I think I can clear up one (albeit bundled) question: What is the difference between evolution and natural selection? Is there a difference? Even if there is, can there be one without the other?

According to the current theory of evolution – the one originated by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace – evolution is caused by natural selection. This is the theory to which most people refer when they speak of evolution. How natural selection works has been fairly thoroughly explained, in both oversimplified and accurate-but-nearly-incomprehensibly-complicated ways, in the other posts on this page. But with all of that, evolution as independent from natural selection has not been adequately addressed.

The idea of evolution simply means that organisms change over time. What exists now is not identical to what existed six thousand years ago, and even less similar to what existed two or three billion years ago. If you believe that the world was created at 9:30 on the morning of the 23rd of October in the year 4004 BC, complete with every species and variety of animal and plant and fungus and bacterium and protozoan and what all else there is now (plus some passenger pigeons and quaggas), I can’t help you, go ahead and disbelieve evolution all you want. If, on the other hand, you’re willing to admit that the world existed on the 22nd of October, 4004 BC, and had indeed existed for a few billion years before that, you probably already believe in evolution in one form or another.

There were many evolutionary theories before Darwin’s. They all involved a belief that life on Earth has changed over time, but none until Darwin’s had anything to do with natural selection. One of the most famous was proposed by a Frenchman named Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. He said that organisms evolved by needing and using more complex body parts – the best-known example being a giraffe stretching its neck to get at higher leaves, then passing its elongated neck down to the next generation. Lamarck’s theory has since been disproven, but for its time it was highly plausible – far more plausible than, say, Charles Bonnet’s theory, which said that all life was obliterated by a disaster such as a flood every once in a while and was then spontaneously regenerated in a more complex form.

Darwin’s theory may eventually be disproven, just like Lamarck’s. This is, however, unlikely. The principle of natural selection has been witnessed in action, not giving rise to significant new species, but certainly functioning well enough to conclusively prove its existence. The theory has not been around long enough to allow people to observe large-scale evolution in action. The process is so slow that Darwin’s ideas can never be proven beyond a doubt.

Then there is always the sticky question of “how did it all start?” As to this, the current theories are much less plausible. They are only there, as someone said, to “write God out of the equation.” The Big Bang, origin of the universe, and the Primordial Soup, origin of life, are, as far as I can tell, pure speculation. I believe, firmly and informedly, in the evolutionary theory modeled on Darwin’s (his original had a few flaws, some but not all of which have been satisfactorily corrected), but I intend to reserve judgment on the various origin theories – those that involve a god and those that don’t alike – until either my mind matures enough to understand them or a better theory is put forth. I doubt that either of these events will happen in my lifetime, so I’ll probably never believe anything at all about how it all started.

I’m sorry my soul doesn’t have the faith it takes to believe in a sentient creator nudging the atoms together into proteins and nucleic acids and then nudging the proteins and nucleic acids together into a living cell, starting the snowball of evolution downhill and not interfering more than to give it a nudge in the right direction once in a while. This sounds so much more likely to me than enough lightning bolts striking the primordial soup of the ocean enough to create life by random chance, but I just can’t bring myself to accept the existence of the sentient creator. I take my hat off to those of you who have that faith.

Thank you all – all two of you – for reading my rant. In this case I think it’s excusable to have not touched upon the (extremely fascinating) topic of the original article at all (Damn Interesting, by the way! Thank you, Ms Wood!), as the comments presented such a worthy debate. I hope I’ve managed to clarify the difference between evolution and natural selection, and maybe even between understanding the theory and blindly accepting what “science” says.

But rather than focusing on the sociological impacts progressions in science like this has (I mean seriously, which straight guy would say “no!” to being the sex slave to an entire female civilization? And: If god seriously disliked something that we as ‘intelligent’ beings where doing, he would go Old Testament on our asses… seriously guys he wouldn’t f-about.) I think we should all e-hi-five at the fact that advancements like this mean one up on species extinction. Go us!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGNRYNdVT7g

it is faith.
there is zero evidence for it on the cell level
see Darwin’x Black Box”

Evolution is most definitely science, as it is a working explanation for the evidence around us. Evolution is testable and makes predictions. On the other hand, creationism does not make any predictions and is not falsifiable. Accepting creationism, based on the current lack of evidence for it, is faith and not science.

There is tons of evidence for it on the cell(ular) level. For example, one can see the commonalities in genetics across species that support it. Much of medicine, zoology, forensics, ecology, genetics, animal behavior, physiology, paleontology, and other sciences are based on evolution and work quite well.

Furthermore, “Darwin’s Black Box” is written by Michael Behe, who as I mentioned above agrees that common descent is real (including humans descending from earlier primates,) so if you hold his book up as proof for creationism I can only guess that you either didn’t read it or you didn’t pay attention to it if you did. Furthermore, his book is fraught with problems and unfounded assertions. See one of the many criticisms here:

TalkOrigins: Darwin’s Black Box – Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

Evolution was discovered by looking at the world around us, and is changed when new evidence comes in. It wasn’t handed down from on high, it was discovered from the ground up. You’d have to totally redefine the word “faith” for it to include something that is based on the mounds of physical evidence in the world around us.

evolution is not science
it is faith.
there is zero evidence for it on the cell level
see Darwin’x Black Box

“We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can’t scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me.”

And, in the baader-meinhof spirit, I found on my yahoo an Onion link which I found appropriate:

http://feeds.theonion.com/~r/theonion/weekly/~3/55326156/55807

Then, I thought of that Deep Thought by Jack Handy, although I was unable to find it. It goes something like: I think that instead of getting answers to math questions, we could get “impressions”. And if someone got a different impression than someone else, so what, can’t we all be brothers?

Anyway, I’m with wh44, Evolution has convincing examples, logic, and it makes sense. It doesn’t destroy my faith in a Creator. I like Cynthia Wood’s views also. Understanding how God did it (or learning about how it was done) is a worthwhile pursuit. Scientific Method is awesome! We’ve got vaccines, we’ve got computers (made from dirt!), we’ve got landmines. Oh wait, scratch the landmines. Those aren’t good. I suppose I am the ultimate fence sitter, a Christian Atheist. Well, it isn’t due to my unwillingness to commit. I honestly don’t feel that the two schools of thought are mutually exclusive. (they may have to bend or stretch a little…)