Jim Sinex is a full-time science teacher and part-time voter advocate.

General
Independent Fire & Safety
Fire Suppression Systems inspector Trades/Construction
Best Paving
Asphalt Finish Roller Operators Health Care
Old Pueblo Practice Management
Surgical/Medical Biller/Coder Health Care
ADMINISTRATOR Health Care
Carondelet Surgery Center
Operating Room RN's General
SOS Exterminating
Termite Tech FT Mechanical
Pioneer Landscaping
Diesel Fleet Mechanics

It seems that some of our presidential candidates and several newspaper columnists need some basic scientific understanding available to public high school students around the nation. Recently, candidates were asked if they believed in evolution. Three of 10 said they did not, and another waffled badly.

Lesson 1: There is no "Theory of Evolution" to believe in or not.

Evolution, like gravity, is observable and can be demonstrated in a high school lab. What these candidates and their questioner might have been referring to is Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. That theory refers to a mechanism, natural selection, that is a driving force behind evolution, which is something that is based on genetic mutation.

Lesson 2: "Scientific Theory" is not something that is believed, but something that is supported by evidence and accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. Thus, actual evidence that truly disproves the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, if it were ever found, would be welcome. If someone has it and can verify it in a peer-reviewed process, the Nobel Prize awaits.

Lesson 3: Like all good scientific thought, Darwin's work says much and assumes little. Simply said, it says that when a diverse genetic population with a tendency to overpopulate is exposed to a struggle for existence, that struggle or selection process accelerates the natural processes of evolution.

Lesson 4: There is little real controversy over Darwin's work in scientific or theological communities worldwide.

If these presidential candidates actually have a problem with Darwin's work, there are better questions that the press might be asking.

One example would be, "If you believe that Evolution by Natural Selection does not exist, do you plan to defund the Centers for Disease Control that spends billions of dollars based on the assumption that life does evolve through a naturally selective process?"

Occam's Razor is a philosophical constraint that has served us well for centuries. It may be useful here. Basically, it says that, all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best explanation.

The simplest explanation for the continued debate in this country over the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is that some people are uncomfortable with evidence that points to a natural origin. It follows that some politicians seek their votes by promoting the supernatural.

It is doubtful that these same politicians, faced with illness or simply their increasing age, would seek out a doctor who will treat them with medicine that was effective against disease 100 years ago. They would require the latest, developed for evolved pathogens.

It is probable that these politicians are posing as something they are not, while seeking the votes of those who understand less about biology than is acceptable by national and state standards for high school students studying the natural processes of biological evolution.

It is less likely that they really have a problem with ¸Darwin's work. Whether we will fall for their act remains undetermined.