Login |
New User
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Optimism in Evolution
by Olivia Judson - New York Times
Thanks to Clayton Smith for the link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/opinion/13judson.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&o&oref=slogin
Optimism in Evolution
By OLIVIA JUDSON
When the dog days of summer come to an end, one thing we can be sure of is that the school year that follows will see more fights over the teaching of evolution and whether intelligent design, or even Biblical accounts of creation, have a place in America's science classrooms.
In these arguments, evolution is treated as an abstract subject that deals with the age of the earth or how fish first flopped onto land. It's discussed as though it were an optional, quaint and largely irrelevant part of biology. And a common consequence of the arguments is that evolution gets dropped from the curriculum entirely.
This is a travesty.
It is also dangerous.
Evolution should be taught — indeed, it should be central to beginning biology classes — for at least three reasons.
First, it provides a powerful framework for investigating the world we live in. Without evolution, biology is merely a collection of disconnected facts, a set of descriptions. The astonishing variety of nature, from the tree shrew that guzzles vast quantities of alcohol every night to the lichens that grow in the Antarctic wastes, cannot be probed and understood. Add evolution — and it becomes possible to make inferences and predictions and (sometimes) to do experiments to test those predictions. All of a sudden patterns emerge everywhere, and apparently trivial details become interesting.
The second reason for teaching evolution is that the subject is immediately relevant here and now. The impact we are having on the planet is causing other organisms to evolve — and fast. And I'm not talking just about the obvious examples: widespread resistance to pesticides among insects; the evolution of drug resistance in the agents of disease, from malaria to tuberculosis; the possibility that, say, the virus that causes bird flu will evolve into a form that spreads easily from person to person. The impact we are having is much broader.
For instance, we are causing animals to evolve just by hunting them. The North Atlantic cod fishery has caused the evolution of cod that mature smaller and younger than they did 40 years ago. Fishing for grayling in Norwegian lakes has caused a similar pattern in these fish. Human trophy hunting for bighorn rams has caused the population to evolve into one of smaller-horn rams. (All of which, incidentally, is in line with evolutionary predictions.)
Conversely, hunting animals to extinction may cause evolution in their former prey species. Experiments on guppies have shown that, without predators, these fish evolve more brightly colored scales, mature later, bunch together in shoals less and lose their ability to suddenly swim away from something. Such changes can happen in fewer than five generations. If you then reintroduce some predators, the population typically goes extinct.
Thus, a failure to consider the evolution of other species may result in a failure of our efforts to preserve them. And, perhaps, to preserve ourselves from diseases, pests and food shortages. In short, evolution is far from being a remote and abstract subject. A failure to teach it may leave us unprepared for the challenges ahead.
The third reason to teach evolution is more philosophical. It concerns the development of an attitude toward evidence. In his book, "The Republican War on Science," the journalist Chris Mooney argues persuasively that a contempt for scientific evidence — or indeed, evidence of any kind — has permeated the Bush administration's policies, from climate change to sex education, from drilling for oil to the war in Iraq. A dismissal of evolution is an integral part of this general attitude.
Moreover, since the science classroom is where a contempt for evidence is often first encountered, it is also arguably where it first begins to be cultivated. A society where ideology is a substitute for evidence can go badly awry. (This is not to suggest that science is never distorted by the ideological left; it sometimes is, and the results are no better.)
But for me, the most important thing about studying evolution is something less tangible. It's that the endeavor contains a profound optimism. It means that when we encounter something in nature that is complicated or mysterious, such as the flagellum of a bacteria or the light made by a firefly, we don't have to shrug our shoulders in bewilderment.
Instead, we can ask how it got to be that way. And if at first it seems so complicated that the evolutionary steps are hard to work out, we have an invitation to imagine, to play, to experiment and explore. To my mind, this only enhances the wonder.
Olivia Judson, a contributing columnist for The Times, writes The Wild Side at nytimes.com/opinion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/opinion/13judson.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&o&oref=slogin
Optimism in Evolution
By OLIVIA JUDSON
When the dog days of summer come to an end, one thing we can be sure of is that the school year that follows will see more fights over the teaching of evolution and whether intelligent design, or even Biblical accounts of creation, have a place in America's science classrooms.
In these arguments, evolution is treated as an abstract subject that deals with the age of the earth or how fish first flopped onto land. It's discussed as though it were an optional, quaint and largely irrelevant part of biology. And a common consequence of the arguments is that evolution gets dropped from the curriculum entirely.
This is a travesty.
It is also dangerous.
Evolution should be taught — indeed, it should be central to beginning biology classes — for at least three reasons.
First, it provides a powerful framework for investigating the world we live in. Without evolution, biology is merely a collection of disconnected facts, a set of descriptions. The astonishing variety of nature, from the tree shrew that guzzles vast quantities of alcohol every night to the lichens that grow in the Antarctic wastes, cannot be probed and understood. Add evolution — and it becomes possible to make inferences and predictions and (sometimes) to do experiments to test those predictions. All of a sudden patterns emerge everywhere, and apparently trivial details become interesting.
The second reason for teaching evolution is that the subject is immediately relevant here and now. The impact we are having on the planet is causing other organisms to evolve — and fast. And I'm not talking just about the obvious examples: widespread resistance to pesticides among insects; the evolution of drug resistance in the agents of disease, from malaria to tuberculosis; the possibility that, say, the virus that causes bird flu will evolve into a form that spreads easily from person to person. The impact we are having is much broader.
For instance, we are causing animals to evolve just by hunting them. The North Atlantic cod fishery has caused the evolution of cod that mature smaller and younger than they did 40 years ago. Fishing for grayling in Norwegian lakes has caused a similar pattern in these fish. Human trophy hunting for bighorn rams has caused the population to evolve into one of smaller-horn rams. (All of which, incidentally, is in line with evolutionary predictions.)
Conversely, hunting animals to extinction may cause evolution in their former prey species. Experiments on guppies have shown that, without predators, these fish evolve more brightly colored scales, mature later, bunch together in shoals less and lose their ability to suddenly swim away from something. Such changes can happen in fewer than five generations. If you then reintroduce some predators, the population typically goes extinct.
Thus, a failure to consider the evolution of other species may result in a failure of our efforts to preserve them. And, perhaps, to preserve ourselves from diseases, pests and food shortages. In short, evolution is far from being a remote and abstract subject. A failure to teach it may leave us unprepared for the challenges ahead.
The third reason to teach evolution is more philosophical. It concerns the development of an attitude toward evidence. In his book, "The Republican War on Science," the journalist Chris Mooney argues persuasively that a contempt for scientific evidence — or indeed, evidence of any kind — has permeated the Bush administration's policies, from climate change to sex education, from drilling for oil to the war in Iraq. A dismissal of evolution is an integral part of this general attitude.
Moreover, since the science classroom is where a contempt for evidence is often first encountered, it is also arguably where it first begins to be cultivated. A society where ideology is a substitute for evidence can go badly awry. (This is not to suggest that science is never distorted by the ideological left; it sometimes is, and the results are no better.)
But for me, the most important thing about studying evolution is something less tangible. It's that the endeavor contains a profound optimism. It means that when we encounter something in nature that is complicated or mysterious, such as the flagellum of a bacteria or the light made by a firefly, we don't have to shrug our shoulders in bewilderment.
Instead, we can ask how it got to be that way. And if at first it seems so complicated that the evolutionary steps are hard to work out, we have an invitation to imagine, to play, to experiment and explore. To my mind, this only enhances the wonder.
Olivia Judson, a contributing columnist for The Times, writes The Wild Side at nytimes.com/opinion.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 32 of 32 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #229145 by SamKiddoGordon on August 13, 2008 at 6:32 am
When these fucktard try to teach that scientific conclusions are wrong because the bible and god says different, I would hope that everyone could see that for the pile of steaming guano it is. Other Comments by SamKiddoGordon
3. Comment #229148 by Tyler Durden on August 13, 2008 at 6:39 am
Instead, we can ask how it got to be that way. And if at first it seems so complicated that the evolutionary steps are hard to work out, we have an invitation to imagine, to play, to experiment and explore. To my mind, this only enhances the wonder.Good point. Whereas "goddidit" takes all the wonder out of it.
Perhaps these theists are inherently lazy and simply do not want to learn the evolutionary steps and processes involved?
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
4. Comment #229150 by Bonzai on August 13, 2008 at 6:53 am
When these fucktard try to teach that scientific conclusions are wrong because the bible and god says different, I would hope that everyone could see that for the pile of steaming guano it is.
I wish the fucktards would really mean what they say and reject the fruit of modern science and medicine.It is hypocritical to rail against "the devil" while eagerly receiving his blessings.
Other Comments by Bonzai
5. Comment #229158 by greenlol on August 13, 2008 at 7:19 am
What a breath of fresh air ! ... and from the US flagship NYTimes. Why limit its publication to US papers ?Other Comments by greenlol
6. Comment #229161 by Bonzai on August 13, 2008 at 7:22 am
First, it provides a powerful framework for investigating the world we live in. Without evolution, biology is merely a collection of disconnected facts, a set of descriptions. The astonishing variety of nature, from the tree shrew that guzzles vast quantities of alcohol every night to the lichens that grow in the Antarctic wastes, cannot be probed and understood.
Very true, that was how I was taught biology in highschool and I hated it so much that I couldn't wait for it to be over.
Other Comments by Bonzai
7. Comment #229163 by catskill on August 13, 2008 at 7:29 am
Great article. Gives me a mental picture of a bunch of fundies holding their hands over their ears going na-na-na-na! Other Comments by catskill
8. Comment #229164 by bamafreethinker on August 13, 2008 at 7:31 am
I wish the fucktards would really mean what they say and reject the fruit of modern science and medicine.It is hypocritical to rail against "the devil" while eagerly receiving his blessings.
A 10 year old girl at our church (don't ask) just came down with a rare blood disease called aplastic anemia. This is similar to leukemia but is not caused by cancer and, up until a decade or so ago, was almost certainly fatal. Well, before the diagnosis was made, the church prayed for good test results - god declined. Then when the disease was diagnosed, they prayed for a mild case - god declined. When the doctors said that in rare instances, it would go away on its on, they prayed for such a miracle - god declined. Now the girl is quarantined to a hospital room (no visitors, flowers, cards etc.) 250 miles from home while dangerous treatments are administered and the search for a bone marrow donor ensues. God apparently wants the little girl to die, but science/technology can hopefully help.
Now when this is all said and done and she hopefully recovers, who will the church be praising for a miracle??? Yep, the same god who refused on several opportunities to do anything and was content to watch her die a painful death - yet the family's faith is strengthened. I just don't get it!
Other Comments by bamafreethinker
9. Comment #229167 by NormanDoering on August 13, 2008 at 7:35 am
SamKiddoGordon wrote:When these fucktard try to teach that scientific conclusions are wrong because the bible and god says different, I would hope that everyone could see that for the pile of steaming guano it is.
Did anyone here ever see Kirk Cameron debating for creationism on Nightline? It was pathetically funny how screwed up his ideas about evolution were. I've got a short clip on my blog:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/08/dealing-with-abysmal-ignorance.html
He has these pictures of a "crocoduck" and a "bullfrog" (a frog with bull's horns) and he claims that scientists have been searching for these transitional forms. It looks like he's trying to make a joke, but it turns out he is serious. His concept of evolution seems to have been learned from comic books.
Other Comments by NormanDoering
10. Comment #229170 by Tyler Durden on August 13, 2008 at 7:40 am
bamafreethinker,
It's the same process of cognitive dissonance and compartmentalisation used by people who've lost their family members, partners, homes, jobs etc., during a hurricane/tornado, only to then proclaim: "But I thank God my dog survived"
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
11. Comment #229172 by prettygoodformonkeys on August 13, 2008 at 7:42 am
I made time last night to watch something I have only taken for granted all my life: a spider making a whole web. The little knowledge I have of the common evolutionary origins of spiders and humans helped me see the process as if I was watching a brother / sister making its way in the world. I was actually proud of it. I learned nothing about this in school; our origins were 'mysterious', and any inquiries in that area were directed towards philosophy or religion, where I wallowed for years.
I am pissed that most of this knowledge about who we are was denied me through my formative education, and it is obvious to me which worldview / lobbygroup has had the most to lose over the last 150 years through the teaching of evolution.
Fucking end it already.
Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys
12. Comment #229178 by irate_atheist on August 13, 2008 at 7:51 am
8. Comment #229164 by bamafreethinker -Now when this is all said and done and she hopefully recovers, who will the church be praising for a miracle??? Yep, the same god who refused on several opportunities to do anything and was content to watch her die a painful death - yet the family's faith is strengthened. I just don't get it!The only thing to 'get' is that they are pathetic ignorant fools. Worthy only of public ridicule.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
13. Comment #229183 by stereoroid on August 13, 2008 at 7:56 am
greenlol asked "Why limit its publication to US papers ?". Well, I think there's a chance that this piece will appear in the International Herald Tribune too. IHT draws on NY Times and Washington Post content, since it's produced by the same publisher. Actually, I wish this piece appeared in the Washington Post too, where it could be seen by Congresscritters. Other Comments by stereoroid
14. Comment #229186 by mordacious1 on August 13, 2008 at 8:01 am
"...the tree shrew that guzzles vast quantities of alcohol every night....".Hmmm, a lot of tree shrews seem to post here.
Other Comments by mordacious1
15. Comment #229195 by bamafreethinker on August 13, 2008 at 8:08 am
Tyler Durden - Ah, good old cognitive dissonance. I've studied it and it's a fascinating subject. I compare it to having to pee really badly. Unless we find a place for our brain to get relief from the dissonance it tends to be very uncomfortable (psychologically speaking). Then, when we find a box to put the dissonance in, we find relief. These compartments are like little toilets for our brains to piss in. The easiest place for the religious believer to place the blame is the devil, or more abstractly, free will. It's so lazy.
Perhaps laziness is a good explanation for a lot of things. Stating "Godidit" is so easy when good things happen and its equally lazy cousin "The devildidit" when bad things happen.
Our local new station has a new commercial that states that the weather doesn't care if it rains on your wedding, or sends a tornado to rip your family apart, etc... but we [the local station] do care! How much better that would sound if they would replace the word weather with god!
Other Comments by bamafreethinker
16. Comment #229207 by Barry Pearson on August 13, 2008 at 8:17 am
Olivia Judson is proof that God exists!
How else could we explain that brain in that body?
(Whoops! That is a bit sexist!)
Or perhaps there is an Ontological argument: like Descartes, start with the notion of Olivia Judson as being maximally perfect, and go on from there.
Other Comments by Barry Pearson
17. Comment #229211 by padster1976 on August 13, 2008 at 8:20 am
'intelligent design, or even Biblical accounts of creation, '
I wonder if the author is paid per word or do they not realise that they are one and the same thing?
Other Comments by padster1976
18. Comment #229214 by Eshto on August 13, 2008 at 8:21 am
Can we change "fucktard" to something else? It sounds too much like "retard". I've known a few retarded people and, despite being handicapped, they each had more common sense than a hundred creationists put together. Other Comments by Eshto
19. Comment #229217 by lbalough on August 13, 2008 at 8:30 am
bamafreethinker, I like the metaphor of a cerebral pissing pot for the excretions of a dissonance junkie!!!On another note, I was cajoled by an outta-town chum (fellow atheist) to take a jaunt down to the Ken Ham's Propaganda Palace (aka Creation Museum) in Kentucky. Whew. Big mistake. It was just jammed packed with the scariest sheeple you could imagine. The low point (it's very difficult to pick just one, mind you) was the "scientist" Georgia Purdom, Ph.D. putting her emotional addiction to the invisible sky daddy to good use; she was hurling causal relationships left and right (e.g. humanism causes moral relativism) to the insipid crowd. I especially liked how they co-opted her scientific credentials to be quite self congratulatory. Freaky deaky friends.
My own big take away from this cultural safari was the discovery of their deepest, least rational, resistance to evolution: it proves god is a sadist. Amen.
I think Lily or Pfizer needs to get this shit in the DSM V. They'll make A LOT of money off of religiosity. I can't wait for the day that it loses its status as THE socially-acceptable delusion.
Cheers y'all,
Lori
Other Comments by lbalough
20. Comment #229225 by bamafreethinker on August 13, 2008 at 8:39 am
The only thing to 'get' is that they are pathetic ignorant fools. Worthy only of public ridicule.
The "I don't get it" was a bad choice of quotes there. I should have said something like "Isn't this some amazing mental gymnastics?"
My guess is that you've been an atheist all your life? I wish it were as easy as you say. Having lived as a believer (albeit a somewhat doubtful believer) I can attest that it's not easy to shed a world view. Public ridicule would likely only cause them to build even stronger cognitive walls and imagine you as a direct agent of the devil.
Many of these people are my friends and are otherwise intelligent folks with college degrees, etc. I think that very gentle and tactful inquisition is a better approach - but I'm no expert.
Other Comments by bamafreethinker
21. Comment #229233 by Neuro on August 13, 2008 at 8:52 am
Superb article. Yes, if only more newspapers printed this article, the media might get some more respect from me. Other Comments by Neuro
22. Comment #229240 by Raiko on August 13, 2008 at 9:03 am
It's sad that the question seems to be "whether" to teach evolution, when in reality it should be "how much".Honestly, evolution should absolutely be a reoccurring theme in classrooms. It's not about when to teach evolution, it's about when to teach what aspect of evolution. For example, a fifth grader might not yet understand the complicated works of genetics, but they're very well capable of seeing other, easier evidence for evolution (like descend with modification) - that is, of course only if they're not religiously indoctrinated.
And when the time for genetics comes, why not consciously pick up evolution again? It's so central to biology and to genetics, it flows right in! I remember the time set by curriculum for evolution in my school was no earlier than 13th grade (yes, we have 13 grades here... yet). And we all understood evolution by then already, anyway (it was inevitable that it appeared before simply because you can't avoid it when properly learning about biology - but it's sort of 'unconscious'). The only subjects I remember that, by curriculum, kept reoccurring were SexEd (three times) and the Holocaust (four times [I'm German]).
It's so natural to put most, if not all, of biology education into the framework of evolution. Yet, we always hear about evolution being taught at a certain time, to a certain age group of students, for a few hours, at some point in the curriculum.
Evolution is everywhere in nature, why is it not everywhere in biology class?
Other Comments by Raiko
23. Comment #229265 by moderndaythomas on August 13, 2008 at 9:39 am
we are causing animals to evolve just by hunting them.
The travisty here is that these species have not been selected by nature but rather by us. They are then introduced into an environment that is not evolving as they are and still requires their previous traits that had been selected for naturaly.
Other Comments by moderndaythomas
24. Comment #229303 by MBC Morgan on August 13, 2008 at 10:49 am
moderndaythomas:
The travisty here is that these species have not been selected by nature but rather by us.
We are a part of nature. I find is strange that we separate natural from "artificial" selection, when as an apex predator we have our part to play as well.
Other Comments by MBC Morgan
25. Comment #229310 by DarwinsChihuahua on August 13, 2008 at 10:56 am
Wow! She really nailed it!Other Comments by DarwinsChihuahua
26. Comment #229323 by Border Collie on August 13, 2008 at 11:24 am
The 'goddidit' paradigm snatches the awe of our world away from the individual and makes it a possession of the church. Then one can't get it back in its original form ... it's always tainted.Other Comments by Border Collie
27. Comment #229337 by Nathanial_BB on August 13, 2008 at 11:36 am
20. Comment #229225 by bamafreethinkerHi bamafreethinker -
I appreciate the dilemma you clearly find yourself in.
I consider myself very lucky to live in a socially 'secular' community, here in the UK, where religion plays a minor role - the ubiquitous social get togethers for hatches/matches/dispatches ;) - there is very little reference to religion in everyday life.
I have heard a number of comments, from US citizens, regarding the difficulties inherent in some states with wanting to 'step out of' a religious commitment within their community, whilst wishing to retain personal connections with people who are still very much part of its web. And I'm appalled at how readily 'professed friends' turn their backs at such times.
Have you heard of Dan Barker - http://www.ffrf.org/about/bio_dan.php - Freedom from religion?? He discusses, very eloquently, the issues he had to face in such a situation.
Other Comments by Nathanial_BB
28. Comment #229415 by bamafreethinker on August 13, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Thanks Nathanial_BB!
Actually, I find myself in a socially secular society as well. Most people I know never allude to their beliefs in public. They have savings accounts, good jobs, enjoy an occasional adult beverage, drop an f-bomb when appropriate, have lots of un-missionary sex, etc. I honestly don't think most of them believe what they say they believe. Their actions speak louder than their proposed beliefs.
I have read Dan Barker's works and can't identify with his story directly â€" but I was never a leader or even a vocal member of any church.
I think it comes down to this: Most people that I know are effectively human beings first and Christians second. Those who are Christians first are the real arse-holes of society and I've been fortunate enough to have never gotten close to a real fundie (probably no accident). Dan's entire circle of friends was likely the Christian-first persuasion.
I truly hope that the US will follow in the UK's footsteps and become more secular for obvious reasons, but for the most part, I'm happy here.
Other Comments by bamafreethinker
29. Comment #229459 by prettygoodformonkeys on August 13, 2008 at 4:06 pm
18. Comment #229214 by EshtoCan we change "fucktard" to something else? It sounds too much like "retard"I agree, and it sounds too much like "fucked hard" as well, and what did those people ever do to us?
Oh wait, now I remember.....
(Oh oh - drinking again. Best sign off.)
Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys
30. Comment #229578 by crusader234 on August 13, 2008 at 7:10 pm
how about : misguided, ignorant, dullards, insecure, self important, to lazy to think things through, power grabbing, control freaks, lily livered, mob thinking sheep...fucktard does kinda fit the bill.... Other Comments by crusader234
31. Comment #229585 by Don_Quix on August 13, 2008 at 7:55 pm
I agree with 99% of this article, but it really annoys me that "climate change" seems almost always (or at least very frequently) to be tangentially or casually thrown into every single science-related article in the mainstream english-speaking press, regardless of the subject of the article. It's almost like it's a dogmatic buzzword requirement (especially in the mainstream American press).I'm not trying to state an opinion here one way or the other in regards to climate change, but it just seems to come up at least a couple of times almost every day in the normal daily news I read, even when it has no business being there...and I find it irritating.
I think the casual overuse of the word "climate change", as if were a 100% empirically-proven and undebatable common fact, like the fact that the world is round or the air contains oxygen, in many ways takes away from the issue itself. In many cases it reinforces the stereotypical gut responses that otherwise rational people would have to it, and thus (perhaps unintentionally, but I doubt it) restricts rational debate and discussion in regard to it.
Other Comments by Don_Quix
32. Comment #229751 by Raiko on August 14, 2008 at 2:30 am
The travisty here is that these species have not been selected by nature but rather by us. They are then introduced into an environment that is not evolving as they are and still requires their previous traits that had been selected for naturaly.
So, in Africa, antelopes are selected by lions, not by nature? Please elaborate.
I would say an animal in a forest that has a technique of staying clear of guns and save itself from being shot has very well evolved.
Other Comments by Raiko
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #229143 by bamafreethinker on August 13, 2008 at 6:30 am
Wouldn't it be great if every newspaper in the US would print this?
Other Comments by bamafreethinker