Commentary
Q: Where would you not expect evolution to be controversial? A: The Galapagos
by Sehoya CotnerSehoya Cotner teaches a study-abroad course, "Biology of Galapagos," for the College of Biological Sciences at the University of Minnesota.
When people learn that I get to spend weeks each year in the Galapagos Islands, they say things like "I hate you," "You make me sick," and "Don't even talk to me."
I am terribly lucky. If I weren't me, I'd envy me too: The Galapagos are truly amazing — like a zoo, but where the animals aren't put behind bars or bred to be docile. Like the world's best zoo, in the most spectacular landscape, where in one day you might see an erupting volcano, have a world-class beach all to yourself, walk in the middle of a colony of nesting blue-footed boobies, swim with penguins, sea lions and sharks, and gaze at the famed constellations of the Southern Hemisphere. I hope I never lose sight of how lucky I am to know these islands so intimately.
However, I am not without my own brand of jealousy. And try as I might to avoid it, I really, really envy the people who live in the Galapagos. Imagine growing up in a natural laboratory, 600 miles from the Ecuadorian mainland — where houses are built from lava rock, kids have field trips to the Charles Darwin Research Station, and you can snorkel with sea turtles on Christmas Day.
As part of my covetous nature, I'm pretty observant of the islanders. They seem to know they're in a special place. Kids just out of diapers will pick up litter and search for a trash can. Women wear jewelry in the shapes of the resident frigatebirds and giant tortoises. And how can they miss all the admiring tourists, who take several flights and invest their savings to see the fabled giant cactus and the freakish swimming iguanas? These pink, peeling tourists are the target market for dozens of gift shops, peddling t-shirts that say "Evolve," or feature the profile of the islands' most famous visitor, Charles Darwin.
I am a biology teacher, one who puts just about everything in evolutionary terms. I love teaching my students about evolution while in the islands. And while in Minnesota, I often find myself at the tense interface of science and religion. However, I originally presumed the Galapagoans to be beyond the silly squabbles over evolution vs. creationism.
Evolution theory, which posits an old earth, capricious environmental influences and a fair amount of suffering, is all part of the package in the Galapagos. Here, raw, unspoiled nature is manifest in gore: a hawk preying on a baby frigatebird, a booby chick being pecked to death by its own sibling, mockingbirds fighting over an albatross egg. El Nino events and volcano eruptions push the penguin population to near extinction, and our guides describe a 500,000-year-old active volcano as a geological infant. How could the residents of Galapagos have issues with the truth of the natural world? How could evolution be a problem here? It seems futile to argue that the Galapagos aren't aligned with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.
So I am sad to report that, while the economy feeds off the islands' connection with evolution, what many of the kids are being fed in school is ... creationism.
"Oh, nobody learns evolution in school here," said a tour guide who has become a close friend. And his daughter, who attends a Seventh-Day Adventist school on Charles Darwin Avenue, is greeted daily with a plaque inscribed — in Spanish and English — with Genesis 1:1.
How can it be true that "in the beginning" — 6,000 years ago — "God created the heavens and the earth," while it is also true that we are all the product of more than 3 billion years of slow, sometimes gruesome and often capricious natural laws?
Have I any right to be shocked by this level of cognitive dissonance? I can't make the case that we're all that different here in Minnesota. Hundreds of my students have correctly described the mechanics of natural selection — random mutation, reproduction that exceeds capacity, survival of the fittest — and then claimed a young earth and an exemption for humans. Maybe the difference is that the teachers teaching creationism in Minnesota schools — and some do — are doing so in violation of a constitutional amendment. Or maybe being able to distance ourselves from unpalatable truths is just a hallmark of the evolved human.
And when my best interests are being served, I can compartmentalize with the best of them. On one hand, you have my degree in conservation biology and my house full of organic cotton and energy star appliances. On the other hand you have some pretty air-tight statistics about atmospheric CO2; and unless you're having kids, the best way to increase your carbon footprint is through air travel.
But what did I do three times in 2011? Kissed my two kids goodbye, and flew 4,000 miles to snorkel with endangered penguins in the Galapagos Islands.
Comments (17)
Lucky you to be in thst wonderful place !
And glad to hear that you are fighting against this complete nonsense of creationism ! Keep up the fight !
Pierre
A "Seventh-Day Adventist school on Charles Darwin Avenue" -- the irony is palpable! Sad to see such ignorance in a place so crucial to the development of evolutionary theory.
I don't worry about it too much as long as we keep fighting. Ideas, like life itself, evolve and compete. Only the strongest ideas (i.e. those most closely corresponding with reality) will survive. The dinosaur of creationism will eventually die (though it may not be in a single cataclysmic awakening of the human species).
Interesting talk. I both believe in evolution resulting from natural laws over the billions of years and that God is the creative power of the universe. Not cognitive dissonance, just a different slant on the issues. Considering that for some of us "God" is another term for "nature," I feel I justify a foot in both camps. Very interesting issues you raise .
Having been to the Galapagos, I can verify that it is an incredible place with so much to see and do and think about that I would love to have longer there. Hope we hear more of you on this venue! You ever take non-students?
Cotner cites one parochial school to make her case that evolution is controversial in the Galapagos. Don't most kids go to public schools? I assume they teach evolution and the islands' role in developing Darwin's theory. Have any polls been done there on what people know about evolution? I find this article superficial.
It is truly amazing how resistant to change these old goofy ideas can be. Remember the earth-centric solar system? How about lemmings leaping to their deaths for the "good of the species". It makes me crazy.
Ironically, the human brain is evolutionarily predisposed to grasp on to and cling to anecdotes and superstitions and follow somewhat obediently the directives of social superiors, which is why religious indoctrination in concentrated on the young. This kind of thinking served us well in the past but now that the world is a little more complex, the evolved short cuts to knowledge (do as you are told by your parents) is not able to cope.
Even though we are very good at reason and logic, when these two cerebral affinities collide, it seems that superstition trumps logic. (Look no further than recent political debates for evidence of that.)
It is bad luck to be superstitious!
Ms Cotner:
I envy your good fortune to be in a environment you enjoy! I too, think you can "put just about everything in evolutionary terms."
However, the origin of Life from non-living precedents is NOT one of them. So many folks seem to think that life could spontaneously evolve anywhere the right recipe of chemicals and the right temperature range can be found.
Nothing is further from the truth! Why do I say that? Because, just like the old alchemists who tried to cook up gold from a recipe of cheaper materials, no one will be able to cook up a living cell from any recipe of chemistry.
That's because, IT JUST ISN'T DONE THAT WAY! As you are surely aware, gold is NOT based upon any chemical recipe but rather, it is one of the elements.
Current science has also proven that Life is not based upon a chemical recipe alone. Rather, it is based upon special Information encoded into the DNA molecule. This very complex and specific information is required to direct the extremely complex assembly of chemicals that make up living cells and, even simple viruses.
I would request that you to show me even ONE example of coherent complex coded information that has absolutely NO intelligent author.
Just because great variability has been built into living things does NOT imply that Life arose spontaneously and without cause.
The vehemence with which evolutionists defend their irrational notion of "abiogenesis" sounds like a religious cult to me.
Dear Mrs. Sehoya Cotner,
I admire your strength to speak on such relevant and real issues in our world. How we teach our children is one of the most important discussions in our society.
While I agree with the evolutionary perspective, I think it is vital to address that our ideas also evolve and some of us are better at adapting to those changes than others. We should teach what we know and accept what we don't know. If children are only being taught creationism or only evolution than we have a problem because we don't leave it up to the children to come up with the new ideas that may put the ideas thought of initially, to rest. This topic is heated and tackling it the way you have is the admirable.
Since I know you personally, I am fully aware that your heart is in the right place and suspect that this will only enhance your goals towards teaching the evolutionary perspective. Keep up the fight and thanks for speaking up. I'd go to battle with you any day and you are one fantastic teacher.
-Liz
What a beautifully written and thought provoking article! Like B. Harris, I too am comfortable with the coexistence of science and God. Whether we call it cognitive dissonance or the wisdom of aging, however, I am not sure. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 1 Corinthians 13:11.
The knowledge which I now have, compared with that which I had as a child pales in comparison. However, as imperfect and feeble as my understanding was as a child, I long at times to go back to that narrow and imperfect views of things. I knew little and most everything was assured. Santa and the Easter Bunny vanished as I acquired knowledge. In the superior intelligence of my riper years, I realize that the more I know the less I am sure. Life is full of oxymorons. I admire your passion, intelligence and enthusiasm for evolution. Thanks for making me think ... perhaps I should join you in the Galapagos along with Betty!
What a well-written article! Though I have some challenges with the specifics of your perspective (like some of the other commenters), your thoughtfulness and observations are well-received. Hope all is well with you, and safe travels, wherever your journeys may take you.
Thanks for writing this piece, Sehoya. That even in the crucible of evolutionary thought creationism should dominate the thinking of people is very disturbing. For many years now, we have been fed an amazing diet of fear and mistrust and downright enmity toward science. Put that together with the misunderstanding of science as answers rather than questions, and we wind up with some pretty strange paradoxes, such as making humans a special creation apart from evolution.
Should it destroy a person's faith in a higher power if we seek a deep understanding of how creation came to be? Why is it that when God's word continues to speak to us, do we shut it out and instead rely our understanding of the literal words of an ancient people who were simply doing their best to explain their world in the face of the considerable hardship and suffering from which Yahweh promised to deliver them. Does it diminish us as a people of faith to acknowledge the beautiful complexity of creation that science science is continually unraveling and that helps us to see the great and unfathomable mystery of our universe, which for many of us is God? I don't think so. AMEN
What a courageous and thought provoking article. Evolution is such a sensitive issue but hopefully not for long with a hefty dose of both education and understanding of both sides. Religion and science do not need to be at war. I wish more people looked for common ground rather than assuming there is only conflict.
I am dismayed by the frequent references to "fighting" in the comments! Who is "fighting"? I simply asked that someone provide a case in which a CODE exists that had NO author. I find the silence to be deafening.
It seems that if one teaches the whole hypothesis of evolution, one must have at least ONE good example of LIFE bubbling out of a warm ancient mud puddle by pure chance.
I do not believe there is any dissonance between true experimental science and true Biblical Christianity. I do know there are many false branches of Christianity just as there are many questionable claims of so-called science that are not backed up by repeatable experiments.
This whole obsession with origins is a case in point. There are many hypotheses on this subject, but no real, incontrovertible proof. Contrary to what some folks seem to think, lots of micro-evolution (finch beaks, etc.) does NOT equal macro-evolution (the actual origin of new Phyla, Classes, Orders, etc.).
The bottom line is, "where does new information come from"? It has apparently never been shown to self-generate. If it has, could someone please help my unbelief? If it has not, WHY teach such nonsense with such dedication? Such efforts seem down right diabolical.
@Hershey regarding where new information comes from. I expect you don't really care, but look up 'whole genome duplication' (here would be a good place to start as there are almost 100 review articles on the topic http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/). That is one way to generate a whole ton of new information. I bet that doesn't help your unbelief any.
Dana,
Thanks for your kind response. Yes, I DO care, and very much so. However, your recommendation to look up 'whole genome duplication' simply underlines how the evolutionary paradigm colors the thinking of otherwise intelligent folks. How could that help my unbelief when I asked about "origination" and not "duplication."? No one is arguing about duplication - no matter how imperfect. Of course, perfect duplication implies perfect duplication with no new anything.
I have struggled for decades to learn of even one single experiment that has actually generated NEW code from inanimate matter. There are many experiments that could be interpreted as producing the building blocks of Life. But, folks who have bought into the evolutionary paradigm can not seem to recognize the vast difference between building blocks and buildings.
They also seem oblivious to the incredibly slow progress of improvement by way of mutations. I am aware of microbes that become resistant to certain drugs. But, the implication is that these critters scratched their heads to come up with some counter-weapon when, in reality, they just lost some feature that had previously allowed the drug to do its dirty work on them. This sort of information loss actually happens in demonstrable ways.
However, I am looking for an example of truly new and unique code that confers a new advantage to an organism without resorting to duplication errors or other manipulations of code that already exists.
Great story. I've been lucky enough to visit the Galapagos several times myself and it inspires me in many ways. Travel writer and self described creationist Tim Johnson recently wrote an interesting article in the United Church Ocserver about his personal evolution of traveling to the Galapagos. http://www.adventuresmithexplorations.com/article_viewer.php?id=91
Why don't you offset the carbon created as a result of your flights. Not a perfect solution but it can reduce the guilt. http://www.adventuresmithexplorations.com/aboutcarbonfreecruising.php
Thanks for the great topic.
I am somewhat surprised that not even one evolutionary cheer leader has come forward with a truly unassailable fact that would demonstrate that Life can self-assemble by random chance, given the right recipe of chemicals.
Regarding random chance and complexity, I wonder if anyone is aware that there are more than twice as many random ways to arrange ONLY 30 characters in any DNA Code as there are seconds of time in 15 billion years? Think about that!
I can only continue to conclude that the genesis of Life from nonliving precedents is a wholly unsupportable notion.
And, by the way Todd, trying to sell "carbon free cruising" is hardly what this space is for. But then maybe it does fit right in with "abiogenesis", the other oxymoron we have been discussing.
Although many folks refuse to believe it, the Bible tells us that regarding the Creation, EVERYTHING was made by and for Jesus Christ - and NOTHING that has been made, was made without Him. Hmmm. . . something to consider.
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
