Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site iham1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!iham1!gjphw
From: gjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Comments on science, society, and Darwinism
Message-ID: <423@iham1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Aug-85 18:43:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: iham1.423
Posted: Mon Aug  5 18:43:10 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Aug-85 12:37:34 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 80


 *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR FAVORITE CULTURAL BIAS ***

    I have a few reflections on the course of discussions in this newsgroup.
 These reflections are based on some recent incidental readings.  Just by
 accident, most of the articles have been concerning cultures, the influence of
 society on science, and the lack of understanding between cultures.  A recent
 submission by T. Holden concerning a creation-evolution debate in Virginia has
 prompted me to generate this article (for what it is worth).

    In a recent NOVA episode on Stephen J. Gould (the paleontologist), Gould
 tried to point out how many concepts in (especially) biology are merely
 restatements of cultural biases and expectations.  From western Christian
 perspective, history is seen to be linear, gradual, and progressive.  This is
 in contrast, for example, to eastern thought which considers history to be
 cyclical.  Anyway, the popular formulation of evolution (now identified as
 Darwinism) sees evolution as progressive and gradual.  When *homo sapiens*
 appeared, the predecessor primate obligingly became extinct.  This is a
 statement concerning progressiveness, not science.  When a so-called *living
 fossil* is discovered, it is the conflict with the cultural expectations for
 progress that leads to charges that evolution is wrong.  Science has not been
 involved.

    Another article, from SCIENCE 85, was based on interviews with an
 anthropologist who studies modern societies.  He said that cultural
 differences between societies usually lead to gross misunderstandings, so that
 two people can use the same language but fail to communicate.  While most
 people attempt to deal logically with situations, a culture introduces many
 unstated postulates and expectations that influence perceptions and actions.
 He had several critical things to say about the U.S. State Department's
 insensitivity to cultural differences.

    The debate in this newsgroup, as well as the conflict in courtrooms and
 school board meetings around the country, appears to be an example of the
 conflict of cultures and not a debate concerning science.  It is a clash
 between (primarily) fundamentalist Christian society and the secular
 scientific society over important human values.  As I might learn to speak
 French but never identify with the people of France, the creationists have
 acquired the language of science without adopting its values (cultural biases
 and expectations).  Scientists have analyzed the creationist's position, and
 appear to be content that to analyze is to understand (a typical scientist's
 bias).  The conflict and misunderstanding between these two cultures continues
 (at least in this newsgroup).  (For example, it is ironic that science is
 being faulted for overlooking catastrophism in favor of gradualism, which is
 ultimately a view that has been adopted from society and is not native or
 required within science.)

    Personally, I have seen fit to contribute only in my area of expertise
 (physics, the second law of thermodynamics) because I thought that this would
 be far enough removed from the value judgments being debated over human
 evolution.  This has not turned out to be so.  Mr. Holden said that he
 considers most of W. Brown's 116 points (as posted by R. Kukuk) to be
 reasonable.  That is his cultural bias.  As a physicist, I consider many of
 the points concerning the physical aspect of nature (physics, astronomy,
 chemistry) to be wrong or misleading.  It is unlikely that a Baptist minister,
 no matter how competent, could utterly destroy evolution for me (though I have
 no vested interest in Darwinism).  Such is my cultural bias.

    To the public, the issues of elections and voting are very important
 democratic principles.  But, what are the issues suitable for a public
 referendum?  While science is not monolithic or a dictatorship, it does behave
 as an oligarchy.  In politics, the U.S. was established as a republic so that
 a few people might inform themselves of the issues and make policy decisions
 which are binding on all.  Science has become a similar arrangement, with its
 own culture and values.  Now it appears as if parts of the general public want
 a recall of the scientific society because of its failure to support the
 fundamentalist Christian agenda.

    At the creation (!) of this newsgroup, I commented that the creationists'
 focus on the popular misconceptions of science indicated to me that the debate
 in which we were engaged was not about science but about values.  Now, I would
 clarify this charge by claiming that the creationism-evolution debate is not
 about science but a conflict of cultural values.  Until this issue is
 recognized and addressed, the arguments in this newsgroup will continue to
 make no progress.


                             Patrick Wyant
                             AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
                             *!iham1!gjphw