Show Me the Science

Show Me the Science

The argument between creationists and Darwinists has persisted since the time, when Darwin published his works and his ideas on the process of evolution and natural selection were spread worldwide. In actuality, in spite of a considerable progress of the modern science, especially biology, the position of supporters of the evolution still does not look unshakable, since the criticism from the part of creationists persists and even growth stronger, especially when the theory of evolution is supposed to be introduced in the school curriculum. In such a context, the public needs to understand the essence of the argument between Darwinists or evolutionists and creationists. In actuality, there are plenty of scientific works dedicated to the problem of the origin of species and the life on the Earth. The modern science stands on the evolutionist ground, but the claims of creationists about the existence of some supernatural power or about the intelligent design evoke the opposition of average Americans to the theory of evolution. At this point, the article “Show Me the Science” by D.C. Dennett can be quite helpful in understanding of the essence of the argument between creationists and evolutionists. At any rate, this is another attempt to justify the theory of evolution as the dominant, scientifically grounded theory, which as accepted by the overwhelming majority of modern scientists.
In fact, D.C. Dennett apparently supports the Darwinist position and he is a proponent of the theory of evolution because throughout his article, the author attempts to debunk the myth about the credibility and reliability of the position supported by creationists. Instead, he indicates to the reliability and a solid scientific basis of the theory of evolution developed by Charles Darwin, whose researched were continued by his followers. The author emphasizes that, today, the theory of evolution is the most credible theory based on numerous scientific evidences. In this regard, he argues that creationists, being so critical in regard to the theory of evolution, have failed to give any single evidence of the righteousness of their position. At this point, Dennett is quite ironic, if not to say sarcastic, when he suggests creationists to develop a scientific theory on the intelligent design, referring to the possibility of the extraterrestrial creation of the life on the Earth. However, such ironic criticism is accompanied by a concern of the author with the impact of creationists on average Americans who, according to the author, are not aware of the fact that creationists do not have any serious theoretical background. From the beginning of the article he poses rhetorical questions, such as “Is ‘intelligent design’ a legitimate school of scientific thought?” (Dennett). In such a way, from the beginning of his article he puts under a question the scientific value of creationists’ position. No wonder, eventually Dennett concludes by a complete debunking of the creationist myth referring to the statement of the Discovery Institute that “intelligent design does not have any content” (Dennett). He justifies his conclusion by referencing to scientific findings of evolutionists and the lack of any scientific evidences or scientifically reliable theory developed by creationists.
In actuality, the position of D.C. Dennett is quite logical and convincing. It is important to underline the fact that Dennett attempts to support his claims concerning fallacies and inconsistency of the position of creationists by references to scientific researches made by respectable scientists and institutions. At the same time, using irony and sarcasm, he attempts to influence the emotional perception of the article by the audience. In other words, along with the rational and logical arguments, the author uses highly emotional elements which make readers inclined to support his position and share his views on the concept developed by creationists.
At the same time, the position of D.C. Dennett is justified not only because of his writing style and his arguments, but also because to the objective, scientific outcomes of the work of modern scientists who stand on the evolutionist ground. What is meant here is the fact that, today, the theory of evolution is really accepted by the majority of scientists, who have found numerous scientific evidences of evolutionary changes of various species. In such a context, arguments of creationists are not very convincing, though, it is necessary to admit the fact that the evolution theory and modern science cannot provide the full evidence of the evolution process of humans, for instance, which creationists believe is the weakest point in the theory of evolution.
However, it is necessary to understand that scientists work with scarce resources and scientific researches concerning the evolution of humans are based on fragmentary archeological findings, which do not mean that the theory of evolution is inconsistent, but rather reveal the fact that evidences are not sufficient to build up the entire chain of the human evolution. What is even more important, even though the theory of evolution and its supporters probably lack some factual evidences, they still have managed to explain how the system functions, i.e. how various species originate, develop and change in the course of time (Forrest, 258). At this point, it is necessary to agree with Dennett in regard to the solid scientific basis of the theory of evolution since scientist scientifically proved the fact of natural selection and changes of species under the impact of multiple environmental factors.
In such a context, arguments of creationists are inconsistent because they criticize evolutionists for the lack of factual evidences, while they, as Dennett point out, do not have any scientific evidences at all. In fact, it is possible to estimate that creationist views are irrelevant from a scientific of view, but the modern educational system of the USA still cannot dare to include the evolution theory nationwide, while creationists ideas are still very popular and many Americans sincerely believe in the divine origin of humans. In this respect, I can refer to my personal school experience, when the very idea of the origin of humans from apes would be perceived by many of my peers as a poor joke.
Thus, in conclusion, it should be said that it is impossible to take the opposition between creationists and evolutionists seriously, because the latter mainly refers to the field of science, while the former primarily refers to the field of philosophy.

Works Cited:
Dennett, D.C. Show Me the Science. Retrieved on October 16, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogihown
Forrest, B. Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, Oxford University Press, 2006.