It is up to the collective action of people to make
changes. Ultimately once people no longer take their
world for granted, but instead understand the social
authorship of their lives and futures, they can become
a force in history. Whether we choose to destroy our
civilisation or save it is a collective decision.

If more and more nuclear weapons are built, and if more
sophisticated means of delivering them are devised, and if
more and more nations get control of these vile devices,
then we surely risk our own destruction.

If ways are found to reverse that process, then we can
divert unprecedented energy and resources to the real
problems that face us, including poverty, disease,
over-population, injustice, oppression and the
devastation of our natural environment.

Ultimately the prospect of doing this depends on the
collective action of ordinary people. This may seem
paradoxical at first for individuals often feel
powerless in the face of distant governments and
mighty arsenals. Yet modern society relies on the
support of individuals. For example if a society goes
to war, it's not because the leaders have opted for
war, but because the people have implicitly or
explicitly done so also - or at least they haven't opted
for peace.

Therefore we may hope and trust that our ultimate choice will
in the future be to enhance the life on our planet and
not continue to destroy it. We need to ensure that our
world leaders will start taking notice of the vast army
of experts who are willing and able to guide us through the
coming difficult years. A better world is possible. It will
take effort. It will be difficult. But it will be worth it.

O by the way Ezhil.In your version of the evolution fantasy are the aboriginals less evolved than the British? Just wondering. It was the predominant view among the hardline evolution not long back.

Students of science understand evolution.It is the well accepted concept in biology.Man has not evolved from nowhere.

Evolution gets my vote.

It's amazing that some people cannot accept the remote possibility of evolution (or science generally) but willingly believe that a 500 year old man built a boat and filled it with animals to escape a global flood, not to mention talking donkeys.

Their "proof" is a carefully selected group of Bronze age writings that existed long before the age of science, yet gladly use the product of evolved technology to spread their views.

There are some Christian groups who modify this to say that black people evolved from apes but white men were made by God (except for Jews - who were made by Satan)but otherwise share the same beliefs and the rest - except for Mormons.

They certainly live in their own version of reality but somehow always seem angry and bitter about something and also with a kind of persecution complex.

runner's question highlights a misunderstanding among creationists: they think scientists view evolution as a process of advancement, with some species (and some populations of the same species) being more evolved than others. But that sort of evolution is almost as much of a fantasy as they think it is.

In reality, natural selection favours traits that are best suited to the local environment. Depending on the environment, it can favour simplicity or complexity. Sometimes it favours specialisation; sometimes more general, multi purpose adaptations are favoured. Different environments favour different traits - for example high latitudes favour light skin to combat vitamin D deficiency, while low latitudes favour dark skin to protect against sunburn and skin cancer.

Evolution is normally a very gradual process, however major changes in the environment can sometimes favour abnormalities, enabling more rapid changes to occur.