By contrast, I think develop is a nicer word evolve since it does not tend to push us to believe no guiding hand is involved. It clearly allows the involvement of intelligence in the process. Thus, for example I would prefer to speak of the development of the American automobile in the 20th century rather than the evolu- tion of the American automobile in the 20th century. Since thousands of intelligent engineers were involved at every moment.

But this attitude toward evolution as a word is just my personal preference. I know that in the English lan- guage a secondary use of the word evolution is fairly common in processes where human beings are involved with guiding hands. People do speak of the evolution of the computer, for example, when it is not at all a case where computers evolved without guid- ance. And in this sense you could speak of the evolu- tion of the American automobile.

However, one might read somewhere of "The evo- lution of dogs from wolves and wheat, corn, rice, and potatoes from almost inedible forms of plant life." Such developments certainly took place all right, but it is irretrievably true that those derivations would not have happened had some very intelligent human beings not been involved in the process--a use of the word evolution, note, in the guided sense. Indeed those developments may actually peg the time human life appeared. But remember, this is not the usual use of the word evolution. Intelligent external involvement is not the most common usage of the word evolution.

Thus, if we recognize that evolution usually means specifically "unguided" development, we cannot then wisely speak of the evolution of either dogs or potatoes because these were developments that were definitely guided by intelligence, high intelligence, clearly not unguided evolution. Intelligence was certainly involved in the process.

Yet the ambiguity will continue to exist. When you hear that "the Pope believes in evolution" you really don't know whether he is talking about a process that is guided or unguided. For example, an older denomi- nation recently took a poll of its members and found that 1) 99% believe "The universe was created by God," and 2) 92% believe that "Life is so complex that it has to be the outcome of intelligent design," and yet 3) 85% believe that "Evolution theory is compatible with the idea of God as Creator."

In this case I feel sure that the people who believe in unguided evolution, who are many, are not many in this poll. Quite likely most of the 85% are expecting intelligent guidance to be involved in the process.