The debate between advocates of intelligent design and Darwinian evolution is one that not only permeates modern legal arenas, but also reflects an underlying dispute about the nature of science, and the innate appeal certain scientific stories over others.  Randomness is at the heart of biological evolution.  It is integral to natural selection and genetic mutation, two of the cornerstones of the modern understanding of the evolutionary process.  While the bulk of scientific observations seem to support such randomness, many people find it unnerving and even improbable.  In an article in the New York Times in 2005, Christopher Schönborn articulated a position held by many people both inside and outside the scientific community, "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science” (“Science as a Story”).  This stance on the evolutionary process has come to be recognized as “intelligent design,” a subtle mixture of Darwin and religion.  It is compelling that both explanations seem to provide security to some and anxiety to others.  While many are reassured by the “hard facts” that support biological evolution, others see this enforced randomness as lacking in meaning and thus undermining human purpose.  Conversely, the supernatural beginnings of intelligent design provide security through order, while causing some people to question its narrow view of human potential and attending religious connotations.

Recapitulation: Evidence For or Against Evolution?

The idea that embryos of different organisms look similar is not foreign. Anyone in an introductory biology, anatomy, or embryology class knows that chicken embryos are almost identical to the embryos of humans. Embryological development in different organisms diverges from other organisms at different stages in correlation with the complexity of the organisms. For example, human embryos and rabbit embryos diverge at a later time in development than the embryos of humans and fish. This idea was first described by K. E. von Baer (1792-1876) in his biogenetic law that stated that earlier stages of embryonic development of higher organisms resemble those organisms lower on the scale of nature (Pittendrigh 352). It was Ernst Heinrich Haeckel (1834-1919) who coined the phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” adapting von Baer’s ideas of the scale of nature to that of evolution. “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” was a commonly used phrase to explain the evidence supporting evolution. Ontogeny is “the complete developmental history of the individual organism,” and phylogeny is defined as “the complete evolutionary history of a group of organisms,” (Villee 697, 699). Thus, this phase means that the evolutionary history of a group of organisms is repeated during the developmental history of an individual organism of that group. This idea is also known as recapitulation. Recapitulation is a disputed topic used by pro-evolutionists as evidence for evolution and as against by the opposition. The story behind evolution and recapitulation is not as black and white as these suggest. I believe there is a middle ground in which recapitulation neither proves nor refutes evolution.

Shannon McPherson

Evolution Paper 1

February 16, 2007

Throughout this course we have repeatedly made note of the great importance of storytelling in science. Scientific stories are constantly changing, undergoing perpetual revision as new observations are made over time. The inconstancy of such scientific stories, however, can weaken reception to science, as vast uncertainties are naturally unsettling, and many people thus prefer to believe stories based in squarely in religious faith. The current story of biological evolution has still not convinced even half of the American population, almost 100 years after Darwin first introduced his theory in The Origin of Species1. This is a somewhat difficult fact to grapple with, as so much physical evidence backs the theory of biological evolution that it would seem somewhat foolish to dismiss it outright, and yet evolution remains an incredibly controversial issue. Although I personally put much stock in evolutionary theory, I am hesitant to label creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design as backwards, ignorant or delusional as some evolutionists are wont to do. Rather, I find their dependence on the Bible and on a historical world view based entirely within a religious context to be quite natural, in the sense that the biblical story of creation has been around for thousands of years, and is a static story, not plagued with change and uncertainty like the scientific story of biological evolution. Additionally, I feel that biological evolution is often grossly misrepresented in the mainstream by those advancing creationist perspectives. Biological evolutionary theory, therefore, is damaged by comforting and effective religious storytelling, Storytelling, therefore, is an incredibly crucial component in the tension between evolutionary and creationist world views.

Specifying the Self: Zadie Smith’s Concept in Ernst Mayr’s Writing

Gaby Kogut

Biology/English 223: Evolution/Stories/Diversity

2/15/07

In her essay, “Fail Better,” Zadie Smith describes what she sees as the qualities of and purposes for the novel. She theorizes the novel as an author’s attempt to describe his unique “self” and believes that since the author can never fully do that, the masterworks in the literary cannon are excellent failures, instead of successful novels. I would like to apply her ideas to Ernst Mayr’s novel on science, What Evolution Is, and examine how well her ideas hold up. I have two arguments against her conception of self, one that applies to how the self comes through a novel’s content and the other relates to the self in a novel’s style. My reading of Mayr’s content and style prove my arguments against Smith.

       Ernst Mayr seems very disdainful of creationists and their opposition of evolution in his book What Evolution Is. He makes it very apparent to the reader that he believes their claims have no proof to back them up and in his list of books that would prove that they are wrong we have such unbiased sounding titles as Niles Eldredge’s The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism as well as Philip Kitcher’s Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Why are these titles so harsh? It is because on the other side of the divide the creationists are just as stubborn. Philip Kitcher says that creationists are abusing science but Paul Abramson the editor of creationism.org says that evolutionists are abusing science. The animosity these groups hold for each other is astounding and due to the opposite nature of their beliefs I wondered if it were possible for the two groups to co-exist. I believe that the answer to my question is a provisional yes. I do not believe that these groups need to publish entire books that are poorly veiled attacks on the opposing side. I believe that evolutionists and creationists could co-exist if they were willing to listen to each others points and agree to disagree on certain others.

Just a test!

In January 2005, the then president of Harvard College, Larry Summers, publicly questioned the intrinsic ability of women in the physical sciences in front of an audience of intellectuals. This incident became infamous and endlessly discussed. In January 2005, I was beginning my first semester back at Bryn Mawr College as a physics major after a one year leave of absence. At the time, I remember Summers' comments exploding across campus. The president of our college distributed a statement denouncing Summers' words. I remember thinking how lucky I was to go to an institution where my abilities would not be underestimated due to my gender. Although I remember reading several op-eds and discussing his remarks with friends, I never read the transcript of his talk or encountered a supporter of his views. The conversations I recall were very one-sided.

When pioneering feminists fought for women’s rights, they knew that they had a long battle ahead of them. Today, when most of us would like to think that women are equal, we still can’t quite put our finger on just why women are still underrepresented in the hard sciences. Women actually make up the majority in the so-called soft science fields like anthropology, and they have a large representation in many other high-powered and male dominated fields, but they are lagging behind in others.

The question as to why women are so sorely outnumbered in various scientific fields has been raging for years now, and almost every expert to ever glance at the issue has some pet theory that is sure to raise someone’s hackles.

 A Reaction to the “High-Powered Job Hypothesis” All my life I have thought of myself as a kind of scientist – from my childhood curiosity about the world to my matriculation at a “School of Science and Mathematics” to my physics degree from Bryn Mawr College, I have identified myself as being interested in and, to some degree, talented in the natural sciences and math.  I have not, however, ever identified myself as the high-powered kind of scientist pulling down six figures working and perhaps teaching at a major research institution.  I would infinitely rather do a job that al