NEW CASTLE —
The debate over evolution is coming to an end.
That’s the conclusion of Richard Leakey, the scientist and researcher who has spent a lifetime in search of the fossils that trace the development of early man in Africa.
Speaking recently in New York, Leakey told The Associated Press that he anticipates new scientific advances and discoveries will end many of the disputes we see today, including battles over the question of evolution.
Leakey, whose family has spent generations in Kenya looking for evidence of the so-called “missing link” between modern man and his more ape-like ancestors, is an obvious believer in evolution.
And so am I. But when I read about Leakey’s prediction that the evolution debate is almost over, my thought was: What’s this guy smoking?
Opposition to evolution isn’t fact based; instead, it’s belief based. And much of it is belief that’s resistant to any challenge.
While many established religions officially accept the realities of evolution, there continues to be the powerful view that evolution challenges the existence of God. And therefore, evolution — in the eyes of many believers — is nonsense.
Yet it takes considerable imagination to explain away the fossil and genetic evidence in support of evolution.
Although a spirited debate continues in the scientific community over the processes of evolution and what drives them, the fundamental concept is valid: Species on this planet, including human beings, evolved from other forms of life. And further discoveries since the time of Charles Darwin only serve to reinforce his original observations.
While the science of evolution is Leakey’s main professional concern, it turns out his desire to win the larger debate has a purpose beyond the academic. What he’s really worried about is the survival of humanity and the danger posed by a widespread refusal to accept scientific fact.
What one does — or does not — believe about evolution alters nothing on the ground. Evolution occurs regardless of what we think about it. But in other key areas, Leakey sees hostility to science as a hazard.
Among these concerns is climate change. If human activity is altering the world’s climate and setting the stage for environmental disaster, then disbelief has real consequences.
Many scientists see a strong link between climate change and evolution. Species presumably evolve in an effort to adapt to an altered environment. The fossil record indicates this doesn’t always work. Just ask the dinosaurs.
Like evolution, there is scientific evidence to support global warming. But also just like evolution, there is uncertainty over the processes. Scientists dispute the extent to which it’s attributable to humans and how dramatic any changes will be.
Yet the global warming debate differs from the one regarding evolution in one key area: Climate change is mainly about what may happen in the future; evolution looks at what already has occurred.
If human industrialization is raising the planet’s temperature, and doing so to a dangerous and persistent degree, that’s something we all ought to be worried about.
Yet two challenges remain: Science must find a way to document whether or not that’s true. And if it is, the rest of us need to be prepared to accept it.
Mitchel Olszak
Related Photos
-
Mitchel Olszak, Dear Reader
Discussion
Mitchel Olszak: Resistance to science still runs strong
- Mitchel Olszak
-
-
Mitchel Olszak: Snooping threat to the free press
In “All the President’s Men,” reporter Bob Woodward conducts late-night meetings with a source in a parking garage. That source, Deep Throat (later revealed to be high-ranking FBI official Mark Felt), was worried that he would be exposed as a tipster in the Watergate scandal.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Toomey takes a chance on guns
How does a conservative Republican senator representing a state with a Democratic majority protect himself politically? One way is to take positions that tend to straddle the nation’s ideological fence.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Terrorists strive to create fear
The finish line of a road race serves as the division between one world and another. Ahead of the finish line, there is structure and discipline, with attention paid to the runners as they cross over. Spectators are kept back, mainly to avoid interfering with the participants — and perhaps to keep them from being trampled.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Kelly, allies battle arms treaty
Supporters of the right to bear arms have a champion in Congressman Mike Kelly. The federal lawmaker, whose district includes most of Lawrence County, has been making waves with his criticism of the Obama administration and its support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
-
Mitchel Olszak: I like beer, so I’m watching our state closely
I like beer. More to the point, I like good beer. In my younger days, just about any swill would do. But with the passage of time, sophistication and exposure to the possibilities, my interests in beer have sharpened and matured.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Political lessons from distant past hold value today
If you want to gain an appreciation for great thinkers, read some of history’s major political philosophies. Here you will find the works of Plato, Machiavelli, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, St. Augustine and many others. They explored difficult social issues and offered serious insight.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Do the emotional centers of the brain guide our politics?
People who hold specific political points of view like to think their positions are based on serious analysis. They view their given ideologies as careful conclusions reached through assessing the world around them and examining how things work. Thus, liberals and conservatives both manage to claim the intellectual and ethical high ground.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Will GOP survive current divisions?
Somebody asked me the other day if I thought the Republican Party was about to split apart. I said no. It was an assessment based on history. Creating a new political party in America is a challenging process. They occasionally crop up, but they don’t last.
-
Mitchel Olszak: History as a matter of chance
History is full of pivotal moments. What if Socrates had decided against drinking that hemlock? What if Gutenberg hadn’t developed his printing press? What if Washington’s army failed to survive the winter at Valley Forge? What if Edison gave up on inventing the light bulb?
-
Mitchel Olszak: Pennsylvanians shouldn’t be fooled by electoral hijinks
Back in the 2000 presidential election, Americans received a civics lesson of sorts. Much of it involved obscure terms such as hanging and dimpled chads, as well as butterfly ballots. All of this, of course, came courtesy of Florida, whose clumsy election efforts produced an extended period of uncertainty in the presidential contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
- More Mitchel Olszak Headlines
-
