Monkeying with evolution

The Baltimore Sun ^ | July 24, 2008 | David P. Barash

[Soliton]

"My dear, let us hope that it isn't true!" the wife of the bishop of Worcester is reputed to have exclaimed 150 years ago, on hearing that human beings might be descended from apes. "But if it is true, let us hope that it doesn't become widely known!"

When it comes to sociobiology - better known these days as "evolutionary psychology" - the bishop's wife has modern counterparts: The religious right and the secular and supposedly scientific left are remarkably on the same page, both sides inclined to dispute or misrepresent the relevance of evolution to human beings. The former, of course, deny the underlying science. But what about the latter? They're secular, they're rational, they're tolerant, aren't they?

And there's the rub. For more than 30 years, left-leaning academics - notably residing in the humanities and, to a lesser extent, the social sciences - have been strongly opposed to using evolutionary theory to help make sense of human behavior, in part because their professional training emphasizes the role of social learning and cultural traditions, and - perhaps even more - because they fear the possible findings. Do racial differences imply genetic distinctions that might argue against social equality? Are women fated for kitchen work and childbearing, not high-level physics? And even if the science is more nuanced than that (which it certainly is), will the simpler message drown out the details and provide ammunition for social regression?

[Soliton]

So you will attack my beliefs, but you will not defend your own. You question my science, but refuse to state yours. I can not believe that anyone who understands atomic decay or sedimentary deposition, or even tree ring analysis could seriously defend a 10,000 year-old earth. A mechanical engineer should absolutely understand the second law. Why not state your case? If it is valid scientifically, I can’t and won’t argue.

[count-your-change]

You post assertions that evolution theory equals fact so its yours to defend. What I believe is irrelevant to the question of whether that theory represents truth, isn't it?
I could have no beliefs, all beliefs, any beliefs and it would do absolutely nothing to demonstrate the truthfulness or lack in evolution. So no, I see no point in shifting the focus to my beliefs (or that of “creationists” either).
Actually I see no more proof for a ten thousand year old earth than for evolution. But it is interesting you brought it up.

[Soliton]

You are an engineer who believes in magic. Go watch TV.

[count-your-change]

Your logic is irrefutable. I stand down.........for now.