Scientists don't worship Darwin; they study nature

Editor,

Dennis Kinzler's letter published in the Daily Lobo on Wednesday has one fatal flaw that reveals his ideas are completely moot - he is certain that evolution is a religion.

It's not. We don't worship Charles Darwin or his book. We look at evidence. Scientists have come to the conclusion that evolution is the process of change over time in the gene pool of our ecosystem - or any other system for that matter. This conclusion is based upon vast amounts of research conducted in the last 150 years, employing the knowledge of many scientific disciplines including biology, microbiology, geology, astronomy and chemistry. The beautiful thing is they all agree without talking with one another.

At this point, anyone who claims evolution to be false against all of this evidence proves to be severely misinformed. Opinions that oppose evolution are often political, and evolution is one of those concepts in science that

really shouldn't be opposed because it is blatantly cold, hard science. "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" was the title of biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky's 1973 essay. The title also happens to make a great point. Without evolution, genetics would be in complete disarray and so would the billions and billions of fossils that we find every time we dig into the earth.

The study of heredity would also be clueless - we wouldn't know why there are certain types of dogs and certain types of cats and certain types of people. None of this would be understood without evolution. If every aspect of evolution was supported by faith, Kinzler would be right. Evolution would be just another religion. But the fact is, anyone can go onto a research database, look for "evolution" and find a plethora of research for him or herself. This research is thorough, it's conclusive, and it's right. Scientists who are religious agree with scientists who happen to be atheists or agnostics - because in science, worldview does not

matter.

Kinzler also makes the

argument that if evolution were true, it should have been more widely accepted earlier on or should have been thought up thousands of years ago. This is a nice idea, but we must look at what evolution is up against in America - an army of creationists who make up half of the country and believe through faith, not evidence, that evolution is completely false. Let's examine what another scientific theory, say heliocentrism, had to deal with - an angry church that murdered scientists for even suggesting Earth was not in the center of our solar system. The idea was revolutionary, and it has since proven to be correct after surviving the church's attempt to snuff it.

Hell seems to be the only persuasive reason to ignore science. A clear understanding of science must be attained before we can truly understand why evolution is so high on biology's pedestal. Perhaps, science education is what is not quite measuring up in this country.

David Gonzalez

CNM student