Hey it's a genuinely genial genetic day over here at Experiment in Scotch. . .
10:03:58 PM    What do you think?  []  trackback []

The first minor point to address, which was brought up in the comments of the aforementioned post, is whether or not evolution is a deductive or an inductive science. . .Evolution is definitely a deductive science. . the reason many people believe that it is inductive is because the only reports that you see in the major news distibutors are of the inductive side of evolutionary science. . .i.e. that this "new research" could be the precursor of mankind. . .but I would say that 90% of evolutionary science, whether it be a study of Drosophila melanogaster or Caenorhabdigis elegans, most evolutionary science is deductive. . .It's unfortunate that nothing of the deductive side of evolution appears in the local media but then, who really gives a flying flip about a fruit fly?

But what really is the main point behind all the arguments against evolution is the fact that your average layman on the street believes, and I mean truly in his heart, without a doubt believes, that he understands what evolution is about. . .evolution says we came from monkeys, God sure didn't make me from a monkey, therefore evolution is a bunch of crap and we don't need to teach it in schools because it can't be right. . .You can't go up to some guy on the street and ask him whether hedonistic utilitarianism ought to be taught as an equal to existentialism because he's not going to know what either of those two things are. . .but it seems perfectly acceptable to phrase evolution vs. creationism in those terms because people think they understand the two sides well enough to wax poetically on them. . .and because the religious right has phrased the argument such that one side is contrary to the teachings of the Bible, people will go off for hours on why creationism is a viable alternative to evolution. . .

This is a problem that crops up on human cloning, partial birth abortion, and many other scientific issues that the layperson thinks he understands but in fact, only misunderstands due to inaccurate or incomplete reporting in the media. . .

The reason why the right can have this vendetta against teaching evolution as fact in the public schools is because they, and to a great extent everyone else in the public, truly believe that they understand the science when in fact they have little understanding of what evolution truly is. . .Evolution is not contrary to the teachings of Judeo-Christrian beliefs any more than quantum physics is. . .if you asked your average Joe what evolution is, I believe that he would say it was the improvement over time of a species based on genetic selection, though perhaps not nearly as succinctly. . .

However, nothing in evolution dictates a linear path. . .in fact, evolution is more cyclical than linear. . .throughout time, species have evolved themselves into an evolutionary corner that assured the destruction of the species, illustrating that evolution does not account for a linear improvement over time. . .Nature is not interested in the long-term success of a species, only in the assurance that as many genes as possible make it into the next generation. . .

This point is all too often misunderstood, going back to the belief of the layperson that evolution involves improvement. . .but what natural selection dictates is that if in a species of creatures, a certain gene manifests itself as beneficial to the survival and/or reproductive success (reproductive success is by far the most important criteria) of individuals of the species who hold the gene, that gene is more likely to survive into the next generation, thus propagating itself through the population leading to genetic change over time.

This does not necessarily lead to the improvement of the species in a long-term sense. This only leads to genetic change which may be an improvement in the short term but that leads to the destruction of the species over time based on any number of factors beyond the shortsightedness of natural selection.

What's the point to all this? Just that whenever I see the argument put forward that evolution needs to be taken with a grain of salt or should be taught along side creationism, I have to hope that the person proposing this idea or that is just ignorant of the facts of the science of evolution. I'm just trying to lay out some of those facts.

I equate this idea from the far right with the idea from the far left of a neoconservative conspiracy to take over the world. The difference is that it's a rather simple task to show that creationism is a ridiculous alternative to evolution (ed: I'm not saying I just did that at all, just that it's relatively easy). It's next to impossible to show how ridiculous the neocon conspiracy theory is. I'm really not mentally acute enough to gauge what that says about either the theory and the movement of the two sides. Perhaps I'll leave that for another essay.
8:33:17 PM    What do you think?  []  trackback []