Evolution has the power <br>of science behind it

Sunday, June 25, 2006

Evolution has the power
of science behind it

Dr. Charles Acker

Most biologists would agree that only through evolutionary science does biology make sense. Such assertions raise the question, "What is science?"

Science is a search for understanding which is based upon a number of principles, some of the most critical being reliance on empirical evidence (artifacts, observations) instead of scriptural, priestly or political authority; testing of hypotheses against empirical evidence; provisional explanations or theories subject to change or modification with new empirical findings; and most importantly, the search for natural laws and use of naturalistic explanations.

Evolution qualifies as a science on all points. Science is a strictly limited enterprise; it does not attempt to answer questions such as "What is the purpose of Existence?", "Is there a God?" or questions of right or wrong.

However, it is these limitations plus the above principles which account for its success and give it power for new discovery. Epidemiologists, for example, attempting to predict the course of the anticipated Asian bird flu pandemic base their understanding of how the disease can change and spread among humans on two fundamental mechanisms: Genetic mutation and natural selection. In this process, a virus, essentially a packet of genes, becomes different and more successful (from the virus' point of view). The same process occurs when bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. The understanding of these changes is an example of the cross-fertilization of molecular genetics and evolutionary science.

Changes in recent time in both form and genetics among such varied animals as snails, lizards, insects, birds, fish and rabbits, which result in separately breeding populations (one definition of species change) demonstrate the evolutionary process and also help us to predict the impact of human activity on ecology.

New and exciting clues to all manner of mysteries are emerging from the area of developmental evolution (dubbed "evo-devo"). For example, research on the evolution of the uterus in animals from egg-laying to placental types is throwing new light on diseases of the female reproductive system, such as endometriosis, cancer and infertility.

Paleontology, the science of fossils, is uncovering large numbers of transitional forms (missing links) in the evolution of terrestrial animals from fish, birds from dinosaurs and whales from land-dwelling mammals. These evolutionary relationships are reflected in the genomic relationships of present-day animals.

We owe our growing understanding of these new discoveries in part to evolutionary science. Neither Biblical Creationism nor Intelligent Design qualify as science because of their reliance on supernatural agents to explain natural phenomena. During the recent decades in which it has been promoted as an alternative to evolution, Intelligent Design has failed to produce anything resembling a research program, leave alone new discoveries or ideas which can be used in the fight against disease. Instead it has been used primarily in a political effort to undercut the teaching of established principles of science.

Should we teach about Intelligent Design in public schools? Certainly. It should be taught in courses such as the history of western thought, comparative religion or philosophy. But only science should be taught in science classrooms.

Dr. Charles Acker has done research in physiological psychology, and has practiced as a clinical and forensic psychologist. Now retired, he is a student of the philosophy of science, and currently teaches courses concerning belief systems and science and religion.