The evolutionary history of mollusks is important to our understanding and classification of the group, and the preservation of diversity for future evolution is an important justification for conservation of mollusks.  On the other hand, fossil mollusks provided important early evidence relating to the history of the earth, and several have played important roles in evolutionary studies since then (notably banding patterns in Cepaea, speciation in Polynesian partulids, and punctuated equilibrium in Bermudan land snails).  Thus, evolution is a relevant topic.

However, in dealing with the problems of creationism, etc., it's important to be careful to examine exactly what you are talking about.  This gets overlooked in hasty or emotional responses, in addition to the likelihood of violations of etiquette.
Furthermore, most of the support for antievolutionism reflects the perspective that evolution is part of a vast left-wing atheistic conspiracy.  Confusing attacks on religious views or conservative political views with the scientific issues serves to support that antievolutionary perspective and thus serves more to promote than to combat the bad science of antievolutionism among its adherents.

Mollusks provide some excellent examples of evolution, such as the transitions between monoplacophorans and cephalopods and between other monoplacophorans and bivalves.  However, this scientific evidence cannot tell us much about philosophical or religious issues.  Any number of philosophical views are fully compatible with the extensive scientific evidence supporting extensive biological evolution and an old earth.  E.g.,
Everything just happens to exist and obey a set of consistent laws, which we happen to be able to figure out to some degree.
Everything is a figment of my imagination, including CONCH-L and its subscribers.
Some sort of supernatural entity/entities (hereafter “deity(ies)) set off the Big Bang and then let the universe run from there.
Deity/ies exist but do not interact physically with the universe.
Deity/ies exist and occasionally interact physically with the universe, but not in ways conducive to scientific detection.
Deity/ies exist and actively participate in or control the events of the universe, but do so largely or entirely in a manner described by scientific laws.
Everything was created recently, but with full appearance of great age and an evolutionary history.

No scientific experiment can determine whether any of these views is right or wrong.  Other factors must be used to decide which, if any, of these, is correct.

Likewise, science, by itself, cannot help with ethical issues.  Do we try to preserve diversity for future evolution, or do we decide that endangered species don’t have what it takes to survive and reproduce, and weed them out?  Science can tell us about likely consequences of either decision, but it cannot say that we ought to do something.

In many countries, both supporters and opponents of antievolutionism frequently paint it as exemplifying fundamentalist Christianity.  However, the current practice of antievolutionism is generally incompatible with Christianity, and its practitioners include people of many religions (including plenty of Christians who aren’t paying close attention).  In the original sense, a true fundamentalist opposes young-earth views.

At present, antievolutionism has two main forms.  They are not independent, and the average person probably doesn’t notice the difference, lumping them all as bad guys or good guys, but the strategies and claims have some important differences.  The Intelligent Design (ID) movement has a much more sophisticated presentation.  Many of its advocates accept an old earth, though they don’t emphasize it.  They emphasize purported gaps in evolution, with molecular evolution being a favorite topic.  Ironically, some of its advocates (such as Behe) seem to claim that God created the first cells and everything evolved from there.  This is also claimed by Charles Darwin in the 6th and later editions of the Origin of Species, making the claimed disproof of Darwin doubtful.  The Young Earth (YE) movement is what folks typically think of with the term “creationist”.  However, belief in a creation event in no way requires acceptance of young-earth claims, so the label of creationist is somewhat
inaccurate and in fact may play into their claims that theirs is the only alternative to atheism.

However, both ID and YE are typically more committed to promoting their claims about creation than about more conventionally important religious issues, e.g., what is God like?  What does He expect of me?  This is shown by the cooperation between antievolutionists of different religions and the animosity of antievolutionists to religious people who accept evolution.  For example, Jonathan Wells, a prominent Intelligent Design advocate, is in the Unification Church (Moonies), and the Raelian cult (“We cloned babies just like the aliens did but won’t let anyone examine them”) has endorsed ID.  Harun Yahya, a Turkish Muslim antievolutionist that has severely impacted evolutionary science there, draws heavily on both ID and YE claims and has received direct support from purportedly Christian antievolutionists.  Hare Krishnas claim that people have been reincarnating for hundreds of millions of years instead of evolving and appearing only recently.  Carl Baugh, a YE advocate who is so
irresponsible that other YE advocates have criticized his “science”, was featured in the Hare Krishna TV show, Mysterious Origins of Man.  Conversely, antievolutionists show little concern for truth or for quality in their arguments, despite clear commands endorsed by many religions.  They often deny God’s intelligence and/or power by saying He couldn’t use evolution in the process of creation.  Such actions betray a lack of concern for the faiths they claim to advocate.

Appeals to separation of church and state, etc. are of doubtful merit in combating antievolutionism.  First, this is dependent on the current judicial climate of the U.S., and neither helps people in other political settings nor convinces people who disagree with the current judicial climate in the U.S.  Secondly, such appeals frequently involve an effort to suppress the free speech of antievolutionists and sometimes other religious views, making the appeal to the constitution hypocritical.  Antievolutionism, as currently practiced, belongs neither in the schools nor the churches because it is scientific malarkey.  If it were true, it would belong in the schools regardless of what different religions think about it.

Anyone truly committed to creationism ought to promote the protection and care of creation.  That's not a major priority of the current political right, nor of many "creationists".

    Dr. David Campbell
    Old Seashells
    University of Alabama
    Biodiversity & Systematics
    Dept. Biological Sciences
    Box 870345
    Tuscaloosa, AL  35487-0345 USA
    [log in to unmask]

That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------