It is common in this country for political candidates to be asked if they believe in evolution. What is the correct answer to this question? The candidate should say something to the effect that:

"Evolution is a scientific theory. Scientific theories are either useful or they are not useful. They are not something you believe in or don't believe in. Religious propositions are matters of faith or belief. The scientific theory of evolution is not a religious proposition."

"Asking if someone believes in evolution is like asking if they believe that the number of electrons in the outer ring of an atom is a determining factor in the chemical bonds that the atom will form. This isn't a matter of belief. The issue is, can the model (the one that says there are electrons in orbits around the nucleus of an atom) be used to predict the chemical bonds that the atom will form. It can, despite the fact that particle physics tells us it is a gross oversimplification of the nature of electrons, atoms, and chemical bonds. As a result, we need to keep teaching this model to students in high school chemistry."

At this point the interviewer is likely to push the candidate to commit to a belief with some question such as, "So do you think that humans and monkeys have a common ancestor?"

The candidate should respond:

"The hypothesis that humans and other primates have a common ancestor is one of the most useful and beneficial hypotheses to emerge from the scientific theory of evolution. Much of the scientific advancement of the past century in medicine, biology, physiology, psychology, sociology, ethology, and numerous other disciplines depends on this hypothesis."

Interviewer: "So then you are saying humans and monkeys have a common ancestor."

The Candidate who wants out of this should respond: "I said the hypothesis is useful," and refuse to answer further questions.

The Candidate who wishes to clarify should respond:

"In science, a hypothesis can be confirmed or falsified. Scientific experiments are designed to test a hypothesis by figuring out what evidence would confirm or falsify the hypothesis, and then examining the evidence. Over the past 150 years people have identified dozens of lines of evidence that could be used to falsify this hypothesis and lines of evidence that would confirm the hypothesis. Every time the evidence is examined the hypothesis has been confirmed. In fact, now we can't imagine what kind of evidence could be marshaled to falsify the hypothesis that we haven't already looked at."

"The last great hope for falsifying the hypothesis was the speculation that human DNA would contain something (some genes, some sequence, something) that could not have come from the common primate ancestor. The results are in. The human genome has been sequenced and it is completely consistent with the hypothesis that it came from the common ancestor. There is nothing in it that is non-animal like. In fact, 98.8% of our DNA is identical to that of a Chimpanzee. In addition, our DNA is much simpler than we thought it would be. A few decades ago, scientists figured that in order to produce a creature as complex as humans it would take at least 100,000 genes. We actually only have about 30,000 genes. Only one of those genes is not present in the chimpanzee DNA and it is one that influences the size of the forebrain. Nearly all our genes are identical to the Chimpanzee genes. That is because the life processes in us are virtually identical to those in other primates. Only about 1.2% of our genes(about 300 genes)are different from the corresponding Chimpanzee gene (ie: the Chimpanzee has the same gene but in a slightly different form). For example, the gene that controls the growth of body hair in the Chimpanzee does the same thing in us. The human gene, however, shows signs of having been damaged by a mutation and as a result we have less body hair. Mutations (the basis for evolutionary change) frequently make genes work less efficiently. Sometimes that results in selective advantage for the organism."