Sees no conflict

Dear Editor,

Regarding George R. Anderson's letters about evolution and the responses from others: The "Piltdown Man" fossil case he refers to was one instance of fraud that sometimes happens when unethical people try to take advantage of museums and universities who will pay a premium for rare fossils of archaeological value.

However, the vast majority of fossil finds are non-fraudulent evidence that contribute to objective science as we learn about the processes of our natural world.

It is important in this debate of evolution vs. creationism to remember one thing -- evolution is a FACT, how it works is a THEORY.

A good analogy is gravity. We know gravity exists, we see it, measure it and successfully predict its constant influence in our surroundings. How it works, though, is explained through several different theories. The same is true of evolution. We observe how it has worked over billions of years, watch it at work around us daily through observation, fossil records, and the emerging science of genetics. But HOW it works is still being studied and theorized.

Darwin was among the first to successfully document the fact of evolution, and theorized that "natural selection" may be HOW it works. Natural selection may be considered controversial, evolution itself is not.

Since Darwin, massive evidence has been discovered supporting the fact of evolution -- that all life forms we know arose from earlier forms in history.

But since Darwin's publication of "The Origin of Species," the main question has not been whether evolution has taken place.

This is not an issue with today's biologists. The only questions concern the mechanics by which evolution occurs.

The statement that organisms have descended from common ancestors is not a guess, it is an observable scientific fact. This has not been questioned by science for over a century.

The heliocentric order of the solar system -- that the Earth revolves around the Sun -- began as a hypothesis and achieved the status of "fact" when the evidence in its favor became so strong that no educated or unbiased person could possibly deny its truth. This has been the same historical course with evolution.

Conflict between people of faith and people of science is not useful or necessary in this discussion. I personally think it is entirely plausible that evolution is one of the tools God used to create all living things.

Literal interpretations of creation in scripture are vulnerable to man's God-given intelligence, and are clearly metaphors biblical man used to explain natural occurrences without the use of scientific tools. This need not threaten anyone's faith, in fact it can enhance and strengthen belief in the strange and awesome power of God and the many ways in which He creates and cares for his creations.

Larry Claassen

Lincoln