Friday, May 11, 2007 | 7:26 a.m.
I agree with columnist Tom Teepen's point that a question on evolution should have been omitted from the recent Republican presidential debate ("Hey, candidates: Evolution is fact, not a belief," May 9).
I strongly disagree, however, with his assertion that disbelief of evolution means one has "fallen into a sink of anti-intellectualism. Indeed into fantasy."
When we discuss evolution we are really talking about two different types of evolution. First, there is micro-evolution. Random mutations of genes may lead to a physical trait that is favorable for an organism's survival and thus is passed on to future generations. Examples of this abound in the scientific literature.
But the observed examples always involve an organism with one trait being replaced by the same organism with a different trait. Even creationists accept this as a fact.
The question many have is with macro-evolution. Can natural selection account for the origin of life from nonlife and the progression of a single-celled organism all the way up to an extremely complex living creature?
Science tells us that something must be observable, testable and repeatable to be accepted. Macro-evolution by its very nature falls short of these standards.
Yes, we have the fossil record, comparative anatomy , and genetic and biochemical markers to examine. Although the observable evidence has been used by both the evolutionist and creationist sides to support their arguments, neither is proven by it.
Simply questioning evolution is not committing intellectual suicide.
Barry Clayton, Las Vegas
archive
