Strefa dla członków PTKr
Stephen Pincock, "Monkey business" (2005)
Zapomniałeś hasła?
Kody genetyczne wyższego rzędu
Stephen Pincock, "Monkey business" (2005)
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/82d115f8-2029-11da-b59e-00000e2511c8.html
Monkey business
> <strong>By Stephen Pincock
> Published: September 9 2005 11:09 | Last updated: September 9 2005 11:09<br>
> Like many people, I was told as a child that it was a good idea to avoid<br> talking about religion and politics in polite conversation. A wise piece
> of advice, I suppose, but one that I've never really managed to follow.<br>
> Rather than tiptoe around those touchy subjects, my approach has<br> generally been to jump in with both feet - a tendency that I must admit
> has, on more than one occasion, cost dearly in terms of<br> stony silence. Still, I don't really want to change my tack. In fact, I
> think that some of the most valuable conversations I've had over the<br> years have arisen from stark disagreement on some political or
> religious point.<br>
> In recent months, a discussion of sorts (some have called it a battle)<br> has been going on between scientists and a group of mostly conservative
> Christians in the US, over the subject of evolution. In an era when<br> science, religion and politics intersect in several places - think stem
> cells, for example - evolution is perhaps the most disputatious.<br>
> Evolution has always been rejected by some Christians as it contradicts<br> the literal teachings of the Bible; but the most recent development in
> the anti-evolution debate revolves around an idea known as "intelligent<br> design" which argues that our world and the life on it are just too
> complex to have evolved.<br>
> In one oft-mentioned argument, for example, the biochemist Michael J.<br> Behe - a well-known design theorist - points out that some complex
> biological systems, such as the cascade of proteins that cause blood to<br> clot, would not function if just one element was missing. His argument,
> outlined in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, is that such systems could<br> not develop incrementally, as evolution would suggest.
> <br> Proponents say that such complexity suggests that life is the work of an
> intelligent creator. Generally no mention is made of God, as such, but<br> the religious leanings of groups that support the idea, such as the
> Seattle-based Discovery Institute, give the game away.<br>
> In the past couple of years, supporters of this view - including some<br> scientists and engineers - have been putting pressure on the US
> education system to have teachers tell children in science class that<br> evolution is
> "a theory, not a fact" and to tell them that an alternative explanation<br> for the origin of life is intelligent design.
> <br> At the moment, they seem to be succeeding. Proposals seeking for a
> critical analysis of the "controversies" or "gaps" surrounding Darwinian<br> ideas of evolution have been considered in more than 20 states, Time
> magazine reported on August 15. And the week before, President Bush had<br> expressed his support for combining lessons in evolution and intelligent
> design. "Both sides ought to be properly taught," he told reporters.<br>
> What's more, many Americans appear to agree. A Harris poll of 1,000<br> adults conducted in June showed that 54 per cent did not believe that
> humans developed from an earlier species, and 55 per cent thought<br> children should be taught creationism and intelligent design alongside
> evolution.<br>
> All of which strikes horror into the hearts of most mainstream<br> scientists. The arguments supporting intelligent design are often
> couched in scientific language, but for the many researchers who have<br> written letters to
> newspapers in the US and elsewhere over recent months, the two "sides"<br> are simply not comparable. For many, intelligent design looks like an
> idea based more on faith than science.<br>
> "I'm concerned about implying that there is some sort of scientific<br> argument going on. There's not," the notably outspoken scientist Richard
> Dawkins told Time. "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."<br>
> On the other hand, the Discovery Institute repeatedly describes the<br> debate as a scientific one. Its members also argue that evolution has
> become a matter of faith for scientists. For example, last month,<br> Benjamin
> Wiker, a senior fellow at both the St Paul Center for Biblical Theology<br> in Ohio and the Discovery Institute, wrote the following: "The number of
> scientific dissenters from Darwinism is growing because, as scientists,<br> they realise that evolutionary theory is functioning like an ideology, a
> theoretical dogma that is being held onto with a kind of blind<br> patriotism." The Discovery Institute reports on its website that it has
> gathered more<br> than 400 signatures from scientists who say they are sceptical about
> evolution.<br>
> You probably won't be surprised to find that I'm not convinced by the<br> arguments in favour of intelligent design, or by any of the reasoning
> that anti-Darwinists use against evolution.<br>
> If I'm frank, the campaign to "teach the controversy" of evolution and<br> offer a designed alternative looks to me a lot like the latest attempt
> to introduce religion into the science classroom, a place I don't think<br> it belongs.
> <br> But perhaps the debate which is currently raging in newspapers,
> magazines and television programmes across the US - as well as on school<br> boards and in legislatures - is a good thing. It's rare that arguments
> over<br> merits of a scientific theory stimulate sustained interest in the
> general public. Discussions such as this one can be illuminating, even<br> if they aren't always polite.
> <br> [email protected]<br/>
> <strong>By Stephen Pincock
> Published: September 9 2005 11:09 | Last updated: September 9 2005 11:09<br>
> Like many people, I was told as a child that it was a good idea to avoid<br> talking about religion and politics in polite conversation. A wise piece
> of advice, I suppose, but one that I've never really managed to follow.<br>
> Rather than tiptoe around those touchy subjects, my approach has<br> generally been to jump in with both feet - a tendency that I must admit
> has, on more than one occasion, cost dearly in terms of<br> stony silence. Still, I don't really want to change my tack. In fact, I
> think that some of the most valuable conversations I've had over the<br> years have arisen from stark disagreement on some political or
> religious point.<br>
> In recent months, a discussion of sorts (some have called it a battle)<br> has been going on between scientists and a group of mostly conservative
> Christians in the US, over the subject of evolution. In an era when<br> science, religion and politics intersect in several places - think stem
> cells, for example - evolution is perhaps the most disputatious.<br>
> Evolution has always been rejected by some Christians as it contradicts<br> the literal teachings of the Bible; but the most recent development in
> the anti-evolution debate revolves around an idea known as "intelligent<br> design" which argues that our world and the life on it are just too
> complex to have evolved.<br>
> In one oft-mentioned argument, for example, the biochemist Michael J.<br> Behe - a well-known design theorist - points out that some complex
> biological systems, such as the cascade of proteins that cause blood to<br> clot, would not function if just one element was missing. His argument,
> outlined in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, is that such systems could<br> not develop incrementally, as evolution would suggest.
> <br> Proponents say that such complexity suggests that life is the work of an
> intelligent creator. Generally no mention is made of God, as such, but<br> the religious leanings of groups that support the idea, such as the
> Seattle-based Discovery Institute, give the game away.<br>
> In the past couple of years, supporters of this view - including some<br> scientists and engineers - have been putting pressure on the US
> education system to have teachers tell children in science class that<br> evolution is
> "a theory, not a fact" and to tell them that an alternative explanation<br> for the origin of life is intelligent design.
> <br> At the moment, they seem to be succeeding. Proposals seeking for a
> critical analysis of the "controversies" or "gaps" surrounding Darwinian<br> ideas of evolution have been considered in more than 20 states, Time
> magazine reported on August 15. And the week before, President Bush had<br> expressed his support for combining lessons in evolution and intelligent
> design. "Both sides ought to be properly taught," he told reporters.<br>
> What's more, many Americans appear to agree. A Harris poll of 1,000<br> adults conducted in June showed that 54 per cent did not believe that
> humans developed from an earlier species, and 55 per cent thought<br> children should be taught creationism and intelligent design alongside
> evolution.<br>
> All of which strikes horror into the hearts of most mainstream<br> scientists. The arguments supporting intelligent design are often
> couched in scientific language, but for the many researchers who have<br> written letters to
> newspapers in the US and elsewhere over recent months, the two "sides"<br> are simply not comparable. For many, intelligent design looks like an
> idea based more on faith than science.<br>
> "I'm concerned about implying that there is some sort of scientific<br> argument going on. There's not," the notably outspoken scientist Richard
> Dawkins told Time. "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."<br>
> On the other hand, the Discovery Institute repeatedly describes the<br> debate as a scientific one. Its members also argue that evolution has
> become a matter of faith for scientists. For example, last month,<br> Benjamin
> Wiker, a senior fellow at both the St Paul Center for Biblical Theology<br> in Ohio and the Discovery Institute, wrote the following: "The number of
> scientific dissenters from Darwinism is growing because, as scientists,<br> they realise that evolutionary theory is functioning like an ideology, a
> theoretical dogma that is being held onto with a kind of blind<br> patriotism." The Discovery Institute reports on its website that it has
> gathered more<br> than 400 signatures from scientists who say they are sceptical about
> evolution.<br>
> You probably won't be surprised to find that I'm not convinced by the<br> arguments in favour of intelligent design, or by any of the reasoning
> that anti-Darwinists use against evolution.<br>
> If I'm frank, the campaign to "teach the controversy" of evolution and<br> offer a designed alternative looks to me a lot like the latest attempt
> to introduce religion into the science classroom, a place I don't think<br> it belongs.
> <br> But perhaps the debate which is currently raging in newspapers,
> magazines and television programmes across the US - as well as on school<br> boards and in legislatures - is a good thing. It's rare that arguments
> over<br> merits of a scientific theory stimulate sustained interest in the
> general public. Discussions such as this one can be illuminating, even<br> if they aren't always polite.
> <br> [email protected]<br/>
