In class on Tuesday Professor Grobstein touched briefly upon one specific aspect of evolution that I hadn't really thought of before. For whatever reason, this lingered with me throughout the week. The idea was in relation to teaching evolution in schools, most notably elementary schools. Professor Grobstein stated that although we cannot say with certainty that evolution is 100% true, there is a great deal of value in teaching children about it, despite its controversy. Over the years I have tried to pay attention to news stories that often involve religious schools or parts of the country that ban the teaching of evolution because it conflicts with religious ideas/ideals, but I hadn't thought about the value of teaching it regardless.

If these "alternative" genders and sexualities in the animal world are so common, then why is it that I've never heard of them before?

I was taught the concepts of "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" and have incorporated these terms into my own vocabulary. In Paul's discussion, I realize how these terms are very misleading. Darwin's usage of natural selection leads one to believe that someone/something is doing the selecting even though change is supposedly random. Furthermore, survival of the fittest is redundant because to be fit is to survive. There is no measure of fitness. This discussion has made me reevaluate what have always been believed to be. I'd been inclined to accept whats given and hesitate to question what is known. From this discussion, I value skepticism even more.

Devanshi brought up an interesting point in discussion on Thursday: the idea of thought and how evolution applies to it. Are we evolutionarily better than other organisms because we can think? Is thought a way to prove that evolution is progressive? I think that thought is not a feature that can be described as "better" nor do I think it is proof of progressiveness. I still think that organisms are different and it is unfair to compare them on an evolutionary scale.

On Thursday, we struggled over the question of who (or what force) is determining the course of our evolution. Is it the environmental conditions or the particular features of an organism?

 Since I did not post this past week due to note-taking, I wanted to share that last night, I went to the McCarter Theater in Princeton, NJ to see Sarah Treem's play The How and the Why. I really enjoyed the performance--I thought the writing, acting, and the set were fantastic. The play was definitely relevant to the ideas of gender and science that we are exploring in this course, as it was basically all about what it means to be a female scientist. Rachel, the younger character, is meeting Zelda, the biological mother who gave Rachel up for adoption, for the first time.

Last Thursday we were discussing the different stories that Paul had presented in class: The Great Chain of Being, The Tree of Life, and Emergence.  We thought, discussed, went back and forth on how to categorize each story.  Some were timeless others did contain a sense of time, some were foundational others were not.  But what stuck with me the most was this foundational issue.  The problem is that we are all incredibly different individuals with different cultures, life experiences, and hopes.  Therefore, every one of these stories (and many others that were not mentioned in class) could be either foundational or not foundational - it all depends on the reader.  There will never be one story that is foundational to all.  It is very similar