Evolving Everything Around Us

Thursday was the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, and we've been evolving ever since. Or so some of us would think. Gallup Polls released a series of graphs that show the various beliefs on the subject of evolution and how church attendance, education and age affect the way people view Darwin's contribution to science. The poll's results show an unsurprising trend in how people view (or are even able to identify) Darwin, with education and age being to the two most determining factors for correctly linking Darwin to the theory of evolution and natural selection, and the respondent's belief in that theory.

The choice to undertake the poll brings the relatively unimportant date of Darwin's birth into the very current debate about evolution. The poll itself is an effective and visually interesting way to present the details of Americans’ viewpoints on the subject. The poll also implicitly draws the conclusion that younger, non-religious and highly educated people are more able to explain and therefore believe in the theory of evolution. Through the use of the poll's data the article clearly shows evidence, without stating specifically, a major point within the evolutionary debate: that education of evolution influences people's belief on the subject. The implication of the analysis isn't discussed by Gallup, because it is just a statistical research company, but editorially the conclusions in the poll have meaning not explored in the graphs and data. The difficulty the news media contends with over the debate on evolution sometimes stems from the language that is used to describe the “theory” of evolution. The required and scientifically correct term “theory” appears to allow the dissent from what the scientific community unanimously agrees are bedrock principles of biology that Darwin first formulated.

The news surrounding Darwin's birth is well served by a statistical breakdown of American's views on the subject, but does little to inform the 44 percent of respondents who either incorrectly identified Darwin or were unsure who Darwin is and why he is important. The article showing the respondents’ responses lacks analysis or information about the larger issue. The New York Times' editorial article from Wednesday prefaces Darwin's birthday by providing some general historical and currently relevant parallels of today. The New York Times’ decision to include an editorial on Darwin’s birth serves as a starting point for a larger discussion of related news topics. The editorial the day before his birth served as a primer for the Times’ Thursday science section that had several articles about the contributions of Darwin’s work. The day before the editorial the Times ran an article summarizing the life of Darwin and the scope and purpose of his work. The article does a good job of explaining the how behind Darwin's theory, and the lengths Darwin went through to have his work recognized as science. The two articles together and continuing coverage throughout the week served to highlight the discussion of sciences, and specifically evolution, in the New York Times.

Verlyn Klinkenborg, the author of the editorial, raises the question about religious fundamentalism being contrary to “Darwinism”: “The cultural opposition to evolution was then, as now, scientifically irrelevant. Perhaps the persistence of opposition to evolution is a reminder that culture is not biological, or else we might have evolved past such a gnashing of sensibilities. In a way, our peculiarly American failure to come to terms with Darwin’s theory and what it’s become since 1859 is a sign of something broader: our failure to come to terms with science and the teaching of science.” By asking the questions about American culture's reluctance to fully embrace the ideas of Darwin, whom many consider the father of biology; Klinkenborg interprets the results of the Gallup poll. In providing a quick overview of Darwin's accomplishments and controversies The New York Times' article does a good job in providing the kind of analysis and commentary the anniversary of Darwin's birth requires.

As to the question of whether humans are still evolving, drink any milk lately? Studies have shown that the most recent traceable mutation in humans may have been the ability to process lactose past infancy. The study is just another example of Darwin's importance to modern science, and modern cheese lovers.