Evolution and my goal

One comment Bill makes is,

So what? Find other arguments to accomplish your goals.

One of my goals is to ensure that the best theories make it into scientific discourse. That is, those theories which do the best job of explaing how the world works.

David Friedman has stated that the alternative to a correct theory is not nothing, it is an incorrect theory. (I know I've said this before. Well, here it is again.) A correct theory is one which yields correct predictions from a given set of facts. An incorrect theory is one which yields incorrect predictions.

Evolution happens to be the most successful theory to explain the many facts observed about living things. It is so pervasive, it has become an organizing principle of biology, and a guide to further research. With evolution as a guide, researchers can narrow their explorations down to specific areas and not waste time in other areas that are unlikely to bear fruit. Without this organizing principle, there is no reason to expect anything in particular in the biological world.

One very small example: Primates do not make their own vitamin C. Neither do guinea pigs.

There are four enzymes that take precursors and convert them, step by step, into vitamin C, in most animals. In primates, all primates, the genetic code one of these enzymes is broken. There is a "stop" codon in the DNA right after the start of the code for the enzyme. It's like someone accidentally putting "END PROGRAM" in line two of a mass of code. All primates have this broken gene, and it's broken the same way in all primates.

Using evolutionary theory, a biologist would predict that guinea pigs, not sharing common ancestors with primates, have this system broken in a different fashion. And as it happens, it is.

Without the notion of common descent, there's no reason to form any hypothesis one way or the other about the state of the guinea pig's DNA.

In any science that says things about the world around us theories have consequences. If you're an engineer and you use a bad theory to design a bridge, the bridge is likely to collapse and people are likely to die. If you're a medical researcher and you wander off into left field because you're following a bad theory, people can die waiting for whatever you're trying to come up with.

I've had some pretty nasty infections in my life. Researchers use evolution to predict methods that will work better at controlling infections, impeding the development of antibiotic resistant strains, and deciding where to look for new antibiotics and treatments.

I can make the case that I'm alive today because of evolution. At least, I believe that very strongly. Hand in hand with this belief is a belief that those who wish evolution driven from our science curricula are trying to kill the tree of life. If they succeed, I and people I know and love will be more likely to die when treatments for diseases they develop have never been discovered.

I'm sure most of the creationists mean well, and I'll stipulate that very few are using this emotion-laden issue to fleece the well-meaning. However, the effect of what they would accomplish will kill people. I'd prefer this not happen, if it's all the same to you.