|
NYT ED 051705 The Evolution of Creationism. “The latest struggle over the teaching of evolution in the public
schools of Kansas provides striking evidence that evolution is occurring right
before our eyes. Every time the critics of Darwinism lose a battle over
reshaping the teaching of biology, they evolve into a new form, armed with
arguments that sound progressively more benign, while remaining as dangerous as
ever… The state science standards in Kansas are up for revision this year, and
a committee of scientists and educators has proposed standards that enshrine
evolution as a central concept of modern biology. The ruckus comes about
because a committee minority, led by intelligent-design proponents, has issued
its own proposals calling for more emphasis on the limitations of evolution
theory and the evidence supposedly contradicting it. The minority even seeks to
change the definition of science in a way that appears to leave room for
supernatural explanations of the origin and evolution of life, not just natural
explanations, the usual domain of science. The fact that all this is wildly inappropriate for a public school
curriculum does not in any way suggest that teachers are being forced to take
sides against those who feel that the evolution of humanity, in one way or
another, was the work of an all-powerful deity. Many empirical scientists
believe just that, but also understand that theories about how God interacts
with the world are beyond the scope of their discipline.
The Kansas board, which held one-sided hearings this month that were
boycotted by mainstream scientists on the grounds that the outcome was
preordained, is expected to vote on the standards this summer. One can only
hope that the members will come to their senses first. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/opinion/17tues2.html Sniffing Out the Gay Gene
By Steven Pinker, NYT OpEd, Tuesday, May 17,
2005 Cambridge, Mass. - It sounds like something out of the
satirical journal Annals of Improbable Research: a team of Swedish
neuroscientists scanned people's brains as they smelled a testosterone
derivative found in men's sweat and an estrogen-like compound found in women's
urine. In heterosexual men, a part of the hypothalamus (the seat of physical
drives) responded to the female compound but not the male one; in heterosexual
women and homosexual men, it was the other way around. But the discovery is
more than just a shoo-in for that journal's annual Ig Nobel Prize - it raises
provocative questions about the science and ethics of human sexuality. Scientists and perfume marketers who believe that humans,
like other mammals, respond sexually to chemical signals called pheromones were
cheered by the news. But we are a long way from dogs in heat. The role of
pheromones in our sexuality must be small at best. When people want to be
titillated or to check out a prospective partner, most seek words or pictures,
not dirty laundry. The difference in the brain responses of gay and straight
men does not, by itself, prove that homosexuality is innate; after all, learned
inclinations, like innate ones, must reside somewhere in the brain. But in this
case nature probably does trump nurture. Gay men generally report that their
homosexual attractions began as soon as they felt sexual stirrings before
adolescence. And homosexuality is more concordant in identical than in
fraternal twins, suggesting that their shared genes play a role. Homosexuality is a puzzle for biology, not
because homosexuality itself is evolutionarily maladaptive (though no more so
than any other sexual act that does not result in conception), but because any
genetic tendency to avoid heterosexual opportunities should have been selected
out long ago. Perhaps
"gay genes" have some other compensating advantage, like enhancing
fertility, when they are carried by women. Perhaps the environments that set
off homosexuality today didn't exist while our genes were being selected. Or
perhaps the main cause is biological yet not directly genetic, like differences
in hormones or antibodies that affect the fetus while it is developing. Just as puzzling is the existence of homophobia. Why didn't
evolution shape straight men to react to their gay fellows by thinking:
"Great! More women for me!" Probably the answer lies in a
cross-wiring between our senses of morality and disgust. People often confuse
their own revulsion with objective sinfulness, as when they dehumanize people
living in squalor or, in the other direction, engage in religious rituals of
cleanliness and purification. An impulse to avoid homosexual contact may blur
into an impulse to condemn homosexuality. Cultural conservatives like the talk-show host Dr. Laura
Schlesinger ostensibly condemn homosexuality for another reason - that it is a
"biological error." Actually, it is she who has made the biological
error. What is
evolutionarily adaptive and what is morally justifiable have little to do with
each other. Many laudable activities - being faithful to one's spouse, turning
the other cheek, treating every child as precious, loving thy neighbor as
thyself - are "biological errors" and are rare or unknown in the
natural world. It's not just anti-gay commentators who see a moral coloring
in the biology of homosexuality. Some gay groups condemn such research because
it could stigmatize gay people as defective and lead to a day in which parents
could selectively abort children with "gay genes." Others welcome the
research because it shows that people don't "choose" to be gay and
hence can't be criticized for it, nor could homosexuals convert the children in
their classrooms or Scout troops even if they wanted to. It may not be a coincidence that the new discovery came from
researchers in Europe. In America, the biology of homosexuality is a
politicized minefield that scares away scientists (and the universities and
agencies that pay for their research). Which is a pity. Regardless of where homosexuality resides
in the brain, the ethics of homosexuality is a no-brainer: what consenting adults do in private is
nobody's business but their own. And the deterrents to research on homosexuality leave us in
ignorance of one of the most fascinating sources of human diversity. Steven Pinker, a professor of cognitive
science at Harvard, is the author of "How the Mind Works" and
"The Blank Slate." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/opinion/17pinker.html Related Articles
For Gay Men, an Attractionto a Different Kind
of Scent (May 10, 2005) |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
