'IT OUGHT NOT TO BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL'

We are grateful to Profs. Brian Husband and Elizabeth Boulding (@Guelph Jan. 17) for their comments on our letter of Dec. 12. Some of their points require more detailed response than this forum will support, so we restrict our discussion to a comment on the definition of evolution and further explanation of the distinction between natural selection and evolution.

Profs. Husband and Boulding, in agreement with the National Academy of Sciences (Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.) define evolution as "any hereditary change." Given this definition, we would agree that natural selection is at least one means to effect evolution. But "any genetic change" is quite different than the claim that life evolved from simple molecules or that a fish was transformed into Albert Einstein. If evolution really means the transformation of simple molecules to living organisms, then important distinctions between natural selection and evolution emerge.

First, natural selection is a conservative process that acts to preserve existing genomes, but does not generate any new information. It may also preserve genes beneficially altered by mutation, but even in that case, it acts conservatively rather than creatively, whereas the evolution of life requires the development of complex genetic blueprints. Second, natural selection is abundantly verified by empirical evidence, and its principles are well understood and applied in artificial selection, whereas the macro processes described for evolution are still speculative.

Many scientists (including some renowned biologists such as Steven Jay Gould and Francis Crick) are skeptical that the conservative process of natural selection plus the destructive process of random mutation can explain the transformation of a primordial soup to bumblebees. Here we include only the now-famous quote (as cited in Philip E. Johnson's 1991 book Darwin on Trial) from a 1981 lecture by Colin Paterson, senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum: "Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing . . . that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got was silence for a long time, and eventually one person said: "I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school.'"

We disagree. Evolution should be taught in school, but it ought to be taught as a theory, clearly outlining its scientific and philosophical weaknesses as well as its strengths.

Prof. Art Hill, Food Science,
Prof. Bonnie Mallard, Pathobiology

DISUNITY OF BUILDING MATERIALS ON CAMPUS IS UNINSPIRING

I was pleased to see that "quality and/or unity of materials," including materials for structural elements in buildings, was identified as a leading concern in the campus master plan consultations (@Guelph, Jan. 30).

Over the years, I have been truly inspired on many university campuses because of the unity of structural materials, from the "modified collegiate gothic" buildings at the University of Western Ontario, seen first as a young teenager 60 years ago, to the uniformly beautiful buff-coloured sandstone buildings of Stanford I saw last year. As John Keats wrote: "A thing of beauty is a joy forever."

In contrast, as I now walk on this campus to the Richards Building, as I have since it opened in 1958, I see such a disunity of materials in the new abutting Thornbrough Building extension that I'm upset that people will have to look, even if not forever, at such an uninspiring, unpleasant view for years to come.

Ken King, Professor Emeritus, Land Resource Science