When the Kansas Board of Education succeeded in downgrading evolution
in the science classes there, I sent a number of protest letters to a number of people.
One exchange follows (from South Carolina)
>Thanks for the info... now you have me confused with why a Mennonite would
>abandon Creation for Evolution..?
My Reply:
It's simple. Because Creationism is a psuedoscience, a falsehood that can be
easily debunked by evidence, whereas Evolution is a science and all the evidence
supports it.
There is no other that comes close to describing the reality of life than the fact of Evolution.
Even an old Mennonite must admit the truth when it stares him in the face.
In a reply to a Creationist:
You are referring to evolution a lot. How much do you know about it?
How would you answer your own questions if evolution is a reality?
"Contrary to what a lot of people think evolution has not been falsified.
In 200 years of biological research and is thoroughly scientific.
Evolution is at least as real as the idea that the Earth is round, spins on it's axis,
and revolves around the sun.
All the evidence points to the fact that absolutely all organisms, including man,
are descended from a single common ancestor.
There is a wonderful gradation of fossil human remains spanning an interval
of the last 3 million years in Africa -- so-called missing links occurring all the way
as we go from something rather apelike right up to modern man.
The evidence is so good. Ironically, the fossil record of human evolution is
one of the best, most complete, and ironclad documented examples of
evolutionary history that we have assembled in 200 years or so of Paleontological research.
Creationist attempts to punch holes in this incredibly well documented history of
human evolution are simply wimpy."
"There is overwhelming genetic and anatomical evidence of connections
between humans and the great apes (and, through the apes, the rest of life)
and the dense and rich fossil record of human evolution.
Apparently it is easier to show the connections between our own species
and the living apes and fossil humanoids than it is to show connections between
the major divisions of the ancient trilobites. Of course a beautiful intermediate between
reptiles and birds is the Archaeopteryx -- 7 known specimens. "
Evolution is not a linear process; it branches a lot.
Many branches become extinct in time, as has happened in human evolution.
Many of the fossil finds do not branch to us.
The brain size of humans has changed considerably -- initially about 400-500 mL
(within the Chimpanzee's range -- we branch from a common ancestor with the Chimpanzee.)
to 700-750 mL about 2.5 million years ago, to Homo ergaster and Homo erectus with
1000 mL., to modern man with 1,350 mL.. A number of human genes deal especially with the brain.
According to evolutionary studies all races belong to the same species with shared genes.
The more variation in a species the better it is able to survive.
The human species contain substantial reservoirs of genetic variation that can be
tapped under new conditions of environment.
As I said a species seems evolutionally more successful the more variety in it's members.
For an individual to be successful the genes he houses must be compatible and
must cooperate with each other. True generally also for the species -- the cooperative
(amongst other attributes) tend to survive.
Some members of a species (usually few) may also be non-cooperative, and
may be found essential in certain conditions e.g. psychopaths (who I usually
consider on the evil side are useful and likely essential as leaders in a war where
a normal leader could not cope).
Even the strangest member may have a contribution to make over the long haul.
Another thing. The old Lamarckism that was popular in the early 1900's and
with which the Communists raved about has been completely debunked.
The idea that acquired characteristics that an organism attains during it's life will be
passed on to the next generations (we're not talking cultural inheritance).
Lamarckism is linear, not branching like Darwinian evolution -- it was out of
Lamarckism that the Eugenic craze and Social Darwinism of the first half of the
1900's became popular.
Lamarckism was an attempt to bring back intelligent design from the 1700's and early 1800's.
What I have read of Creationist literature indicates to me that the Creationist's main function is
to try an discredit evolution. They do not seem to have any explanatory power that can be
evidentially verified as an alternative to evolution. It is mainly a negative stance which
gets a bit tedious, although criticism of weaknesses in a scientific theory (or any other theory) is healthy.
A good thing: With our growing knowledge of the processes and history of Darwinian evolution we are able to make realistic value judgments of how to maintain and improve the lot of mankind generally.
TC Hooge
PS In science such as in Darwinian evolution a theory is considered a fact, just like the Relativity theory is a fact(s). Theories are still open to falsification, but have stood the tests of time.
Consider 2 simple things that apply to all species
(1) The population increase of a species varies exponentially with time if nothing restricts the survival of all it's offspring. N varies as
e ^ x
(2) The resources for that species is pretty constant. The number of members these resources will support is more or less constant. N is constant.
These 2 factors are working against each other. What do you think happens as time goes on?
Humans, at least, have the ability to control this with (1) Birth Control and abortion, (2) science and applied science to increase the available resources.
The following is part of an e-mail to a former neighbour (George) that has moved to Ontario. As I did, he used to teach Physics and Math. This was one of the reasons I wouldn't vote for the Alliance in this last election They would give equal time for Creationism with Evolution in the Science classrooms -- even eliminate the teaching of evolution altogether if they follow their brothers in the U.S. - the Republicans. Imagine, George, in Physics not being allowed to teach radioactive dating, or the evolution of the stars, solar system, galaxies, or that light takes billions of years to reach us from some parts of the universe. I came across some of this in Abbotsford where I taught -- I was even told by Creationists that the speed of light is not constant in a vacuum -- it actually has been getting slower -- Several thousands of years ago when the universe was created it was essentially infinite -- that is why those galaxies billions of light years away gave off their light only a few thousand years ago. This is the kind of thing they espouse. Their actual aim in all this is to support and popularize Biblical literalism.
My Dad usually had religious literature lying around the house. Some of it was Creationist material. A couple of years before he died we were touring Minter's Gardens when he suddenly pointed out a large rock and said to me, "You see that rock over there? It is amazing that it could be 80 million or more years ago that it was first solidified in the earth." I was astonished! I was not the only Biblical literalists that changed my views when the evidence was before me