Mmmm, Arby's for breakfast
And yes, I really am having breakfast at 5 PM, despite having been up for over five hours now.
Last Thursday, this article ran in the UDK here. Today, my response ran.
Then this afternoon, I get an e-mail from the guy who wrote the original article, in which he goes back and forth between saying that he's only ever had a couple of bio classes (and those in high school, which makes them that much more laughable), and trying to argue with me and shoot my points down.
Justin-
I appreciate your editorial that ran in today's Kansan. The main reason I decided to write for the Kansan was so that I could discuss issues and let other people respond to my ideas. For that reason, I appreciate the response.
I am not a biology major or anything close. My experience with biology consists of two high-school courses and research on the evolution vs. intelligent design debate that has been ongoing for about the past six months. Therefore, I realize that I am not the authority on the topic of evolution.
Still, I feel compelled to defend what I said in my column.
First of all, you quote me as saying, "evolution is the untouchable truth of biology… it should not be taught alongside anything else, and it should not be questioned in a science classroom.” Perhaps I was unclear on the intention of this statement. As I said at the beginning of the article, I attended the Kansas science standards open forum in Topeka. From that forum, the idea that evolution supporters seemed to express was that evolution should not be questioned in science classrooms. I didn't mean to say that it actually shouldn't be questioned, nor did I mean to imply that scientists believe that it shouldn’t be questioned. I meant that many opponents of ID being taught in classrooms believe that evolution shouldn't be questioned, and that such an assertion is ridiculous.
I believe that the quote I used from Ed Wiley was not taken out of context. As you explain the quote, you say, "What Wiley had intended to say was that because of the way evolution works at the population level, no individual organism ever directly experiences evolution." That was the purpose of the quote. Because of this, evolution cannot be considered a proven "fact" because no one has experienced evolution. By its very nature, it cannot be classified as a fact. It is simply too drawn out and requires too much time to be fully experienced or observed. That does not lessen the status of evolution as a major scientific theory or make it any less convincing or plausible. It just means that it isn't a fact. I interviewed Assistant Professor Paulyn Cartwright, who explained that scientists are hesitant to use the word "fact" when explaining evolution because, as I said, it can't be experienced by an individual. I understand how the use of the quote might have been misunderstood, but that was not my intention.
You give the example of antibiotic-resistant bacteria as proof of evolution. Once again, I don't believe that this can be considered proof because it is on an extremely minute scale. Evolution says that all organisms descended from a common ancestor. This example simply says that organisms can mutate. But did the mutation of the bacteria put it in a different species? Does it provide any proof that such a bacteria could develop a system of organs, limbs, and a variety of sensors that would make it a human? My point is that, once again, the scale is simply too small to conclusively "prove" evolution. By its nature, evolution is improvable. That doesn't make it wrong by any means. It just means that calling it a "fact" is inaccurate.
You also say, "But that then begs the question, does he doubt the theory of gravity as well?" Again, I think you misunderstand. My point is not to disprove, or even doubt, evolution. I'm a political science major - I'm in no position to doubt evolution. My point, though, is to explain that it has not been proven and should not be treated as such.
Earlier in the editorial, you say, "Evolution should be questioned, along with everything else that is taught in a science classroom." If evolution were fact, why should we question it? We don't question facts. Evolution is not proven and should not be classified as "fact," and that leaves room for questioning.
Michael Behe, a biologist at Lehigh University, wrote a book about biochemistry and evolution in which he explains that some tasks, such as the clotting of the blood, are impossible to explain with the premises of evolution. Again, if a biologist is doubting evolution, than I think it is safe to say that evolution is not proven.
Of course, the point of the article was to talk about the science standards in Kansas. My point was not to disprove evolution in any way. I simply want to point out that evolution has limitations, has reasonable doubts from intelligent and educated people, and students should know this. There's no reason to try to convince students that evolution has been proven if it hasn't. That was my point.
Again, I appreciate your response.
Thanks,
Vince Myers
I'll post my response to his e-mail when I work it up.
Last Thursday, this article ran in the UDK here. Today, my response ran.
Then this afternoon, I get an e-mail from the guy who wrote the original article, in which he goes back and forth between saying that he's only ever had a couple of bio classes (and those in high school, which makes them that much more laughable), and trying to argue with me and shoot my points down.
Justin-
I appreciate your editorial that ran in today's Kansan. The main reason I decided to write for the Kansan was so that I could discuss issues and let other people respond to my ideas. For that reason, I appreciate the response.
I am not a biology major or anything close. My experience with biology consists of two high-school courses and research on the evolution vs. intelligent design debate that has been ongoing for about the past six months. Therefore, I realize that I am not the authority on the topic of evolution.
Still, I feel compelled to defend what I said in my column.
First of all, you quote me as saying, "evolution is the untouchable truth of biology… it should not be taught alongside anything else, and it should not be questioned in a science classroom.” Perhaps I was unclear on the intention of this statement. As I said at the beginning of the article, I attended the Kansas science standards open forum in Topeka. From that forum, the idea that evolution supporters seemed to express was that evolution should not be questioned in science classrooms. I didn't mean to say that it actually shouldn't be questioned, nor did I mean to imply that scientists believe that it shouldn’t be questioned. I meant that many opponents of ID being taught in classrooms believe that evolution shouldn't be questioned, and that such an assertion is ridiculous.
I believe that the quote I used from Ed Wiley was not taken out of context. As you explain the quote, you say, "What Wiley had intended to say was that because of the way evolution works at the population level, no individual organism ever directly experiences evolution." That was the purpose of the quote. Because of this, evolution cannot be considered a proven "fact" because no one has experienced evolution. By its very nature, it cannot be classified as a fact. It is simply too drawn out and requires too much time to be fully experienced or observed. That does not lessen the status of evolution as a major scientific theory or make it any less convincing or plausible. It just means that it isn't a fact. I interviewed Assistant Professor Paulyn Cartwright, who explained that scientists are hesitant to use the word "fact" when explaining evolution because, as I said, it can't be experienced by an individual. I understand how the use of the quote might have been misunderstood, but that was not my intention.
You give the example of antibiotic-resistant bacteria as proof of evolution. Once again, I don't believe that this can be considered proof because it is on an extremely minute scale. Evolution says that all organisms descended from a common ancestor. This example simply says that organisms can mutate. But did the mutation of the bacteria put it in a different species? Does it provide any proof that such a bacteria could develop a system of organs, limbs, and a variety of sensors that would make it a human? My point is that, once again, the scale is simply too small to conclusively "prove" evolution. By its nature, evolution is improvable. That doesn't make it wrong by any means. It just means that calling it a "fact" is inaccurate.
You also say, "But that then begs the question, does he doubt the theory of gravity as well?" Again, I think you misunderstand. My point is not to disprove, or even doubt, evolution. I'm a political science major - I'm in no position to doubt evolution. My point, though, is to explain that it has not been proven and should not be treated as such.
Earlier in the editorial, you say, "Evolution should be questioned, along with everything else that is taught in a science classroom." If evolution were fact, why should we question it? We don't question facts. Evolution is not proven and should not be classified as "fact," and that leaves room for questioning.
Michael Behe, a biologist at Lehigh University, wrote a book about biochemistry and evolution in which he explains that some tasks, such as the clotting of the blood, are impossible to explain with the premises of evolution. Again, if a biologist is doubting evolution, than I think it is safe to say that evolution is not proven.
Of course, the point of the article was to talk about the science standards in Kansas. My point was not to disprove evolution in any way. I simply want to point out that evolution has limitations, has reasonable doubts from intelligent and educated people, and students should know this. There's no reason to try to convince students that evolution has been proven if it hasn't. That was my point.
Again, I appreciate your response.
Thanks,
Vince Myers
I'll post my response to his e-mail when I work it up.