Monday, October 13, 2008 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version

Print | Comments |

Why Evolution is True

by PZ Myers, Pharyngula, Jerry Coyne

Reposted from:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/why_evolution_is_true.php

I hope Jerry Coyne will forgive me that my frequent thought as I was reading his new book, Why Evolution Is True was, "Wow, this sure is easier to read than that other book." That other book, of course, is Coyne and Orr's comprehensive text on Speciation, which is a technical and detailed survey of the subject in the title, and that I wouldn't necessarily recommend to anyone who wasn't at least a graduate student in biology. We all have our impressions colored by prior expectations, you know, and Jerry Coyne is that high-powered ecology and evolution guy at the University of Chicago whose papers I've read.

The new book is simple to summarize: just read the title. It's aimed at a lay audience and answers the question of why biologists are so darned confident about the theory of evolution by going through a strong subset of the evidence. It begins with a discussion of what evolution is, then each subsequent chapter is organized around a class of evidence: fossils, embryology and historical accidents, biogeography, natural selection, sexual selection, speciation, and human evolution. If you want a straightforward primer in the experiments and observations that have made evolution the foundational principle of modern biology, this is the book for you.

Why Evolution is True makes an almost entirely positive case for evolution; it has an appropriate perspective on the current American conflict between science and religious fundamentalism that avoids dwelling on creationist nonsense, but still acknowledges where common misconceptions occur and where creationist PR, such as the Intelligent Design creationism fad, has raised stock objections. It's a good strategy — the structure of this book is not dictated by creationist absurdities, but by good science, and creationism is simply noted where necessary and swatted down efficiently. It's a more powerful tool for it, too — creationists can lie faster than anyone can rebut them, so the best strategy is to focus on the real evidence and force critics to address it directly.

You all really ought to pick up a copy of this book if you don't already have a sound understanding of the basic lines of evidence for evolution (or, if you do, you could always get Speciation to get a little more depth). I recommend it unreservedly. Oh, except for one little reservation: it won't be available until January. Go ahead and put it on your Amazon pre-order list, then.

Posted: Monday, October 13, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 62 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #264010 by mordacious1 on October 13, 2008 at 1:46 pm

This book is easy to recommend, it's written by Jerry Coyne. It might be a little too basic for some, though. I think I will pick it up when it comes out because this writer knows his subject.

[edit] They spelled his name wrong in the second line of this article btw.

Other Comments by mordacious1

2. Comment #264013 by rod-the-farmer on October 13, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Tiny nit pick....I thought pretty much everyone agreed that evolution is true. Only the cause of evolution was in dispute. Natural selection versus the "no actual speciation, just goddidit by creating separate species originally. Yes to micro, no to macro." Or am I being simplistic and not recognising the multiple flavours of the other side ?

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

3. Comment #264015 by j.mills on October 13, 2008 at 1:53 pm

I'd have been happier with Why Evolution Is Real...

Other Comments by j.mills

4. Comment #264016 by mordacious1 on October 13, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Publisher probably picked the title, they usually do.

Other Comments by mordacious1

5. Comment #264018 by Gregg Townsend on October 13, 2008 at 1:58 pm

2. Comment #264013 by rod-the-farmer

The title would have to be, "Why Natural Selection Is The Mechanism For The Fact Of Evolution." I think the publisher probably opted for a simplified title.

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

6. Comment #264021 by tvictor on October 13, 2008 at 1:59 pm

"...creationists can lie faster than anyone can rebut them, so the best strategy is to focus on the real evidence and force critics to address it directly. "

Couldn't agree more

Other Comments by tvictor

7. Comment #264022 by brfuk on October 13, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Sadly I very much doubt this will be ready by anyone other than those who already affirm trust in the book's motion.
Although it may serve as extra armament for those involved in the debate...

Other Comments by brfuk

8. Comment #264025 by Styrer- on October 13, 2008 at 2:04 pm

After I had bought and read 'The End of Faith', which, as a new-comer to the whole debate I thought was definitive, there came in swift succession Hitchens, then Dawkins, whose name and publishing power, may I make so bold, guaranteed a readership far in excess of the arguably more forthright and authoritative and deserving book by Harris.

Why Evolution is True is a pathetic title, I think, its approbation at the hands of such a man as PZ most questionable, and I think that - as the inverse to the anti-religious timetable followed before - it is now actually entirely up to Dawkins to make the case for evolution along the most public lines as he has set himself by way of the magnificently-selling 'The God Delusion'.

Professor Dawkins - or are you now simply Dr.? - it's over to you still.

You'd better make your next a bloody blinder. No excuses.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

9. Comment #264028 by PERSON on October 13, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Nothing wrong with the title, IMO.

Other Comments by PERSON

10. Comment #264031 by jshuey on October 13, 2008 at 2:27 pm

The title is excellent, it seems to me, if only in light of its intended audience and the way lay people think and talk. Our opponents often refer to evolution as a lie perpetrated by evil atheistic scientists, and the title appears to address that claim head on.

Other Comments by jshuey

11. Comment #264034 by Caudimordax on October 13, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Comment #264013 by rod-the-farmer

I thought pretty much everyone agreed that evolution is true. Only the cause of evolution was in dispute.

Two words: Adnan Oktar - sorry two more: Harun Yahya. See example of un-evolved fishing lure, still exactly the same millions of years after god created it.

Other Comments by Caudimordax

12. Comment #264036 by Inferno on October 13, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Hmmm, I might pick this up. Been wanting a straight foward lay person guide to the evidence for evolution. Dawkins Ancestor's Tale was good, but the evidence was scattered among various (interesting) but side-tracking tales.

Other Comments by Inferno

13. Comment #264040 by a non e-moose on October 13, 2008 at 2:54 pm

isn't dawkins working on a similar book himself at the moment?

Other Comments by a non e-moose

14. Comment #264043 by Swordmaiden on October 13, 2008 at 3:02 pm

I will definitely get this book. The simpler the better for one such as I. I need to get my counter-creationist arguements polished up as I have so far concentrated on the relgious issues. I only just found out what a fossil actually is! Hope there's pictures!
Thicky SM

Other Comments by Swordmaiden

15. Comment #264045 by Dhamma on October 13, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Oh, bad timing. As non e-moose says, Dawkins is working on a book that will teach people evidences for evolution.

I hope they're not too similar.

Other Comments by Dhamma

16. Comment #264049 by beelzebub on October 13, 2008 at 3:16 pm

I'd be happy with the collected works of Calilasseia :-)
Anyone know any more about RD's next book?

Other Comments by beelzebub

17. Comment #264050 by debacles on October 13, 2008 at 3:17 pm

I actually like the title because it seems like a title that might actually grab a creationist to read it. I really don't see a problem. And yes, RODTHEFARMER, WE all agree on evolution being fact...but i think it is far more important to make people accept the theory than for us to delve deeper into it. Once you get the jist of it, I believe the fine details are a lot more complicated than you'd ever expect. Once one can grasp the basic idea, he can make reasonable hypothesis on an infinite number of problems/questions...

And, yes, Richard is in the process of writing his version.

If you're confused about certain aspects that science claims as highly probable theories, you should read it. But I doubt most readers on RD.net have trouble with the obvious stuff.

I just got through reading all of Richard's books... and I have to say, the only writer who seems to delve deeper into the understanding of life is Dan Dennett. For anyone else who's looking for their next mental trip after going through Dawkins' repertoire, I suggest Dan Dennett.

I know i might be getting off topic, but i'm surprised evidence based books on evolution are interesting to people here. Isn't the evidence somewhat obvious and overwhelming? I feel like evidence in evolution at this point is often to figure out history and have a clearer story... I'd be much more interested in a book which presents evidence concerning the big bang, black holes, relativity, quantum theories, quarks level interactions, etc... this stuff seems a little more demanding of structured evidence and explanation.

Other Comments by debacles

18. Comment #264055 by daveau on October 13, 2008 at 3:27 pm

2. Comment #264013 by rod-the-farmer

Here in the good ol' US of A, evolution is in doubt. The mechanism of natural selection doesn't even enter into it. Most people don't get that far.

Thanks a lot for making me say that out loud. Now I really am depressed...

Other Comments by daveau

19. Comment #264056 by JAMCAM87 on October 13, 2008 at 3:27 pm

"just got through reading all of Richard's books... and I have to say, the only writer who seems to delve deeper into the understanding of life is Dan Dennett. For anyone else who's looking for their next mental trip after going through Dawkins' repertoire, I suggest Dan Dennett."

Sorry to be off topic as well. Have you read Darwins Dangerous Idea? I think it's excellent. I love the thought experiment with the survival machine which is inhabited by a human and has to survive until the year 2400. An incredible thought experiment, really. As the AI machine tries to survive until 2400 it's original programming "misfires". It puts the flesh on the bones of Dawkins' point about how our Darwinian mechanisms can misfire. I recommend it.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

20. Comment #264073 by debacles on October 13, 2008 at 3:58 pm

No I haven't. I started reading Consciousness Explained 2 days ago after finishing the Ancestors Tale. I have a tendency to storm through things I'm interested in. It seems to me that Dennett's stuff is a lot heavier than Dawkins' though, so it'll probably take me atleast a week to get through this one. Maybe that's because Dawkins explains the obvious so beautifully, whilst Dennett is great at making things that are difficult to understand or even speak about graspable.

Either way, is it important that I read his stuff in chronological order?
I found it quite necessary to read Dawkins in order, atleast when it comes to the Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype.

Other Comments by debacles

21. Comment #264074 by polestar on October 13, 2008 at 3:58 pm

[18. Comment #264055 by daveau on October 13, 2008 at 3:27 pm

2. Comment #264013 by rod-the-farmer
I thought pretty much everyone agreed that evolution is true. Only the cause of evolution was in dispute.

Here in the good ol' US of A, evolution is in doubt. The mechanism of natural selection doesn't even enter into it. Most people don't get that far.]

Alas, here in the good ol' UK it's not a great deal better. A poll by the reputable Ipsos-MORI group in January 2006 (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/content/bbc-survey-on-the-origins-of-life.ashx) showed that only 25% of respondents are against teaching creationism or ID in science classes. When respondents were asked to choose only one theory, a mere 48% went for evolution. When they were allowed to list their preferences, only 69% were in favour of teaching evolution in school science, from which you have to deduct the 44% also in favour of teaching creationism.

As with all reporting on statistics, this was handled pretty ineptly by the media at the time: to paraphrase the NRA, statistics don't lie, people do. (And if my maths above is wrong, I would be grateful for any correction).

Other Comments by polestar

22. Comment #264087 by capacitor76 on October 13, 2008 at 4:35 pm

One may rightly think the title to be inappropriate. It isn't even good grammar to start with; it should be something like "Why The Theory Of Evolution By Natural Selection Over Billions Of Years Is Plausible", or "Why The Claim That Evolution By Natural Selection Leads To Speciation Is True". However these are sort of awkward phrases, not very handy for a book title supposed to appeal to the layperson, so I don't think pedantry is in order here.

As for evolution of some sort ("micro-evolution") not being disputed even by creationists, I think that's beside the point. No staunch Bible Belt creationist would ever subscribe to the statement, "evolution is true". "Evolution", to them, means "that heretical bullshit spouted by those God-hating liberal communist Nazi elitists who dwell in those demon-infested coastal Sodoms". It's a term which makes them see red, and anyone who mentions it affirmatively is immediately viewed as the worst of enemies.

However, not all Bible Belt creationists are staunch adherents to the dogma. There are quite a few who don't have the neurological disposition to be strongly religious and merely adhere to the dogma because their peers do, not usually giving it much thought. Books like the above can in fact sway some of them.

Other Comments by capacitor76

23. Comment #264093 by capacitor76 on October 13, 2008 at 4:44 pm

Alas, here in the good ol' UK it's not a great deal better. A poll by the reputable Ipsos-MORI group in January 2006 (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/content/bbc-survey-on-the-origins-of-life.ashx) showed that only 25% of respondents are against teaching creationism or ID in science classes. When respondents were asked to choose only one theory, a mere 48% went for evolution. When they were allowed to list their preferences, only 69% were in favour of teaching evolution in school science, from which you have to deduct the 44% also in favour of teaching creationism.

This statistics has been brought up before, and even Richard himself rather carelessly cited it in his response to Libby Purves. However there are quite a few other surveys which suggest much less support for creationism in the UK, including some which suggest over 40 per cent of adult Britons to be agnostics or atheists. In combination with a state church which explicitly advocates evolution, this would hardly be compatible with the above. It's notable that Ipsos-MORI tied advocacy of evolution to atheism or at least non-theism ("God had no part in the process"). This probably pushed many advocates of theistic evolution into the 'ID' or 'Unsure' categories.

Other Comments by capacitor76

24. Comment #264126 by Jamie V on October 13, 2008 at 5:49 pm

It might be a little too basic for some, though.

That sentence is one of the main reasons why I will buy this book. No scientific explanation is too basic for me, sadly.

Other Comments by Jamie V

25. Comment #264146 by Cartomancer on October 13, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Evolution is true?

Other Comments by Cartomancer

26. Comment #264166 by Dispiracist on October 13, 2008 at 7:56 pm

Books like this are very important because evolution and natural selection is so widely relevant and you obviously can't leave education in the hands of the professional experts.

Not only do creationists lie faster than people can rebut them, but prospective believers in all kinds of crap are born and mature faster than they can be educated and enabled to think independently and critically about everything important. There is so much competing crap around that the critical ideas need to be packaged and presented very efficiently and effectively.

I see this in my own kids already. They're not quite up to speed to take on much until they're about 10 or 11. Then you've only got a few short years before anything they could learn directly from parents is considered intrinsically worthless. Basic books are the only hope.

One day I hope to see similar productions from credible authors in the field of Economics.

Perhaps something like: "The Money Delusion" and "Why Banking is Not True".

Unfortunately we'll we waiting a long time considering that the equivalents of biological creationists are routinely awarded Nobel prizes in economics.

Other Comments by Dispiracist

27. Comment #264171 by Gamma ut on October 13, 2008 at 8:21 pm

Pre-orderd. And I like the title, and the general idea of the book. I like science, but I haven't had a biology class in a while so it will be nice to read something written with a lay-audience in mind. Its always a treat to read something written from an expert who is also a good writer.

Sound like anyone familiar? :)

Other Comments by Gamma ut

28. Comment #264172 by ICONIC FREEDOM on October 13, 2008 at 8:24 pm

Whatever it takes to alleviate society of this mental illness called religion, I'm up for - and it helps to bring science to a rather ignorant portion of society that doesn't even know what the scientific method is all about.

Other Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM

29. Comment #264209 by Styrer- on October 13, 2008 at 10:47 pm

Comment #264028 by PERSON on October 13, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Nothing wrong with the title, IMO.

It's a dreadful title because it ineluctably leads any viewer of it to think 'Maybe it's not'.

And then they walk past and pick up the latest Andy McNab.

If I wanted to make the evolutionary point, in a book, I wouldn't even mention the word 'evolution' until - well, at least the preface.

But no way on the cover.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

30. Comment #264215 by Enlightenme.. on October 13, 2008 at 11:39 pm

^"I wouldn't even mention the word 'evolution' until - well, at least the preface"

It would sink into obscurity though!

It should have a subtitle:
..and why Darwinian natural selection is true.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

31. Comment #264234 by ridelo on October 14, 2008 at 12:36 am

2. Comment #264013 by rod-the-farmer on October 13, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Creationists theme "Yes to micro, no to macro."

I would think: "micro * enough time = macro"

But oh yes, 10,000 years isn't enough time. I forgot.

Other Comments by ridelo

32. Comment #264242 by Warikz on October 14, 2008 at 12:53 am

Most believers i have met in the UK seem to be Deists, i know many who profess belief, yet never go to Church, and one such husband and wife duo at my work even has a sticker on their car reading "The Bible is a good story, but so is the Lord of the Rings"

I dont have no surveys to back me up, but at least from experience many people in the UK seem to hog the middle ground, the Agnostic/Deist area as opposed to the strong Theist/Atheist. Though many don;t know what Deism is so put themselves with the other Theists.

Other Comments by Warikz

33. Comment #264249 by nalfeshnee on October 14, 2008 at 1:33 am

Great title, great idea and hopefully a great book. Certainly be on my Christmas wishlist.

I think the point is that this book addresses the fact of evolution as a process, which is of course true. Unless we are going to start querying whether gravity is not true to the same extent.

The explanation of the process of evolution as a fact is a breath of fresh air and much-needed IMHO.

Too often one gets bogged down in the theory of evolution without concentrating on the fact of the process.

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

34. Comment #264255 by beeline on October 14, 2008 at 1:46 am

It's a dreadful title because it ineluctably leads any viewer of it to think 'Maybe it's not'.

And then they walk past and pick up the latest Andy McNab.

Worse than that, I think that to the kind of person it's trying to convince - i.e. someone who's no doubt heard religious evangelists using the word 'truth' - it sounds like just another opinion or (dare I say) 'world view' and they'll just not be interested.

Quite apart from the very clear philosophical reasons for steering clear of those terms, it is, IMO, a confusing mistake to use the words 'true' or 'believe' anywhere near science because it just reeks of dogma, high-priests and the whole flaky 'anything goes' nature of relativist opinion - a huge turn-off for most people who might otherwise be interested in science, and who don't understand how it's different from all other 'received opinions'.

Until it's clearly communicated that science is a completely different way to understand the world from all that have come before (and all others that currently exist), lots of confused people will just stick it next to religion and new ageness and astrology and all the other nonsense that's out there. They won't be able to distinguish them.

I think that needs to be cleared up in people's minds well before they would consider buying a book, especially one that has the seductive 'T word' on the front cover.

Other Comments by beeline

35. Comment #264257 by ev-love on October 14, 2008 at 1:49 am

I think Jerry Coyne covered a lot of the same ground as his book in a video talk he gave in June '08 - very effectively, too.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2665,The-Challenge-of-the-New-Creationism,Jerry-Coyne

Other Comments by ev-love

36. Comment #264267 by Ivan The Not So Bad on October 14, 2008 at 2:26 am

A simple, clear book such as this sounds like exactly the sort of thing that ought to be on the reading list for GCSE(UK) and high school(US) biology or general science students.

Ideas for a campaign anyone? Or are there any school governors out there to take this forward in their own community?

"...creationists can lie faster than anyone can rebut them, so the best strategy is to focus on the real evidence and force critics to address it directly. "

As we are on this subject, has anyone else seen the grovelling apology just issued by the creationist poster child venomfangx to Thunderf00t? Bum-clenching doesn't even begin to describe it. You could almost feel sorry for the jumped up little turd. But you just laugh instead.

Other Comments by Ivan The Not So Bad

37. Comment #264282 by Telic on October 14, 2008 at 3:52 am

"...creationists can lie faster than anyone can rebut them, so the best strategy is to focus on the real evidence and force critics to address it directly. "

Indeed, the breathtaking mendacity of those that claim to be Faithful, good, and honest never ceases to amaze me.

Other Comments by Telic

38. Comment #264287 by Vaal on October 14, 2008 at 4:17 am

I don't think it is a bad title, and I have been campaigning for a while for a book that the younger generation can understand without it being too complex.

A lot of youngsters don't really get to understand biology and evolution till they are nearly adults (and even then our teachers are terrified of teaching them, in case they "offend" them), so any book that can interest them before the Creotards get the opportunity to turn their brains to mush with creationist dogma, the better.

Still, anyone else got any ideas for a title?

How about .."Why Creationism is complete bollox"

EDIT: Looks like a good Xmas present to a number of my friends :)

Other Comments by Vaal

39. Comment #264295 by God fearing Atheist on October 14, 2008 at 4:59 am

I don't think it has to convince the "nutters", it only has to sway the middle ground. An easy introduction to evolution is all for the good.

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

40. Comment #264304 by JAMCAM87 on October 14, 2008 at 5:39 am

20. Comment #264073 by debacles

"Either way, is it important that I read his stuff in chronological order?
I found it quite necessary to read Dawkins in order, atleast when it comes to the Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype"

Well I haven't read anything but DDI. Dan Dennet uses the skyhook/crane tool in all his books and this concept first appears in Darwin's Dangerous Idea as far as I know. I shyed away from Consciousness Explained because it looked like a very hard read.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

41. Comment #264328 by JernJane on October 14, 2008 at 6:39 am

Who do you "nit-pickers" think is the target group of this book? Do you honestly think it's people who already have accepted evolution as fact? I don't think so.

Other Comments by JernJane

42. Comment #264351 by Daydream Believer on October 14, 2008 at 8:49 am

I like the title, but mainly in the way that it works with the transitional Dinosaur to bird thing.
Neat and simple typographic trick to instantly get the message across.

Will it sink in? No. Most of the fleas don't have an issue with Evolution, they believe in the ineffable sky fairy type of god that can't be proved or disproved. Books on Evolution only fuel the ignorant fire of the Godbots.

Personally I think we need more books that do a THOROUGH job of explaining to these people that the truth of the bible is total pants. More History from the likes or Bart Ehrman, Israel Finklestein, etc. Mix that up with some simple Evolution proofs and you've got 'em. Not so much a 'science' book, more a cultural phenomenon.

Forward written by Richard of course which should guarantee some marketing coverage.

Other Comments by Daydream Believer

43. Comment #264358 by severalspeciesof on October 14, 2008 at 9:05 am

Back in my god believing days I had acquired a book written by Duane Gish titled; "Evolution: The Fossils Say No!"

Being the 'fair minded' person I seem to be, had I come across a book with this title (Why Evolution is True) back then, I might have read it and stopped that foolish thinking earlier than I did.

So the Title works for me.

[Edit: added: 'Why Evolution is True' for clarity]

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

44. Comment #264361 by aprilmb on October 14, 2008 at 9:17 am

I, for one, am looking forward to reading this book. And the next one by Dr. Dawkins, too. While I don't remember a moment in my life when evolution wasn't an established fact, being "just a girl" I wasn't encouraged to get too involved in sciences. Not by my parents, but by the schools of the day and I always believed that science was not my thing. So my scientific education is somewhat lacking. I'm actually glad of this, because now, I've found an interest and a hobby that keep my mind occupied - in middle age I'm discovering new worlds that I heard rumours about all my life. Imagine my surprise at finding out that I actually enjoy learning about sciences.

I've been reading comments on this and other sites (primarily Pharyngula), lots of scientific blogs from links I get here, and tons of books. Love most of the comments here, many make me laugh, but a lot of people are so much more knowledgeable or simply dealing with science in their everyday lives to such an extent, that sometimes the comments are incomprehensible for a layperson.

I'm not disputing that most people here don't need a book to show them the way, so to speak, but it's kind of pointless, isn't it? I mean, do you really want to be an exclusive group of scientifically knowledgeable people with like opinions, or are you open to people like me who while not having any doubts of the scientific evidence that you all know about, would like to find out more?

Other Comments by aprilmb

45. Comment #264363 by cat on October 14, 2008 at 9:24 am

A search on Amazon.com results only in a single book (the one featured here), while on Amazon.ca I get 2 books: the one from Viking (320 pages), and another one from Oxford University Press (256 pages) -- both in hardcover.

I wonder why the page difference? I don't want to buy the wrong hardcover...

Other Comments by cat

46. Comment #264365 by Vaal on October 14, 2008 at 9:35 am

44. Comment #264361 by aprilmb

being "just a girl" I wasn't encouraged to get too involved in sciences. Not by my parents, but by the schools of the day

Really, I am surprised at that. The girls in our grammar school were better than we were at science, and often put us to shame by doing their homework on time, and showed themselves to be much smarter than us lazy reprobate boys. We always had to catch up with them. Can I ask if it was a British school or American?

Other Comments by Vaal

47. Comment #264370 by Village_Idiot on October 14, 2008 at 9:57 am

A horrible title that can be only justified by the specific nature and IQ level of the recipients, which would be the cheering for Sarah Palin crowd.

"Evolution For Idiots, Mormons and Christians" would be a more appropriate one*...

[*Disclaimer: The publisher apologizes for not including your religion in the title.]

Other Comments by Village_Idiot

48. Comment #264383 by aprilmb on October 14, 2008 at 10:27 am

Vaal #46
It was in Poland and it was a long time ago, and then in Canada where learning the language was more important than science. At least in the first few years.

Plus my main interests were primarily history and literature. And now, since I've started reading Pinker and Chomsky, languge. I have utmost respect for science and those who study it, but it's the same old thing - so much to learn, so little time.

Edit: I need to add that my daughter, who was born in Canada not that long ago, was also not encouraged to study sciences by the schools, although it wasn't quite as obvious as in my school days. I believe this goes on today as well. Thankfully, that kind of antiquated thinking is disappearing.
One more comment: I don't believe that girls are not smart or capable of learning about science. I just think they are not as encouraged as the boys.

Other Comments by aprilmb

49. Comment #264481 by squinky on October 14, 2008 at 1:46 pm

I prefer the title:

STOOOPID!
Why Deniers of Evolution are Retarded

Other Comments by squinky

50. Comment #264497 by asupcb on October 14, 2008 at 2:23 pm

If it's good enough you could use this in Biology class instead of a boring textbook. I am personally against the use of most textbooks in class room settings as they can make exciting subjects completely boring. I think a book with videos plus a workbook with essay questions would work better, although if students have decided a subject is boring and not worth learning about there is almost nothing that can be done to change their minds.

Maybe there needs to be a book about "Evolution and You: How Learning About Evolution Can Improve Your Life". I'm a bit of a fan of (some) self-help books but I mean whatever works to get the message across to people is valuable.

Other Comments by asupcb

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last