When I was doing year 12 I had to do a project where I would read three books on a similar theme and write a journal on what I learnt on the book. While the journal was supposed to be 95 pages, mine ended up going way over that. Anyway, I was tossing about what I wanted to do, and one of the ideas was looking at science in fiction and how it can be both a blessing and a curse. So I walked into the local science-fiction book shop and asked the owner whether he had any books about genetic engineering and its dangers, so he picked up this book and handed it to me.
I ended up not doing this book (and I can't really remember what books I did chose, though I believe that Dracula was one of them) and it sat on my shelf for years before I decided that I might read it. It did turn out to be about genetic engineering in the far future where a race known as the engineers had engineered another race, but the race was divided into two, one having tails and other being tailless, and I believe that there was a massive war between them with regards to who was the superior race.
I can't remember much more of this book, but it is an interesting idea that comes out of this book, though in our world it is not so much the idea of who is the first, and thus perfect race, but rather which races are the throwbacks and which races are the races that have evolved passed them, which is one of the arguments that fundamentalist Christians use against evolution because evolution implies racism (though isn't it interesting that a lot of the fundamentalist churches are in themselves quite racist). However, there is a catch with this idea because Darwinian evolution is a relatively new phenomena and white supremacy has been around for a lot longer than Darwin's ideas.
For instance, when the Europeans invaded Australia they decreed that the aboriginals were not humans, but animals, and thus it was okay to kill them. In the same way the Negroes were classified as lesser beings and thus it was okay to enslave them and treat them like animals. Surprisingly this had been going on for hundreds of years before Darwin went on his voyage to the South Atlantic, so I guess the anti-evolutionists need to get their facts straight before they start making baseless assertions.
Anyway, I don't consider myself an evolutionist simply because I do not believe that we evolved from apes. I am more of a traditionalist in that I believe that God created us as the perfect being, at the top of the biological ladder. How he did that I do not know, and I am not going to guess. He could have used evolution, or he could have used a cloning vat. Anyway, my position is that we as humans have not actually evolved, but rather have gone backwards, and we have been going backwards since the fall. However, it was Christ's intervention when he came to Earth and lived among us that halted this devolution into barbarity and turned us back on the path of civilisation.
I think evolution is a misnomer because I consider that creatures do and have managed to adapt to the various environments around the world. Why is it we don't have bald eagles in Australia or wedge tailed eagles in America? Because of the distance that separates the two continents. Biological creatures will adapt to their surroundings and change based on their surroundings. As for humans, the question of evolution is not physical, but rather metal and spiritual. I consider George Bernard Shaw's position to be the better position.
Oh, and one more jab at the fundamentalist Christians. If you consider evolution to be bad, evil, and a tool of Satan, and that survival of the fittest is wrong, why is it you subscribe to economic evolution, where the rich prosper and grow powerful, while the poor wither away and die. It seems as if your position on these things are simply full of contradictions. If you don't believe in evolution, then take evolution out of your fiscal positions as well.