Sangbin Park

November 18, 2013

My Response
Consider the fact that many anti-evolution writers have used these disputes to claim that
evolution is "just a theory." By 7 a.m. on Tuesday, November 19, post your analysis of
whether and how you think the disputes among evolutionary biologists leave them open to
this kind of fallacious argument.
Science is a way of understanding the world. I think that theories are possible reasons and
explanations of what we are trying to understand. Evolution is the same; it is just a theory. It is
a theory that explains how creatures like humans came to be in this world. Although there may
be skepticism of the theory among anti-evolution writers, the scientific community, in general,
accepts theory of evolution. Just like any other ideas, the theory of evolution is not immune to
disputes and skepticism--especially, concerning the relationship between theology and evolution.
The topic of theory of evolution interests many.
To be honest, I was discomforted to see the dispute between Richard Dawkins and
Stephen Jay Gould. Of course, both of them took the tactics of a Victorian writer to build a
common place among them and acknowledged each others accomplishments and mutual
grounds of understanding from Darwins work. Then, it was a little bit disturbing to see each of
them picking on each other to protect their scientific grounds. They even pointed at small details.
For example, Dawkins points to the Chapter 3 of Leakey and Lewins The Sixth Extinction
(1996), which heavily influenced Gould, as embarrassing. As a spectator looking at these
disputes, I wish they had been friendly to work out their differences instead of attacking each
other. In reality, scientists are all learning from their studies and they can benefit from learning
each other. To certain extent, I do understand that disputes can be a way of motivating further
development of better knowledge.
In the process of proving their own grounds, I hope they can contribute to science by
discovering more important information and develop better understanding. Inevitably, in this
process, evolutionary biologists leave them open to fallacious arguments from many anti-
evolution writers. This is normal as anti-evolution writers will take any opportunities to
disapprove of the theory of evolution. I do not believe that these disputes are against the theory
of evolution in a way. The disputes are more about details within the theory. How did evolution
really occur? Did the evolution occur as result of punctuated equilibrium and/or gradual
progression? What can we conclude? Simply, these disputes are attempts to settle the differences.
Although these scientific disputes may provide many anti-evolution writers with an impression
that the theory of evolution can be disapproved, the disputes can actually be seen as a process of
completing and perfecting the theory. In essence, many anti-evolution writers will predate
on any dispute to stir up the public or to discredit the theory. It is best to examine the issue at its
heart to know whether the disputes are about the details of the theory or attempts to discredit the
theory itself. Thus, scientific reviews and disputes are necessary and essential part of scientific
development and, at the same time, they can also bring many voices from those who disapprove
of a theory like the anti-evolution writers to the table.