The whole edifice, to be useful

and to be viable, must predict hitherto undiscovered facts that add to

the corpus of established knowledge.

Evolution is a scientific theory

as compelling as the Atomic Theory or the Theory of Relativity.

"Peter Duran speaks out

of prejudice, not knowledge. First, evolution is only an unproven theory

with many scientific impossibilities in it. A cursory study of physics

alone invalidates certain vital aspects of the theory of evolution. Mathematical

probabilities refute it out of hand."

It is difficult for me not

to get immediately angry when I read this kind of nonsense. Yes, you can

go to the various creationism web sites and read more of this kind of

misinformation. Sadly, these kinds of assertions are designed to confuse

most of us who don't have a rigorous background in the basic sciences.

Yes, there are books that say

evolution theory is wrong; there are books that say the theory of relativity

is all wet; and there are books that assure us we are captured on a daily

basis by UFO visitors.

Yes, I do have a degree in

physics and a degree in mathematics and I do know better. Evolution theory

is just as proven as the atomic theory and the theory of relativity.

This doesn't mean, however,

all important questions are answered and new questions can't arise

any minute to throw doubt on a part of the theory. Here is an example

where evolution theory needed a big fix:

"In 1977, in collaboration

with U. of I. microbiologist Ralph S. Wolfe, microbiologist Carl R. Woese

overturned one of the major dogmas of biology. Until that time, biologists

had taken for granted that all life on Earth belonged to one of two primary

lineages, the eukaryotes (which include animals, plants, fungi and certain

unicellular organisms such as paramecia) and the prokaryotes (all remaining

microscopic organisms).

"Woese and Wolfe showed

that there are three primary lineages. Within the prokaryotes, there exist

two distinct groups of organisms no more related to one another than they

were to eukaryotes. The new group of organisms, the archaea is very simple

in its genetic makeup and tends to exist in "extreme" environments,

niches devoid of oxygen and whose temperatures can be near or above the

normal boiling point of water. Such conditions are reminiscent of what

is considered to have been the early environment on Earth."

A scientific theory is obliged

to respond to valid objections:

"Biologists at the University

of California, San Diego have uncovered the first genetic evidence that

explains how large-scale alterations to body plans were accomplished during

the early evolution of animals ... The scientists show how mutations in

regulatory genes that guide the embryonic development of crustaceans and

fruit flies allowed aquatic crustacean-like arthropods, with limbs on

every segment of their bodies, to evolve 400 million years ago into a

radically different body plan: the terrestrial six-legged insects.

"The achievement is a

landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal

body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation, but because it

effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against

evolution: the absence of a genetic mechanism that could permit animals

to introduce radical new body designs."

"The problem for a long

time has been over this issue of macro-evolution," says William McGinnis,

a professor in UCSD's Division of Biology who headed the study. "How

can evolution possibly introduce big changes into an animal's body

shape and still generate a living animal? Creationists have argued that

any big jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn't be able

to perpetuate itself. And until now, no one's been able to demonstrate

how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions

in the genome."

The scientific community does

abandon, even though reluctantly, its dogmas when confronted by valid

evidence. This is the kind of attitude we should expect from educators

and promoted in our classrooms.

A final observation.

"Consider the following

(all references come from the King James Version, published in 1611 while

modern science was still in its infancy): Isaiah 40:22, Job 26:7, a circular

earth hung upon nothing ...."

Pardon me. Is this phrase offered

as proof that the earth is round? I don't think so! You can pick

up any comic strip on Sunday and find phrases that make claims that are

false and true. A statement in a book or comic strip doesn't demonstrate

the veracity of the claim.

I took the SAT for college

and the GRE for graduate school a thousand years ago. By chance, both

tests included a question about the earth being round. We weren't

expected to know the Biblical reference, but were expected to know about

Eratosthenes' Experiment, now a worldwide science and math experiment

for kids in the classroom.

This ancient Greek, the head

of the great library at Alexandria and inventor of the prime number sieve

loved by us math types, measured the actual size of the earth. Educated

folks at the time already knew that the earth is round; consider the physical

evidence: the earth's shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse is

round; ships disappear over the horizon.

No more Biblical quotes that

prove zilch! Please present the evidence.

Peter Duran

Fayetteville, Ga.