BIOFORUM'S FOUR TOPICS OF DISCUSSION

Anti-evolutionists attack the four areas that we are going to talk about precisely because these are areas where there is a lot of research going on and in which there is not a consensus in the scientific community. These four areas of research are first, number one, the Big Bang.

In Marshall County, Kentucky, a year or so ago, the principal glued together the pages of the textbook covering the Big Bang, because it only covered the Big Bang and didn't include Genesis. The major objection to the Big Bang is that, like all the rest of science, physicists are trying to explain the universe using natural causes. The Big Bang is a Big Deal. It is the beginning of time, matter, energy. Dr. Muller will explain more about it this morning. To explain the Big Bang without reference to supernatural causation makes a lot of people nervous, but all of science is an effort to explain through natural causation, and teachers need to know the data and theory that support our views of the history of the universe. You are going to get a good picture today from Rich Muller.

Number 2, the Origin of Life. Well, if there is one topic that is the soft underbelly of evolution, it is the origin of life. Even more than the Big Bang, the idea of a natural explanation for the first replicating molecule is profoundly disturbing to many people. The current lack of consensus among scientists as to all the details is interpreted by some anti-evolutionists as indicating that the problem is unsolvable. This is a confusion of "unknown" with "unknowable". And, all of us need to remember not to say things such as "The evolution of life is a mystery." without adding a qualifier: The evolution of life is currently a mystery, or is yet a mystery. Don't close that door.

Alabama Disclaimer 1996
This textbook discussis evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact.

The textbooks in biology in Alabama have a disclaimer in them now, as of last year. I want you to take a look at the second bullet there. "No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origin should be considered as theory, not fact." Of course we all know what theory means, right? A theory is a guess or a hunch, something you don't have to pay any attention to. Well, it is not theory as we mean in science, which is the highest level of explanation we have.

The third topic we are going to talk about today is the evolution of animals, specifically the Cambrian explosion.

Alabama Disclaimer 1996, (continued)
There are many unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: Why did the major groups of animals suddenly appear in the fossil record (known as the "Cambrian Explosion")? Why have no new major groups of living things appeared in the fossil record for a long time?

Our colleagues in Alabama also have the Cambrian explosion in their disclaimer. Take a look at this first bullet. "Why did the major groups of animals suddenly appear in the fossil record, known as the Cambrian explosion?" These are all suggestions for students to ask their teachers. The reason the Cambrian explosion is targeted is because anti-evolutionists prefer "created kinds" to "descent with modification". A kind is created, and then through variation within the kind, you get the appearance of other creatures. It is kind of a very restricted descent with modification. I have to give you a quick example, mostly because it is fun.

Creationist "Kinds"
Dog / Wolf / Coyote / Fox Cow / Sheep / Buffalope

Creationists will say that when Noah took the animals on the Ark, there was a dog "kind" which consisted of a creature that had the genetic variation found today within dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes. And then when the dog kind got off the Ark, it then radiated into these various genera and species. There also was a cow, sheep, buffalo, antelope kind. And the cow-sheep-buffalope was a creature which then got off the Ark and then radiated into the various Artiodactyls which you see here. However, considering the biochemical differences between cows and antelopes, if that's the criterion for the amount of genetic variation possible within a kind, we have perhaps learned more about Noah and his family than we wanted to know, because the genetic distance between cattle and antelopes is considerably greater than that between humans and the great apes.

Creationist "Kinds": Logical Extension
Chimporillahumatang

Which means that we must have descended from the chimporillahumatang kind of animals.

Which brings us to our fourth topic today, which is human evolution. There is wide spread objection to evolution of humans, even among those who accept that animals evolved.

Comparative Data: US, Canada, UK
Human Beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals. Agree or Disagree? UK Canada US 79% Agree 47% Agree 46% Agree

A poll taken in 1996 asked the question: "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals. True or false." Well, in the United Kingdom, this isn't a major problem: 79% agreed that we are descended from earlier forms, but in Canada and the U.S. the percentages are considerably less, 47% and 46% respectively. The amount of misinformation regarding human evolution is, of course, enormous ...

...and actually, it is not just the tabloids we have to thank for this.

We have misinformation coming at us from many directions, and of course, everybody thinks that the definition of human evolution is "man evolved from monkeys".

I rather like this Frank and Ernest treatment of this however. Perhaps a little more useful than most of them. Now fortunately, today we have not only an expert on human evolution, but also on each of these other topics. These are individuals who care a lot about high school science education. They realize that science literacy depends on people like you who will teach the bulk of our citizenry what science is and how it works. They and I realize what a big job you have and we are all pleased to have been asked by the California Academy of Sciences to spend a day with you sharing our expertise.