Okay. So I am a geneticist and my husband is an anthropologist... Any idea where we stand on this issue?

First, Mr. P., you said "they want their theory- and, I think that's the operative term, "theory." You are right, but not in the way you think. Look up the word "theory" and you will find that it is "a working hypothesis given probability by experimental evidence or by factual or conceptual analysis." The next step up is "law". I think the only reason it is not considered a law is because of this idea that what people "believe" is of an equal status to what can be repeatedly observed under controlled conditions. How do those that reject evolution explain the emergence of MRSA? On and on. Too many examples to list here. the basic definition of evolution is that living organisms change. Period. That is all there is to it. And we see this everywhere. The main problem the Creationists have is with the evolution of Man. We do change our ideas of the exact pathway our species came about as we discover more to fill out the archaeological record, but any change in the thinking of how this occurred does not mean that change does not happen. Mutation occurs in many forms from DNA recombination to chromosomal inversions and loss of DNA material. Gene frequencies change, selection occurs, reaction to stress on the survival of a species occurs, etc., etc. This is observable data that repeats over and over. I find it hard to place these data on an equal status with one of many creation myths found throughout the world's cultures. I have a T-shirt with a picture of a turtle with the world on its back. And the Scopes trial simply made it clear that we have a hugh task ahead of us in educating the general population simply to understand the scientific method and how repeatable, observable facts cannot be swept aside with "Well, I think..."

Check out "Darwin's Finches" by David Lack et al. Describes observed changes in some of the Galapagos Island finch populations over about 20 years. Gee... change... Gee.. evolution!

I could not dream of articulating on this subject any where near as well as Spinner. I absolutely do agree with what she says.

Every culture has it's own and sometimes very intricate set of creation myths. Belief systems are at their best in explaining those areas that science has not uncovered the facts. I'll give the creation theory folks everything up to and including the very first spark of life in the universe, and perhaps an assist with the first conscious thought, but beyond that point, Darwin rocks!

......... we had to evolve from some point, from that point on is Darwin's turf.

Here's my take on it:

If there's a Creator, a First Cause, then it's obvious that He/She (or It) established evolution as the process by which life would come into existence and intelligent, self-aware life would emerge some where in the Universe. We know self-aware life has emerged on Earth. Does it exist somewhere else? Maybe, maybe not.

The dinosaurs (that most creationists don't believe existed despite the existence of very large reptile skeletons) were destroyed by an asteroid hitting the earth 60 million years ago.

This poses an interesting question. What kind of God would decide to make room for Adam & Eve (and humans) by sending an asteroid to kill the pre-existing life forms? Why not just wish the dinosaurs away and start new with no trace of the dinosaurs. In fact, the existence and death of dinosaurs poses deeper issues about the nature of God. Depending on your point of view, God cares more about that new car you want and healing that runny boil on your neck than preventing 11 million people from being killed in the Holocaust. I would have been more impressed and a true believer after seeing Hitler vaporized then I am when a born-again Christian gets that shiny new car because of his prayers.

If humans came to be because of an asteroid, then it's possible we are the only intelligent life in the universe, given the obvious fact that a special type of primate came out of that destructive event.

We should never mistake the poetry, the wishful thinking of humans and denial of the obvious, as truth. I don't think that faith or a belief in God is challenged by science. In fact, science points to a "God" (if there is a God) that is beyond the fantasy of most religions and a God more mysterious and awesome than has been imagined.

I don't think evolution or intelligent design has anything to do with the real reason these religious groups rant and rave. I think it has more to do with their waning authority over intelligent people and their own fears of death.

If you believe in a life after death, then you will have to reconcile this God to the facts of science not the "facts" of religion. If you don't believe in a life after death then the existence of God (a First Cause) is not really very important.

What gives you the greatest sense of comfort: the comfort of what science can do or the comfort of faith? If it helps, recall the discovery of the polio vaccine and compare it to the Inquisition. Science vs faith. I think the truth of science trumps the "truth" of religion.

I don't really see a conflict between science and religion as long as the irrational parts of religion don't impose themselves in the realm of science. Science should also stay out of some religious issues, such as whether angels exist.....that is a matter of faith and personal experience...it's not necessarily irrational. Perhaps the angels are healing runny boils; can that be a bad thing?

Thanks for the opportunity to rant......... Now I have to go and earn money for that new car that God's promised me!

It is worth noting that Darwin was, himself, a very religious man. He never intended his writings to contradict creationism or prove incopatible with it.

But Spinner has, indeed, said it far better than I ever could. To use the word "theory" as if that somehow depleted weight from the clear facts of the case is not fair and most certainly not accurate.

In his classic TV series, "Cosmos", the late great Carl Sagan stated flatly, "Evolution is a fact, not a theory." Of course, it IS a theory, but he is right that it is ALSO a fact. Can we prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt? No. But just look at every living being around us and it's the most obvious thing in the world!

We must not forget that there are four classes of evidence into which hypothesese and theories fall: Things we suspect, things we believe, things we know, and things we can prove. Evolution has a very comfortable home in the third of these classifications.

I was brought up to believe that neither side is right or wrong.

My parents being the smart people they are never had a problem with us learning about Darwin, being forma religous family though the belief in Creationism & the book of Genesis was also taught to us.

I beleive in both, I am not against the Theory of Evolution, I am not against the belief of Creationism ~ I do understand the concern of teachers pushing thier own Religous veiws onto the "impressionable" students but I also feel the majority of teachers are more objective than given credit for. I feel it's a subject any different than a teacher discussing current politics & having to walk the same objective line with a class.

I grew up in small town most all of my science teachers went to the local Catholic or Protestant churches & were very involved in church activities. Its always funny to me that people feel it influences the students what to believe in. For years in my community I witnessed a great contradiction in belief, I mean really how can you be a science teacher & go to &help out a church?!

When I was little the neighbor lady kept telling her kids Dinosaurs were made up animals. Her reasoning was the fact that they are not mentioned in the book of Genesis. So I aksed my parents if Dinosaurs were real My father told me they were, but Noah couldn't fit them on the Ark so they didn't survive the flood. Now to a 6 year old that has made perfect sense & I have lived with that reasoning for over 20 years now. For me yet today ~ its still the best explanation from both sides of the beliefs.

Although I do have friend who I went with her & her 5 & 3 Year old to D.C & at the American History Smithsonian WE had to see the dinosaur Bones but when the exhibit led in to the idea of evolution we had to bypass it because that's not what happened. I found it funny that she let her kids beleive in dinosaurs but not learn about the ape from man idea. She also doesn't let her kids watch the PBS show It's Big Big World either becuase it promotes Evolution. I can honestly say It's these kind of people who upset me the most. I guess I just really feel you can teach both ideas & its not that either one is right or wrong it just is.

I honestly cannot grasp my head around the fact that one day we were not here and then the next... poof... we were! Where is the substance in that? Creators of this world are evolving even today and there is very strong evidence to prove this. Now I am a spiritual person, but by know means am I religious... I think that 95 percent of our problems in this world stem from religion and god, and that’s simply unacceptable. What’s going to happen in the future when we die and get to where ever we go when you die and we find out there is nothing. Or what if we die and go to heaven and god says, "wow... you all really got that screwed up... nice try though... A, for effort!" I think its time to live as one and stop with the petty arguing about whose god is right and whose isn't! Why put so much faith in something that you don’t know 100 percent sure is even the truth! I believe a higher power exists, but I am also able to make my own decisions on the world by using common sense and proven fact!

Creationism belongs in church. Evolution belongs in science class. Period. And what Spinner said.

Agent666

Well said....

or you can put it that Evolution is the answer to what is evident, and that Creationism is the search for the answer to the "ULTIMATE Question"; that being "what is the meaning of life, the universe and everything.......?". The answer, by the way, is "42" (Douglas Adams), which hopefully will give everyone cause for a sigh of relief.

Whoever said that there is a difference between "truth" and fact made a very profound observation. At one time, "truth" was that the world was flat.

PeterLake (what ever happened to "SSJ"?) is absolutely right. The answer is 42. What's the question?

One of the most popular arguments that religious debaters like to use is the notion that we cannot prove their beliefs UNtrue. This is also one of the fashionable bases for agnosticism. But the argument is poor. A statement is not rendered plausible simply because it hasn't been DISproven. I cannot prove that the dark side of the moon is NOT occupied by rose gardens and Coca Cola machines. But my inability to disprove such a contention does not render it any less patently ridiculous. (or recoculous as Lovey would say).

DPR,
I've simply shed my past to become one of my all time favorite fictional characters from a Mark Helprin novel "Winter's Tale". Besides, SSJ is on the lamb.

My school [at least last semester] handled the topic of evolution vs creationism perfectly.
My no-nonsense-former-rocket-scientist-and-professional-nature-man of an honors biology teacher forced evolution on us for something like four weeks, while my politically-out-there-conservative-obama-supporter of an honors world history teacher [who teaches NOTHING according to the cirriculum and rants on about everything from cleavage in the workplace to the "gay spectrum". thank god we didn't have to complete a state exam] taught us about various creation myths, the traditional Adam and Eve among them.

DreadPirateRoberts: Glad to see my words are catching on despite their immaturity.

This is Spinners other half and I have been given permission to add to this discussion. As an anthropologist I believe there is a communication problem when evolution is discussed. The biological definition of terms like "species" and "fitness" are often not known and seldom, if ever, is the Hardy-Weinburg Law brought into the discussion. It is the H-W Law that provides an understanding of how this change through time occurs. I would like to add more but I have floors to swiffer and laundry to fold. Life is not easy here.
Mr. Spinner

I see no harm in giving theology equal time, except when they are allowed to present "facts" such as cavemen rode dinosaurs, an example of which exists in the Museum of Earth History in Arkansas. Creationism should never be confused with hard science. Theological discussions around creation can be an interesting educational experience, especially if radical Christians are not the only ones given the floor. But I don't think the biology classroom is the right forum for those discussions.

The reason why evolution (defined here as one kind of animal changing into another) is a theory and not a law is because no one has ever observed it happen. A theory becomes a law when it is confirmed by an experiment, as in the case of Einstein's law of relativity: “The modern world began on 29 May 1919 when photographs of a solar eclipse, taken on the island of Principe off West Africa and at Sobral in Brazil, confirmed the truth of a new theory of the universe ” (Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1)

Yes, animals change--that is, they adapt to their surroudings--but at the end of the day the crab is still a crab, the bacteria is still a bacteria, etc. That is what we have observed and nothing more than that. If God created animals, then presumably He created them in such a way that they would be able to adapt to their surroundings.

I'm still waiting to hear a logical proof of evolution based on what has actually been observed.