Letter: Theory of evolution has the fewest missing links

Editor,

I am responding to Carolyn Johnson's letter in Friday's Daily Lobo. First, I would like to point out that a scientific argument does not have to rely exclusively on facts. Logical, sound reasoning is the distinctive feature of any true science, and that allows for unproven theories. While evolution might not be completely provable, if it is the theory with the fewest missing links to explain how this earth came to be, then it is rightfully contained in the textbooks.

Also, a missing link in evolution was found in April this year. The reason why it might be presented as fact - one does have the right to challenge that representation - is merely that there is no other theory that is competing with it. The idea of creationism as a science has only been a very recent one and has yet to prove itself in the scientific community. I do not think it will ever do that, though.

Coming from Germany, where, in high school, evolution is taught as part of biology classes and coexists peacefully with religion classes, I don't understand how anyone can come up with creation science. Creationism is a concept that, as far as I know, comes from Christianity - Johnson even quotes the Bible. Religion, pretty much by definition, is based on belief, not proof. Therefore, how can a religious concept be considered part of a science?

Even if there are some facts that could support Earth being only 6,000 years old, the majority of the scientific community, as well as the majority of scientific observations, point to evolution. Thus, claiming that the textbooks contain fiction when talking about evolution just because you claim the methods are faulty is demeaning and unjustified.

David Mohr

UNM student