American Paradox

A few quick notes on the debate over the teaching of evolution by natural selection of fitness-conferring attributes over long periods of time, otherwise known as Darwinian Evolution.

1. An excellent discussion of Karl Popper's beliefs regarding evolutionary theory as a scientific theory. It is hilarious that "Intelligent Design" advocates (read: creationists) would attempt to quote Karl Popper, a philosopher of science and reason who opposed pseudoscience and detested the authority of mystery religions. I like Popper's explanation, which is difficult for us to grasp because of our present time-centric perspective, of Darwinian Evolution's contribution to our understanding of biology. His example is the evolution of bacteria resistant to penicillin. How else to explain organisms changing in response to human activities, over time, and after the introduction of medicinal penicillin? You could come up with some, but evolutionary theory does a damn good job.


2. Reason online has a little libertarian-focused explanation of the fallacies of the "Intelligent Design" movement. I link to this because libertarians often ally themselves with religious authoritarians (conservatives) in American politics. They do this to accomplish their economic policies, but sometimes they subvert their ideals in their alliances. At least some of them have remembered that the state should not be subsidizing free advertisements for religious theories of the world anymore than the state already subsidizes those things: the tax-exempt status of churches.

What else to say, after this? Some people oppose evolutionary theory in its present form because they do not understand it; some oppose it because it seems to make God more complicated than the Gospel leads us to believe. Both are silly problems to have with an explanation of natural theory. Others dislike evolutionary theory because they are religious politicos, anti-scientific rationalists, or identify evolutionary theory with social liberalism. All of those sources of opposition are likewise childish, in my mind. I could explain further - but why? If anyone who reads this actually holds an anti-evolutionary belief due to any of my enumerated sources, I would relish the opportunity to explain any particular one.