The debate over evolution is passionate to a degree far exceeding what is warranted by a harmless biological theorem.

The reason for this, I maintain, is that there are really two distinct, yet related, versions of evolution.

The first being the biological theory that explains how species adapt to their environments through survival of the fittest punctuated by a mutation here and there.

This seems obvious.

To say that the reason certain species survive and others perish is because the surviving ones were more fit does not take a rocket scientist.

I am doubtful of the utility of this result.

Stephen Hawking in “A Brief History of Time” states that a good theory is one that ‘describes a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.’

What will the descendants of bread-mold look like in 100 million years?

Will they speak or use telepathy, or will foot fungus kill them off?

And how many variables do you need to answer this?

The second version of evolution is the one that populates popular imagination.

In its most basic form, evolution is synonymous with improvement.

The scope of evolution is all of creation, with the biological version being a mere corollary.

Thus, the solar system evolved from gas and dust in space, life further evolved from goo in the oceans, civilization evolved from barbarism, reason evolved from instinct and superstition, poetry and courtship evolved from the grunts and howls of our savage ancestors (at least everywhere but in the White House), and the list goes on.

It is the later version of evolution with which people, like myself and, I would suspect, members of the Kansas Board of Education, disagree.

First of all, it seems to me to be untrue that the universe is in a general state of improvement.

Even conceding the biological version, it is only a front-show in the general pattern of dissolution and entropy (you can check out the second law of thermodynamics on this point).

The second objection I have is that evolution, in denying the need of a creator or God, also nullifies the possibility of an absolute set of ethics.

In fact, by the standards of evolution, mere survival is the only ethical end possible.

One can, of course, argue that cooperation and altruism actually promote survival and therefore the ethics you like are justifiable through evolution.

Thus, as long as others are useful to your survival, you will be good.

What happens when circumstances change and others are no longer useful?

Germany from 1933-1945 comes to mind.

It is interesting that evolution is a scientific theory held largely for philosophical reasons.

No one ever produced a life-form in a lab as far as I know, so it is not believed because of some application of the scientific method.

The main reason to believe in evolution, from what I can tell, is that you reject creationism.

I offer no defense of creationism, others may if they wish.

But, does it make sense to choose one’s science the same way as one chooses presidential candidates: By how much you dislike the other side?

I suspect that biological evolution is correct in some limited measure, although it may prove a big disappointment in terms of what it truly explains.

As far as being a good scientific theory, its advocates are selling a Ford Pinto and claiming it’s a Lexus.

Tom Dubinin

Graduate student

Statistics