Stephen Jones Royal Society Lecture
I watched the webcast of this lecture last night. The title was "Why evolution is right and creationism wrong" and I was really looking forward to it as Stephen Jones is an ace communicator as well as being a top scientist. It was certainly popular - apparently over 8000 people queued to see it and the server was overwhelmed initially with people wanting to see the webcast. However, it will be available shortly in the Royal Society webcast archive.
Having said all that, I think it was an opportunity missed. I got the strong impression that this was familiar material rehashed and a better title might have been "Perspectives on evolution". I certainly found it interesting, but I don't think many people would have been persuaded one way or the other by seeing it. Much of the time was spent discussing analogies between language development and evolution, evolution in AIDS, and the extent to which humans have evaded natural selection. There was little attempt to take on the argument from creationism directly, no broad summary of the massive evidence for Darwinian natural selection, and he explicitly avoided talking about intelligent design.
This made me think about the lecture I would have liked to have heard. I would like something which stressed the importance of the issue, was much broader and strong in assessing the evidence for Darwinism, and tackled Creationism/ID head on. Much less detail on the specifics of languages and AIDS and aimed at a more general lay audience.
I think it would go something like this.
1. Why this subject matters to you.
1.1 The enlightenment brought us science which has transformed our lives.
1.2 Darwin's theory is an essential product of the enlightenment. It brings us real benefits e.g. the battle against AIDS, understanding resistance in pesticides
1.3 Creationism/ID is a reversion to reasoning through faith and superstition as opposed to observation and evidence. cf the Wedge document
1.4 Creationsm/ID seems to be making a come back - even in the UK
2. How do we know evolution is right?
2.1 Quickly differentiate between evolution and the Darwinian explanation for evolution
2.2 Go back to 1859. Darwin based his theory on:
2.2.1 Taxonomy (could use the analogy with languages)
2.2.2 Artificial selection
2.2.3 The fossil record
2.3 This is compelling stuff but the theory had its problems
2.3.1 No mechanism for inheritance
2.3.2 The earth was not old enough
2.3.3 Gaps in the fossil record
2.3.4 Answers have been found for all these (give examples)
2.4 Darwinism is one of the most comprehensively validated theories around.
3. Some creationist/ID objections to Darwinism
3.1 The fossil record and the Cambrian explosion. Deal with it.
3.2 Evolution of major new function has never been observed. Deal with it.
3.3 Maybe a few more colourful objections if there is time
4. Why is creationism wrong?
4.1 It comes in many varieties but all require a designer
4.2 Anyone can explain anything by saying there is a designer who made it so
4.3 But this is faith not evidence. This is what differentiates science from the man y different religions round the world.
4.4 Many of the world's top scientists are religious and many of the top relgious leaders (Pope etc) accept Darwinism. But they all accept the difference between faith and evidence. We don't want to return to the age where faith is enough (could perhaps finish on 9/11 if feeling very bold!)
Maybe someone will do this soon?
Having said all that, I think it was an opportunity missed. I got the strong impression that this was familiar material rehashed and a better title might have been "Perspectives on evolution". I certainly found it interesting, but I don't think many people would have been persuaded one way or the other by seeing it. Much of the time was spent discussing analogies between language development and evolution, evolution in AIDS, and the extent to which humans have evaded natural selection. There was little attempt to take on the argument from creationism directly, no broad summary of the massive evidence for Darwinian natural selection, and he explicitly avoided talking about intelligent design.
This made me think about the lecture I would have liked to have heard. I would like something which stressed the importance of the issue, was much broader and strong in assessing the evidence for Darwinism, and tackled Creationism/ID head on. Much less detail on the specifics of languages and AIDS and aimed at a more general lay audience.
I think it would go something like this.
1. Why this subject matters to you.
1.1 The enlightenment brought us science which has transformed our lives.
1.2 Darwin's theory is an essential product of the enlightenment. It brings us real benefits e.g. the battle against AIDS, understanding resistance in pesticides
1.3 Creationism/ID is a reversion to reasoning through faith and superstition as opposed to observation and evidence. cf the Wedge document
1.4 Creationsm/ID seems to be making a come back - even in the UK
2. How do we know evolution is right?
2.1 Quickly differentiate between evolution and the Darwinian explanation for evolution
2.2 Go back to 1859. Darwin based his theory on:
2.2.1 Taxonomy (could use the analogy with languages)
2.2.2 Artificial selection
2.2.3 The fossil record
2.3 This is compelling stuff but the theory had its problems
2.3.1 No mechanism for inheritance
2.3.2 The earth was not old enough
2.3.3 Gaps in the fossil record
2.3.4 Answers have been found for all these (give examples)
2.4 Darwinism is one of the most comprehensively validated theories around.
3. Some creationist/ID objections to Darwinism
3.1 The fossil record and the Cambrian explosion. Deal with it.
3.2 Evolution of major new function has never been observed. Deal with it.
3.3 Maybe a few more colourful objections if there is time
4. Why is creationism wrong?
4.1 It comes in many varieties but all require a designer
4.2 Anyone can explain anything by saying there is a designer who made it so
4.3 But this is faith not evidence. This is what differentiates science from the man y different religions round the world.
4.4 Many of the world's top scientists are religious and many of the top relgious leaders (Pope etc) accept Darwinism. But they all accept the difference between faith and evidence. We don't want to return to the age where faith is enough (could perhaps finish on 9/11 if feeling very bold!)
Maybe someone will do this soon?
posted by Mark Frank at 1:43 pm
0 comments
