These women don't seem to realize how well-established the theory of evolution is and how central it is to the study of science. Of course, it should be taught in school. The more lively present-day issue is whether intelligent design may also be taught alongside evolution, but that isn't what the women were asked. The question prompts them to think of evolution as something that perhaps ought not to be taught in schools. From the bizarre similarity of the answers, I would extrapolate standard beauty-contest advice: Look for the prompt in the question and echo it back with some embellishment that makes you sound thoughtful, caring, and respectful of diversity.
But maybe, as Nicolle Belle at Crooks and Liars says:
The way that the majority of these women express their view that there are multiple and equally scientifically valid arguments truly shows the success of the religious right to muddy the waters and dumb down the populace by introducing skepticism over scientific theory.By the same token, these answers may show how fundamental it is in America to believe in gathering information, listening to the argument about what might be true, and developing your powers of judgment. So, to some extent, what these women are saying aligns with the scientific method.
More than anything else, however, what I hear in these answers is a deep instinct toward freedom of choice. I felt moved to transcribe Miss New Jersey's remark because it was so perfectly typical of what they all seemed to be saying:
"I think everything should be taught in schools, every single aspect of evolution and anything you can think of. I think they should have the option of learning everything that there is to learn and then kind of choose what they like to believe."Now, there is something absurd about that. You don't want to teach kids everything you can think of, and they shouldn't be choosing what to believe based on what they like, but there's something beautiful and quintessentially American about that commitment to the free flow of information and the freedom of belief. It's not that far from the statement on the "sifting and winnowing" plaque here at the University of Wisconsin... about which I once said:
I would like to see some "continual and fearless" judgment about who should be given the opportunity to amass the pile of material that students are assigned to sift and winnow.That is, you don't just throw anything you can think of at the students and leave it to them to find the truth. And some things are so well-established that it's a good idea to teach them quickly and simply as facts and save the "sifting and winnowing" activity for some other set of material. That brings us back to evolution: Should schools teach it as a fact — this is the theory — or use this subject as an occasion for teaching students how to look at evidence and judge it critically? I think that is the interesting question, and it is not at all obvious which approach is more supportive of science/religion.
Posts
206 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 206 of 206This is ignorance speaking:
"Those gaps you speak of aren't tinsy little things, like the product of inner breeding between similar species. Where is the bird from which the pigeon and falcon originated? We've had it explained about all the complicated bits that make up an eye. How is that they are arranged their deveolopment at just the right time so men have vision? Do tell us more. The gaps are too big and too numerous. Darwin was interested in proposing a theory to counter the teachings of Christianity."
First of all, a demand to omnisciece is not a falsification of evolution, especially when researchers over the years have filled in tons of gaps - not merely through fossil study, but also including other fields such as molecular biology (studying both genetics and protein functionality evolution). Claiming that evolutionary pathways cannot be known is professing ignorance of the knowledge that is indeed out there, knowledge that exists in multiple yet converging strands.
We (humanity) do have transitional forms to inform us how species evolved. There are many examples between therapods and modern birds, many examples between cetacians and Ambulocetus, and so on. And I'm talking merely about paleontology studies combined with examinations of modern creatures morphologies; this doesn't begin to include the covergent confirmations from molecular studies.
You show ignorance of those "gaps" you speak of in your questions. Why ask about the common ancestor of pigeons and falcons (a very tiny one, relatively speaking) when the truly profound evolutionary path is the one taken when Maniraptora branched into Aviremigia and eventually into Aves, the entire class of modern birds? Talk about losing sight of the forest for looking only at trees. Or branches and leaves.
The elements of the eye arranged "at just the right time"? Ignoring the fact that light sensitive elements of organisms have been traced back to half a billion years ago, and there's most definitely a progression from mere light-sensing patches to simple structures to more complex depressions, to fluid filled cavities, to enclosed chambers, and eventually to lens-emplaced, focusing organs? What is "just the right time for you? You can very, very broadly divide up that evolution into something between 6 and 10 steps, and each one of those were hundreds of thousands to millions of years apart. That doesn't seem like "just in time" to me.
And this last bit: Criticizing evolution by talking about Darwin countering Christianity. What, he was the only one responsible for evolutionary theory? How do you explain Gregor Mendel's work, then? An Augustinian monk?
No less a pair of personages than the previous and current Popes of the Catholic Church are on record as accepting evolution as established science, and Benedict has come out and ridiculed the entire notion that it is in conflict with doctrine:
"Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd...
...there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such."
Simply trying to manufacture dissonance by poisoning the well and citing Darwin alone, cut off from all other contributions to the theory, as well as all context indicating an acceptance of it by the informed religious bodies, is deliberately deceptive. Had you poked your head out of your small world, you would've realized that the only real conflict is between the ignorant (you) and the ones who understand what current knowledge includes (the rest of us).
Study the topic. Blindly firing off uninformed talking points does nothing but perpetuate ignorance.
"You really must think I'm stupid, OM."
Not at all, Crack. I do think you're naive about education.
"I approach science as a skeptic, with a focus on beliefs, delusion, and fraud - something scientists are awful at, because they think (by applying the scientific method) they are beyond that. Which, btw, is how self-delusion "works.""
Working with them everyday, I'd say the average scientist is actually pretty good at what they do. You're only aware of the high profile "nut" cases.
I don't care if they are expressing foolish ideas, they look fantabulous and would be welcome in my home anytime!
Synova:
Science has both a philosophical and practical component. As does engineering. The outcome of scientific endeavors include expanding knowledge, establishing processes, discovering materials, etc. Both vocations contribute to the elevation of the human condition; while it is engineering which contributes to the elevation of individual conditions.
Oligonicella:
How do you intend to demonstrate continuity?
All we have are isolated artifacts, observed correlation of form and function, and incidental bits of DNA evidence. All of these constitute circumstantial evidence.
That said, I think the processes are interesting, can be observed, and increase our knowledge of the physical world. It does not, however, promote the true spirit of science to conflate philosophy with science; any consensus notwithstanding.
In any case, it does provide a rich field for the pattern matchers and others who speculate about what could have been. Unfortunately, correlation does not establish dependence.
All we have are isolated artifacts, observed correlation of form and function, and incidental bits of DNA evidence. All of these constitute circumstantial evidence.
If what you mean to say is that we haven't witnessed continuity in *any* evolutionary events then you are mistaken.
If what you mean to say is that there are lots of evolutionary events for which we have only bits of data and inferences drawn from that data then sure, that's true.
But that's also true for, say, the theory that human defecation is caused by human consumption of food. We have only a handful of examples in which the human digestive process was directly witnessed from beginning to end. The theory that you had to hit the restroom because of that big meal you ate a few hours ago, however, is just a few isolated bits of data strung together by inference.
Post a Comment