Hi Wispy,

I understand your concerns, but it seems we have somewhat different perceptions on these issues... maybe not so different at all, he he Let me try on your points:

I have to suspect the motives of those who shove EVOLUTION down one's throat without any other possibility including intelligent design

+ I would too suspect on their motives if i´m not to recognize what human history is all about, how human feelings / behaviours are and specially how prompt we are to ritualistic/demagogic positions. It´s a very human property to search for confidence and at least a well distributed vertebrate (and particularly mammalian) behaviour to be curious and... even to seek for detailed explanations. I would rather ask:

And what does (most) human beings usually do regarding their cherised believes? Didn´t we even attempt to transform our understandings in believes?


Otherwise.. why do they try to outlaw Intelligent design? And also make it a crime to mention it?
THAT.. is not taking into account all factors or evidence.

+ I think it is perfectly expectable from HUMANS. Isn´t it? That most highlight our failures and weeknesses, and looking to avoid them is within the goals of well done science. Is there "intelligent design" and hard proofs for it? Well, of course proofs remain elusive and swampy... but that doesn´t rule out the possibility for interventions of some kind. We don´t know and have not proofs for that, so it could not be a question for science... evolution by the other hand is a testable question... it has been questioned and its comprehension is being improved in many fields. It is not just a question, but has revealed a fact on natural history... a widespread and overwhelming fact in which we should choose to observe and understand, rather than believe and shove down whoever´s throat. So i doubt there is some relevant hidden agenda on nature´s observation, things don´t go in this direction even when some people had "used" and actually use this and other fields/knowledge from science for their agendas with different intentions and different results.


So things do have common links. An architect is also known by the appearance and the common materials of his creation. So is an artist. A Michelangelo, or a Picasso or a Monet can be identified by the design, elements and pigments.

Do you not think a Creator has the same palette to work from? I will admit.. evolution has been occuring since creation. Downhill. It is almost as possible as an explosion in a printing facility producting the dictionary.

+ A Creator may had had or have anything, being and omnipotent entity or being everything, conscient or not conscient about... but all this are untestable questions for science, so it didn´t engage on questioning them. Evolution never rule out, neither it explains about the overall creation but a KNWON part of this creation (known for us, human beings and accesible for posing questions).

+ Hmmm, regarding this: "It is almost as possible as an explosion in a printing facility producting the dictionary."
I would say it is a very uncomplete and misguided comprehension, a very imprecise example at least... for what an explosion in a printing facility, whereas it may have some patterns, resembles any of the constructive processes and recurring patterns observed in evolution. It is highly unlikely (not completely given the enough repetitions in an infinite universe, but almost impossible in human terms) for a dictionary being produced in such a way, while beings are evolving all the time and by very pattern/like but still rather stochastic processes. Evolution is not a denial of creation, it is rather a profound part of the creation.



+ Regarding you questions toward evolution and "today" i would better say that YES, we observe evolution happening in front of us and there is plenty of proofs for it. We don´t see exactly "evolution" as it´s for a process, a system... we see much more its results and the patterns governing changes, still creating diversity in this very moment. Molecular scientist and microbiologist had studied it on bacteria and protozoa, among others. Together with geneticists they had tested/observed evolutionary patterns directly on these organisms and in larger pluricelular forms, specially on some diptera, such as Drosophila, and in some other arthropods. Ictiologist had seen evolution on place in the lakes of central Africa and in a less impactant way... also in other water bodies throught the planet. Paleontologist had looked back and look back in the most inquisitive and comprehensive way it is possible, and they had found regular patterns of CONTINUITY among plenty of organisms, some of them still living or with living descendants. Population biologist had studied the gene drives in many organisms and found relationships on the biogeographic knowledge on some of this organisms.

+ Survival of the best fitted is an incomplete understanding of evolutionary process... it is just a part of what goes on... even not the most important part as with scientific research we had been able to identify other patterns/phenomena, among which i would highlight "mutations" (natural and artificial, through different processes often quite well understood) as the main source of variability (even Darwin pointed to this as a source); genic derive and natural selection processes at different levels as variability drivers on the population and species levels; macroecological processes and stochastic events on the higher levels. Mutualism (simbiosis and several levels of association and cooperation between organisms) had been prooven even more common and relevant than just competition and predation in the overall process. What we have is a model of evolution, a comprehension of what has been going on, one that approach as much as possible to what we can observe, what we had observed... evolution itself is a natural process, part of the creation... our comprehension can give enlightment on how things works... but is unsuited for unveiling the very start of life and the possibility of a Creator. They are just very different things, not incompatible, nor opposite things.

+ Teachers and even many scientist may fail to recognize their very human failures, plenty of them may be sheeple/ritualistic/believe prompted... this is not a scientific failure but a very human failure... much more deep and often close minded when comes to other areas of human development, and particularly... religious areas.

+ I don´t see any contradiction/opposition between the scientific discoveries and the possibility of interventions, at least we already had performed plenty of it with the small fraction of species (very small) with which we are closely related. An advanced civilization may be able to perform much more of this in a much more complex way... they will be able to even change the direction of evolution in a large degree.

+ For what concerns for Evolution, it´s a complex process, an intricated and marvelous system remaining to be comprehensively understood, and also... a well known and well worked theory explaining what we already had understood. Whereas chance has too a role, most of evolution has little to nothing to do with chance. It is a very different understanding. Evolution is an observed fact of which we have a possibly incomplete theory (as complete as possible), it´s a fact about the Creation!

+ For what concerns for a Creator, i just don´t know. That´s not a "scientific question" but what a great one. Why not?


Best wishes,
A scientist who cares