Hi all,

I would like this to be mostly an open discussion, but in the interest of keeping things somewhat on track (remember this is specifically a *science* discussion list :) and friendly, let me make a couple of comments to tie things back to the original quote and question about how science affects our choices:

- As Brady pointed out, evolution is a part of science that has had a strong influence on how we see ourselves. It is therefore a very good example of how we may live differently because of things we know about the world through science. It's also a good example of how that influence can go far beyond what the theory actually tells us about the world: As John noted, evolution is a summary of some information we have learned about how the world apparently is. It describes and unifies evidence into some general principles; it doesn't specifically encourage any particular behavior on our part. But we know that people do distort information to serve their own purposes (as Kim mentioned) - that's one reason why it's very important to understand the evidence for things and know exactly what a theory says. It seems to me that the best way to defend ourselves against those who try to use science to manipulate us is to have a clear enough understanding of how science works that we can ask critical questions and check up on things.

- The essential elements of the theory of evolution *are* a well-established part of science, supported by a great deal of experimental evidence. It is as well-established as many other theories in science which are put to use every day to run our computers, send radio signals, power our lights, etc. So for the purposes of our discussions here of what science says about the world we live in, I think our default should be that evolution is basically a correct statement about how the world is, just as our default is to accept other pieces of information from science: the rules of quantum physics or of gravity, or that the earth orbits the sun. This doesn't mean we can't question these things or must accept them blindly. Far from it, asking how we know something, what's the evidence, is very important and helpful in understanding and finding out where we might actually be wrong. But I'd suggest that (on a science discussion list) any time we want to question a well-established part of science, it's best to do it in the spirit of a discussion/debate about the *evidence*. For example, asking, "What's the evidence that the earth is round?" may seem sillly, but is actually a very interesting and valuable question that sheds light on how we know things. (If you were dropped into a society on earth 3,000 years ago, with the knowledge you have now, could you prove to people that the earth is round?) But stating that the earth is flat and operating on that assumption is not very useful in an environment where most people take it for granted that it is round. Similarly, in a science discussion I think it's best if we either take for granted the standard view that evolution is correct, or else debate the *evidence* directly. Otherwise we risk veering away from science.

In any case all of this certainly illustrates that ideas from science do have a powerful and complex impact on our view of the world.

Todd