First of all, thanks for reading my comments, which, due to my incompetence at writing coherently, are not that readable. Second, yes, I did read your speech. That's the least a fellow Lahori can do for another.

To me, the matter of teaching theory of evolution in classrooms in America is a trivial point. Scientific advancement does not rely that much on what is being taught in schools. It's somewhat independent of that. Had it been dependent on that factor, it wouldn't have developed at the pace that it has developed on. If a system tries to confine intellectual inquiry, inquisitive minds find a way out to work the system in their benefit. In my mind, a perfect education system provides the tools to build the machines, not the machines themselves. If the case of not being taught is based on the argument that it is just a theory and not a hard fact, it begs some clarification that I also owe from my last comments. 

When people hear the word theory, they think "imperfect fact". That is not exactly true when it comes to scientific theories. Let me explain the boundaries of theory and fact in my mind.

1- A fact is a demonstrable and verifiable piece of data.
2- A theory is an interpretation of available data.
3- Once a theory is proven and verified, it becomes a fact.
4- A theory must agree with all the existing facts to be taken seriously but it may or may not agree with all existing theories. It can cancel or expand any existing theory.

Next, let me demonstrate the difference with a few examples.

Example 1:

1- Fact: When looking from a beach at a departing ship, the last
thing that you see is the ship's mast.
2- Theory: The earth is spherical. Which, when proven, became a fact

Example 2:

1- Fact: Apples fall down to the earth
2- Theory: Earth has gravity.


Example 3:

1- Fact: When alpha particles strike a gold foil, some of them pass thru, while other gets deflected.

2- Theory: Atoms have a lot of empty space in them. The particles that go thru, find that empty space in their paths. Some particles strike the nucleus and due to the positive charge in it get deflected.

3- The fact debunked the existing theory at that time (known as "Plum Pudding Atomic Model") that atoms are filled with positive charged material with electrons embedded in that material. In that case, all of the alpha particles should bounce back. (Similar charges repel)

Example 4:

1- Fact 1: Wavelengths increase if the distance of emitter and observer is increasing (due to the movement of either emitter or observer) and decrease if the distance is decreasing (Doppler Effect)

2- Fact 2: Wavelengths of lights coming from galaxies are on a constant increase

3- Fact 3: Distance of a galaxy is directly proportional to the radial velocity of the galaxy (the more distant it is, the faster it is)

4- Theory (from Fact 1 and 2): The universe is expanding.

5- Theory from Fact 3: At some point in past, all the mass in the universe was at the same place and something caused it to drift apart (Big Bang Theory)

This last example is very instructive to see the interaction of scientists with science, with other scientists and the pitfalls of scientific discovery. George Lemaitre, a cosmologist and a catholic priest, looked at Einstein's theory of general relativity and said that if that is true than for universe to be stable, it has to be in a state of constant expansion. He presented his papers to Einstein who was a bit of a pigheaded person despite being the brilliant scientist. Einstein promptly rejected Lemaitre's assertions and publicly called them "abominable". He presented his own alternative, an arbitrary number called "cosmological constant" to adjust the theory of general relativity to show a static and stable universe. Edwin Hubble was the person who proved that galaxies were receding. He presented the data without presenting any theory. It would have been quite natural for him to present the theory of Big Bang but he refrained from it consciously. Once the data was there, Lemaitre reasserted his theory. Einstein looked at the data (he personally visited Mount Wilson observatory to meet with Hubble and verify his data) and recanted his opinion. He praised Lemaitre in no less than in an astronomical conference in Pasadena, California where he also said that cosmological constant was the biggest blunder of his life.

So, facts are not dependent on theories but the reverse is true. Stephen Jay Gould wrote that once Einstein proposed that Newton's gravitational theory was wrong, apples didn't suspend themselves in midair to wait and see whether Einstein can prove Newton wrong or not.

I was not taught Big Bang Theory in school but I was taught Doppler Effect. Evolution is a fact. Species evolve and go extinct. This has been proven beyond any doubt with fossil records and other observations. What Darwin did was to provide a theory that explains the mechanism of the evolution. That theory can be right or wrong, depending on the future data, but the existing facts are there, staring us in the face. Coming back to the questions of what should be taught and how, I would say, teach evolution, the hard facts of evolution. Whether you choose to teach the mechanism of evolution or not is insignificant. Inquisitive minds will find out the mechanism, be it Darwin's theory or some other. Darwin's theory is currently the leading theory to explain that mechanism. If you choose to teach it in public schools, you can give your kids a head start. The facts of evolution are a hard science and should be taught in natural science class. The reason why conservative societies still shy away from teaching the hard facts of evolution is because they are afraid that they might point to the question of presence or absence of intelligent design.

In your speech and in subsequent comments, you quoted Phillip Johnson so let me write a few lines about him. Phillip Johnson, the last time I checked, was teaching law at UC Berkley and was a devout evangelical Christian. I love reading him because it gives me the pleasure of reading religious point of view presented in lawyerly fashion. I suggest everyone who is interested in Darwin's theory to read Johnson's book "Darwin on Trial". And if possible, read the copy I have. Every other year, I pick that book up and mark where the new data has proven him wrong. 

Phillip Johnson doesn't just reject the Darwinian theory, he rejects the evolution itself. He becomes parody of himself when he outright rejects to believe the fossil records that show evolution and liberally cites fossil records that show that certain species has not evolved at all. Darwin didn't say that EVERY specie HAS to evolve in so and so time.

There are three main arguments of Phillip Johnson (beside plainly refusing to admit fossil evidence).

1- The familiar one; its just a theory and there is no proof for it.
2- Darwin's theory can not be falsified hence the assertion of evolutionists to wait and see is unreasonable
3- How could so much complexity come about randomly? (Paley's original "watch indicates watchmaker" argument)

I have addressed the first point already. Yes, its not been proven but the data of evolution is irrefutable. You have a better theory than Darwin, bring it on. Besides, if its not proven, it doesn't automatically means its wrong. Darwin's theory can only be debunked by data that tells us its wrong. Till that time, it remains the strongest possibility.

Second, It is quite possible to falsify Darwin's theory. If a 550 millions years old fossil of a modern mammal turns up, Darwin's theory will come tumbling down.

The third point, in other words, is that if I can't fathom something, it can't be possible. The question is, how can such complex mechanisms be developed randomly? I answer that question with a question; complex to who? We, humans, live less than 100 years, our day is 24 hours long, we have money in our banks in the tunes of numbers that maybe big for us (not in my case but I hope in yours) but on a cosmic scale, insignificant. Something traveling at 300 KM/Hour is very fast for us. 3000 KMs is a long distance for us. We continuously use machines that we can't build (hence complex to us).
On cosmic scale, these are relatively miniscule realties. Light travels at 300,000 KM per second which is unimaginable speed for human mind but even with that speed, light takes 8 minutes from Sun, our closest star, to us. When we look at the Sun, we are looking back in time; 8 minutes back. One teaspoon of the mass of a pulsar start weighs a billion tones. The galaxy we live in is 100,000 light years from one end to another. Just try to imagine that distance; the distance light would take 100,000 YEARS to complete at the speed of 300,000 KM / Sec. The cosmic scale is staggering for human mind to fathom. When we pronounce something complex, it's relative to the life we experience. We can't imagine something like human eye evolving in small, miniscule, cumulative changes but on a cosmic level, that is far from incredible. We can't experience these things in our very insignificant lifetime but we can demonstrate them mathematically. I am here inclined to start playing some interesting mathematics like how can one win a million consecutive coin tosses or how can you write every book that is yet to be written; apparently incredible claims but nothing given cosmic resources; resources that are at the disposal of nature, but I will resist the urge. Suffice to quote Archimedes; "give me a lever long enough and I will move the world".

Thanks once again for responding to my comments. I have enjoyed this discussion immensely and I hope I have contributed my fare share. And whoever has read this to the end deserves the prize I give to my 8 years old son for reading a book; a Big KitKat bar.


Rafi Aamer

rafiaamer@comcast.net