Quantcast The Battalion
College Media Network
  • ©2009 Student Media

Devolved Debate

Ben Stein's attack on evolution is the same old tired, mindless debate, says Abid Mujtaba

By: Abid Mujtaba

Issue date: 4/29/08 Section: Opinion
  • Print
  • Email
Charles Darwin, in a magnificent leap of intuition unmatched in human experience, came up with a theory - the theory of evolution by natural selection. The theory, in its breathtaking simplicity, says that the diversity of life our planet exhibits can be explained by one very simple process: organisms give rise to slightly varied offspring and nature favors the ones better suited to the environment, leaving the rest to die. The successful survive and procreate, and so organisms vary over time.

Pay particular attention to the word "neo-Darwinism." Contrary to popular opinion, our current understanding of evolution by natural selection is much more subtle than the original claim by Darwin. During the past century, we have identified DNA as the carrier of genetic information and therefore the entity that enables evolution.

Please don't let the word "theory" in theory of evolution fool you - this is just semantics. The "theory" of evolution is more accurate than Newton's "law" of gravity (which was surpassed by the theory of general relativity).

Evolution explains a vast variety of observations including, but not limited to, the taxonomical classification of organisms, embryology, genetics, the fossil record, molecular biology and bio-chemistry, to name a few. The hallmark of a great theory is its inherent simplicity and the breadth of observations it can explain. By this standard, the theory of evolution is peerless.

No student of biology can make significant headway toward understanding the subject without accepting evolution. It is the glue that holds together our understanding of living organisms.

Evolution works over a massive timescale and does not concern itself with the beginning of life. It simply explains what happens afterwards. The study of how life began out of the inanimate is called "abiogenesis." No physicist knows why gravity is present or acts the way it does, but we all believe in it; evolution should be regarded in the same vein. Some very smart people are looking into both origin questions, but we have some way to go and some interesting theories to work with.
< prev Page 2 of 3 next >

Article Tools


Give us your take on the story.
Be sure to include your name, major, and class year. Submissions without this information are subject to deletion.

By submitting a comment, you agree to thebatt.com's Terms of Use.

You may also send a Mail Call to The Battalion at mailcall@thebatt.com


Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 72

W.C. Edmunds

posted 4/29/08 @ 3:13 AM CST

Abid, I applaud your scientific perspective on this subject. Alas, the usage of science and reason is inherent in an article in this paper. Therefore, let me be the first to excoriate your arrogant supposition that science supersedes the actions of an omnipotent being. (Continued…)

(3 replies)   Details   Reply to this comment

Lisa

posted 4/29/08 @ 8:02 AM CST

Spoken like a true scientist. Just 700 short years ago the greatest "scientist" thought the world was flat. All they had to do to prove or disprove it was sail it. (Continued…)

(3 replies)   Details   Reply to this comment

Kyle Richter

posted 4/29/08 @ 8:27 AM CST

It seems that this is another part of Abid's saga as he rambles his way through yet another article attacking Christianity. You are right, the debate does not end and both sides won't ever agree, but that is the extent of what isn't drivel coming out of your pen. (Continued…)

(4 replies)   Details   Reply to this comment

Michael

posted 4/29/08 @ 9:24 AM CST

C'mon Kyle even the pope admits that evolution is compatable with religion.

Tim

posted 4/29/08 @ 10:00 AM CST

How can evolution be compatible with religion when Gen 1:12,24 explicitly state that plants and animals will "yield seed after their own kind".

I do not understand how you can logically argue that something of the intelligence of a human could evolve from a micro-organism as Darwin states. (Continued…)

(6 replies)   Details   Reply to this comment

Tim's Friend

posted 4/29/08 @ 11:15 AM CST

You are acting as a fiction book is scientific proof.

Reginald

posted 4/29/08 @ 11:47 AM CST

Wow, a very well thought out article and all the comments are the usual crazy vitriol of the far-right - are all Aggies really this dumb?

Longhorn here, laughing at you. (Continued…)

(3 replies)   Details   Reply to this comment

Matt

posted 4/29/08 @ 12:05 PM CST

I'm sorry, the majority of people haven't been able to digest the theory of evolution? That seems slightly off when, according to a poll which can be found here (http://news. (Continued…)

(1 reply)   Details   Reply to this comment

Gil Rosenthal

posted 4/29/08 @ 12:56 PM CST

As an evolutionary biologist, I applaud Abid's piece. This is the most cogent response to "intelligent design" I've seen in a long time. Whatever your particular beliefs, it is the ultimate intellectual and moral cop-out to sweep any phenomenon under the cozy rug of divine intervention. (Continued…)

(6 replies)   Details   Reply to this comment

Jill

posted 4/29/08 @ 2:29 PM CST

I quite enjoyed reading this article. Very well thought-out and written.

I am saddened, however, at the number of comments above that claim ID is a suitable replacement to the theory of evolution. (Continued…)

(2 replies)   Details   Reply to this comment

Post a Comment

  • NOTE: Email address will not be published

Type your comment below (html not allowed)

  I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Advertisement

In Today's Print

 

Just In (AP Lead Stories)

Advertisement

  • Podcasts
  • Videos