The Kansas State Board of Education is considering whether to require its schools to teach that evolution has serious flaws. They had a hearing in which proponents of "intelligent design" (creationism in sheep's clothing) presented their case. Apparently the hearing did not go well for the ID people; they had to admit that they had not read the policy documents (nor, apparently, had one of the board members). The BoE will make its decision this summer.

This is merely the latest in the continuing effort of creationists to get their religious beliefs written into biology courses. I therefore present the question to the group:

Should evolutionary theory be taught in public high schools with the same core content used in university courses? That is, should all this creationism and intelligent design non-science be banished from public high school biology courses?

I remind all of the policy against injecting religion into discussions on this site.

This seems like a fairly easy question to me. The well-established principle of biological evolution (which certainly does not invalidate any religious fatih) is vital to any understanding of biology. To teach biology without teaching about evolution is like teaching chemistry without teaching about atoms. I see no place for creationism or its identical twin intelligent design in a biology class in a public school.

Biological evolution is not a matter of controversy. It's really that simple.

Should evolutionary theory be taught in public high schools with the same core content used in university courses? That is, should all this creationism and intelligent design non-science be banished from public high school biology courses?

Yes. Not because I want to punish Christians or undermine their faith, but because (as you mention in your question) intelligent design and creationism are not science.

They may or may not be truth, but they are not science, because science is empirical, reproducable, and falsifiable.

Personally I'm really tired of these backdoor attempts at proselytising. Let Kansas teach creationism in biology if they want. Let them teach about a flat earth in geography if they want. Ultimately, if that's what the people of Kansas want, then so be it.

BUT, the academic authorities at higher schools, universities, and employers, should not change their admissions criteria or course content, because that goes beyond the rights of individuals to study whatever they want, and starts to impact on the wider public good - especially when it comes to subjects like medicine.

Jehovah's Witnesses faith means that they cannot participate in blood transfusions. Good for them, expecially since they also realise that this prevents them from a career in haematology. Being what they are, they tend not to try to prevent anyone else from having or facilitating blood transfusions, so no great harm is done to anyone who doesn't choose to permit it (except the kids, but that's another thread).

So, if Christian activists in Kansas are happy that nobody from Kansas ever does a science degree, goes to medical school, and so on, then they they can do whatever they like to their schools curriculum.

However, unlike JW's, I strongly suspect that this will not be enough for these people. Once they have creationism in high school science class, they will want it in biology and medical degree courses. They will want some kind of sanction against advocates of evolution. At the hard core of Christian activism, there seems to be some kind of intent to create God's Kingdom on Earth, to force His hand into the End of Days. I can't help but think that the God I've read about in the Christian Bible, if He does indeed exist, will take a very dim view of being told what timetable He should act on, but that's beside the point.

Which is - my little extrapolation of my suspected motives of those behind such moves in Kansas and elsewhere illustrates why creationism is not falsifiable (and therefore why it is not science).

For a scientific theory to be valid, the people proposing it have to be able to imagine the type of evidence that would be able to disprove their theory. The theory has to be "falsifiable" i.e. it has to be able to be proven to be false. Even the most vehement evolutionists admit that, while they might find it hard to come to terms with, if someone could come up with a better theory that explains current biodiversity and the fossil record, with compelling empirical evidence to support any newly-introduced concepts (i.e. creationist would first have to prove the existence of God before invoking Him in any theory they could come up with), they would ultimately have to accept it.

Nobody supposes this would be an immediate or painless process - it has taken over 150 years for evolution to establish itself as the majority theory, and it is still not universally accepted; Galileo and Copernicus's theories took rather longer, but now all the religions and their denominations accept that the Earth orbits the Sun (which isn't entirely consistent with Genesis 1, but doesn't get argued with any more). But ultimately it would be.

Now translate that to creationism. Can creationists honestly conceive of evidence that would disprove their theory, or even consiously accept it might be possible? No, because their theory is linked inextricably to their faith. To falsify (in the scientific sense of "to disprove", not in the sense of "to fake", though that's an amusing idea) creationism, you not only have to junk the theory, you have to junk Christianity itself, or at least the branches of it that believe in the literal truth of the Bronze Age creation aetiologies that are contained in the Old Testament.

That's why this issue will never be over. As long as there are literal-minded Christians, there will be creationists. As long as Christianity is a proselytising religion, there will be creationists who insist that THEIR faith must be taught in public schools no matter what the Constitution may or may not have to say about it, and will use any available back door to do that if they can't get it in through the front.

It's also why people like me will have to continue to sigh deeply, wonder why we bother, then remind everyone about how science depends on empiricism, reproducability, and falsifiability, and that anything that does not use all three of those ideas may be just dandy in the humanities, but is not science.

First off, I have to say that I know nothing in science beyond one high school class in Biology in which I did not do very well! So, I don't know who to believe. Does evolution have flaws? If it does, why not teach those flaws in the context that all scientific theories have flaws? Maybe it would spark some brilliant young student to think outside the accepted paradigm. But the flaws should be put in context in the sense that all theories have flaws and maybe this one does not have too many?

In situations like this, it is important to differentiate the two theories of evolution.

Microevolution is the gradual change of species over a period of time. The result is new sub-species. The vast majority of people, including creationists, do not dispute that microevolution occurs. It has been observed.

Macroevolution is the theory that long-term changes (in geological time frames) result in new taxonomic groups: in other words, that all species evolved from one common ancestor.

Macroevolution has not, to my knowledge, ever been observed and no experiment can be derived to prove or disprove the theory. That is the sticking point. Proponents of macroevolution point to other scientific venues where experimentation is impossible: astronomy, geology, archaeology to assert that such experiments are not needed, as "natural experiments" can be undertaken. Natural experiments observe certain occurences and make predictions as to the outcome. The drawback (from a skeptic's point of view) is that there is rarely a control group and thus the mechanisms involved in the observed behavior may be the wrong mechanisms.

The interesting part is that most proponents of macroevolution dismiss the Intelligent Design theory on the same basis that skeptics dismiss the macroevolution theory: there are no experiments and it cannot be directly observed. Fairly ironic.

Should evolutionary theory be taught in public high schools with the same core content used in university courses? That is, should all this creationism and intelligent design non-science be banished from public high school biology courses?

Microevolution should certainly be taught. It is observable to a reasonable degree.

The intricacies of the different macroevolutionary theories are probably beyond the abilities of most high school students. There is certainly disagreement, even among those who believe that macroevolution is proven, as to the mechanisms involved. I personally think that the macroevolotionary hypotheses about the origin of life are shakey at best. If they are to be presented, then certainly the uncertainties involved should also be taught. Intelligent design has just as many uncertainties, but is equally valid as a theory for the origins of life.

There is one thing that gives a major amount of credence to "Macro Evolution". There is a fossil record left by organisms that have lived on earth. At one point there were species A, B and C, and then there were species D, E and F. What scientific theory is there other than "Macro Evolution" that explains that? I mean 80 million years ago you had dinosaurs and no monkeys, now you have monkeys and no dinosaurs. Where did the monkeys come from? Either they evolved from a previous mammal or they magically appeared on earth a few million years ago. Science isn't about things magically appearing.

Should evolutionary theory be taught in public high schools with the same core content used in university courses? That is, should all this creationism and intelligent design non-science be banished from public high school biology courses?

Creationism and intelligent design aren't evolutionary or scientific theories. They are based in theology and philosophy and rely on one basic concept, God's magic. Magical powers that God has to control the universe don't belong in a science classroom.

hayleyanne, there indeed are flaws in evolutionary theory, just as there are flaws in every scientific theory. Every scientific theory is but an approximation of the enormous complexity of reality, and we cannot expect any theory to fit the universe perfectly. However, that doesn't stop us from accepting the utility of a theory. Our knowledge of nuclear physics still has lots of flaws, but that didn't stop us from blowing Hiroshima to hell, or from running nuclear submarines using it for 50 years now. The amount of substantiation provided for evolutionary theory is staggering: libraries full of information stand in support of it. As a famous biologist once said, "Nothing in biology makes sense without evolutionary theory; with it, everything makes sense." That's an exaggeration, to be sure, but an understandable one. At this point, I know of no skeptics who are not motivated by some non-scientific agenda.


Here's a list of other phenomenon that have never been observed:
Nuclear fission, electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, mesons, leptons, hadrons, neutrinos, dark matter, atoms, molecules, stellar evolution, galactic evolution, the core of the earth, tectonic plates, the earth's magnetic field, the solar wind, chemical reactions, gravity, special relativity, general relativity... you get the point. Almost nothing that our science has established has actually been observed.

This may surprise you. You have probably seen the images done with the scanning electron microscopes of atoms. No, those don't constitute observations of atoms; they are computer images based on electronic signals. We're not actually seeing the atoms. We don't actually see protons, either; what we see are signals from photomultiplier tubes (in the old days, at least) that we believe react to photons in a particular fashion -- although we've never actually seen a photon, either (the quantum efficiency of the human retina being very low).

Everything -- everything -- that our science has established is inferred from indirect observations. When somebody tells you that the mass of an election is X, that number was never observed; it was calculated in a long, long string of logical operations that is ultimately founded on reading some number on a meter.

Whether the indirection used in this analysis takes spatial, logical, or temporal form doesn't matter. So long as the logical process is sound, the science is sound. Experiments are not the defining element of science: logical manipulation of data is. Experiments are merely one way to produce exceptionally clear data. Controls aren't fundamental to science, either; lots of good science is done without controls.

The fundamental objections to macroevolution have no sound basis in logic or science. There are plenty of interesting details to debate, but the fundamental concepts have been established beyond the skepticism of any fair-minded observer.


I disagree; I find the basic principles quite easy to understand and I understood them comfortably in high school biology. Of course, I refer only to the basic principles. Yes, the advanced parts can occupy the attentions of a specialist for a lifetime -- but the same can be said of many other subjects taught in high school.

I don't know if I want to jump in here at this point but I thought you guys might find this interesting. It a discussion of the standards of the Kansas School Board and what both sides would present.

Intelligent Design an alternative view of evolution- CSpan

Should evolutionary theory be taught in public high schools with the same core content used in university courses? That is, should all this creationism and intelligent design non-science be banished from public high school biology courses?


I think it will be some time before Intelligent Design becomes a viable alternative to natural selection. It should be understood that Intelligent Design is a theory of evolution that is opposed to neither science nor evolutionary biology. What it is, is a critical look at Darwinian 'natural selection' as an explanation for the origin and diversity of life.

Should evolutionary theory be taught in public high schools with the same core content used in university courses?

As someone who actually buys into a form of creationism, I do think that evolution should be taught in schools. I think that students should be familiar with what the scientific community thinks on all matters, right or wrong.

I personally don't care if creationism is left off of the curriculum, although I usually don't believe in censorship. But what concerns me is when evolution is presented as a proven fact. What is the motivation in presenting it this way other than to politically crowd out other ideas? Is this how science is supposed to arrive at truth?

And yet, there is zero, nada, nil, no evidence that monkeys evolved from dinosaurs. If there was, I'd love to see it. There is evidence that man evolved from Homo sapiens neanderthalensis or homo erectus but there is no evidence of where gorillas or chimpanzees evolved from. The picture is hardly complete.

What there is, as far as macroevolution is concerned, is a hypothesis of what might have happened. That these small, gradual changes, which we can observe, somehow accumulate over the years and produce profound, species-altering changes. The small, gradual changes show up in the fossil record. The change from one species to another does not. Simply saying "Well, it must be ..." does not pass the scientific test.

The biggest problem I have with the macroevolutionary theory is that it relies heavily on mutations for speciation. If we examine the assumptions here, we assume that the mutated offspring will either a) be able to mate with its parent species or be born into a community with other mutants with which it can breed. If either a) or are false, then the mutant will be unable to reproduce and will thus never contribute to speciation.

Let's take the first case: the mutant is able to breed with it's parent species. Recall, that in order to fulfill the species differentiation on the earth, the organism may or may not have a different number of chromosomes. It is usually assumed that species with different chromosome numbers cannot breed, since sexual reproduction requires half of the genetic material to be donated from each parent.

We do have examples of humans with extra chromosomes (for example, Down's syndrome or extra sex chromosomes (XXY XXXY and soforth). However, such a difference in chromosome numbers is almost universally inviable (in other words, it results in still borns or miscarriages). In humans, we have relatively more of these genetic defects than any other species. TO ERR (MEIOTICALLY) IS HUMAN: THE GENESIS OF HUMAN ANEUPLOIDY The assumption of macroevolution is that such changes in chromosome numbers result in some advantage to the offspring. This assumption is counter to what is observed in humans. I suppose it could be true, but the evidence is against it.

For now, we will assume that the change is advantageous (or at least not fatal) and that the new species can mate with the parent species. The next step would be for the offspring of the parent species-mutant species to follow the genetic pattern of the mutant, rather than the parent, and to also be viable. Unfortunately, from observation we know that such offspring is almost universally sterile. Mules, ligers, tygons and other species from inter-species breeding are all sterile. The parents of these species all have the same number of chromosome pairs. In fact, there is no known occurence of species with different numbers of base chromosomes being able to breed. From observation, we can almost discard this line of reasoning. If the original mutant is not sterile, then its offspring are almost certainly sterile (if it is able to breed with its parent species at all).

The second scenario is that more than one mutant is born in the same geographical area and that they are able to breed. This is a bit more believable on one hand (since the offspring are unlikely to be sterile) but also a bit more far-fetched (what are the chances that similar mutants are born in the same population and geographic area?) This assumption also suffers from the original sterility issue and the assumption that the mutation (gene defect) is not debilitating. Of course, given enough chances, anything is possible (which is what the theory of macroevolution boils down to...)

See, none of these "interesting questions" are usually taught along with evolution, which is what I have a problem with. Given these questions about macroevolution, it is no higher on the probability scale (in my mind) than a species of aliens coming along 200,000,000 years ago and seeding the planet with a variety of flora and fauna. Neither has any evidence to back it up, only hypotheses.

First, I disagree with your artificial distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolutionary theory. You create a false (or at least unproven) differentiation and then proceed to beat the strawman up. Essentially, you are arguing that for some timescales evolution works but for other timescales evolution doesn't work. Where is the evidence of this? Nearly all theories within science are time-intransitive unless there's a very good reason for it (such as the first second of the Big Bang and maybe not even then). If you're going to make a timescale argument, then why just evolution? Why aren't you arguing about "macro"-quantum mechanics and "micro"-quantum mechanics? Or "macro"-chemistry and "micro"-chemistry? What makes timescales of one theory different from timescales of other theories?

Second, your points about mutation, speciation and viability are good ones. And indeed those questions have been asked and answered within evolutionary theory. It's good to question theories (which is fundamental to science), however it's also important to read up on the the literature substantiating or denying those theories. Merely raising the question is insufficient.

Should evolutionary theory be taught in public high schools with the same core content used in university courses? That is, should all this creationism and intelligent design non-science be banished from public high school biology courses?

I'm not going to reiterate what both Julian and Erasmussimo wrote; I think their comments coincide with my position very well. However, I will make one additional statement.

While I believe ID/creationism does not qualify as science and thus should not be taught in the science classroom, I do believe that ID/creationism should be taught in the philosophy classroom. ID is a philosophical theory and an interesting one at that. If a high school did offer a philosophy class, then I believe ID should be taught there.

You may disagree, but you must agree that this is the very crux of the objection to evolution. There is certainly disagreement within various evolutionary theories as to how the observable, small changes within species accounts for the evolution of one species into something completely new. (I'm sure you knew that "evolution" is actually a set of hypotheses, some of which are observable and some of which are not).

When a species becomes something completely new, that is absolutely different than small, incremental changes within a species. Since evolutionists disagree amongst themselves about how short term changes result in long-term speciation, I think we can agree that the theory is not ironclad.

These disagreements and doubts are absolutely an important point to note to students of the subject matter.

Answer this simple question: does the theory of evolution explain the origin of life? I say it does not, since the origin of life is a wholly different subject than small changes over long periods of time. If it does not explain the origin of life, then shouldn't we explain that to students of the field?

These are the types of questions which should be presented to students.

The Discovery Institute and the various other authors of the minority report have simply said that Darwinian evolution should be critically examined. It does not support the teaching of the supernatural, intelligent design and certainly does not resemble a religious doctrine. They simply want criticisms of Darwinian evolution brought out in science classes, scientific criticisms from peer reviewed scientific journals by evolutionary scientists.

The minority report does not advoate the teaching of creationism or intelligent design alongside, or in place, of evolutionary theory. The issue here is whether or not a theory of science is above skepticism in science classes. In Kansas under the 'No Child Left Behind Act', they must offer definitions for both science and biological evolution. Kansas is the only state in the union that defines science primarily as "seeking natural explanations."

This has nothing to do with creationism, this is about whether natural selection through random mutations is beyond skepticism in science classes. This is about whether or not science and biological evolution are going to be defined by dogma or open ended inquiry.

Ok, so there's a lot of stuff in here that is misleading (or just plain wrong), so bear with me. Now, there are any number of posters on AD who know the subject better than myself, and are better able to navigate your intellectual smoke and mirror act; but I want to give it a shot.

Lets start with the statement that,
And yet, there is zero, nada, nil, no evidence that monkeys evolved from dinosaurs.

Bravo. So, you have observed that there is no evidence of a link between two species that are not part of the same family of creatures. There's no evidence that my mattress is made from tungsten, does that mean that geology and alchemy (not to mention the manufacturing arts) are all 'false?' No. Of course there is no link between dinosaurs and monkees. Dinosaurs aren't mammals, monkeys are. To find a link you would need to find a COMMON ancestor; and while there is no exact timetable for determining when the animal kingdoms differentiated (or how exactly), such an occurance would necessarily be so far back in our planet's geological history that evidence would be nearly impossible to find; and virtually impossible to contextualize. Now, in case you forget... a lack of evidence doesn't mean there is none. That would be a logical fallacy... and you would never rely on such a thing.

So, in a similar vein, you assert that, "There is evidence that man evolved from Homo sapiens neanderthalensis or homo erectus but there is no evidence of where gorillas or chimpanzees evolved from." This time you're not mixing apples and oranges, but that doesn't keep you from being wrong, now does it. Gorrilas and other Apes can be traced back to Aegyptopithecus Zeuxis, which wandered Africa approximately 33 million years ago. Now, it may not be a lot, but the remains of this creature certainly seem to be EVIDENCE to me. Conclusive? No. But to say there is no evidence of the origin of species is certainly misleading, and clearly very very wrong.

So, we have established that you don't actually know what you're talking about when it comes to evidence, so lets look at some of your exploration of theory. For example, you suggest that mutation is an insufficient or impossible evolutionary lynchpin because any mutated offspring would be unable to reproduce. This of course makes sense... when you simplify things to the Nth degree. It makes perfect sense that my bed is soft when I jump in it, so if I were to land on it from a height of say 600 feet UI would still find it soft and receptive.

The reality is that the only thing 'soft' here is your presentation of mutation. A new species does not emerge in the span of one generation. Even a person who has thrown on their blinders when confronted with evolution understands that. It's not like one day a woman is going to give birth to a child who can leap tall buildings with a single-bound. What is going to happen is a child which is almost identical, only with a minor genetic mutation, is going to be born. As that child reproduces (assuming the mutation creates an outcome which is advantageous or at the very least non-harmful), more creatures in the same community carry the genetic characteristic, even if it is not dominant. Slowly, over time, the characteristic diffuses across the community sufficiently that two organisms with said mutation mate, and this process repeats until it becomes a dominant trait. Then, as the trait becomes more established, more mutations emerge amongst the subspecies, further distinguishing the offspring from the original organism. At a certain point the genetic makeup of these offspring will have mutated sufficiently that it is no longer compatible with its ancestor. This process takes thousands or millions of years however; at no point does it require the sort of accelerated mutation that you seem to think evolution consists of. Species are not required to interbreed (as you suggest) because there are hundreds and thousands of mutations necessary before one species becomes distinct over another.



What questions? You asked none. You only said "evolution is a flawed theory because..." and then went on to explain your reasoning (using the term loosely.) Are there gaps in evolutionary theory; yes. Do they have a place in a scientific curriculum? No. For the same reason that we don't teach high school students about the vagaries of superstring/string theory before they discuss physics, or advanced molecular theory before they learn chemistry, your 'questions' are superfluous for an understanding of biology. Evolution in its basic form is necessary for teaching biology effectively. Debating the merits of evolution is appropriate in a class about evolution. That is, if you are still interested in treating biology as a science.

UltimateJoe and others have presented a good explanation of the main issues; I can only add a few minor tidbits.

First, on speciation: the notion of "species" has been undergoing some stress of late. The old standard definition using interbreeding is still sound, but now that we can examine DNA closely, we are discovering that what we call "one species" is really a highly disparate collection of individuals.This heterogeneity is itself one of the strengths of a species, but it also makes it impossible to characterize a species precisely. Look at homo sapiens. All manner of external factors, such as skin color, eye color, hair color, various body size ratios, resistance to different diseases, motor skills and so forth have different values in different individuals. It is impossble to create a single definitive drawing of homo sapiens -- however you draw it, it's not going to look like everybody. We now talk about subspecies, and it really isn't very hard to imagine the point where two different subspecies evolve enoughin different directions that they can no longer interbreed -- in which case they are separate species.

Second, the theory of punctuated equilibrium, while still not fully elaborated, does a good job of explaining the relative absence of intermediate forms.

Third, it is not appropriate to throw in the messy details at the high school level. In high school physics, you learn in one year a quick overview of physics, likely learning dynamics in simple pre-calculus form. Then in lower division physics in college, they tell you that all that stuff you learned in high school was actually wrong, they were just breaking us in, and now here's the real truth, which uses calculus. Then in upper division physics they explain that the lower division stuff was all wrong, too, and now you have to think in terms of Lagrangians and Hamiltonians. Then in graduate school they do it all over again, telling you that there's an even hairer (but more correct) way of thinking about motion. Now, if they had started us off in high school with group theory and all that other graduate-level stuff, we would have been totally confused.

In the same way, it's wrong to dump all that complexity on high school students. Just give them the basics of evolutionary theory: genetics, DNA, gene pools, descent by selection, natural and sexual selection, taxonomy of life, and history of life -- although not necessarily in that order. A close examination of human evolution would also be appropriate at that level.

Actually, I don't agree that this is the crux of the objection to evolution. The crux of the objection is that mutation doesn't explain speciation. It is justified by making an artificial timescale argument. Specifically, for timescales that are "short" we see mutations but for timescales which are "long" we don't (or rather we shouldn't believe there would be). Again, if the argument is that timescales change the outcome of the theory, then it is logical to follow through for all theories where timescales matter or even might matter. Why believe that quantum mechanics is the same for the past 100 years vs. 100 million years ago? Why believe that thermodynamics behaves the same for the past 1000 years vs. 1 billion years ago? You're cherry-picking a theory as the candidate for your timescale argument and ignoring all other theories which are impacted by this argument.


Why? You're playing semantic games here.


Yes, we can agree that the theory is not ironclad. Very few theories in science are "ironclad". Conservation of energy is probably the most accepted but even that theory can be violated within certain other theoretical contexts.


If the syllabus permits the time to address some of the more esoteric issues with evolution, then I'd be okay with it. But, as others have noted, there's a huge amount of background to cover where there simply may not be time to have this as part of a high school curriculum. Nevertheless, in a biology major discussing the various competing solutions to aspects of evolution would seem essential.


Well, it does explain much of the origin of life. And in this case I would agree with you that even in high school it's probably good to discuss where the theory is incomplete. Certainly, I can recall in high school chemistry class my teacher discussing how basic RedOx chemistry is incomplete with regard to nuclear chemistry. And then we moved on...


After all the other important aspects of evolution have been addressed in high school biology, then I'm with you. When time permits, discuss the parts which are incomplete.

I never said monkeys evolved from dinosaurs. I said they evolved from a mammal that came before them. The real gist of what I was saying was that there is no scientific alternative to evolution that can be taught. You can say no coelacanths are giving birth to bunny rabbits but that has nothing to do with the validity of evolution.

For any theory to be an alternative to evolution it has to explain the fact the biodiversity of earth has continually changed over millions of years. Evolution does that. Intelligent design and creationism don't even come close. They're not even about the same subject. If you want to teach a new theory you need evidence or at least some kind of explanation.

I can't remember who I'm agreeing with, but they are right to point out that high school educators/textbooks might do a poor job of explaining that most of what they are teaching (not just in science, but in history, english, etc.) is simplified, only "generally accepted," or just the latest understanding. Perhaps we're afraid that students at this level can't comprehend that most "facts" are not set in stone.

On speciation, I think it helps to understand that speciation does not take place in a static environment. It is the product of changing or separated ecosystems putting pressure on a species. For example, it is speculated that as central Africa dried out, turning from jungle to plain, it drove arboreal primates into a more ground-based lifestyle, resulting in bipedal hominids. As a population is divided, or spreads into new ecosystems, different survival pressures are applied to different populations. A discussion of how these different pressures result in separate species is unnecessary.

Intelligent Design is concerned with two questions:

(1) The causes of form generation in the individual organism during embryological development and
(2) The causes responsible for the production of novel organismal forms in the first place during the history of life.

Where the theory of evolution begins to raise more questions then it provides answers are things like, the Cambrian explosion. During 5/6 of geological time the earth was inhabited by fauna and bacteria. These organisms needed maybe five different kinds of cells and then suddenly every major phylum, class and subclass of living system appears all of the sudden in the geological record. The number of cells nessacary jumped from 5 to 50 and were organized into hearts, lungs, livers, feet and the dozens of other requisite levels of organization.

"The “Cambrian explosion” refers to the geologically sudden appearance of many new animal body plans about 530 million years ago. At this time, at least nineteen, and perhaps as many as thirty-five phyla of forty total, made their first appearance on earth within a narrow five- to ten-million-year window of geologic time . Many new subphyla, between 32 and 48 of 56 total, and classes of animals also arose at this time with representatives of these new higher taxa manifesting significant morphological innovations. The Cambrian explosion thus marked a major episode of morphogenesis in which many new and disparate organismal forms arose in a geologically brief period of time."

The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories

What is being questioned in not science or even evolution as it has been defined for almost a century. What is being questioned is whether or not the modern synthesis is an adequete explanation for the rise of novel forms.

Well first of all I will clarify that I don't believe ID should be taught in school because in effect there is nothing to teach. Nor do I believe it should be taught to children that evolution has serious "flaws" because that makes an unnecessary value judgment.

There are "unanswered question" that is the best way to put it.

Nevertheless I will back Amlord up on this point. There is an accepted scientific distinction between micro and macro-evolution logophage.

It's not some creationist buzzword.
macroevolution(Dictionary.com

...and it is with macroevolution that the greatest unanswered questions lie.


The greatest as far as I'm concerned.... and I'd love it i someone could clear this up is the appearance of new traits.

To clarify a trait is an observable characteristic of an organism whose expression is genetically controlled. That covers just about everything but I'll give an example.

It is generally held that higher-order organism evolved from micro-organisms.

One of the more readily recognizable traits involved is the photo-receptor. Some microorganisms have been observed with very simple photoreceptors with enables them to avoid of seek out sunlight.

I will point out three common levels of complexity in photoreceptors.

The first shared by some types of bacteria are extremely simple chemical based free-floating organelles. When sunlight hits them they send off a chemical signal with elicits a response from the bacteria.

The second are the eyespots of flat worms. Actually clusters of nervous tissue connected to the animal's simple brain. Many biology students have seen planaria, they are a prime example.

The third, for familiarity, the human eye. Same basic principle as the flatworm with dozens of modifications with offer many advantages to a land-based browser like ourselves.


In these three levels is one problem. The functions of the eyespots and the human eye are somewhat analogous. This is need to suppose that one evolves from the other.

Both however are entirely different from the bacterial system. One cannot spring form the other simply because it would make no sense for incomplete nervous systems to appear by mutation.

If such a system is incomplete it would offer no comparative advantage and would not be passed on... but it could not have arisen complete from mutations. That would require simultaneous mutations working together with an unlikeliness I can't even begin to describe.

My explanation of the problem is not perfect, but it gives some idea of what the issue is. The appearance of complex traits by mutation defies belief, it would require simultaneous precise mutations in several chromosomes.

So those with reservations about evolution aren't necessarily fundamentalist nutballs.

Let us be very clear about what 'Microevolution' ACTUALLY is.

Not that long ago, Creationists refused to accept the possibility of change in species. I don't mean thousands of years ago, I mean about 80-90 years ago.

Bible-believing creationists fewrvently and fanatically believed that the world and all its species were created in six days of a single week around 4004 BC . These species were unchangable, fixed and immutable. Though species could die off, theycould not change, nor could new ones appear without the gand of God.

Science eventually caught up with these people, when evidence of small-scale changes in species became clear over time, demonstrable and easily provable, both in nature and even in a laboratory setting.

So these Creationists, with remarkable fluidity, simply changed their beliefs to say that, fine small scale change is possible, but nothing larger. Thus Creationists invented the term microevolution and macroevolution in an attempt to prevent themselves from looking like idiots when their entire fanatic basis for hundreds of years (the immutability of species) was proven wrong.


In reality there is no such thing as microevolution or macroevolution. In fact, which is brilliantly hysterical is that by accepting microevolution, they have accepted evolution.

No species changes radically at once, rather it goes through tiny, incremental changes over time. The longer the time, the more accumulated changes. Its simple Maths. If a species has the capacity to change 0.001% in a generation (a hypothetical number based on nothing) and remain viable, then in 100,000 generations it can have changed 100%. That is all 'Macroevolution' is, it is small incremental changes over a long enough period of time.


Julian made the best point of anyone here, Let Kansas do whatever the heck Kansas wants to do. When nobody from Kansas can get accepted to universities and medical schools anywhere in the First World, then perhaps they will reap what they have sown. Let us be clear, in every insutitution of higher learning in the first world there is unquestioning, absolute certainty about evolution as a reality. The fact that there are huge gaps in our tracing of the exact lines of evolution has to do with the fact that modern archaeology is only about 80 years old, and we just have not been looking for very long.

I did my Doctorate at Oxford, my Masters at LSE and my BA at Carleton University. Now I was in history, not sciences, but I will bet my degree that had you gone into the biological sciences building at Oxford as a potential student and stated you learned creationism alongside the 'flawed possible theory of evolution', they would pat you on the head, send you on your way and drop your admissions file into the shredder.

Evolution is a fact. An evidenced, clear and (outside of the deep south of the US) an unquestioned fact in the modern world. Our knowledge of it is improving of course, just as our knowledge of physics, chemistry and astronomy is improving day to day, week to week, but that development (or evolution, if you will) of the discipline in now way means there is room for the latest iteration of the creationist myth. I say latest iteration because it is true, it is incredible how often the creationists have changed and altered their opinions over the last 3 centuries when faced with incontrovertable evidence of the error of their ways.

Hyperbole and blanket statements do not an argument make

I notice you did not address issues over the arisal of new traits....

Could you provide some evidence to back this accusation? That "microevolution" was a term invented by creationists?

turnea, the problem you describe refers to "intermediate forms" and has been used many times against evolution. Richard Dawkins wrote an excellent book, "Climbing Mount Improbable", that addresses this issue admirably. The two most commonly cited cases are flight and the camera eye. In each case, Dawkins shows precisely how the process could have occurred with a series of tiny steps. At each and every step, a tiny change brought immediate benefits that increased the organism's adaptability.

For example, it is now believed that feathers did not evolve for flying, but for thermal regulation purposes. A friend of mine who is close to this research has some fascinating images that suggest that feathers were common on dinosaurs. Can you imagine a feathered tyrannosaurus rex? For all we know, they used plumage in courtship just like peacocks. There's an image for you: a tyrannosaurus rex spreading its glorious peacock tail to impress the ladies.

In any case, the existence of this problem should probably be mentioned in a high school course and its resolution described.

That would go a long way yes, but in the interest of clarity I would have to ask for more details.

Does Dawkins claim that the evolution of feathers came about form the alteration in scale traits?

Of course in that case it wouldn't fit in with my question over the arisal of new traits but is related closely enough to continue.

How does Dawkins propose the the organism with the mutation benefitted, a scale would have to grow wildly out of control and in a fashion which no known scaled creature has experienced correct?

A feather and a scale are miles apart. In more detail how does Dawkins propose that gap was bridged?

It was not hyperbole, it was reality. Do you disagree that no first world nation on the planet (outside some of the more religiously conservative in the deep south of the US) has secular educational institutions that would even consider something like this? Do you disagree that every major secular acredited university in the first world teaches evolution as utter, proven basic fact? Do you disagree that the arguments of creationists have changed consistently very time they find their position untenable in the face of scientific evidence?

Calling something hyperbole and a blanket statement does not make it so.




There is nothing to address. You as far as I can tell are saying it is impossible for complex organs to develop instantly. They do not, they develop in miniscule stages over time. Look at the heart, in most mamillian forms it is 4 chambered, but in worms and some crustacians, it is three, two or one-chambered.

Nobody in the evolutionary world would ever claim spontanious development of complex organs, nor have they ever done so. However, we can prove the evolution of incredibly complicated and diverse mutations in a short time, the perfect example being the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Let us be clear, to develop a resistance to antibiotics for a bacteria is very similar to humans becoming bulletproof, it is NOT a small change. Yet because of the tremendously short generational cycle of bacteria, we have seen it, plain as day.

Oh well.



Simply look at old religious texts, from just a century ago, see them preach with UTTER CONVICTION BORNE FROM GOD that species are immutable and utterly unchangeable. When this divinely inspired assertion became untenable, they just moved on, abandoning their previous God-given beliefs in favour of new more convenient ones. This is not the first time this has happened either.

Or are you claiming this is not the case?

As for proof that Creationists first coined the word, I cannot prove that. A search on the web will show a dozen different places the word was supposedly first used. But Biologists do not differentiate between the two 'types' of evolution because they are one and the same, they are at best different time scales of the same phenomenon. It is Creationists who try and create some fictional divide between the two. Find me a university level biology textbook which gives mention to creationism in any legitimate manner, and I will take this absurdity more seriously.



And in the end, that is the main point. You know what? I have a D.Phil from arguably the best academic institution in the world, but in a field that could not be less related to Biology or evolutionary Biology. I am willing to bet nobody here is an expert in the field either, so we can argue this or related topics all day if you like.

But to me, the reality is that the secular scientific world, in every first world country on the planet, in many dozens of languages and cultures and locations, all accept evolution as a uncontrovertable fact. No secular University in a first world nation on the planet gives creationism the scientific time of day, and that is, to be clear out of tens of thousands of universities.

The verdict is pretty much in on this one, only in religious/fundamentalist regions in the south of the US, below the university level is this even pretending to be a debate. Even the VATICAN no longer believes in strict fundamentalist interpretation creationism (October 4004 BC and all that)

I don't buy that.

Or, let me put this another way. I will buy that High Schools kids should be taught the 'problems' of evolution AS LONG as they are also taught the 'problems' of every other scientific discipline.

Teach them that as of yet, Scientsist have NO IDEA what Gravity actually is, and that it COULD be just God keeping your feet on the ground.

Teach them that we only have theories of the construction of the atom and of its functioning, and of atomic attraction and repulsion, that we have never seen an atom, and that it could actually just be God keeping everything together in one peice.

Teach them that the laws of thermodymanics are actually just theories evideneced by repeated testing and hypthetical scenarios, but we have no proof of their universailty, and it might just be god deciding how fast things move.


Why single out evolution just because there are things about it we do not know yet? There are things about every single discipline, scientific, arts, social sciences, economics and all the other we do not know yet. Why not make sure these high School kids know that science is just a big guess and that it COULD just be God?

For that matter why stop with teaching them the alternative of just the one God? Teach them that the world might be a formed on the back of a Giant turtle swimming through the void as the Iroquois believe, or that Midgard is the middle realm between the Halls of the Gods and the depths of the Underworld, and the only way to get salvation is to die in battle according to old Norse myths? In fact... why not just teach our kids that they must always seek submission to God, and that true peace will come in the arms of 72 virgins to be gained when you blow up the infidel with your suicide bomb?

Rationality is the only answer to these last (obviously very extreme) examples. Teach kids fact in science class. Teach them fiction in litterature class.

I can't find Dawkins' book in my library, but I did a quick search and found a number of sources. Two mechanisms have been proposed, and the two schools of thought take pot shots at each other, but the thermoregulation school seems to be gaining credence among scientists. The creationists have, of course, seized upon the arguments of the two schools to try to discredit both schools. The basic concept is that feathers developed smoothly from scales as insulation. It takes only a tiny modification of a scale to extend it out a tiny bit above the skin to provide some thermal insulation. Each further filamatory extension provides a beneficial improvement in thermoregulation until you end up with a full coat of fluffy feathers.

There remain many fascinating fine points, such as the different forms of keratin used in scales and feathers, but these do not undermine the basic conceptual plausibility of feathers evolving out of scales; they offer a problem that should be ironed out to really nail it down.

Vermillion raises the point that interesting questions about evolutionary theory need not be raised at the simple level of a high school biology course. I agree that such problems should not be discussed in the prejudicial sense of indicating that these constitution a serious flaw in the theory. I would rather see such things taught as responses to common sense objections to evolutionary theory. "Yes, kiddies, you may think that it's impossible to just create an eye out of thin air, but you're not thinking on the time scale of tens of millions of years. Let's break it down step by step and you'll see that something as wonderful as an eye really can develop through a series of tiny steps."

And to continue with this line of thought, it is good to mention problems with other theories. Let's take the theory of newtonian mechanics, for example. Newtonian mechanics cannot explain why we have never observed things moving faster than the speed of light. It cannot explain the perihelion of Mercury. It cannot explain gravitational lensing. It cannot explain the motion of very small things (like electrons). Does this make Newtonian mechanics invalid? No. It makes the theory incomplete. It is a very successful theory within certain constraints. It takes special/general relativity and quantum mechanics to explain these things. Of course, those theories introduce other questions which they cannot answer. Does this mean those theories are invalid? No. They are just incomplete. Incompleteness does not invalidate. The success of a theory is based on its explanatory value not on its completeness.

Evolution is not a "unified" theory. All proponents here suggest that the gradual, slow change of individual species is the key to evolution. That, given time enough, speciation is inevitable even into the millions of species we know to exist.

However, leading evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, in "Ladders, Bushes, and Human Evolution" Natural History 85 (April 1976): 30-31. said:




So is sudden change the basis of evolution, or is slow gradual change the basis?

If evolutionists cannot agree on what exactly evolution is, how can we set a curriculum for children?

Believe it or not, Amlord, most life scientists agree with Gould's notion of punctuated equilibrium. However, as you rightly point out, evolution is really a set of theories only one aspect of which deals with change over time. On the one hand you're arguing that evolution is a number of theories and then on the other hand you're saying that disagreement on a part of evolution means all those theories are invalid.

But, let's say we go with your "consensus is the basis of a good theory" proposal. Let's say we evaluate the Everett vs. Copenhagen interpretations of quantum mechanics. While most physicists are Everett-ites, there are some who are Copenhagen-ers. Clearly, since physicists cannot agree on this fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics, you must also believe that it [quantum mechanics] should not be taught to students.

Again this is entirely a straw man. Ask a dozen Physicists to explain the Gluon, or the Quark or quantum particle theory. Ask them to explain dark matter, string theory or even something as simple as gravity. You will get a dozen different answers.

So should we be teaching children that there is no Physics, and that it is really God?

No of course not. The fact that we do not understand gravity does not eliminate all the knowledge of Physics that we DO understand, nor does it somehow negate physics as a discipline and (Most important of all) does it explain why divine myth should be taught as a reasonable alternative to physics.

Yes, there is always a leading edge of science, in ANY discipline, and on that leading edge there will be theories and disagreements. However, take all those "disagreeing evolutionists" you assert exist and ask them if they think Creationism is an equally viable theory, or that Evolution is not real. All of a sudden I think you will find them all quite unanimous in their answer.

Steven Jay Gould cooked up (with another chap) the "punctuated equilibrium" theory of evolutionary development, which I alluded to earlier. It posits that much -- but not all -- speciation comes about when a population faces some new environmental challenge that suddenly imposes a strong selection factor on the population. If the population is large enough, then its gene pool probably contains traits that will permit the population to cope, and the environmental challenge will quickly select for those traits, resulting in a rapid change in the species' gene pool. If this happens to a subset of the species, then a new species develops. Thus, the answer to your question is "both". Some speciation takes place very quickly -- within as little as 10,000 years. Some takes place very slowly -- over the course of millions of years. The domestic dog, for example, evolved from the wolf over the course of less than 100,000 years. (The normal figure quoted here is 10,000 years, but just recently some evidence was produced that indicates a much longer relationship between humans and dogs.) There is no conflict between the two ideas. Some books take years to write, others are dashed off in weeks.


Your phrasing is off the mark. Scientists agree on all the fundamentals and most of the details of evolutionary theory. There are still lots of details to argue about, insuring full employment for evolutionary theorists for decades to come, but scientists have no trouble at all defining what is meant by evolution at the simple level of a high school course in biology.

Several people have suggested how at this point Amlord.

The answer is really appallingly simple. I've never heard of a class about evolution. We teach the fundamentals that make up evolutionary theory because of their intrinsic value to the study of biology and ecology on the whole. Obviously, in the course of studying biology, there is no need to go into detail on micro- and macro-evolutionary discussions, or any of the other grey areas in the theory.

Unless you want to stop teaching biology as a science, and give it a treatment like english ("For today's class, I want you to write an essay on your favourite animal order...") or any other humanities subject; then biology requires the foundation element that the science of evolution provides.

Now, there are certainly areas of evolution that need to be interrogated, but to do that in the context of a general high-school science curriculum is counter-productive. Do actually generate scientific insight (as opposed to just trying to convey a particular message) requires FIRST a well developed understanding of biology, genetics, and arguably an understanding of paleontology and geology; which is beyond the grasp of most high school students. A philosophical discussion of evolution could take place, but to frame it in the context of a scientific discourse would be misrepresentations of the worst possible kind.

As I recall, my lone biology class in high school was in the 9th grade. Evolution was one of the last topics for discussion. It was actually more akin to genetics with a touch on evolution (this was a Catholic high school).

To me, evolution is in no way fundamental to biology (let alone ecology, which was, to my recollection, never touched upon).

Perhaps you are arguing then that evolution is too advanced or insufficiently important to be taught in high school?

Again, this boils down to the specifics of what is taught. If the curriculum teaches natural selection and adaptation of species, then I have no problem. If evolution is presented as a theory as to the origin of life, then we need to also present the "gray areas" involved.

Hmm... Just because you weren't taught much evolution in high school doesn't mean it isn't fundamental to biology. I guess I'll leave that discussion there....


I believe that most proponents of educating students about evolution don't think it is too advanced or unimportant. But, you're not going to start teaching vector calculus to a class for algebra students. Similarly, there are many details in evolutionary theory which are quite advanced, it should be sufficient to discuss the general issues and leave the details for more advanced studies.


I'd be fine if this were the case. Like I've stated previously, if I were taking a high school physics class (and I did), then I'd expect the teacher to discuss some of the limitations of the theories being taught, such as Newtonian mechanics (which did occur). What I wouldn't expect the teacher to say is: because there are limitations (or there's incompleteness) to the theory, that the theory is therefore invalid. No, I wouldn't expect that.

As I mentioned earlier, an eminent biologist once observed that without evolution, nothing in biology makes sense, and with it, everything makes sense. Yes, you can reduce biology to a lot of memorization ("how many orders are there?" "what's the difference between the central nervous system and the peripheral nervous system?") but if you want to understand biology, to see it as a science rather than a pile of trivia questions, you need to understand what ties everything together. You need to think in terms of principles, not just data. And evolutionary theory is one of the fundamental principles underlying all biology. You simply can't explain the various life forms on this planet without evolution. You can't explain why cats have tails or oysters have shells or why there are two genders without evolution. Evolution even explains why sex is fun! Now that's a worthy application of science!


Actually, evolution does not directly touch on the origin of life; it concerns itself with how species change. It therefore assumes a starting point with the first cells and does not project any earlier. However, it is possible to apply some of the concepts used in evolution, along with a lot of biochemistry, to speculate about the origins of life. Much progress has been made in this regard, but the results are nowhere near as well-substantiated as basic evolutionary theory.

I can't help but take a bit of a long view on this topic. After all, It wasn't like Copernicus announced that the Earth actually travels around the sun (not the other way around), and the next day everyone believed it. Evolution is a fact. It happens, and every year more scientists find more support for it. But that said, it is understandable that people are resistant to the idea. Philosophically, however, there is no need for them to be. I say that because evolution doesn't in any way preclude a creator. Is evolution guided? Did it just happen? Did a god set it all in motion? Or was it random chance? These are valid questions, which each person answers for themself. There are no hard answers to these questions but the answers we make for ourselves. Teaching evolution to schoolkids doesn't have anything to do with either confirming or denying religious ideas.

But back to the reason I take a long view: people will accept evolutionary theory, now or later. They will incorporate it into their world-views, just as they incorporated the idea of the Earth revolving around the Sun. They may roll back the clock in Kansas because of a lobby that seriously misunderstands that Truth and science can be companions. Heck, they might do it across the country. And so the rest of the world's scientists might surge ahead of ours for a few generations. We'll come to our senses eventually.

Having given a more philosophical reply, allow me to answer the question as posed, long term aside. There is no need to teach Biology I students that evolution is a flawed theory. There are heavily contested debates among evolutionary scientists about aspects of the theory, much as there are with any scientific theory. Ample examples have already been given. I can see this stuff being introduced in AP Biology, for example.

Of course, as with any subject, teachers need to be sensitive to the fact that some children have been taught by their parents certain things about the universe. Therefore, in reply to little Johnny who asks, "but if evolution happens, does that mean God didn't create the world?" the teacher's best reply ought to be, "Johnny, we don't know the answer to that. But evolution certainly doesn't rule that out."

ID, Creationist, and all philosophical origin ideas have a place in the philosophy classroom. In religious schools, they have a place in the religious instruction room. They just don't belong in the science room. A very religious person could easily and without conflict say that God is the why, and evolution and the Big Bang are the how. The two aren't at all mutually exclusive.

Quark wrote:



At the end of the movie "Inherit the Wind" with Spencer Tracy playing attorney Clarence Darrow and the fundamentalist, William Jennings Bryant played by Frederic March the camera focuses on two books, The Origin of the Species by Darwin 1856, and the Bible. In the last scene Clarence Darrow lifts and places both books together side-by-side in his briefcase.

That last scene always stuck with me. The two are not mutually exclusive.

This is a great response, Quark. I agree with it wholeheartedly. I fall into this category that yes, indeed, evolution exists and occurs and that it does not preclude either the guiding of that evolution and does not explain how life came to be.

There is a weakness with claiming that evolution is undisputed fact, however. The data set of evidence supporting evolution is fairly thin. Yes, we can observe trends, we can do some experimentation, but the archaeological evidence hinges on a relatively few examples in many cases, especially for higher orders of creatures.

Human evolution, although it is the focus of a great many scientists, is still very sketchy and relies on a very few concrete examples. What has been discovered fits into the theory, but it also contains a lot of holes.

should all this creationism and intelligent design non-science be banished from public high school biology courses?

Yes. It is backward thinking, where the answer is known apriori and the evidence interpreted with the answer in mind. It is not an exercise in intellectual discovery, rather, an exercise in self-delusion.

I see no way to defend the teaching of such an anti-intellectual thing in public high schools. I'm sure others will propose ways, but I've seen most of them, and they don't hold up.

So far the argument has been mostly about how evolutionary theory has holes in it and lacks complete evidence. However, the creationism/ID side is nothing but holes and lacks all evidence.

For example, creationism and ID assume a creator and intelligence. This cannot be demonstrated, only inferred. Meanwhile, evolution proposes change over time, and this can be demonstrated both in the natural world and in the laboratory. We know how the mechanisms work (genetics and mutation), and we are starting to figure out how environmental change can bring on rapid evolutionary change.

Evolution might become an inaccurate word for describing how this all works. A better term might be adaptation, or the adaptation theory.

Creationism and ID cannot take into account how life exploits available environmental niches, based on food supplies and predator avoidance. Adaptation theory can and does -- the apes came down out of the trees to find food and successfully delt with predators. Shoot, eventually a branch off of this domesticated predators to help with the hunting!

Brilliant. But where did the intelligence come from?

Well, adaptation. Smarts became desireable over brute strength. Later on, the smarts brought up the question, "How did life begin?"

Creationsim and ID simply say that *poof*, stuff happened. That is not an explanation at all, and it is an idea that is discounted through the fossil record.

We can see that life existed, but different life existed at different times. Okay, creationsists and ID supporters, demonstrate how the *poof* happens. Evolutionary scientists can demonstrate how genetics work and how genetics change. That makes it a superior explanation on how life changes.

For example, my car runs. An automotive engineer can explain how that comes about, but a spiritual explanation might be along the lines of how St. Christopher has blessed the ride. When I want my car repaired, do I take it to a mechanic or to a spiritualist? I think it'd be wise to take it to the one with the better explanation on how the car runs. There are chances that I'd be wasting my money with a bad mechanic, but it is an absolute that I'd be wasting my money with the spirtualist.

Put that into the perspective of a high school budget. Don't waste money on creationism or ID.

The data set of evidence supporting evolution is stupendous, gigantic, enormous. There have been countless studies of countless species demonstrating and substantiating aspects of evolution. Beetles, finches, bees, houseflies, viri, butterflies, horses, frogs, sharks, flatworms, dogs, sloths, dinosaurs, flounders --- the parade of species that have provided substantiation for evolutionary theory is endless. Human evolution has been particularly difficult because of the small populations over the millenia, but even that has been filled in admirably. We have reliable values for the time of separation of hominids from their closest living kin, the chimpanzees.

The DNA studies that have been pouring out of labs all over the world have added a completely new dimension of evidence in support of evolutionary theory. This new evidence is precise and quantifiable, and permits detailed examination of evolutionary development in a huge array of circumstances. The calculations that led to the discovery of "mitochondrial Eve" provide just such an example.

If scientists were militarists, they could bomb into submission any country denying evolution using as ammunition only the books and periodicals that have been published providing evidence in support of this theory. Sketchy? Hardly.

If you'd like to see some of this substantiation, I urge you to read the essays of Steven Jay Gould. He is the author of more than a dozen books of his collected essays, and has been deservedly called one of the finest essayists of the late 20th century. His books are worth reading just for the elegance of his prose. You might also visit www.pandasthumb.org, which offers a great deal of information. It takes its name from one of the most elegant of Dr. Gould's essays, concerning the evolutionary issues raised by the panda's "thumb", a vestigial organ that looks like a thumb but really isn't.

I am familiar with Gould. He has an extremely sharp mind (and often, a tongue to match). He is nothing less than brilliant.

Gould, like each and every one of us, presents facts and then makes conclusions based upon his interpretation of those facts. Gould has real differences with fellow evolutionist Richard Dawkins on the mechanisms of evolution.

As Gould puts it in his essay Evolution as Fact and Theory



You will see that he claims evolution is a fact, because it is a phenomenon that can be observed. Okay, we'll give him that one. You will also note that evolution is a theory, that is, a structure of ideas to explain and interpret what we have observed.

Here Gould trips over his own cleverness. If the term "evolution" is both the observance and the theory explaining the observance, then of course evolution cannot be denied: we can observe it.

What can be denied (or disputed or asked for further clarification) is the theory of evolution. That is, the set of concepts that explain the observances.

Gould, in Evolution as Fact and Theory goes on to bolster my argument:



In other words, the theory of evolution is being challen