I conclude this blog by saying that this was a true revolution. Charles Darwin knew exactly what he was getting himself into by proposing it, yet he did it anyway.
Though now partially debunked by scientific progress, our modern ideas are still influenced by it. It's likley that most of the field of genetics wouldn't have existed without Darwin, and it is a study always with that influence.
In addition, evolution has made itself known to the popular conscious. Though in some cases still misinterpreted, everyone knows about it, whether they agree with it or not. The theory of Natural Selection and Evolution has made it's way into a battlefield in the culture wars.
Science Fiction has come up with many fascinating ideas about evolution. Some of them lead toward social darwinism, others have quite thought-provoking ideas about how it relates to our culture. Meanwhile, a villian who justifies himself with the principle of "survival of the fittest" is a recognizable writing trope.
One of the things about humanity is that we have, in some ways, trumped the traditional ideas of natural selection. While we give a helping hand to the disabled, this is not bad or anti-Darwin, because our evolution is now in our minds and technology. We have accelerated the process, able to hone our minds and conscious in incredible leaps that are measured in decades, instead of countless millenium. Evolution holds great future for us, and I can't wait to see where it leads.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Religous Opposition
Truly, one of the things that most people are going to think of when they hear the word "evolution" is of the opposition that the theory has faced from creationists. And yes, before anyone gets offended, the opposition usually IS religious, and right-wing fundamentalist religious at that.
Religious opposition to evolution has always existed of course, since the earliest days of the theories proposal. Many creationists believe it counter to their views, and they're right. The theory bluntly goes against the word of the bible, and it's philosophical view of God in charge of everything. Evolution states that nature doesen't need any help, thank you very much, and when one pillar of belief is eroded, that tends to erode more.
Eperson v.Arkansas was not the earliest case on record of opposition to teaching creationism in schools, but it is important for banning creationism.People threw a hissy fit over it. The later Edwards v. Aguillard case cemented the decision, and now creationism was completely banned from schools.
Of course, that wasn't the end of it.
Ah intelligent design; are you creationism masquerading as science, or a legitimate theory with solid evidence? I'm not going to get into it, you can find some very well written arguments here.
I will concede that it could perhaps someday become more accepted and has hints legitimacy, but many people are using it as irrevocable scientific evidence for creationism. It should not be taught as people are using it right now. I believe creationism has no solid basis or proff, unlike the well-tested evolution. Evolution and Natural Selection should be taught in schools.
Religious opposition to evolution has always existed of course, since the earliest days of the theories proposal. Many creationists believe it counter to their views, and they're right. The theory bluntly goes against the word of the bible, and it's philosophical view of God in charge of everything. Evolution states that nature doesen't need any help, thank you very much, and when one pillar of belief is eroded, that tends to erode more.
Eperson v.Arkansas was not the earliest case on record of opposition to teaching creationism in schools, but it is important for banning creationism.People threw a hissy fit over it. The later Edwards v. Aguillard case cemented the decision, and now creationism was completely banned from schools.
Of course, that wasn't the end of it.
Ah intelligent design; are you creationism masquerading as science, or a legitimate theory with solid evidence? I'm not going to get into it, you can find some very well written arguments here.
I will concede that it could perhaps someday become more accepted and has hints legitimacy, but many people are using it as irrevocable scientific evidence for creationism. It should not be taught as people are using it right now. I believe creationism has no solid basis or proff, unlike the well-tested evolution. Evolution and Natural Selection should be taught in schools.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Social Darwinism
One of the great fallacies of how people perceive[d] evolution(and believe me, there are more to come) is the idea of Social Darwinism. Granted, it's an easy mistake to make, but it is completely wrong.
The basic premise boils down to a nation that natural selection can be "helped along", specifically in human society. In this idea, the strong are explicitly selected to survive over the weak. How this would be enacted differs from idea to idea, but it usually involves some type of Big Brother.
I fully respect the boundaries of Godwin's Law, and even looking towards that I believe that it is completely relevant to the argument to say that Social Darwinism was a big part of Adolf Hitler's views of the master race. Essentially, the Holocaust was one big social-Darwinist machine to leave only the 'worthy' to survive, which should give you an idea on to most ways this is enacted. The idea of the 'white man's burden' is similar.
Anyway, let's abandon racial flamebait and discuss why this is a fallacy. Evolution and natural selection are not the kind of processes that should be left up to humans. It thrives upon the unexpected, and is about what is best for a species, not about what we think is best. In a similar way, it's a reactionary process, with big changes leading to very unpredictable leaps in design. Many social Darwinist seem to think of it as improving our current form, and if evolution was like that then monkeys would have simply decided to be better at climbing trees. It's not up to humans to decide such a complex process particularity when the Social Darwinists didn't have much of a clue about evolution anyway. In fact, I doubt even the best evolutionary biologist could predict what's best for us right now.
If you want to learn a bit more, try this site.
The basic premise boils down to a nation that natural selection can be "helped along", specifically in human society. In this idea, the strong are explicitly selected to survive over the weak. How this would be enacted differs from idea to idea, but it usually involves some type of Big Brother.
I fully respect the boundaries of Godwin's Law, and even looking towards that I believe that it is completely relevant to the argument to say that Social Darwinism was a big part of Adolf Hitler's views of the master race. Essentially, the Holocaust was one big social-Darwinist machine to leave only the 'worthy' to survive, which should give you an idea on to most ways this is enacted. The idea of the 'white man's burden' is similar.
Anyway, let's abandon racial flamebait and discuss why this is a fallacy. Evolution and natural selection are not the kind of processes that should be left up to humans. It thrives upon the unexpected, and is about what is best for a species, not about what we think is best. In a similar way, it's a reactionary process, with big changes leading to very unpredictable leaps in design. Many social Darwinist seem to think of it as improving our current form, and if evolution was like that then monkeys would have simply decided to be better at climbing trees. It's not up to humans to decide such a complex process particularity when the Social Darwinists didn't have much of a clue about evolution anyway. In fact, I doubt even the best evolutionary biologist could predict what's best for us right now.
If you want to learn a bit more, try this site.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
The First Rumbles
When On The Origin of Species was first published, science had a bit of a different dynamic with the public.
Unlike today, when science was defined by masses of data and lots of specialization, the public could fairly well learn, understand, and decide upon scientific discoveries on their own. The initial copies of the book that were published ended up circulating around libraries across Europe. Many people could decide for themselves on evolution.
Of course, not everyone supported it.
He was far from universally opposed of course, and a lot of that was owed to the fact that evolution wasn't really a new idea. It was not a completely new and radical theory like, say, relativity. Ideas of heredity had been done before this. Reactions from the church were also mixed. There were of course clergymen who denounced it as anti-religious, but others didn't. One of the key religious ideas during that time in fact was the idea that God built the universe like a clock, building the universe and letting it work on it's own.
In fact, evolution would quickly become accepted after this. Soon ideas like Social Darwinism were emerging, while the ideas started integrating themselves into a general consciousness, as it has persisted today. Darwin's ideas have always won out, even, and especially, after initial introduction.
Unlike today, when science was defined by masses of data and lots of specialization, the public could fairly well learn, understand, and decide upon scientific discoveries on their own. The initial copies of the book that were published ended up circulating around libraries across Europe. Many people could decide for themselves on evolution.
Of course, not everyone supported it.
He was far from universally opposed of course, and a lot of that was owed to the fact that evolution wasn't really a new idea. It was not a completely new and radical theory like, say, relativity. Ideas of heredity had been done before this. Reactions from the church were also mixed. There were of course clergymen who denounced it as anti-religious, but others didn't. One of the key religious ideas during that time in fact was the idea that God built the universe like a clock, building the universe and letting it work on it's own.
In fact, evolution would quickly become accepted after this. Soon ideas like Social Darwinism were emerging, while the ideas started integrating themselves into a general consciousness, as it has persisted today. Darwin's ideas have always won out, even, and especially, after initial introduction.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Basics of Evolution
Evolution:Ur doin' it wrong.
As ridiculous as the concept may seem when viewed through the lens of a videogame, many people seem to fully believe in concepts like this or similar to it. One of the arguments I've come up against in my furious arguments is "evolution can't be true, you don't see monkeys giving birth to humans."
This was, as far as I can tell, a serious arguments.
The slowness of evolution is a concept hard to grasp, probably only fully understood and appreciated by the people who study and make new advances in it every day. But I do have a good grasp, it takes millions of years for species to change at minimum. Now, this is usually triggered during "rapid" periods. Humans for example, took only 5-8 million years to fully evolve since early hominids were discovered. When there is need for change, it usually happens, and happens fast., but it is still long term.
One interesting thing about long-term evolution stimulating major changes is that it hasn't been observed too well. Species have genetic stability that takes precedent over any too major changes, so that is why it's a slow process. In fact, there has never been observed a major change in anything except E.Coli. Instead, we must infer what happened in a lot of cases thanks to fossil records and observations of the environment around it.
So, that's some of the basics of evolution, and some counterarguments against counterarguments, tune in next time.
As ridiculous as the concept may seem when viewed through the lens of a videogame, many people seem to fully believe in concepts like this or similar to it. One of the arguments I've come up against in my furious arguments is "evolution can't be true, you don't see monkeys giving birth to humans."
This was, as far as I can tell, a serious arguments.
The slowness of evolution is a concept hard to grasp, probably only fully understood and appreciated by the people who study and make new advances in it every day. But I do have a good grasp, it takes millions of years for species to change at minimum. Now, this is usually triggered during "rapid" periods. Humans for example, took only 5-8 million years to fully evolve since early hominids were discovered. When there is need for change, it usually happens, and happens fast., but it is still long term.
One interesting thing about long-term evolution stimulating major changes is that it hasn't been observed too well. Species have genetic stability that takes precedent over any too major changes, so that is why it's a slow process. In fact, there has never been observed a major change in anything except E.Coli. Instead, we must infer what happened in a lot of cases thanks to fossil records and observations of the environment around it.
So, that's some of the basics of evolution, and some counterarguments against counterarguments, tune in next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)