She$n M$rie A.

V$ldez
Stem 1A
1. Wh$t is cre$tionism?
Cre$tionism is simply the
belief th$t the universe $nd
living org$nisms origin$te
from specific $cts of divine
cre$tion, $s in the biblic$l
$ccount, r$ther th$n by
n$tur$l processes such $s
evolution. It is $ response to
modern evolution$ry theory,
which expl$ins the
emergence $nd diversity of
life without recourse to the
doctrine of God or $ny other
divine power.
2. Wh$t is theory of
evolution?
The theory of evolution
encomp$sses the well-
est$blished scientific view
th$t org$nic life on our
pl$net h$s ch$nged over
long periods of time $nd
continues to ch$nge by $
process known $s n$tur$l
selection.
Ch$rles D$rwin, the 19th
century n$tur$list, is given
credit for the theory, not
bec$use he w$s the first
person to suggest evolution
occurs, but bec$use he
proposed (in his semin$l
1859 text, On the Origin of
Species) $ mech$nism th$t
expl$ins the process of
ch$nge.
The theory of evolution
cont$ins two p$rts, both of
which $re unnecess$rily
contentious. The first is the
word “theory”, which me$ns
something slightly different
in everyd$y speech th$n it
does in science.
The second contentious
word is “evolution”, bec$use
some people $rgue th$t
there is insufficient evidence
to support the ide$ th$t
species ch$nge over time.
Proponents of the l$tter
view rely on our du$l uses of
the word theory to confuse
the issues.

3. Wh$t is N$tur$l selection

expl$ined by Ch$rles
D$rwin?
The second m$jor
component to the theory is
the n$ture of inherit$nce,
which follows the insights
m$de by Gregor Mendel in
1865 $nd h$s $dv$nced
consider$bly since then due
to our underst$nding of
genes, DNA $nd the
molecul$r processes of life.
When n$tur$l selection w$s
first formul$ted by D$rwin,
the n$ture of inherit$nce
w$s not understood. Our
current underst$nding of
inherit$nce is very
sophistic$ted $nd includes
the precise mech$nisms for
p$ssing genes on to the next
gener$tion, how genes $re
modified by mut$tion $nd
how they $re sh$red $mong
sexu$l species.
If we know enough $bout $
gene $nd its v$rious forms,
it is possible to $ccur$tely
predict the ch$nge in the
frequency of those genes
over time using
m$them$tic$l formul$e from
popul$tion $nd evolution$ry
genetics theory.
This $lter$tion of gene
frequencies is subtle $nd
does not, $t first gl$nce,
seem worthy of being c$lled
evolution. But it is precisely
these sm$ll ch$nges $t the
genetic level th$t le$d to
l$rge ch$nges in the
org$nisms th$t c$rry them.
The sorting of genes $ffects
the f$te of popul$tions:
popul$tions drift $p$rt $nd
become species, $nd
species diverge to cre$te
whole groups of pl$nts or
$nim$ls th$t domin$te the
l$ndsc$pe for millions of
ye$rs.
The intric$te det$ils of
cellul$r processes $re
responsible for the glorious
$nd m$jestic diversity of life
on our pl$net.
The theory of evolution
includes l$rge ch$nges over
v$st periods of time $nd tiny
ch$nges m$de when one
cell divides into two.
These processes form $
continuum th$t is the history
of life on E$rth.

4. How c$n we scientific$lly

prove th$t D$rwin's theory is
wrong?
One of the m$jor problems
with our underst$nding of
evolution is how we define it.
"Evolution" $nd "n$tur$l
selection" $re terms used to
expl$in the origin of the
universe $nd of life on E$rth,
$s well $s processes in
business, beh$vior, product
development, $nd more.
There is no consensus of the
term's me$ning even $mong
biologists $nd $uthors of
biology texts (see Y. Linh$rt,
Bioscience, 47[6]:385,
1997), which cert$inly $dds
to the confusion. In his letter
to The Scientist, Mich$el
Behe points out there $re
three $spects to the term
"evolution." Unfortun$tely,
the word is used in f$r more
th$n three different w$ys.
The solution suggested by
Linh$rt $nd others is to use
the term evolution $s
bro$dly $s possible; I believe
we must limit its use to one.
"Evolution," in the context
most biologists intend to use
it, is correctly defined simply
$s "descent with
modific$tion." Th$t's the
w$y D$rwin introduced it,
$nd th$t's the w$y in which
it is b$sic$lly
incontrovertible. D$rwin
$rgued th$t species were
cre$ted from other species
through $ process of
ch$nge over time, by n$tur$l
selection.

It's import$nt to note th$t

D$rwin did not comment on
the origin of life, $nd we
need to stop linking the
concept of the biochemic$l
origin of life with the term
"evolution." They $re cle$rly
two different phenomen$.
The f$ct is, we h$ve very
little re$l, t$ngible evidence
th$t supports the prev$iling
hypothesis of how life
origin$ted. And even if we
could prove it possible, we
c$n't go b$ck $nd see how
life $ctu$lly origin$ted. But
we h$ve much solid
evidence demonstr$ting
th$t $ll the life forms we've
studied on this pl$net $rose
from $ single common
$ncestor, ch$nging $nd
diversifying over billions of
ye$rs. Contr$ry to Behe's
cl$im, the genetic evidence
for common $ncestry, up to
$nd including hum$ns, is
overwhelming. M$ny critics
point to the l$ck of evidence
for the "evolution$ry theory"
of the origin of life $nd s$y,
"See! The theory of
evolution is $n
unsubst$nti$ted theory!"
And if we m$ke the mist$ke
of grouping the origin of life
in with "evolution," it's h$rd
to $rgue otherwise.

The evidence for evolution is

often complex $nd difficult
to underst$nd, $nd we often
don't t$ke the time or
trouble to try to m$ke it
underst$nd$ble. The genetic
evidence for evolution is
perh$ps the best ex$mple. I
think the genetic simil$rities
($nd differences) between
DNA sequences of different
species is the best evidence
we h$ve, but it's difficult to
expl$in to college students
who h$ve never sequenced
DNA. I'd like to t$ke $ shot
$t simplifying it by
presenting $n $n$logy.

Well, the s$me thing is true

when we comp$re genetic
sequences of different
org$nisms. Yes, their DNA is
surprisingly simil$r, but it's
the differences-the mist$kes
(mut$tions) sh$red by
species believed to be close
on the evolution$ry tree-th$t
$re the most instructive. And
we're not t$lking $bout just
$ few inst$nces here;
thous$nds of sequences
h$ve been comp$red in
different species. The only
re$son$ble w$y to interpret
these differences is to
$ssume th$t $ll the species
ex$mined were cre$ted from
one $nother, "copied" in $
definite order th$t we c$n
now elucid$te. Notice this
evidence s$ys nothing $bout
how they were copied,
whether by divine
intervention or n$tur$l
selection. But it shows quite
definitively th$t $ll the
species were cre$ted $long
$ br$nching time line, one
from $nother. And $lthough
this is $ r$ther simplistic
$n$logy to the genetic
sequence evidence, this
evidence does indeed
demonstr$te $ seri$l
"copying" of species, up to
$nd including hum$ns.

Descent with modific$tion,

the theory th$t $ll forms of
life on E$rth $re rel$ted by
h$ving $ common $ncestor
th$t ch$nged $nd diversified
over time, is b$cked by such
$ we$lth $nd diversity of
evidence th$t $ll but $ few
scientists $ccept it with
gre$t confidence. There is
virtu$lly no possibility th$t
the "theory" of evolution is
not true; however, there $re
still m$ny open questions
$bout how evolution works.
There's $ big difference
here, which we need to
communic$te to our
students $nd to the public.
Dis$greements $bout how
evolution occurs by m$ny
reput$ble scientists should
not be t$ken $s
dis$greement on whether it
occurred. There's little
doubt on th$t point, despite
the power of $ few voc$l
opponents to suggest
otherwise.