Evolution by Any Other Name Isn’t Quite as Neat

Re “The Untidiness of Thinking,” editorial, Feb. 11: Thank you for your comments about the adaptive significance of Georgia state Supt. of Schools Kathy Cox’s thinking about evolution.

As a teacher of this topic, I have found it useful to start by warning my students that they don’t have to believe in evolution in order to pass my course. Instead, they merely need to understand how it works so that they can understand how you can get the evolution (er, development) of drug-resistant bacteria, pesticide-resistant insects, quinine-resistant malarial parasites and so on. At least with that perspective we might get some ideas on how to avoid creating more of these evolutionary (er, developmental) problems.

Margaret E. Hamilton

Extended Education

Cal State Fullerton

*

Your editorial states: “If a sector’s beliefs in a sacred Creation are so fragile they cannot bear the weight of class discussions, then perhaps, sadly, they’re en route to the same extinction as dinosaurs and Studebakers.” This seems to support, inadvertently, I presume, the argument that proponents of creationism and intelligent design make: that their theories belong in the classroom to be debated alongside evolution. You will be hard-pressed to find a scientist who would agree with this. Scientists will tell you that the only theories that belong in the science classroom are those that are actually based on science. We would welcome the inclusion of alternative scientific theories to evolution -- if only there were any.

Matthew T. Gilbert

New York City

*

As another one who has spent considerable effort in learning and investigating Earth history (geology), I was buoyed by your editorial. I found myself reading some, and then periodically looking up at your eagle on the masthead, and then reading some more. Thank you for your charming wit in describing this otherwise tragic situation.

Arthur D. Wahl

Port Hueneme