Now, let's say the chromosome which carried those genes had another mutation which turns the bacterium blue (the others are green). Subsequent generations would all be blue. Then let's say that a species of dust mite arrives on the seen which can spot light blue bacteria, but not dark blue. After a few more generations, the dark blue ones would be dominant. Add in more variables like this - environmental factors giving some mutations an advantage - over millions upon millions of years, and our existence makes perfect, elegant sense.

That's how evolution works. Not, as the Discovery Institute says, by a generation of fish suddenly appearing with legs and walking onto land, or a macaque monkey giving birth to a baby that speaks Swahili, but by chance mutation, bare survival, and time. Lots and lots of time.

To that, I add that the facts of natural selection and evolution don't deny god. They only deny the Biblical account of creation. Was evolution kicked off by an intelligent agent? You're right - it's impossible to know (for now). But if it was, that doesn't validate any sort of religious belief. It may have been a god that hates us and wishes to torment us for sport, or aliens who seeded the earth as an experiment or protein farm.

For that reason, the entire design versus blind evolution debate is redundant. The science is clear and reliable, and uncontested. Any other facet is a matter for philosophers and the individual's conscience.

dan, you answered my question, in a happily and deliberately ignorant manner. it was at that point i gave up on you. and you did accuse me of using metaphoric capitals. it is still a straw man. i do not use "fact" as "Fact", and you know it. i use it in the common sense meaning of the word: true in its essence; every good reason to believe; absolutely no reason to doubt. whatever the hell you want.

you're not using doubt in any reasonable manner. what your saying is "there is no absolute truth, therefore anything might be false". yeah, well whoopee. you get a B in 1st year philosophy. your manner has nothing to do with an honest evaluation of scientific method. you're just playing games.

sam said, i agree that science has to be humble about what it knows. but it doesn't have to fake humility when it knows what it knows. evolution is not merely taken as fact, it is fact, the way gravity is fact.

will the theory of evolution change? absolutely no question. is it less than the whole answer? will other theories such as lamarckism play a role? maybe. but evolution is true, however many religiously motivated sophists wish to claim otherwise.

I think that the following two “non-sequiturs” pop up frequently in this kind of debates:

(a) that belief in e.g. the Christian God (as revealed in the Bible and interpreted by contemporary theologians) excludes the acceptance of all of the body of contemporary scientific knowledge (that includes evolution of the neo-Darwinian or other kind), and (b) that acceptance of the latter excludes the former.

In particular, you can defend evolution without having to attack or ridicule religious faith, and you can be a good Christian without having to attack evolution. You can believe in God without having to believe that He created “single handed” each species or even each creature. Also, Intelligent design (that evolution had been pre-programmed) is a meta-scientific hypothesis that does not need to involve belief in a God (see for instance the book “Biocosm, the new scientific theory of evolution: intelligent life is the architect of the universe” by James N. Gardner)

bushbasher,
by “evolution is a fact like gravity is a fact“ you can mean either
(1) their a priori observable (thus undeniable) manifestations: that there are simpler and more complex creatures, and that unsupported objects fall to the ground, or
(2) the interpretations of these observations (which have become accepted only in the last centuries), namely that creatures have evolved from simpler to more complex ones, and that material objects are attracted to each other.

You cannot verify evolution in a laboratory, neither can you verify the mutual attraction of heavenly bodies in a laboratory. However, in case of gravity you have a mathematically well formulated theory (actually theories, Newton’s expanded by Einstein, with claims to further expansions to e.g. the superstring theory). In case of evolution, you have today many theories, that do not have non-trivial mathematics to make their relation to each other, and applicability to particular situations, so clear cut, as in the case of gravity. Perhaps this is the reasons why some people think that evolution theories, but not mathematically rather hard to understand theories of gravitation or particle physics, threaten their faith.

Dan, Your reaction is what I'd expected. I'd hoped for your critical thought, devoid of religious apologetics. George's eloquence surmises that evolution shouldn't pose a threat to a theism or Christianity - I agree, note also the dependence modern biotechnology has on the process of evolution. If it (evolution) were not in fact true this recent and important science could have no basis. I suggest you read 'The Fractal Logic of Evolution' (http://www.science-art.com.au/fractallogicofevolution.html). This article provides something quite insightful.

Also, as you were keen to mention Sir Isaac Newton, you should also note his unpublished paper,' The Vegetation of Metals'. Here he wrote of his conviction that a more profound natural philosophy existed to balance the mechanical description of his 'infinite' universe and that its basic principles would be derived from particle movement. Newton dared not publish this during his lifetime, as even today this work is referred to as Newton’s Heresy Science. Heresy, because he was in disagreement with a politically powerful church, as was incidentally, Darwin, who hesitated to publish his thesis for similar reasons and for fear of causing offence. The political and social construct within an old church hierarchy has mutated into a different form - but as before, the very idea of evolution appears to upset a conceived 'divine' order. A fearful fundamentalism appears to have captured a significant and clearly visible strain of Christianity.

History repeats itself as the Jesuit Priest, Tielhard de Chardin, was chastised by the Church for developing theories employing evolution as a basic premise, - the Church however has recanted, for perhaps she now sees science a legitimate ally in the exposition of truth.

Objective being and intelligence are sides, one to the other. I accept an objectivity beyond the mind of man - "(Our)transition from the prehuman to the human state has a cortical maturity - its moment of attaining supremacy is the hallmark of our kind. It tells us why the human has been called nature’s religious creature, and with this, religion, evolution and the physiology of neural process come together under one roof." - Dr. Stephen Taylor

While I didn’t get a lot out of Gray’s original article, one thing I think he was saying was that the humanist / atheist types (I think he meant Dawkins and his followers) were a little too sure of themselves without good reason. After reading so many of the comments above, I think he may have been onto something.

Bushbasher and Relda are still beating this ‘fact of evolution’ drum. For something to be accepted as a fact, in any ordinary sense of the word, it requires more than repeated assertion that it is indeed a fact. Saying something often enough and loud enough doesn’t make it a fact. Neither Relda saying ‘only a negligible few deny it’ turn it into a scientific fact, for science is not done by counting noses.

Establishing scientific fact has something to do with evidence.

Sancho protests that the science is clear, reliable, and uncontested. Can I say, Sancho, that I didn’t find your explanation of the gene accumulation starting from a one cell organism to human beings very clear. You seem to be talking about latent genes, selection of genes, and corruption of genes, but never accrual of new genes. I guess you weren’t suggesting that the genes for a human were already present, latent in the bacterium, for that would be ludicrous.

I’m not sure what you mean by reliable. Perhaps this means testable or repeatable? How could we test for whether one of our ancestors crawled out of a lake several hundred million years ago?

Uncontested? I’ve heard and read too many debates by competent scientists who dispute evolution to think that the subject is ‘uncontested’. If only someone would present some more compelling evidence, we wouldn’t need these debates.

Sancho, I may be excused for looking at evolution from a design perspective, for even the great one, Dawkins himself, said that living things give the appearance of being designed for a purpose, before trying to explain away the illusion.

Relda, I love your phrase, ‘science a legitimate ally in the exposition of truth’.

“Evangelical atheism is the mirror image of the faith it attacks --.” Hardly a brilliantly illuminated phrase – rather a concoction appearing through the shrouds of Gray mist from an ill-informed, or disingenuous, mind.

Gray singles out Dawkins for opprobrium, yet Dawkins in his most outspoken work on the supernatural, The God Delusion, demonstrates quite good relations with church leaders who do not go out of their way to force their ideas upon others.

How “evangelical” is atheism compared with Salvos and tambourine, saffron-robed Buddhists behind drums, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sending forth “elders” to prey (uninvited) upon suburban housewives, door-knocking “Awake” peddlers of their faith, the Pope’s dictatorial stance that children of Catholic/non-catholic partners be inducted into the Catholic Church, ---.

Reference to “The Selfish Gene” is a very long shot indeed by Gray, and he has not hit gold with his misdirected arrow. There is little doubt that evolution of the human mind has enhanced the options of Homo sapiens for avoiding pitfalls. A great many major problems could be avoided if only we could make better use of the human brain, our greatest evolutionary inheritance.

The family tree leading to that inheritance is tremendously interesting. Deniers of its existence miss out terribly from their lack of curiosity. The tree and its branches is all around them – how can they shut their eyes, close their ears, to the real world to such an extent - Ignore comparative anatomy, the fossil record – ? Almost any geological or biological text would need to be avoided. But, for anyone with a genuine curiosity in the family history of Homo sapiens and of the world it shares, Mary White has provided a delightful book with the title Earth Alive! – From Microbes to a Living Planet; Rosenberg Publishing ISBN 1 877058 05 X.

No proof! – the deniers say. What waffle. Next thing they will be telling me the old Herberton hospital hasn’t shifted, stumps, grounds and all, 5 metres north away from the South Pole since I was born in it