic results that can be observed, tested and repeated. Among the most notable cases are Segraves v. State of California in 1981, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education in 1982, Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987, Webster v. New Lenox School District in 1990, Peloza v. Capistrano School District in 1994, Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education in 1997, Rodney LeVake v. Independent School District 656, et al., and Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District. (Matsumura & Mead, 2001)


This topic has been on the mind of educators and scientists alike. Acceptance of evolution is seen as contradictory to the teachings that current religious beliefs hold. Proponents of creationism and intelligent design see the concept of evolution in humans as a threat to their tightly-held religious beliefs, and therefore do not want to see this proven, testable and falsifiable theory taught to impressionable youths who may, in turn, turn away from their religious upbringings. The idea of evolution in and of itself is therefore thought of as threatening – and should be halted by any available means.

Moreover, human evolution is a hot button topic among many with religious beliefs, with a Harris poll in 2005 showing that 54% of those studied did not believe that humans had evolved from an earlier species – a number that grew by 10% from a previous study completed in 1994. (Wallis 2005). A recent interview of creationists after a debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye showed that even the basic fundamental ideals of evolution are misunderstood. When given the opportunity to ask questions, many of the attendees asked “If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” Further studies have been conducted recently, comparing the DNA of modern Europeans against the DNA of Cro-Magdoids and Neanderthals. “"The Paglicci 23 individual carried a mtDNA sequence that is still common in Europe, and which radically differs from those of the almost contemporary Neandertals, demonstrating a genealogical continuity across 28,000 years, from Cro-Magnoid to modern Europeans.“ (Caramelli et al. 2008. ) That the fundamental elements and ideas behind evolutionary theory is still so unknown to many is a disturbing trend. This is especially true considering the scientific and educational advances being performed in other countries where evolution is more universally accepted. By keeping our education in the dark ages and placing preferential treatment on religious ideals rather than scientific ideals, the nation as a whole is placing itself at a huge disadvantage in terms of science when compared to other nations worldwide.



What do you think about the controversy?

See results


All public school students in the country should receive a standardized curriculum in order to prepare them sufficiently for whatever higher educational goals they may hold. Science curriculum should teach evolution as a proven scientific theory that has been tested, demonstrated and proven repeatedly through rigorous means, as are all theories under the Scientific Method. Teaching the controversy and introducing alternate explanations for the diversity of life on this planet necessarily has to include religious teachings which have not conformed to the same rigorous ideals that the scientific method has produced. It serves to only isolate religious students from the rigors of the scientific world, and confuse them as they continue their learning while seeking degrees in higher educational institutions at colleges and universities across the country. A standardized textbook and curriculum can alleviate some of these controversial teachings and ensure that the youth of the country receive the same education that prepares them for further study. It is imperative that all public school students across the country receive the same, standardized education in order to prepare them for higher educational opportunities and to prepare them for regularly scheduled standardized testing that takes place nationwide.

While the Federal government regularly oversees curriculum and standardized teaching opportunities nationwide, they often leave decisions of specific curriculum to the state level. Placing this at a Federal level instead will allow the opportunity for all students to receive the same basic education nationwide, and give the government more control over controversial topics like human evolution taking place in the classroom. This takes the controversy out of the hands of particularly religious-leaning states, and sets a standard for all students nationwide. The controversy can be taught in religious institutions, but unproven and unprovable hypothesis such as creationism do not belong in science classes in the public school system.

Pew Research Survey, 2009

General PUblic
1% deny evolution
30% reject evolution
87% Accept Evolution through natural processes
31% accept evolution through natural processes
9% accept evolution with divine guidance
21% accept evolution with divine guidance


Although the Supreme Court decision in 1982 and 1987 put an end to the teaching of “creation science” in the classroom citing a clear violation of the concept of the separation of church and state, the inherent controversy among creationists and Intelligent Design adherents still remains. The controversy comes in a wide variety of different forms, and intelligent design is one of the most common approaches. Even proponents of intelligent design admit, when questioned, that there is no scientific basis behind the conclusions that they've drawn, but they find solace in the dissenting opinion of Supreme Court justice Scalia. Justice Scalia made plain in his dissenting opinion of the 1987 ruling that “religious fundamentalists are quite entitled, as a secular matter, to have whatever scientific evidence there may be against evolution presented in their schools” (Wallis, 2005). This opinion has been used to put forth additional legislation such as the numerous court cases previously mentioned in order to allow the controversy of Intelligent Design to be legislated and pressured into scientific curriculum nationwide.

Until a standardized text is put forth, proponents of both creationism and intelligent design will continue to pressure teachers to teach creationism and intelligent design in their science classes. This will continue to confuse the youths they are responsible for teaching, and contribute to new, more controversial ideas. If creationism is to be taught, which version should be put forth? Would science teachers be required to teach the creation stories of all religious faiths alongside Darwin's theory of evolution? If one belief took precedent over another, would that not be a first amendment violation against the followers of other, competing faiths? Would biology classrooms turn into a comparative religion class, with no actual science being taught? What affect would these changes have on the overall scientific literacy of the nation's youth, and how would this affect their studies in later life?



The backlash of such a decision will likely be decisive, but not insurmountable. Proponents of both intelligent design and creationism will most likely present more lawsuits to various courts in order to counter the government's decision, but their reaction will likely be as easily overcome as proven to be in the past with multiple court cases previously mentioned. It is important to reaffirm the fact that religious education will not be impeded or restricted within appropriate venues such as churches, private religious schools and at the home level. Overwhelming evidence, however, suggests that having a defined scientific curriculum demonstrating the strength of evolution theory and its implications will have a large impact on scientific advancements and study in the generations to come. The number of people in this country who deny evolution at a fundamental level is on the rise, not decreasing – and this trend presents alarming possibilities for the next generations responsible for scientific literacy and understanding.

Additional research completed by Ronald Numbers brought to light the fact that in certain states, anywhere between 30-69% of high school biology teachers thought that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the public school classroom. (Numbers, 2006)

Furthermore, other nations that have taught evolution theory exclusively in the classrooms have made great scientific strides and advancements. This graph demonstrates that the United States is far behind other competing powers in terms of scientific literacy and the understanding and acceptance of human evolution – as well as evolution theory as a whole.

Ethically speaking, the government of the United States bears a responsibility to its people to teach subject matter which will be of pivotal use. Teaching the controversy of creationism and/or intelligent design in a science classroom is the equivalent of teaching the controversy of a flat earth in history classrooms. It's unethical to purport hypothesis as possibilities with no facts, evidence, falsifiability or testability to impressionable young people who associate what they learn in classrooms as truth and view teachers as authorities when it comes to the matter of public education. The government needs to take a stand for education, and put no emphasis on religious ideology that has no place in a public school classroom, but is more than welcome to be shared at the home or religious institutional level.


Caramelli et al. A 28,000 Years Old Cro-Magnon mtDNA Sequence Differs from All Potentially Contaminating Modern Sequences. PLoS One, 2008; 3 (7): e2700 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002700

Einstein, Albert (1930-11-09). "Religion and Science". The New York Times Magazine. pp. 1–4. Retrieved 2014 January 15.

"Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues". PewResearch. 2009-07-09. Retrieved 2014-01-23.

Foley, Jim (2005, February 7). Creationism and Human Evolution. Retrieved from website:

Foley, Jim. (2011, May 31). Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution. Retrieved from website:

Lewin, Roger (01-08 1982). "Where Is the Science in Creation Science?". In Robert L. Hall. Science 215 (7): 142–146. Bibcode:1982Sci...215..142L. doi:10.1126/science.215.4529.142. Retrieved 15 January 2014.

Matsumura, M., & Mead, L. (2001, February 14). Ten major court cases about evolution and creationism. Retrieved from

Miller, Jon. (2006) Photo: Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds. National Geographic News. Retrieved January 25, 2014 from

Numbers, R. L. (2006). The creationists: From scientific creationism to intelligent design. (expanded ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Scheitle, C. P. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (2011) 50:175–186

Tolson, Jay (2005-09-05). Religion in America. "Religion in America: Intelligent Design on Trial". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 2014 January 15.

Wallis, Claudia (2005-08-07). "The Evolution Wars". Time. Retrieved on 2004 January 15.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Rad Man 4 years ago

      @sheilamyers - that's not the same thing at all. That's not a slip of one word. Are you sure you are being honest?

      "I had a friend who was worried about having to learn evolution because she felt it might, in some way, make her compromise her belief in creation."


      "but more along the lines of feeling as if she'd somehow disappoint God by not defending her beliefs "

    • profile image

      sheilamyers 4 years ago

      Rad: I guess I used the wrong word. What I meant was that my friend probably wouldn't have her beliefs changed, but more along the lines of feeling as if she'd somehow disappoint God by not defending her beliefs either during lectures or on the tests.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 4 years ago

      Sheilamyers - With respect. Why would someone be worried about compromising their belief in creation? Isn't the idea to find the truth and if an education leads one to think something else isn't it more important to be closer to the truth rather than a lie?

    • JMcFarland profile image

      Elizabeth 4 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

      Thanks for your additional insight, Sheila. It is helpful to understand different perspectives.

    • profile image

      sheilamyers 4 years ago

      I really don't want to be involved in an in-depth debate, but I would like to clarify my opinion after reading some of the other responses. As I mentioned in my response above, I am a Christian and, in fact, believe in creation as is stated in the Bible. I also believe that some evolutionary changes take place within species but not one form changing completely into something else (a fish becomes a reptile).

      So why am I agreeing with JMcFarland about not teaching creation in schools. I've already made that clear - at least I think I did. However, evolution does need to be taught because, whether we believe it or not, it forms the basis of all other areas of study within biology, zoology, botany, etc. If the kids don't learn it by the time they're ready to go to college to study any of those fields, as JMcFarland pointed out, they'll be way behind where they need to be in their studies.

      College professors do expect the correct answers about evolution on the exams. And the correct answers all revolve around evolution as fact. Are we then lying if we give the answer we want even if we don't believe it? No. We're regurgitating information so we can pass a test. Giving those answers doesn't change what we actually believe. I had a friend who was worried about having to learn evolution because she felt it might, in some way, make her compromise her belief in creation. I told her, "learn it, write it on the test, and then forget about it".

      I have a BS in environmental science and had to learn all the evolution stuff. But I'd never need the theory while working in the field (if and when I get a job) because I'd be working in the here and now and would only be concerned with the ecosystems as they now exist. Does that make sense?

      JMcFarland: I apologize if this is too long or too far off your topic. I thought it might be helpful in some way to have a Christians perspective about teaching evolution in schools. Feel free to delete this response if it will distract people from the main topic of your hub.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 4 years ago

      Hey Insane, you made some good points. I'll let you know the next time a human turns into a bird or a frog a fish. Ha ha ha. Wait… We have examples of those things. We have evidence that some dinosaurs turned into birds and some mammals turned into whales. But if you aren't interested in looking at the evidence than why not look at what we have before your eyes. Why not look at the relationship between the horse, donkey and zebra or the African and Asian elephant? You could study these things, but that wouldn't be Insane?

    • JMcFarland profile image

      Elizabeth 4 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

      I don't have faith. Science does not rely on faith. If you want to mock, ridicule, erect straw men, make false statements and blame ignorance on proven science geek free, but you won't do it here. I posted links, and agreed that you were entitled to your own opinion, but I disagree with the conclusion. I don't know how much nicer I can be. Be respectful of the fact that you are posting on another hubers domain, not your own, or find your comments denied going forward. Simple.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      Exactly. Your faith has been questioned, so you must be on the defensive. Hey, you guys can believe that the trilobite and other prehistoric life were the ultimate source of life or that all humans spawned from the ocean all you want. I'm assuming you think the laughable Primordial Soup Theory is also plausible and scientific, as well, right? LOL!

      I've never seen one case yet that proved the speciation concepts from the Theory of Evolution.

      I suppose you think a flying squirrel got it right during the first flight, too? How about that Pignose frog and all of the other living fossils out there? Yeah, same argument every time because it is just a belief y'all have, but you want to bring up fallacy.

      If it is such an absolute science, then why would anybody question it?

      Religious nuts can't deny the science behind technology, so what makes you think this baloney theory is true science since it has more holes in it than a target shot with a sawed-off shotgun from 2 feet away?

      The theory of evolution involves more storytelling than the Bible itself.

      I'm assuming most programmers would also find difficulty in this fairytale, as well.

      At any rate, if you truly believe that this is science, then good for you. It has almost become a trending atheist thingy and whatnot, so at least you have your reasons. I have no problem with science, but it's a shame so many people waste their time with this niche, even though it should be found in the fictional reading section.

      By the way, like I said before, everything evolves and adapts; duh! Speciation is a totally different story. Let me know the next time a human turns into a bird or a frog or a fish, by the way. No, cancel that... I've heard it all before...

    • JMcFarland profile image

      Elizabeth 4 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

      I see. Evolutionary biologists and those who actually work in the field would disagree with you, but to each their own, I suppose.

      I've never seen the no true scottsman fallacy applied to science before. That was humorous.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      We can't play with fossils, make educated guesses, add vast amounts of storytelling, and call that science. In fact, many biologists would definitely disagree with calling the speciation concepts from the Theory of Evolution a science.

      That is basically the problem here. Neither one, creationism or evolution, are true science.

    • JMcFarland profile image

      Elizabeth 4 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

      Insane - how long have you actually spent studying evolution? Evolution is science. It is a scientific theory, which is the graduation point of a science. I don't find teaching it to be disturbing at all, especially when it helps people understand what it actually IS. If, as you claim, evolution is not science, how can it be demonstrated, tested and utilize the scientific method? Evolution is the gradual change over time. We all know that happens. I'm not sure what the problem is, beyond that.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      Maybe they shouldn't teach either one. First of all, I'm not involved with any religious denomination, but I also find the beliefs people have about the Theory of Evolution to be disturbing.

      Evolution is not a science by any means, and it doesn't help anything I can see, other than binding with existing religious conflict.

      Everything evolves and adapts, but the speciation concepts that have spawned from this theory are completely ludicrous. I would have voted in the poll or whatever, but I didn't see anything worth clicking since the answer wasn't there.

    • JMcFarland profile image

      Elizabeth 4 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

      Sheila - I agree, and voted the same way in my own poll, although I agreed with the second option also. In this country, I see an alarming trend of parents expecting public schools to do the work for them, refusing to take responsibility for their own child's learning. I think that learning Evolution properly prepares students for further studies (I just had to take a biology course as a prerequisite in college for my degree), and had I not been studied up on the topic of Evolution on my own (since I was raised in a very strict, conservative home) I would have been grossly out of my depth learning it all at once. If parents wish their children to have religious education, they need to teach it themselves or take them to a proper religious institution, like a church. Expecting it to be taught in a science classroom along with every other religious ideology known to man is a detriment to education, and undermines the importance and purpose of science.

    • profile image

      sheilamyers 4 years ago

      I enjoyed reading this hub because I can tell you thought out your ideas before writing. When it comes to this issue, so many people let their emotions take control. You didn't.

      I do agree with you that Creationism should not be taught in public schools and you mentioned all three reasons - separation of church and state, they would have to teach (if allowed) all of the various religious views in order to cover everything, and (my choice in the poll) it is the parents job to teach religion. I'm a Christian but I believe if parents don't want their kids to learn evolutionary theory, they should send their kids to a school run by one church or the other.


    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: ""

    Show Details
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)