Yes, Evolution Still Has Unanswered Questions; That's How Science Is

[question everything]

The Wall Street Journal

SCIENCE JOURNAL
By SHARON BEGLEY

Yes, Evolution Still Has Unanswered Questions; That's How Science Is
June 3, 2005; Page B1

(snip)

Which brings us to evolution. Advocates of teaching creationism (or its twin, intelligent design) have adopted the slogan, "Teach the controversy." That sounds eminently sensible. But it is disingenuous. For.. virtually no area of science is free of doubt or debate or gaps in understanding. "Every scientific theory is constantly under scrutiny and has unknowns at its edges," says physicist Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. "Singling out evolution makes it appear that evolution is suspect, which it isn't."

(snip)

The law that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" isn't universally true either. "It fails for magnetic forces between charged particles," Prof. Wilczek says. Teach the controversy? Then try the one over water. After the assertion that water's formula is H2O, add an asterisk: There is (controversial) evidence that it is sometimes H1.5O.

The funny thing about demands to "teach the controversy" in evolution is that creationists are focusing on the wrong things. They argue that evolution is wrong because there are no transitional fossils showing how one species evolved into another, for instance. But paleontologists have found fossils that are transitional between whales and their terrestrial ancestors, and between finned creatures and limbed ones.

Creationists also claim that evolution can't explain how small genetic changes could produce new species (rather than the same species with new traits, such as bacteria resistant to antibiotics). But the new field of "evo-devo" shows how minor genetic changes can lead to major structural ones, such as the presence or absence of wings or legs, notes biologist Sean Carroll of the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Gaps in knowledge? Of course. Every ongoing field of science has them. Physicists can't explain why elementary particles have the masses and other traits they do, but that doesn't invalidate the basic theory of matter. It just means scientists have to keep trying. Say "God did it" if you like, but that isn't science.

Evolution is as well-established by empirical observation as other sciences. There is no serious debate that evolution happens, only deeper questions (left to college and graduate school), such as whether it proceeds gradually or in spasms. "It's dishonest to single out evolution," Prof. Carroll says, "when the very nature of science is to have unresolved questions."

• You can e-mail me at [e-mail]

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111774986541349727,00.html

[Call me Deacon Blues]

1. I "believe" in Evolution

the same way I "believe" in lightning. These freakin' people are idiots. We should go to Kansas and try to sell them a perpetual motion machine (don't call it "cold fusion" -- too science-y). And I'm from Tennessee! We of all people know about this creationist nonsense. Yeesh.

[rkc3]

3. I believe in De-Evolution.

I watch RW nutters devolve every day - rather than becoming more enlightened, they close themselves off to reality and fact and welcome stupidity, bigotry, racism and misogyny - even the women seem to enjoy becoming servants to the men in their lives.

What's funny is that in the course of their slide, they deride the intellectuals. Pol Pot must be smiling at us now.

[question everything]

4. Speaking of Kansas

I think that it was Jon Stewart saying that the person who wants to be Secretary of State - in charge of elections - thinks that women should not vote!

[BurtWorm]

2. The controversy is actually among themselves.

Between young-earthers and old-earthers. Between literalists, fundamentalists, inerrantists, evangelists, and whatever other schisms separate them.

[Dr.Phool]

5. Every living species is a "transitional being"

We've been evolving, and will continue to do so forever.