Re: possibly OT: NYT article on GA creationism/evolution debate

[Larry Woolf <Larry.Woolf@GAT.COM>]

I quite agree with Hugh.

All of the points discussed here - creationism, evolution, fact, theory,
etc. have been beautifully discussed in many of Stephen Jay Gould's books.
I can heartily recommend that you or your students read some of my
favorites such as:

Hen's Teeth and Horses Toes
Bully for Brontosaurus
Full House

(These are incredibly well written books that show science writing and
scientific thinking at its best.
Gould's recent death is a real loss for popular science writing.)

His general points are:

1. Evolution - descent with modification - is a fact supported by mounds of
evidence from a variety of fields.

2. The theory that describes how evolution occurred is called the theory of
evolution. It may be gradual, punctuated, apply when organisms become
isolated and must adapt to their new local environment, etc. It is still an
active area of research.

3. Scientific facts are robust when they are proved not by a single case
but many times by a variety of people across different fields. A fact is
not based on a single observation.  Scientific reasoning is often clouded
by the accepted ideas of the time.  What appears ridiculous now may have
seemed obvious in the past - Aristotlean physics is one example.

If others are interested, I could post some relevant quotes from these books.



At 3:29 PM -0700 8/24/2002, Hugh Haskell wrote:

> In fact, at least in physics classes, we spend a lot of time
> discussing alternatives to various theories. We talk about the
> Aristotelian view versus the Newtonian view. We talk about the wave
> theory of light and the particle theory of light. We talk about
> Newtonian gravity and Relativistic gravity, and Galilean relativity
> and Einstein's relativity. We talk about the caloric theory of heat
> and the modern thermodynamic view, and other that I can't think of of
> the top of my head. In chemistry classes, I'm sure they talk about
> the Phlogiston theory, and many others. In biology class they talk
> about different views of evolution--Lamarkian, Darwinian, Lyell's
> proposals, and others, including, of course the modern synthesis and
> Eldredge and Gould's punctuated equilibrium. At least most of these
> discussions can be based on evidence for and against on both sides.
> So to argue that we are sweeping a controversy under the rug because
> we are afraid of it is just not true. Scientifically, there is no
> controversy about the idea of descent with modification. Remember,
> Darwin entitled his book "The Origin of Species" and not "The Origin
> of Life." Contrary to what some opponents of evolution argue,
> evolution says nothing about the origin of life, only about how life
> evolves. The origin of life is a separate topic within biology, about
> which we know very much less than we do about what happened after
> life appeared.

Dr. Larry Woolf, General Atomics, 3550 General Atomics Court,  Mail Stop
78, San Diego, CA 92121; Phone: 858-526-8575; FAX: 858-455-8568