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."
In a related story, President Bush declared today a 'crusade' on the word, saying "we will rid the world of the evo-luters".
Interesting.. Darwin didn't consider his own theory "true science".
[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."--*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].
"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . . . Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."--*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."--*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
So... could the church discourage use of the word "God" to avoid controversy.
If we already self-censor science, it's about time the religious crackpots shut up about their supernatural power. Oh, and of course not just A supernatural power, but THE (christian) supernatural power. All others are wrong. Why? Everybody knows that.
Porcupine Tree - "Halo"
God is freedom, God is truth
God is power and God is proof...
You might as well encourage more journalist to use the term gay, and I don't mean Homosexual. I mean the gay as in happy, content, pleasant definition.
Evolve does include micro-evolution but what most religious people associate with the word is the "suddenly lizards sprouted feathers and started flying" theories. Remember Darwin was a Christian, a lot of Christians understand that plants and animals 'evolve' in situations where it is necessary, humans right now are 'evolving' their metabolism.
When you say Evolve people think of a lot more than adaptation to environment. They also think Macro-evolution. When you say Gay people think of a lot more than... well there is no possible way of saying this without it sounding gay. Basically they also think of homosexuality. Its a moderately good comparison.