“When on board HMS Beagle as naturalist, I was struck with certain facts in the distribution of the organic beings inhabiting South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to throw some light on the origin of species-that mystery of mysteries.”

        So many acrimonious words have been written on this subject in the past couple of centuries that one wonders if it shall ever pass into the “so-what?” category.  I suppose that given the implications of this idea such animosity is to be expected, more so perhaps than the idea that the earth is not the center of the universe but only one planet circling a mid-sized star amid billions of such stars.  This idea essentially dethrones man himself from being the center of creation and relegates him to one species amongst many in an apparently indifferent universe.  Many are familiar to varying extents with the idea of biotic evolution, but fewer, I suspect, are that familiar with the idea of abiotic evolution–the evolution of matter itself from hydrogen gas.

     We must remember that biological “evolution” does not mean progress in the sense of “betterment.”  It does not mean a progression towards complexity or increased mentation.  Darwin simply meant that natural selection results in increasing adaptation to changing environments.  A tapeworm would thus be just as well adapted to its environment as a more complex organism living in a much more challenging environment.

Darwin in fact rarely used the word and we must attribute the application of “evolution” to the description of Natural Selection to Herbert Spender with his idea of nature as undergoing a progressive change. 

     Definitions vary according to the source:   the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed, especially by natural selection;  a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.  All the definitions include change…change in the living organisms of Earth.

     According to Biologists this change comes about by differential reproduction of variants in the population–Natural Selection.  The Theory of Natural Selection as put forth by Darwin is very simple, and one may wonder as to all the fuss.  The implications, of course, are stupendous.  What does the theory say?  One may word it in different ways:

1. There is a tremendous amount of variation in natural populations.

2. All natural populations have a great capacity for reproductive increase.

3. This reproductive potential is not realized.

4.  The reason that these reproductive rates are not realized is because there is competition for limited

     resources.

5. Those individuals that possess variations that help them in this competitive endeavor are the ones that have more offspring.

6. Thus these variations become predominant and change occurs over time.

This is the way that I state  the theory in my own words.  No matter how it is worded, the meaning is the same.  Organisms have evolved through time…what an amazing and incredible story this is!

Tennyson describes the unforgiving aspects of nature thus:

From scarped cliff and quarried stone

She cries, “A thousand types are gone:

I care for nothing, all shall go.”

          I just saw a very instructive two hour program by NOVA.  It had to do with the recent events (2004) in a town in Dover, PA where a couple of individuals on the school board pushed through a requirement that Intelligent Design be taught in biology classrooms as a viable alternative to the modern theory of evolution.  They also required that a notice be read to the class which said that there was significant problems in the theory.  When the teachers refused to read the notice in the class room, the assistant principal walked into the classroom and read it himself.

     The program dealt with the subsequent trial that resulted when some parents and teachers brought suit against the school board.  They had a reinactment of parts of the testimony dealing with the evidence presented by each side.   Read the account of the event here.

I personally believe that this universe was created by God.  I base this belief upon the basic physical “laws” by which this universe operates and other more subjective beliefs.  I think that given these particular physical principles, it is inevitable that matter evolved from Hydrogen gas into intelligent, self-aware life forms.  I think that life, and intelligent life has evolved numerous times throughout this universe. I do not believe that further “meddling” in this evolution was necessary by such a Creator.

       I do believe though that this Creator is not just some distant creator, but is a personal God that can take an active part in our lives.  However, there is a difference between faith or personal beliefs and what should be viewed as scientific fact.

  Given these beliefs, do I think that “Intelligent Design” or the idea that an intelligent creator made and directed the development of the universe should be taught in science classes as some advocate?  Absolutely NOT!  I absolutely do NOT believe that these ideas should be taught in science classes along with other ideas.  Why?  Simply put  there is no conclusive scientific evidence for such beliefs.  Personally, I think that there is sufficient evidence (basic physical laws) to propose an hypothesis for such a creator, but to this date there is insufficient data to accept the hypothesis in a scientific manner.

    Science should remain as objective as possible without the introduction of beliefs that can’t be proven.  I think that if  Biology or other science teachers are required to teach the idea of Intelligent Design in classrooms, it would be a gross travesty. I would REFUSE to teach such an idea on the same level as other scientific laws.  The idea is simply not science and has no place in a science classroom except as a background discussion.   I see no problem in it being discussed in other classes such as Civics, Philosophy, or any other class dealing with ideas or current events, but not on the same level as the theory of evolution.

The infamous Kansas Board of Education also approved new science standards that allows the teaching of Intelligent Design in Biology classrooms (9Nov205). Among other things the Board:

1.  Rewrote the definition of science so that is no longer limited to the search of natural explanations of phenomena.

2.  They said that that the basic Darwinian theory that all life has a common origin and that natural processes created the building blocks of life has been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence.

3. As one supporter said: “It gets rid of a lot of dogma that’s being taught in the classroom today.”

Personally I would like to know the new fossil evidence that throws the theory into doubt.  I am gratified also that the board appears to be composed of competent paleontologists.  Fortunately this has been overturned recently.  See here for a discussion of the teaching of Creationism and Evolution in science classrooms.