17.1.08
15.1.08
Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law
This is an article written by Clive Thompson in Wired magazine. The article is about evolution (not defined) and how the science community is thinking about using law instead of theory when talking about evolution. Read the article for all of it...or here is a snippet....
"Creationists and intelligent-design boosters have a guerrilla tactic to undermine textbooks that don't jibe with their beliefs. They slap a sticker on the cover that reads, EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT A FACT, REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF LIVING THINGS.
This is the central argument of evolution deniers: Evolution is an unproven "theory." For science-savvy people, this is an incredibly annoying ploy. While it's true that scientists refer to evolution as a theory, in science the word theory means an explanation of how the world works that has stood up to repeated, rigorous testing. It's hardly a term of disparagement.
But for most people, theory means a haphazard guess you've pulled out of your, uh, hat. It's an insult, really, a glib way to dismiss a point of view: "Ah, well, that's just your theory." Scientists use theory in one specific way, the public another — and opponents of evolution have expertly exploited this disconnect....."
This is the letter I sent to Mr. Thompson. I decided to post because it is really important to me that people understand what the word "evolution" contains.
"Dear Clive,
I am writing in response to the article you wrote in the Wired Nov, 2007 issue. I realize it is January of 2008 and you may be thinking "not really staying up with Wired too well, are you?". I live in Australia and it is almost impossible to buy Wired in small towns. Thus I must resort to checking them out of the library, even if a bit dated.
Back to the article. You wrote about the conflicts that have arisen due to the term "theory" being used instead of "law". I don't agree that we can scientifically use that term (law) for all evolution. Scientific law attempts to describe an observation in nature.
The point I wanted make is that there are several types of evolution and that they should not be bundled together without clarification. We need to be very careful not to lump macro and micro evolution under one term. When talking about evolution I think scientists need to work harder at defining terms. I am from a science back ground and understand that there are differences when a scientist says "evolution". However, people without science backgrounds might not know of these differences. I know this is true from talking to my own friends.
Micro evolution was what you were talking about when you referred to vaccines and the flu virus. We know things mutate and change due to different environmental stresses placed upon them i.e. natural selection or micro-evolution. However I don't think we can be as confident when talking about macro-evolution, for example a virus suddenly evolving to have the same properties as bacteria. I worked in a virology lab where we grew bacteria and viruses every day. We never saw any one of those making a species jump.
Perhaps when using the terms "law" and "theory" it should be the "law of micro-evolution" and the "theory of macro-evolution".
When the public of the creationist/intelligent design persuasion say they don't believe in evolution they look crazy because they (without knowing it) are lumping micro and macro together. I think many of them if asked to clarify, would actually agree with micro and disagree with macro.
Part of being a good scientist is being able to communicate what you have discovered to the general public. I think those studying evolutionary science need to do a better job passing on these differences in evolution. There needs to be more clarification on micro and macro and what they mean. How can the general public make decisions on evolution if they don't understand the definitions contained in the word "evolution?"
Sincerely,
Megan Fisher"
"Creationists and intelligent-design boosters have a guerrilla tactic to undermine textbooks that don't jibe with their beliefs. They slap a sticker on the cover that reads, EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT A FACT, REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF LIVING THINGS.
This is the central argument of evolution deniers: Evolution is an unproven "theory." For science-savvy people, this is an incredibly annoying ploy. While it's true that scientists refer to evolution as a theory, in science the word theory means an explanation of how the world works that has stood up to repeated, rigorous testing. It's hardly a term of disparagement.
But for most people, theory means a haphazard guess you've pulled out of your, uh, hat. It's an insult, really, a glib way to dismiss a point of view: "Ah, well, that's just your theory." Scientists use theory in one specific way, the public another — and opponents of evolution have expertly exploited this disconnect....."
This is the letter I sent to Mr. Thompson. I decided to post because it is really important to me that people understand what the word "evolution" contains.
"Dear Clive,
I am writing in response to the article you wrote in the Wired Nov, 2007 issue. I realize it is January of 2008 and you may be thinking "not really staying up with Wired too well, are you?". I live in Australia and it is almost impossible to buy Wired in small towns. Thus I must resort to checking them out of the library, even if a bit dated.
Back to the article. You wrote about the conflicts that have arisen due to the term "theory" being used instead of "law". I don't agree that we can scientifically use that term (law) for all evolution. Scientific law attempts to describe an observation in nature.
The point I wanted make is that there are several types of evolution and that they should not be bundled together without clarification. We need to be very careful not to lump macro and micro evolution under one term. When talking about evolution I think scientists need to work harder at defining terms. I am from a science back ground and understand that there are differences when a scientist says "evolution". However, people without science backgrounds might not know of these differences. I know this is true from talking to my own friends.
Micro evolution was what you were talking about when you referred to vaccines and the flu virus. We know things mutate and change due to different environmental stresses placed upon them i.e. natural selection or micro-evolution. However I don't think we can be as confident when talking about macro-evolution, for example a virus suddenly evolving to have the same properties as bacteria. I worked in a virology lab where we grew bacteria and viruses every day. We never saw any one of those making a species jump.
Perhaps when using the terms "law" and "theory" it should be the "law of micro-evolution" and the "theory of macro-evolution".
When the public of the creationist/intelligent design persuasion say they don't believe in evolution they look crazy because they (without knowing it) are lumping micro and macro together. I think many of them if asked to clarify, would actually agree with micro and disagree with macro.
Part of being a good scientist is being able to communicate what you have discovered to the general public. I think those studying evolutionary science need to do a better job passing on these differences in evolution. There needs to be more clarification on micro and macro and what they mean. How can the general public make decisions on evolution if they don't understand the definitions contained in the word "evolution?"
Sincerely,
Megan Fisher"
9.1.08
Pink Martini
We are in Sydney right now. Saturday we went to a free festival uniquely named "The Sydney 2008 Festival". We all had a lot of fun. Music for the kids, origami, playing in the fountains, etc. That night the festival setup four different stages where bands played from 7-11pm. Abby and I stayed and saw Pink Martini play. They are from Portland Oregon and are definitely worth a listen. Twelve members to the band, drums, guitar, cello, shaker thing, vocals, and a few other instruments I have forgotten. During the set they sang in French, Spanish, Japanese, Portuguese, and English.
They have somewhat of a lounge feel. Their music is very instrumental with a dash of big band and a tablespoon of multiculturalism. Check them out and let me know what you think.
M
1.1.08
Abby is here :-)
Abby arrived safely yesterday morning. I was chuckling to myself as I watched people emerge from the catacombs of customs. Many were dressed warmly, which makes sense seeing as though they came from N. America. The chuckling part was due to the fact that it was 42 (107.6 F) outside. Abby finally came out and she was wearing boots! More laughter on my part. Perhaps it is a bit mean to laugh at people who are unsuspecting prey for our Australian sun, but I still found it amusing.
It is very nice to have some family around. You can talk about things that don't always make it across the skype wire. If you have ever had to communicate with family this way you will understand what I am talking about.
Today we took the ferry form Queensclif to Sorrento to meet up with people from our church and the Frankston church. Abby came along as well as two friends, Mike and Fiona. The water was so blue/green, here are a couple pictures but I don't think they do it justice.
We all went swimming and then had lunch. Unfortunately we were not able to stay as long as others due to the fact that we are leaving for Sydney tomorrow and packing still needs to be done.
As I said we are taking a holiday to Sydney. We will be traveling up the southern coast instead of going inland. We decided to camp two nights on the way up so that the trip is not so stressful on the girls. 12 hours can be a bit much to do in one day for little ones. Once we get to Sydney we will be house sitting for friends of ours while they are away on their own holiday. On the way back we will camp for another two nights. Hopefully we won't have any 42 degree days while we are camping..could be interesting if we do.
It is very nice to have some family around. You can talk about things that don't always make it across the skype wire. If you have ever had to communicate with family this way you will understand what I am talking about.
Today we took the ferry form Queensclif to Sorrento to meet up with people from our church and the Frankston church. Abby came along as well as two friends, Mike and Fiona. The water was so blue/green, here are a couple pictures but I don't think they do it justice.
We all went swimming and then had lunch. Unfortunately we were not able to stay as long as others due to the fact that we are leaving for Sydney tomorrow and packing still needs to be done.
As I said we are taking a holiday to Sydney. We will be traveling up the southern coast instead of going inland. We decided to camp two nights on the way up so that the trip is not so stressful on the girls. 12 hours can be a bit much to do in one day for little ones. Once we get to Sydney we will be house sitting for friends of ours while they are away on their own holiday. On the way back we will camp for another two nights. Hopefully we won't have any 42 degree days while we are camping..could be interesting if we do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)