Actually, imperfections and weird vestigial bits are things Stephen J. Gould (an evolutionary biologist) pointed out as proving changes had happened (and weren't being carefully orchestrated by an Intelligence).
I considered 'satire', but it fit into the place that 'gullible' originally occupied even less well than 'sarcasm'.
But seriously, as someone with a research interest in evolutionary theory, I must admit that Gould pissed me off. He started his career as a straightforward scientist, but then he discoved he had a talent for prose and took on this role as the spokesperson for evolution that he was professionally unqualified to fill. Those weird 'Teach the debate' people probably read him at one point or another.
IMNSFHO, most scientists should just ignore the wackos, and should delegate the point-person position to someone who's willing to keep up with the literature and not give ground just for the purpose of seeming open minded. Gould was a bad front-man for modern science.
I'm not going to argue with you about Gould's merits. I would say that's a matter of opinion. You mayn't grant my opinion any credence, what with my lack of science degree(-seeking), but I still didn't appreciate the snark spillover and it was rather an implication that I was just solidly stupid. You don't know me, I don't know you, and I imagine matters will remain that way.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
hehe
Date: 2005-08-07 23:36 (UTC)Re: hehe
Date: 2005-08-07 23:51 (UTC)Re: hehe
Date: 2005-08-08 00:19 (UTC)Sarcasm is, I take it, what you're employing.
Re: hehe
Date: 2005-08-08 03:52 (UTC)But seriously, as someone with a research interest in evolutionary theory, I must admit that Gould pissed me off. He started his career as a straightforward scientist, but then he discoved he had a talent for prose and took on this role as the spokesperson for evolution that he was professionally unqualified to fill. Those weird 'Teach the debate' people probably read him at one point or another.
IMNSFHO, most scientists should just ignore the wackos, and should delegate the point-person position to someone who's willing to keep up with the literature and not give ground just for the purpose of seeming open minded. Gould was a bad front-man for modern science.
Re: hehe
Date: 2005-08-08 12:41 (UTC)Not all satire is subtle.
Re: hehe
Date: 2005-08-08 00:20 (UTC)Re: hehe
Date: 2005-08-08 00:35 (UTC)