From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Evolution
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:51:56 GMT

In article <31105.2B322E42@puddle.fidonet.org>,
Jessica.Smith@p0.f14.n346.z1.fidonet.org (Jessica Smith) writes:
>  
> To Mickey-
>  
> Thank you for replying to my article about evolution.  You are
> right, I should make a distinction between evolution and
> abiogenesis.  Do you believe there will ever be a solution to the
> evolution contraversy?  Will scientists ever have enough
> information to prove positively where we came from?

   Point of order.  Scientists don't try to prove
anything "positively".  Science tries to come up with the
best possible explaination it can given those facts that
have been observed.  The evolution controversy isn't
really a scientific controversy at all; its an argument
between people who want to teach science in science class
and those who want to teach the Bible in science class.
The creation viewpoint has no scientific evidence for their
view.  They do have a lot of (bogus) evidence against the
theory of evolution.

> I couldn't
> find a copy of Wonderful Life by Stephen Jay Gould.  Our library
> at school here is out of date and we have almost nothing useful.

   WARNING.  That book is pretty thick reading.  You might try some
of Dr. Gould's other books first.  Wonderful Life does have some 
interesting stuff in it.  For instance when you have fossils of soft
creatures you normally get something like an ink smear on paper but
the fossils in the Brugess shale that Wonderful Life talks about
still have some three dimensional structure.  They are also very
old fossils from around the time the diversity of life first exploded.
I especially liked the third part of the book where Dr. Gould describes
the wierd creatures they found.

> If there is a way  for you to send me some of that information, I'd
> appreciate it.  I only use the words "belief" or "think" becfause
> no one can really say "I know".  Do you believe in the ruling that
> creationism cannot be taught in classrooms?

   I agree with it.  It has been proven in court to the satisfaction
of a judge that the creation theory is a religious belief with no
science backing it at all (in Louisiana, a few years back).  It is
against the law to teach religious beliefs in public schools AND its
not a good idea to teach religion (that isn't also science) in science
classes.

>  But they can teach
> evolution although they aren't teaching facts?

   But teach the theory of evolution requires teaching huge numbers of
facts!  Where did you get the idea they weren't teaching facts?  It is the
creation scientists that have trouble coming up with facts.  They tend to
make up facts rather than gather them in the normal fashion.

   I assume you mean that the theory of evolution hasn't been "proven
true" and hence isn't a fact?  In that case I think you should
consider that several different version of the creation theory have
been proven false by disproving specific claims they make.  If we
should teach what is accurate then creation science should never be
taught anywhere at all.

>  This seems somewhat
> odd to me.  DNA testing is the best evidence to find facts about
> evolution.  Hope to hear from you again concerning that book I
> can't find!!

   Good luck.  Why do you say DNA is the "best" evidence?  I don't
disagree with you, I'm just curious how you tell which evidences are
best.  I'm currently doing research on DNA evidence for evolution,
you see.

Dan Ashlock
400 Carver Hall
Iowa Sate University
Department of Mathematics
(Mathematical biology group)
Ames IA 
50011
email to: Danwell@IASTATE.EDU