Re: AIG notes

Gary Collins wrote:
>
> Not too long ago on this list the issue of removing the word 'evolution'
> from the textbooks was aired. If I remember rightly, this was not an
> attempt to change what is actually taught, but simply to use a different
> word for it. At the time, my first reaction was, 'How ridiculous can you
> get? If you're teaching the same things what difference does it make what
> you call it? Why change what we already have, and have had for many
> years?'
> On reflection, I remembered that, like it or not, the word 'evolution' also
> carries a lot of philosophical baggage, particularly in the public eye.
> Burgy's post with the AIG notes only served to reinforce this reflection;
> maybe the suggestion to change it it wasn't such a bad one after all.
> Maybe if 'evolution' were to be replaced, for example with the phrase
> 'descent with modification' (as used by Darwin himself) most or all of
> this surplus baggage could be shed.

        There is something to be said for this. In the _Origin_, the 1st use of an
evolve-related word is the _last_ word in the book: "... from so simple a beginning
endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
(This is from the 5th ed. Someone more expert on Darwin may know if there are
differences in earlier editions.)

        But eventually the E word will have to be faced, & probably sooner rather than
later. As soon as the meaning of "descent with modification" has been made clear, some
bright student is likely to ask the teacher, "Are you talking about evolution?" & at
that point any attempt to avoid the word would be dishonest.

                                                Shalom,
                                                George
        

George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Tue Mar 16 07:23:14 2004