Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
Just a reminder!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AE 87" data-source="post: 209858" data-attributes="member: 195"><p>On “a simple question”:</p><p></p><p>[USER=391]@collegeballfan[/USER] and [USER=1640]@Northeast Stinger[/USER], I agree that politicians should be prepared to answer questions and understand that y’all feel that the question on belief in evolution falls into that category.</p><p></p><p>However, my question was about the equivocal terms in the questions posed as analogous. You both avoided a pretty simple question as to whether those political questions were actually analogous. You see, I was calling into question the suggestion that the evolution question is rightly seen as a simple question, analogous to those other questions on political policy issues.</p><p></p><p>As I stated, the problem with this question arises from an inherent equivocation on the word, “evolution.” On the one hand, it can refer simply to any biological change over time, including adaptations to environment, which no one denies. On another hand, it can refer to the textbook scientific theory of the modern synthesis or neo-Darwinism, the theory that all biological diversity developed from a single common ancestor through an unguided process of natural selection working on random variations, including mutations. This theory has largely been falsified, or significantly undermined if you prefer. Then on a third hand, “evolution” can refer to an ideological position that says that although the modern-synthesis cannot explain the origin of biological diversity some future theory of a natural process will be discovered to explain biological diversity without reference to a creator or designer. However, most uses of the word “evolution” seem unaware of this potential equivocation.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This problem arises because most science education, in both the UK and the US, has failed to clarify these distinctions. As a result, as [USER=1640]@Northeast Stinger[/USER] notes, even a short answer which reflects the complexity of the question will not be received well by many, if not most, because they have simply accepted by faith that evolution is both an unambiguous term and also settled science.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AE 87, post: 209858, member: 195"] On “a simple question”: [USER=391]@collegeballfan[/USER] and [USER=1640]@Northeast Stinger[/USER], I agree that politicians should be prepared to answer questions and understand that y’all feel that the question on belief in evolution falls into that category. However, my question was about the equivocal terms in the questions posed as analogous. You both avoided a pretty simple question as to whether those political questions were actually analogous. You see, I was calling into question the suggestion that the evolution question is rightly seen as a simple question, analogous to those other questions on political policy issues. As I stated, the problem with this question arises from an inherent equivocation on the word, “evolution.” On the one hand, it can refer simply to any biological change over time, including adaptations to environment, which no one denies. On another hand, it can refer to the textbook scientific theory of the modern synthesis or neo-Darwinism, the theory that all biological diversity developed from a single common ancestor through an unguided process of natural selection working on random variations, including mutations. This theory has largely been falsified, or significantly undermined if you prefer. Then on a third hand, “evolution” can refer to an ideological position that says that although the modern-synthesis cannot explain the origin of biological diversity some future theory of a natural process will be discovered to explain biological diversity without reference to a creator or designer. However, most uses of the word “evolution” seem unaware of this potential equivocation. This problem arises because most science education, in both the UK and the US, has failed to clarify these distinctions. As a result, as [USER=1640]@Northeast Stinger[/USER] notes, even a short answer which reflects the complexity of the question will not be received well by many, if not most, because they have simply accepted by faith that evolution is both an unambiguous term and also settled science. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who was Georgia Tech's starting QB in 2023?
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
Just a reminder!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top