Evolution is supported by scientific method; creationism is supported by fairy tales. Does Evolution or Creationism have the better case?

"Because creationism is wrong does not make evolution correct"- I agree completely
In fact all of the creationist / ID arguments center around trying to discount evolution and one is supposed to accept Creationism or ID by default- I suppose.

The case for evolution is not based on anti-creationism arguments. In fact- the case for evolution is made using all existing evidence- the Theory of Evolution can explain all existing evidence without ever once mentioning Creationism or ID.

You ask interesting questions- and there are answers- answers that help with the understanding of evolution. Some of the questions or criticisms of evolution are based on mischaracterizations or misunderstandings of evolution.

Evolution is not always a steady forward moving process- species change does not happen unless it is needed for species survival or driven by sexual selection. Random mutations occur within species all of the time. In fact many random mutations are necessary to exist within a species so evolution Can occur. But Leather Back turtles (and Sharks and Horseshoe crabs for that matter) have changed very little because they haven't needed to in order to survive. Species can remain relatively unchanged for millions of years- and they are considered to be stabilized within the environment. And while random mutations occur in individuals within the species- they do not define the entirety of the species a group can branch off with local adaptations - adaptations that end up perfectly suited to that environment.

It is when the environment changes- in a way especially that is hazardous to the survival of the species- that those species with the random mutations that are beneficial to the new environment that are most likely to survive and now those mutations- or recessive traits- become dominant within the species.

This is what the creationists and ID'ers always conceded was what they called "micro-evolution" as opposed to "Macro-evolution". But really- "macroevolution" is nothing more than an accumulated series of "macroevolutionary" changes.

First. I do not have an alternate theory to traditional evolution, but it is not so clear how things can to be as they are, "evolved". In the case of the Leatherback Turtles. I agree. The design is good enough. Not perfect, but good enough. But it would seem other adaptations would also be good enough that do not seem to have survived. I would think there would be more diversity. Why do animals have two eyes and not three? Why does all life start from a single point. Why did it start only once? Why not multiple trees of life from multiple beginnings at different times?

My more practical problem is the Evolution has become sort of a religion, a belief system. A problem for the biologists that investigate evolution is that they are not respected as “real” scientists like physicists or chemists . They have been attacked so much during the last 100 years that they have become defensive, thin-skinned, and feel persecuted. So much so, that they do not welcome questioning of their theories. In the popular press such as Scientific American, those who raise questions about evolution are ridiculed as “ignorant” and worse. Not a very persuasive way to start an argument.

A major value of high school science is not so much learning specific facts, laws or theories, but rather critical thinking skills, the “scientific method”, questioning and being exposed to the excitement of doing controlled experiments. The lesson now often being taught via the study of evolution is: “profess belief in evolution or be ridiculed”.

I don't believe in Evolution. I have studied it and accept it based on the evidence. I don't see any leap of faith. Your suppositions betray a need to further investigate the Scientific Theory of Evolution- including the evidence supporting evolution.

The questions are good questions- and the truth is there are good answers that will give you better insight into the process of evolution. The truth is- nothing is perfectly adapted- including humans. No species is perfectly designed. Look at humans- Many of the adaptations that give humans great advantages for success over other primates- have carried negative trade-offs. Because of the human ability for speech- there is also a greater danger of choking to death - I am sure a zookeeper has never had to heimlich maneuver a chimp. Women face greater danger in childbirth- and until recently greater mortality than Chimps because of walking upright. Good enough is what evolution seems to produce. Because it works with what there is- and modifies. If a species is good enough to survive- then it does. And perhaps the "ideal" modifications that one would suggest- carry trade-offs that are negative - so much so that they did not become a characteristic of the general species.



While you say you do not promote ID- Evolution answers concerns that ID cannot. If one were to consider an alternative (in the high school classroom) - as you tacitly imply- Then I believe that the critical thinking should be applied to everything equally. I disagree- Facts should be taught in high school- and accepted science. We do not get wishy / washy about teaching facts of any other discipline. We do not question whether the holocaust really happened and call it critical thinking. We do not present Ebonics as just as viable as standard English. The theory of evolution is the theory of the mechanism ( natural selection through genetic mutation) - it is a fact that all life shares common ancestry- and live evolved on earth- regardless of the mechanism. Critical thinking and questions are welcome- I have never seen evolution negated by applying critical thinking- I have seen it better understood.

The fact that most species have 2 eyes (or 2 sets of eyes) is considered evidence that all life is related. There is great diversity of life- although presently the earth is losing species at an alarming rate. There are about 1.7 Million species known on earth- with an estimated 80% still undiscovered.

I really hope you look into the evidence in favor of evolution and try to get a greater understanding of evolution.

The holocaust reference was only an analogy. You and I both know that there have been some absurd allegations by racists that the holocaust never really happened and was a hoax. My analogy was to point out that it would be absurd to suggest to students that they should question the holocaust based on those allegations.

While the origin of life is more hypothetical - and actually the origin of the universe is at this point unknowable- it is a fact that all life on earth shares common ancestry- and evolved.

Genes are not turned on and off. There is genetic variation an mutation constantly within each species. But when a species is stabilized within it's environment- the variation merely remains. In fact one can look at variation as potential adaptation. It is only through environmental change- or niche availability that nature capitalizes on the variations that are best suited to the newer environment. The individuals that are not as well suited die off and are not carried on. And then the species with the newer adaptations of course have genetic variation and mutations- but not all are carried on or become a characteristic of the entire species- unless survival dictates it. Of course as species become more highly evolved- they begin to manipulate the environment- and evolution becomes more complicated.

It is hard to know the exact number of species during any time period- but there have been many mass extinctions. Our environment is changing and we are losing species- that is fact.