From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Evolution and God (no connection)
Date: 6 Apr 92 00:05:55 GMT
Reply-To: colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby)
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: Biology Dept., Bost

In article <1992Apr1.153307.18843@bradford.ac.uk> K.Haigh-Hutchinson@bradford.ac.uk (K.HAIGH-HUTCHINSON) writes:

>At the moment I tend to believe in special creation. If evolution is proved
>I will merely say 'Oh, so He did do it that way after all. That is surprising'

	Evolution, in everyday use can mean many things. In scientific
terms, evolution is a change in the gene pool. Changes in gene pools
have been observed in both nature and in laboratory settings. Therefore,
evolution (the process) has been "proven".

	The word "evolution" is also used when people mean "common
ancestry". There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that all org-
anisms on this planet share a common ancestor. These include comparative
genetic data, comparative morphology, comparative developmental biology,
biogeography and the fossil record. Common ancestry is considered by
scientists to be a fact.

	"Evolution" is often used in place of "natural selection", a
mechanism of evolution. Natural selection has been documented in the
wild and in the laboratory. So have the other mechanisms of evolution,
BTW.

	The word "evolution" is also used when people mean
"abiogenesis", or the origin of life. There is a certain amount of
evidence that life could arise spontaneously. The assumption in
science is always that natural laws explain all natural phenomena,
so it is assumed that life arose without supernatural help.

>In summary I'll say it ought not to have any effect either way but the fur
>and feathers will fly for a very long time.

	The only fur and feather flying goes on between scientists and
members of the religious right who feel compelled to interpret Genesis
in a cartoon fashion. There is no dispute among scientists as to the
validity of evolution. It is a fact. There is a board on USENET called
talk.origins; if you have any doubt as to whether evolution or
creationism provides a superior explanation of the data -- read that
board. Given the state of our schools and the vocal nature of the
creationist majority -- many are led to believe there is some dissent
among scientists about the validity of evolution. All it's takes is
a little knowledge of modern biology and you can see what a powerful,
explanitory theory evolution is. (I keep a FAQ file for talk.origins
that explains the theory of evolution. Anyone who would like a copy
can email me at colby@bu-bio.bu.edu).

	And don't let people like Lionel try to convince you that
the theory of evolution runs counter to your religion. Evolution
is just science -- no more, no less. Science attempts to explain
things using natural laws. Anything operating outside these laws
(i.e. the supernatural) does not fall under the jurisdiction of
science. Lionel has made a lot of noise recently that evolutionists
are all (or mostly) out to destroy his religion or some such thing.
When pressed to back up his allegation with references proof --
he simply made more allegations. Creationists always attempt to
cloud the argument with spurious arguments like this because their
"science" doesn't have a leg to stand on.

>Kathy Haigh-Hutchinson
>University of Bradford
>email K.Haigh-Hutchinson@uk.ac.bradford

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"