Is Evolution an Essential Theory in Science?

[youngborean]

I am curious on how important the Theory of Evolution is to the Whole of science. Since most other disciplines of Science cross their own boundaries, such as the use of Chemistry and Physics in Biology, the usefulness of Taxonomy in identifiying Gross chemical operations (especially in the plant world) of organisms. Unlike many disciplines of Science, evolutionary biology seems to be isolated, with no interdisciplinary innovations. That being said, why is it such a big deal? Are there contributions that Evolutionary Biology has made to the rest of Science that I am not aware of? If there are, I would enjoy discussion. I don't see how this theory has progressed the rest of Science. To me personally it is centered in the past and not interested in the progressive revelation of the active intelligence. That's why I personally believe it would be better served to be taught as an art along with Archeology or Anthropology.

[Jose]

It's interesting that you see it that way. I wonder why. It turns out that evolution is the underpinning of biology, without which nothing else makes sense. It has made tremendous contributions to medicine and agriculture. The fossil record alone--i.e. the solidified history book of evolution--has been of singular importance in geology, and contributes to the tremendous success of oil geologists in finding oil deposits.

Of course, bald assertions are of no value.

Consider, for example, an exhibit I am working on for the Indiana State Museum, which will include some information on alcoholism, which has both genetic and environmental factors. What are the genetic factors? Without evolutionary relationships, we would have no option but to do all of the work in humans. Since evolutionary relationships exist, we can use other organisms, on which it is possible to do the experiments. Rats that have been selectively bred (which itself involves evolutionary theory) to prefer alcohol over water display similar behaviors as alcoholic humans. Mapping the locus and identifying the relevant genes has indicated at least two genes that are relevant: alpha-synuclein and neuropeptide Y. Both of these are used in the same way in the brain chemistry of humans and rats. Finding these genes in rats gave us a huge jump forward in understanding humans--it's the same genes doing the same things, which is, after all, what evolution results in.

How do limbs form in humans? What accounts for horrors like the thalidomide disasters, in which the drug interfered with limb develolpment in fetuses? Three important systems have led to our understanding of limb development: manipulation of limb buds in chicken embryos, limb regeneration in salamanders, and analysis of the overall body plans of fruit fly embryos. The chicken studies showed that there are chemicals that diffuse through the limb bud and establish the positions of the different limb elements. The salamander studies showed that vitamin A interferes with limb regeneration, and in fact plays a significant role in limb patterning. The fly studies identified a vast number of genes that are involved in establishing cell "identities" and setting up patterns in developing embryos. It turns out that the genes that function in fly embryo development are the same genes that function in mammalian embryo development (humans included), albeit with some minor DNA sequence differences in the genes themselves, and some significant variations in the regulation of the genes. The genes identified in flies made it easy to identify the genes that function in limb development in chickens and mice (the same genes). Included among these genes are those for the retinoic acid receptor (binds vitamin A), which is an important signalling molecule in limb development. Consequently, we now understand a great deal about limb development in humans, because humans use the same genes that other species do because of evolutionary conservation of those genes.

Similar stories can be told about agriculture. Much has been learned from the study of the small weed, Arabidopsis. What has been learned applies directly to crop plants, because the evolutionary relationships of the plants result in their molecular biology being pretty much the same.

And, of course, everyone tells the geology story. The idea of "index fossils" was developed way before there was a theory of evolution. It still holds true, of course. Oil geologists look for microfossils of a particular type in drill cores, in order to identify rocks of the right age, and from the right type of deposition, to contain oil deposits.

There is much more. We wouldn't understand why so may bacterial pathogens are developing resistance to antibiotics without evolutionary theory. We wouldn't understand how flu strains vary from year to year without evolutionary theory. The list goes on and on.

Cheers.

--J

[youngborean]

Do any of the things you've stated depend more on evolution (via Darwin) or genetic variation (via Mendel)? Maybe this is the new question.
Is Darwin more than an attempt of an explanation of Mendel? I don't believe you need evolution to progress the study of genetics. The points you listed in no way require evolution as a precusor. I guess clearer definitions are in order, maybe you could help define them. Because the argument you seem to present (correct me if I'm wrong) is that genetics is a result of the theory of evolution.

[ST88]

I am curious on how important the Theory of Evolution is to the Whole of science... Unlike many disciplines of Science, evolutionary biology seems to be isolated, with no interdisciplinary innovations. That being said, why is it such a big deal? Are there contributions that Evolutionary Biology has made to the rest of Science that I am not aware of? If there are, I would enjoy discussion. I don't see how this theory has progressed the rest of Science. To me personally it is centered in the past and not interested in the progressive revelation of the active intelligence. That's why I personally believe it would be better served to be taught as an art along with Archeology or Anthropology.

This is a great question. I, personally, do not know how evolution has affected other sciences, other than to free up the mind of scientists to be open to purely natural phenomenae and the mechanics thereof. The question implies that if there is no crossover, what good is it? I don't really understand this point of view.

Leaving aside the question of whether or not there is some crossover -- which others on this forum could probably better answer -- what is the reason that this crossover is required? Your desire to put evolution into a different strata of science is confusing to me. I confess I don't see how a science, "centered in the past" makes it any less of a science.

The reason I say this is because the theory of evolution is made up of other different theories and scientific data sets: the fossil record, natural selection, DNA mechanics, population dynamics, geologic events like plate movement and asteroid impacts, and large-scale chemical reactions. Some of these we know to be facts, and some are predicated on logic and reasoning based on the facts. I don't think that evolution need necessarily be relevant to anything other than what it is in order to be useful.

It could be argued that Archeology is a combination of history, geology, and interpretive digging; and that Anthropology is a combination of archeology, sociology, psychology, biology... am I missing anything else? The point is that these sciences are all multidisciplinary and not quite the "art" that you claim them to be. It's true that there is a very different approach to the so-called "pure" sciences of chemistry and atrophysics, but it isn't any less scientific, it's just more interpretive. We may be calling the same things using two different terms, but giving it a name like "art," to me, calls it little more than mere speculation, which describes neither archeology or anthropology as a whole.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "the progressive revelation of the active intelligence." But my point here is to argue that "science" need not be exclusively the realm of hard-core labwork -- it does leave room for interpretive response and the projections of hypotheses based on those interpretations. Further study can support or disprove those hypotheses, and, like Jose has stated elsewhere, we can make assumptions about the situations brought up in those hypotheses and test those assumptions.

[Jose]

Genetics is the study of genes, their inheritance, and how variations in genes affect the characteristics of the organism. From the study of genetics, we have learned that:

1. Every individual organism of every known kind receives its genes from its parent(s).

2. Mutations happen. At some frequency, around 1/million, mistakes are made in DNA replication or DNA repair, and the DNA sequence of some gene or other changes.

3. If an individual organism inherits this new variant of a gene, then there is some likelihood that the alteration in the gene will result in some alteration in the characteristics of the organism, compared to others in the population. This is the origin of genetic diversity.

4. Genetic diversity can be increased in plants and animals by genetic recombination and reassortment during the production of eggs and sperm, but of course, is dependent on the original mutations to create the diversity.

5. Thus, genetic diversity enables us to examine the inheritance of single genes, by following single characteristics, or of multiple genes and complex traits throughout an entire population. It also allows us to follow a single gene and its descendent genes, generation after generation, and follow--if you will--the evolution of that gene (i.e. how its sequence changes with time).

Now, the things I described are generally in the category of genetics. We can breed alcoholic rats. We can study mutations that screw up the embryology of flies. etc etc etc The question is this: how do we interpret these findings? Do we really care about rats so much that we want to cure alcoholism among them? Do we really care about flies so much that we want to prevent congenital birth defects among them?

Actually, most of us don't particularly care for rats or flies. The reason that the genetic information is useful, and the reason that the information has helped improve human medical understanding, is that we are all evolutionarily related. Because we are evolutionarily related, and genetically related, we use the same genes for similar functions. Therefore, what we learn in rats or flies or yeast applies to us very well.

The medical application of basic research like this depends on evolution having happened. The fact that it works is pretty strong testimony to the validity of evolution.

However, you are right: this information doesn't address Darwin's theory, or the zillions of revisions of his original theory that have been developed since he made the first coherent attempt to explain the data that he and others had acquired. Evolutionary theory per se describes, to the best of our ability, the mechanisms by which the genetic relationships of currently living things came to be. The medical application is merely our ability to take advantage of this understanding, and use evolutionary thinking to solve important human problems. That is, it is going one step beyond "mere evolution," and applying it to problems that matter to people--evolutionists and anti-evolutionists alike.

Historically, you are also right: it was not necessary to study evolution in order to study genetics. Nor was it necessary to study genetics in order to study evolution. Nor has it been traditional to teach the two concepts in an intertwined way; usually, genetics and evolution occur in "different units" of a high school biology class, so students develop the idea that they are separate.

What we know now indicates that genetics and evolution are intimately intertwined. As a geneticist/biochemist, I've found that it is simply impossible for me to work on the issues I study without running into evolutionary similarities at every turn. I take advantage of evolution--the results of evolution--to explain and understand the proteins that I study. Similarly, evolutionary biologists are wholly unable to describe evolutionary mechanisms without reference to genetic inheritance. Even Darwin included genetic inheritance in his original theory, even though he did not know of Mendel's work, and therefore could propose no mechanism for inheritance.

Rather than say that genetics is a result of the theory of evolution, I would say that evolution is an inescapable result of the way genetics works. You just can't study genetics without coming face to face with evolution. Phrased another way, perhaps, it might be fair to say that "Mendel" describes genetic inheritance over the short-term, while "Darwin" describes genetic inheritance over the long-term.

[youngborean]

I don't know exactly what you mean by "the progressive revelation of the active intelligence." But my point here is to argue that "science" need not be exclusively the realm of hard-core labwork -- it does leave room for interpretive response and the projections of hypotheses based on those interpretations. Further study can support or disprove those hypotheses, and, like Jose has stated elsewhere, we can make assumptions about the situations brought up in those hypotheses and test those assumptions.

I guess the paradiagm I am trying to present is that believing in the evidence for evolution has little bearing on how science seems to function in assessing the present state of things. (which I liken to Aristotle's active
intelligence (his God?)). I look at it more as a philosophical tool to explain the active intelligence. The philosophy itself is based in science and uses science, like archeology or anthropology, but is it a science? I look at what Jose said,

I take advantage of evolution--the results of evolution--to explain and understand the proteins that I study.

The issue I have is that Evolutionary Biology doesn't seem to be an easily definable discipline that carries or translates it's techniques as well as Chemistry, Biology, and Physics which have procedures that show up everywhere in these disciplines.

This quote is what really interests me.

Nor was it necessary to study genetics in order to study evolution.

I find this interesting because Evolution is dependent on genetics. But the discipline of genetics is not necessarily dependent on Evolution (unless you argue that they are the same). The discipline of Genetics, like biology and Chemistry, seems to be more finite than the word Evolution. Archeology, Anthropology don't seem to be the basis for any other new sciences. So to get back to Aristotle, where loosely (I am a simple scholar) according to him our motivation as passive creatures was to use the physical (finite sciences) to explain (through philosophies - evolution) the metaphysical (active intelligence - God - or whatever other name you propose). I guess this last model is the interpretation I am proposing.

[Jose]

I guess the paradiagm I am trying to present is that believing in the evidence for evolution has little bearing on how science seems to function in assessing the present state of things.

This is a bit of an overstatement, actually. "Believing the evidence for evolution" is much like "believing the evidence for gravity." There's so much evidence, which we are so familiar with, that we have moved on to the cutting-edge problems. It's like no longer paying attention to the evidence for DNA being a double helix. Watson and Crick solved that problem in 1952, so we can go on and work with DNA, knowing that it has that structure. There is so much in science, particularly biology, that makes sense only because of evolution, that we don't keep going back and re-visiting the evidence for evolution itself. The evidence has been presented continuously for 150 years, with refinement of the theory at each step. We don't need to keep going back an looking at it to see if it's still there; we've moved on.

The issue I have is that Evolutionary Biology doesn't seem to be an easily definable discipline that carries or translates it's techniques as well as Chemistry, Biology, and Physics which have procedures that show up everywhere in these disciplines.

You are right that it is not an easily definable discipline. It's too big. There are many evolutionary biologists who use the methods of population biology to look at gene frequencies in existing populations. There are others who use the techniques of molecular biology to look at gene expression patterns in related species. There are yet others who use the methods of genomics to look at variations in gene sequences and relative positions in chromsomes. There are those who look at the polytene chromosomes of related species of Drosophila, and those who grow snails with and without parasites to study the value of asexual vs sexual reproduction. There are those who study fossils, and those who study the "genetic footprints" of evolution in DNA sequences. So, the problem is that so many different branches of biology come together in evolutionary biology that it is hard to classify it as a discipline. It's better to think of it as the fundamental glue that holds all of biology together.

Nor was it necessary to study genetics in order to study evolution.

I find this interesting because Evolution is dependent on genetics. But the discipline of genetics is not necessarily dependent on Evolution (unless you argue that they are the same). The discipline of Genetics, like biology and Chemistry, seems to be more finite than the word Evolution. Archeology, Anthropology don't seem to be the basis for any other new sciences. So to get back to Aristotle, where loosely (I am a simple scholar) according to him our motivation as passive creatures was to use the physical (finite sciences) to explain (through philosophies - evolution) the metaphysical (active intelligence - God - or whatever other name you propose). I guess this last model is the interpretation I am proposing.

I guess my point was that, in the early days, it was possible to study genetics independently of evolution. As more and more was learned, however, it became clear that evolution is pretty much a part of genetics. The way we teach genetics assumes this, I think. We use Mendel's peas. We talk about corn, dogs, mice, flies, and all kinds of organisms. Sometimes we talk about humans, but we usually use these other species because it's easier to talk about "assigned matings" and "sibling matings" without feeling that we are breaking taboos. It's OK, though, because animals and plants mostly all use the same basic genetic mechanisms. Why? Because they are genetically related, as a consequence of evolution. If there were no evolutionary relationship, genetics would probably not be so similar among them.

And again, you are right. Genetics is more finite than evolution. Genetics is only a part of the process that is required for evolution to work. It is part of the mechanism. Much of the study of evolution includes the study of the results of evolution, and the historical record of evolution, both of which can be examined somewhat independently of the mechanism.

You raise an interesting point, in mentioning Aristotle. In his time, and for nearly 2000 years thereafter, "science" was used to try to understand the metaphysical. In Darwin's time, much of science was called Natural Theology, for which the main goal was to categorize all of God's Creation in order to recognize his power more fully. This is what led to the study of fossils, and to the tradition of having a naturalist aboard each of the ships that was sent on expeditions of exploration. This led to the accumulation of a huge amount of knowledge. Some of it was odd--such as J. B. S. Haldan's observation that God "has an inordinate fondness for beetles." Eventually, the accumulated knowledge of God's Creation began to reveal patterns in His Creation--patterns that were best explained by the theory of evolution. In other words, the discovery of evolution is the direct result of glorifying God by examining His Creation carefully.

[Lotan]

That's why I personally believe it would be better served to be taught as an art along with Archeology or Anthropology.

I am curious why you feel that archaeology or anthropology should be considered 'arts'. What, in your opinion is the difference between an art and a science?

[youngborean]

Much of the study of evolution includes the study of the results of evolution, and the historical record of evolution, both of which can be examined somewhat independently of the mechanism.

This is my point exactly. Much of studying Evolution has nothing to do with a scientific discipline and is simply using science and history to support a philosophy. I guess it is about a defintion of the difference between science and art (philosophy). Let's look at this statement from ST88.

But my point here is to argue that "science" need not be exclusively the realm of hard-core labwork -- it does leave room for interpretive response and the projections of hypotheses based on those interpretations.

But shouldn't evolutionary biologists be consumed with proving evolution because there is still an active dialogue? I am going to seperate Mendel and Darwin, because the model that I am seeing is this:

Mendel+Mendel+Mendel+Mendel+Mendel+Mendel+Mendel = Darwin

Therefore, Mendel cannot be dependent on Darwin, but the opposite is true. In my opinion, if a scientist was setting out to prove the theory of evolution, he would (in a lab or some other controlled enviroment) start with bacteria and finish with some highly specialized Eukaryote (to prove this model). Instead, all of the experiments you mention:

There are many evolutionary biologists who use the methods of population biology to look at gene frequencies in existing populations. There are others who use the techniques of molecular biology to look at gene expression patterns in related species. There are yet others who use the methods of genomics to look at variations in gene sequences and relative positions in chromsomes. There are those who look at the polytene chromosomes of related species of Drosophila, and those who grow snails with and without parasites to study the value of asexual vs sexual reproduction. There are those who study fossils, and those who study the "genetic footprints" of evolution in DNA sequences. So, the problem is that so many different branches of biology come together in evolutionary biology that it is hard to classify it as a discipline. It's better to think of it as the fundamental glue that holds all of biology together.

Use some sort of Science (cell biolology methodology) and contextualize it with the theory of evolution. The theory Evolution didn't develop cell biology (although it has probably motivated many scientists to study it). The microscope, chemistry, the physics that develop the equipment, and Mendel (loosely) have developed the techniques we use today. It is only the glue if someone chooses it to be and has no bearing on the science itself, as it happens in a controlled enviroment. That is because, in my opinion, it is a philosophy and not a science.

I am curious why you feel that archaeology or anthropology should be considered 'arts'. What, in your opinion is the difference between an art and a science?

I call archeology and anthropololgy 'arts' because that's how they are taught. They use science, but are not sciences themselves. That's why they are usually taught and studied as art degrees. I have a great respect for liberal arts, and would define them as disciplines that use science to conceptualize and communicate information. "Art" is not a pejorative term in my mind. But most arts can be broken down into more finite disciplines.

I guess my main issue has never been the evidence for Evolution. As a philosophy it could be the correct interpretation. However, my problem lies in the foolishness in statements like "belief in creation undermines science". I am not saying that I am hearing that in your argument Jose, but it does seem to be something that the scientific community throws around. Creationism is a philosophy as well, which has no bearing on a myriad of fintie sciences. The problem will always lie in if a scientist attempts to influence their science with an assumption that their philosophy is the foundation for their science. This paradigm is also impossible to escape, but is another discussion. In short, for the purpose of science in practice, a belief in creationism or evolution in no way enhances the quality of an experiment becasue both are philosopies and not sciences.

[Jose]

I guess it is worthwhile asking what "science" is, and how it is done. As a practitioner, I'll put it this way: you come up with a question about something, so you look at the world to see what data you can find that address that question. You look at the data, and try to come up with the most logical interpretation. Once you've interpreted the data, you may find that you haven't answered the question to your satisfaction, so you ask more detailed questions, and perform manipulations (experiments), to obtain more data. And so it goes...

All of the explanations, interpretations, models, hypotheses, theories--whatever you choose to call them--are derived from the data that have come from observation and experiment.

To separate this kind of reasoning from philosophy, I'll go out on a limb (because I'm not a philosopher) and suggest that the scientific interpretations are bounded by the data. Philosophy can be more far-reaching. Hippocrates, for example, recognized by dissecting pregant animals (mice?) that the uterus of many species is Y-shaped, with the embryos developing in the left and right "horns" of the uterus. There's the data. He philosophized from the data to conclude that sex determination in humans was determined by which side of the uterus the fetus developed on. We don't have Y-shaped uteri, which he probably knew, and male and female fetuses develop equally well on left or right sides in animals, which he may have known, but he extended his philosophizing beyond the reach of the data. From this, I infer that philosophy is more far-reaching, and less bound by the hard data.

The theory of evolution is strictly bound by data. It does not include Creation, or any acts of God, because no such acts have been observed or recorded in any kind of investigation. There are no data to support a role of a supernatural entity. By contrast, existing, natural processes are sufficient to explain the data.

Creationists will say that science does go beyond the data to say that creature X evolved from creature Y, because we don't have all of the intermediates, we don't know all of the mutations involved, and we therefore cannot describe the entire process in complete detail. In fact, the scientific explanation is that the evolution from X to Y is a reasonable interpretation of the existing data, and is not a "fact" per se. It is very hard--many say impossible--to "prove" anything in science. That is how science is.

This is my point exactly. Much of studying Evolution has nothing to do with a scientific discipline and is simply using science and history to support a philosophy.

In other words, because it is possible to study evolution without using Chemistry, Genetics, or Cell Biology, evolution has nothing to do with a scientific discipline? If this is your logic, it has a fatal flaw: scientific disciplines are not pre-ordained, defined according to the names of the courses we take. Scientific disciplines are fluid. Some new ones appear from time to time. Others disappear. We no longer have many people studying the science of Natural Theology. In the last decade or so, the discipline of Genomics has appeared. Molecular Biology was unknown in the 1950's--it's forerunner was a branch of genetics that studied bacterial viruses. At this point, Evolutionary Biology is itself a complete discipiline. It might be considered to be interdisciplinary, or multidisciplinary, because it uses the methods of so many other fields. Nonetheless, it has become an independent scientific discipline. It follows the general rules I outlined above: obtain and interpret data.

But shouldn't evolutionary biologists be consumed with proving evolution because there is still an active dialogue?

The active dialog exists only in the sense that we are having this discussion. The politically-active anti-evolution Creationists (now masquerading under the banner of ID) have tried very hard to convince their followers that evolution is "a theory in crisis." In fact, there is no crisis. The only argument is with Creationists who choose to put biblical teachings ahead of science. Within science, the issue was laid to rest decades ago. The only question now is "what are the details of the mechanisms?"

I am going to seperate Mendel and Darwin, because the model that I am seeing is this:

Mendel+Mendel+Mendel+Mendel+Mendel+Mendel+Mendel = Darwin

Therefore, Mendel cannot be dependent on Darwin, but the opposite is true.

Your final conclusion is correct. Genetic inheritance is absolutely required for evolution to work, because every organism reproduces according to its kind. As mutations occur, the "kind" slowly changes in its characteristics. However, your Mendel + Mendel +..... = Darwin is not quite correct. It is insufficient to have simply many generations of genetic inheritance, especially if we follow only Mendel's Laws. We must also have mutation to provide the source of genetic diversity. We must also have the interaction of the individuals with their environment. In many cases, the environment is stable, so genetic variants that are different from the norm are eliminated. Environmental change is generally an important factor in the development of evolutionary differences--and is therefore something more than Mendel alone.

In my opinion, if a scientist was setting out to prove the theory of evolution, he would (in a lab or some other controlled enviroment) start with bacteria and finish with some highly specialized Eukaryote (to prove this model).

Except, a scientist wouldn't try to do this. First, the theory of evolution has withstood so many tests that it has been elevated to the rank of Theory. There's no point in trying to "prove" it. There are already many, many observations that come as close to "proving" it as it is possible to do. Second, what you request requires much longer than the average human lifespan. Third, you are asking for a specific event that is only one of zillions of events that occurred in evolution. Reconstructing that event would not constitute "proof of evolution," but merely demonstrate that it is possible to reconstruct that particular event.

Unfortunately, we cannot reconstruct that particular event. What we have on Earth right now is organisms that are all equally highly evolved from their common ancestor. Bacteria are not simple, even if they just look like dots under a microscope. They are highly complex, and highly specialized. That is, we don't have the starting materials for the experiment you propose. [To some extent, however, that is neither here nor there. The important thing is this: there is a great deal of data that can be interpreted only in two ways. The first is evolutionary theory, for which a great many of the individual steps have "proof of principle" observations. The second is God did it, for which we have only the Bible as a reference--a work that many believe was written by humans, at a time when very little scientific knowledge existed.]

Instead, all of the experiments you mention...

Use some sort of Science (cell biolology methodology) and contextualize it with the theory of evolution. The theory Evolution didn't develop cell biology (although it has probably motivated many scientists to study it). The microscope, chemistry, the physics that develop the equipment, and Mendel (loosely) have developed the techniques we use today. It is only the glue if someone chooses it to be and has no bearing on the science itself, as it happens in a controlled enviroment. That is because, in my opinion, it is a philosophy and not a science.

I think you may be looking at this in the reverse perspective. There is no overt attempt to contextualize any science according to a philosophy. Rather, the disciplines that developed independently--such as cell biology and microbiology, both of which required the invention of the microscope--became more and more sophisticated as more was learned. Among the things that were discovered were remarkable parallels between species, including functional interchangeability of various cell parts, and identities of DNA sequence. We have learned that, for any particular gene, the elements that really matter for function tend to be pretty much the same among species, while the elements that are tolerant of mutations tend to be different among species. Species that are more similar overall tend to have fewer differences in these "variable" regions of genes. While you might call this "genetics" and not cell biology or microbiology, the fact is that the study of cells, whether eukaryotic or prokaryotic, now frequently uses genetic manipulation as an experimental technique.

So...we find these odd patterns among cells. How do we interpret the observations? How do we explain what we see? Well, we know how evolution works, and that knowledge gives us the explanation. The explanation is based on genetic inheritance, mutation, etc. If you were to use evolutionary theory according to the "Scientific Method," and make predictions about what you would expect to find if you looked at a gene for some important cellular protein, you would predict exactly what has been found.

In other words, the study of cells has provided information that makes sense only in the light of evolution. In addition, there have been many scientists who have been forced, by such progressions in their fields, to rethink the relationship of their field and evolution. It happened to the geneticists first, but has spread through many other disciplines.

I guess my main issue has never been the evidence for Evolution. As a philosophy it could be the correct interpretation. However, my problem lies in the foolishness in statements like "belief in creation undermines science". I am not saying that I am hearing that in your argument Jose, but it does seem to be something that the scientific community throws around. Creationism is a philosophy as well, which has no bearing on a myriad of finite sciences.

You will certainly hear some scientists espousing the belief that Creationism undermines science. In the specific case of the science of evolution, this is true. In the case of the science of chemistry, it is not true. As you say, in many sciences, Creationism has no bearing on the science itself.

If you hear this tone in what I say, it is from the viewpoint that evolution is so fundamental to so much of biological, medical, and agricultural science that it really does undermine understanding of important principles if one chooses Creation as the explanation instead of evolution. But note my phrasing: I've cast it as an either/or. I do so because, as I've said above, many Creationists really want to exclude evolution from consideration altogether. The teachings that have come from these die-hard Creationists close peoples' minds to evolutionary explanations, even when those explanations are the basis for improving their own health and safety (eg the rise of antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria). If people close their minds, and refuse to think about the science, then, well, we have an undermining of science.

There is also a more general sense, however, in which Creationism undermines science. Science is based on collecting data, and interpreting those data regardless of how we feel about the interpretation. (Remember, Darwin became physically ill from fear that his explanation contradicted his religious belief.) Creationism, however, obtains its Truth from a single source, in the form of Received Wisdom. There is a fundamental difference between having someone else tell you the Truth, and being empowered to gather information and figure out what it tells you. Science is the latter.

The problem will always lie in if a scientist attempts to influence their science with an assumption that their philosophy is the foundation for their science.

This is, in fact, an excellent description of Creation Science. There, the conclusion is accepted as fact. The scientific findings are selected to "prove" that pre-ordained conclusion. Mainstream scientists are not immune, of course, and are often influenced by the current thinking in the field, social and political contexts of their time, and such things. It is impossible to remain truly neutral. This is an important fact of science that is making its way into the State and National Science Standards--that the way we interpret data is colored by things we don't always realize are coloring our interpretations. In time, however, these things get sorted out, as new findings come to light or old experiments are re-examined. This is part of the reason that evolutionary theory has been revised over the years.