Log in

No account? Create an account


On Tuesday, when people in my company gathered to listen to the inaugural address, one particular sentence caused a small number of us to applaud and cheer.

Actually, it was just a fraction of a sentence.

As soon as President Obama had said, "We will restore science to its rightful place," those of us in the science department cheered, much to the amusement of the folks in the other departments.

The sad truth is that science has been under attack in this country over the past few years. I don't really want to revisit all the attacks right now; for anyone interested, there are plenty of articles and books on the subject. I will remind people that in 2004, a group of scientists – including 20 Nobel laureates – issued a statement pointing out the distortion of scientific facts that had been presented to the American people by the government. These distortions had mostly been made with the sole goal of supporting government policies that would have made no sense in the light of scientific facts.

But that light is beginning to show through the cracks. In the article Scientists Welcome Obama's Words, the reporters note that the scientific community is hopeful for policies which acknowledge that science must come before policy.

And in other news, the Texas Board of Education has voted to remove discussion of evolution's '"strengths weaknesses" in their science standards. The phrase "strengths and weaknesses" is a code word among anti-evolutionists to try yet again to sneak religion into science class, and I'm delighted that Texas is finally doing the right thing....after twenty years.

Whenever I hear about suppression of science, or the attempts to sneak pseudoscience into science classes, I am always reminded of Richard Feynman's words as a member of the Challenger commission: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."

Unfortunately, people can be fooled, which is why we must always remain vigilant.


Ah, but the fascinating thing was that this wasn't a mutation: every female of this species will produce hard-headed offspring if they themselves have been threatened. It was fascinating to read about.

Regarding putting religion into the science books, I hear you. I guess I'm more interested in what genuine weaknesses might be.

I can't for the life of me remember where I read about the beetles, and a few other species who have similar tendencies, and to be honest I'd suspect myself of making it up or dreaming it, but it doesn't seem like the sort of thing I'd make up! The article even brought up Lamarck, but it doesn't sound much like his theory either. Now, one could of course say that it began as a mutation, and mothers who produce hard-headed offspring when they're threatened have more surviving offspring, but that's already getting quite removed from the simple, basic version.
I think what you're missing here is the history that came before the phrase "strengths and weaknesses." In the beginning, the anti-evolutions tried to ban evolution from being taught in schools, and they were actually quite successful for many years. Then, when evolution was taking its proper place in science classes, they tried to have "creationism" taught as well. The courts rejected it since it wasn't science, so they came up with the term "creation science," claiming that their idea was just as "scientific." That got rejected, so they moved onto "intelligent design," their claim that some intelligence can be scientifically proven to be behind evolution. But in discovery, it was found that their strategy was to use this idea to once again introduce their own religious belief into school science classes (look up the wedge document for more information on that). "Strengths and weaknesses" became their new code word.

Of course any theory ought to have its strengths and weaknesses explored. But the anti-evolutionists reject the fact that evolution's weaknesses have been probed for over a century and have been found to be almost entirely nonexistent. They're using the language to try to get their own religious beliefs taught as fact in public school, and that frightens me.
*nods* I was not aware of it in that much detail, but I did know the basics and did not intend to sound as though I was encouraging their side. I guess what I was trying to note was the difference between "Strengths and weaknesses" and strengths and weaknesses.
I have to say that I find it funny that the terminology used by the anti-evolutionists has had to evolve to survive... :-)
*grins* No it didn't! God made the word that way!
This phenomenon doesn't raise any issues with evolution. Evolutionary theory doesn't directly explain everything in biology, but it provides the over-arching framework to explaining how life arises and changes.

To draw a (loose) human analogy, a woman in a lot of high-stress situations (such as warding off predators) will have a lot of adrenaline. It's plausible to imagine that having an effect on the development of her child (to my knowledge this doesn't happen, but it's easy to imagine it).

The same thing could be going on with these beetles--a high-stress situation leads to chemical changes in the mother, with developmental ramifications for the offspring that will increase their fitness in the presumably hostile environment. The fact that we don't know what's going on is not a flaw in evolution, it's just a gap in our knowledge (the typical ID position is that these are equivalent).

The fact that it's consistent across the entire species means that it isn't some Lamarckian effect but rather an evolved response to environmental stress.
"The fact that it's consistent across the entire species means that it isn't some Lamarckian effect but rather an evolved response to environmental stress."

Aha! I hadn't thought of that, and I have a Master's degree in Science!

But you're right. If it's consistent across the species, that itself is evidence of natural selection.
Also, even if some Lamarckist mechanism exists (something I would not rule out), it's still a form of evolution, and doesn't support the creationist viewpoint in any way.
Oh, certainly not--I wasn't arguing for creationism. My own view on that topic, for what it's worth, is that while I am a believer in God, who am I to say that God's method of creating and developing life was not evolution? *shrugs* I don't know if that would be satisfying to people who are atheist or agnostic, but for me it works.
I think evolution is a beautiful theory, very elegant, very intuitive in its basic form at least, and really... well, lovely.
I am not arguing against evolution at all. I just found it interesting that there are questions regarding it, or refinements to be made to it, even now, and wanted to share.
>Aha! I hadn't thought of that, and I have a Master's degree in Science!

I hope everyone read that with the proper cadence and inflection....

...and remember, he knows more than you do.

December 2016

Powered by LiveJournal.com