Slashdot Mirror


Avoiding the Word "Evolution"

jakosc tips us to a disturbing article in PloS Biology on the avoidance of the word "Evolution" in scientific papers and grants. From the paper: "In spite of the importance of antimicrobial resistance, we show that the actual word 'evolution' is rarely used in the papers describing this research. Instead, antimicrobial resistance is said to 'emerge,' 'arise,' or 'spread' rather than 'evolve.' Moreover, we show that the failure to use the word 'evolution' by the scientific community may have a direct impact on the public perception of the importance of evolutionary biology in our everyday lives... It has been repeatedly rumored (and reiterated by one of the reviewers of this article) that both the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation have in the past actively discouraged the use of the word 'evolution' in titles or abstracts of proposals so as to avoid controversy."

5 of 895 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Sorry Skinflute.. We are a Democracy. by TheCeltic · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Yeah, and those "ignorant" "religious zealots" formed the most powerful nation in the world. The nation from which came electricity, the lightbulb, the phonograph, most of the technology found in modern computers, etc.. not bad for some "ignorant" "religious zealots" :)

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  2. Re:Read your own history, mate by Orgazmus · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    They both killed Iraqis and made a whole lot of money on the suffering of others?

    But I kid, I kid. Saddam never had nukes, while King George wants to use them.

    --
    The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
  3. Re:What do you expect? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm sorry, but that comment really grated on me. I'm not at all religious, but I still respect religion. I respect that I (and many others) cannot seem to well and truly disprove most of their assertions. You seem to be pretty sure, so you must have some pretty convincing contradicting evidence. Why don't you share this evidence with the world?

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  4. Re:But *THAT* is the problem.... by gillbates · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Organisms just evolve, ie. they become different from their ancestors

    So, by your definition, evolve is just a synonym of change. Why not just call it change, and be done with it? Oh, that's right - because using synonyms like emerge, come forth, etc... have undesirable political consequences.

    These are the kind of verbal semantics which I have come to loathe. Words are used for their political effect, rather than their actual meaning, and the common usage of a word is reduced in scope from something very specific and descriptive to something very broad and general. In this case, to you, evolve means merely change - to others, evolve means "reject God's authority". I don't see how any intelligent discourse can arise when two different groups of people have differing definitions for the same words.

    If you read scientific papers with an open mind, you're not subject to this stupid political pandering which has plagued science since its inception. Inevitably, science - like art - merely reflects the opinions of its financiers. I'm sorry to rain on your objectivity parade, but all science these days is political, and one needs look no farther than the global warming debate to see this.

    And this explains why the church still has a considerable following. People want to know the truth, and believe in something which won't come and go with the shifting of political power. Remember the Energy Crisis of the 70's? The Low Fat - High Carb dogma? How about the Population Explosion? How about the Geocentric model of the solar system - yes, it was secular thought that brought that one forth. Science wasn't just a little wrong - it was completely false. And yet you have the Church, still sending the same message it has always sent, since the 70's - AD 70 - that there is a way to eternal life. And it doesn't change every decade. And for those willing to learn, it has a much more sound basis in truth than the scientific method could ever provide.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
  5. Why don't they use the word "evolution"? by scstsut · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The truth is that the majority of scientists don't believe the theory of evolution so they use other words more consistent with their understanding of science.