I'm going to admit straight off the bat that I skipped class on Thursday to attend the Teach-In about the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia that was taking place at the same time. While feeling guilty about this fact and simultaneously watching news coverage of and Skyping with people taking part in the events in Cairo, however, I got to thinking about the evolutionary paradigm as it applied to the revolutions taking place in the Arab world. Much of the language used to describe the path these revolutions have taken has been organic, with words such as "spread" and "grown" used to describe the way in which the events in one state have had a ripple effect throughout the neighborhood. This got me thinking about how these events could relate back to evolution and natural selection.

I left class on Tuesday puzzling over the thought, the possibility, that evolution is driven not by any invisible plan, or even competition and fitness, but by opportunity and exploration.  After finally coming to terms with the idea that there might not be any goal that evolution is trying to reach, that there is no true purpose, and finding that I rather liked it, I slowly began to realize this idea has actually been quite prevalent in my life, but in different forms. I cannot even begin to guess the first time I heard that it wasn't the destination that mattered, but rather the journey taken to get there. Beyond my own history, I also came to realize that this idea is popular in general culture.

Today, as we concluded the first section of our course (which highlighted the ways that technology "remakes gender"), Liz asked each of us to share a comment about "where we are." These are the responses I was able to record (I'm missing a few, and may have misrecorded others, so feel free to edit or add).

We are...
embracing confusion
nothing is ever simple
expectant
ambiguity, anonymity
binaries are bad names
lost in transit
processing
impatient
floating
clift diving
educative
learning
observing, evolving
looking for....?

On Thursday we discussed the idea of integrative learning. Most of us seemed incredibly resistant to the idea of an integrative approach to education. I think this idea deserves some further consideration, however. We have previously debated the lines between science and the humanities, and the blurring of those lines. There are more similarities between the two fields than we usually care to admit. It is because of this that I think an integrative education would be so much more helpful to people unsure of what they want to study. I always thought of myself as a “humanities” person, until I took science classes that challenged me in new and exciting ways.

This week had me thinking again about the kinds of things we consider to be ‘random,’ and what our reasoning is for labeling them as such. Do we define things this way because we simply cannot understand them? Or is ‘randomness’ really the appropriate title? In Professor Dalke’s section on Thursday, we attempted to compile a list of basics that should be included in any generic high school level syllabus about evolution. After considering the basics, we contemplated ‘order’ as a final topic. As a class, the consensus seemed to be that the order of evolution is, in fact, random.

 I've always wanted to read Darwin's On the Origin of Species ever since learning about evolution in biology class.  It only seemed right that I had to read one of the most influential texts that had ever been written or else I felt that I couldn't have truly said I love biology.  However, once we started reading the actual book for class, my sentiments towards Darwin and his book started to change.  What was once admiration and curiosity soon turned to annoyance and impatience.  Every page simply dragged on and on and on and on, I just couldn't help but only give a cursory read over most of the book.  Why did his summarized work seem so much more interesting than what he actually wrote?  

Dennett says that one "the Darwinian Revolution will come to occupy a similarly secure and untroubled place in the minds of every educated person on the globe" as the Copernican Revolution (19). While I agree that this is true, I believe that it will take much longer than the Copernicus. I think that, while both Copernicus and Galileo provoked a strong reaction from the Church, evolution is much bigger deal than whether the earth revolves the sun. While I agree with Dennett that Darwin has helped make answering the question "why?" easier, believing that human were not put here without a specific purpose by a divine being is disturbing to some. I guess in some ways, Darwin doesn't completely make answering this question easier.

 I think now i'm starting to see it--the moment where our tightly-focused readings is starting to branch out and pollinate other aspects of life. We spoke about what is perfection...we came to a conclusion that perfection on a tropical island will be very different than perfection in the chilly arctic. One environment does not require that its species be more well-equipt..it doesn't require its species to be more resilient, faster-moving, harder working..it only requires its species to be somewhat suited to it. The tango of species to the environment is, in itself a bit of trade off at times. There can be more fluctuation in the environment which creates more fluctuation in the organism. And that is not to say that all organisms work perfectly in their environments.

 This past Tuesday, we discussed how if people believe that everything is controlled by something which an individual has no influence over, then that person cannot play a casual role in the world or whatever is being controlled. But, then we also said that people can play a role in life when everything is not controlled. These statements really got me thinking- while this might be the obvious way of looking at life, is it the most sensitive? If people believe that life in general is under the total control of something and that nothing they do can change that, then why do people pray to God if they believe that He has control over everything. Are they just hoping to convince him with a persuading argument via their prayers? Or is this contradicting the earlier statements?