Why Are Biology Books Written With The Main Idea Of Evolution

Question: Why are biology books written as if everyone believes in evolution?

I am a creationist, and I am offended by the way the text is written.

I haven't taken biology for three years because the last text I read

made fun of creationists as people who believe in the "pseudo-science."

Judi Y Wu

Answer 1: Biology is a science, and, as such, is based on the scientific

method. As long as creationism is based on faith and religion,

I see nothing wrong with it: why couldn't God have created an

evolving universe? Saying that creationism is science merely

demonstrates an ignorance of the definition of science.

Please try to understand what the scientific method *means*!

Jade Hawk

Answer 2:

We might distinguish between "evolution," meaning the process by which

environmental pressure produces fitter species, and "Evolution," the process

we think produced human beings starting from amoebas, more or less.

The first is not a subject of rational debate: it is an observable fact.

If you stomp on reproducing species in a certain way, then they will

gradually become more resistant to that kind of stomping --- they will

adapt to their environment. The existence of new, drug-resistant strains

of tuberculosis or the fact that HIV kills people only after a number of

years are both direct observations over a short time (decades) of evolution

in bacteria and viruses. There are many other cases cited in the usual

evolution literature, e.g. the moths in England that became dark to hide

against soot-blackened trees at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

But let's not confuse evolution with Evolution. Even if we grant that

bacteria or moths can evolve over a period of decades or centuries, simply

because we can watch them do it, how can we imagine *people* evolving from

*bacteria*, even over a much longer period? Understandably this is a lot

harder to swallow. There have been many objections raised to this

proposal, and the best of them are quite insightful and cannot be dismissed

with a laugh. For example: in the nineteenth century, when Evolution was

first proposed, the age of the Earth as estimated by the geologists was

only a few millions of years, and even the most ardent Evolution supporters

did not consider this enough time for Evolution to have done its work.

Today we know from radioisotope dating that the Earth is a lot older and

time enough for Evolution has indeed passed. Number 2: the fossil record

is far from complete. You've heard of the Missing Link between people and

apes? There are many missing links, many places where the chain of

Evolution is presumed to link preceding to following species, but where

there

...