Slashdot Mirror
Correcting Misperceptions About Evolution
Beagle writes "The science of evolution is often misunderstood by the public and a session at the recent AAAS meeting in Boston covered three frequently misapprehended topics in evolutionary history, the Cambrian explosion, origin of tetrapods, and evolution of human ancestors, as well as the origin of life. The final speaker, Martin Storksdieck of the Institute for Learning Innovation, covered how to communicate the data to a public that 'has such a hard time accepting what science is discovering.' His view: 'while most of the attention has focused on childhood education, we really should be going after the parents. Everyone is a lifelong learner, Storksdieck said, but once people leave school, that learning becomes a voluntary matter that's largely driven by individual taste.'"
"and many of the major adaptations we view as designed for a specific lifestyle actually originated as an adaptation for something else entirely."
Not worth reading past that I'm afraid.
Additional plugins are required to display all the media on this page.
Those that can't...teach.
"Everyone is a lifelong learner", Storksdieck said, "but once people leave school, that learning becomes a voluntary matter that's largely driven by individual taste."
Thank Bhudda for lifelong learning driven by individual taste.
Except that there really isn't that much diffrent between evolutionary theory and intelligent design. People seem to equate intelligent design with pure creationism and it all happend in 6 days and the 7th day god rested. Only real diffrence is that evolutionary theory suggests that everything is completely random and the best pops out as successful. Intelligent design just says that a god pushed the specis to be successful and it wasn't completely random. Backed by the evidence that there is no clear path of evolution between species and the fact that you can't breed a cat from dogs no matter how many cat like features you breed into the dogs.
For people that belive in a god this seems pretty fair and in the end wont mess with tracking the origins and evolution of creatures on earth.
I'm an athiest, but I don't hate people that belive in god. I do think it was pure natural selection and there was no other worldly assistance. But in the end the pure philosphical idea that it happend by chance or by intervention doesn't really matter to the science or data.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
and they say that science isn't a religion. If you spread your belief in a theory, the theory of evolution, and you do so with the zeal of those in other religions, and you think your way is the only right persepective, you got yourself a religion... the religion of science and athiesm has started growing lately, and will probably continue to do so in the future. It's probably just a matter of time before scientist start asking for money to support their religion... Actually, that probably won't happen since they already take money through other methods that steal from the tax payor's coffers... If it looks like a religion, smells like a religion, tastes like a religion, by golly, it might just be a religion.