[Raving
]
14 November, 2007 09:46
As it was in the Beginning
As a practicing biological scientist, I must admit to being alarmed over the tenor of arguments advanced by many believers in fundamental religious teachings, who seem to take it as a given that belief in the teachings contained in especially the Christian Bible are incompatible with "evolutionary theory". This is very true here in South Africa
right now, with news that the Department of Education is going to mandate teaching of evolution to senior secondary school learners.
The central tenet is, of course, simple nonsense - unless you believe that everything in the Bible is literally true. And if you believe that, then - as
others have previously pointed out in the context of the Biblical proscription of homosexuality - then you should also believe that slavery is acceptable, that you may kill your neighbour for working on the Sabbath, that you should avoid contact with menstruating women, and that you should not wear glasses when approaching the altar of the Lord, among many other strictures incompatible with modern life. Oh, and that it is perfectly fine to stone your neighbour for wearing clothes made of more than one type of thread. Which doesn't seem that bad an idea if they are wearing those godawful two-tone shirts from Mr Price...but no, no, perish the thought.
Why do people who presumably accept the fact of gravity not accept the fact of evolution? For all the nonsense written and spoken about evolution, like gravity, it IS a fact. We may argue about exactly how both of them work, which is where theory comes in, but the facts of the phenomena cannot be doubted by anyone who understands the evidence. Which, in the case of gravity, means falling on the floor if you lift both legs up. Unfortunately, evolution is a little harder to demonstrate in action - and denial of its existence has fewer immediate consequences.
But consider this: evidence of micro-evolution happening right now is all around you, in the form of flu and HIV and TB, which persist because the agents continually change so as to avoid their hosts' immune systems or the drugs designed to combat them. Ignoring the fact of evolution in the case of these three and other disease agents is tantamount to signing a suicide letter on behalf of our species.
There is in fact, directly contradictory to many assertions, increasing evidence of past macro-evolution in fossil "transitional forms" of especially vertebrates, which for instance illustrate very clearly just how fish became amphibians. There is a very nice Web page associated with the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in the USA, which graphically demonstrates this and other evolutionary facts. Discover magazine also has a very good short article debunking much of what Michael Behe, a renegade biochemist and ardent intelligent designer, has to say in a new book on the limits of Darwinism.
As for new genetic evidence, just today I read in a recent New Scientist (Oct 27) of genetic evidence from modern lungfish pinpointing just how limbs developed from fins, in extinct lobe-finned fish. All in all, we have evidence of well-established life on this planet from over 3 billion years ago - and a pretty clear idea of how we got here from there. Among people who understand the evidence, then, there is no doubt of evolution as a fact. And the nice thing about evolution is that we can always find more evidence for it, palaeontologically and biologically - so that any "theory" (like intelligent design) which exists only in the cracks of the imposing edifice that is evolutionary fact, will inevitably be squeezed to death.
Which is the evolutionary fate of all unfit theories....B-)
[Raving
]
13 November, 2007 12:53
SAQWA rules, OK
You know, I actually had a student say to me, as I was on my way to invigilate her exam, "I've got R50 000 - let's talk...".
I laughed, and life went on. But what if I'd said "Yes, let's?"
I recall the incident of a few years ago, in our Department, when a Dept Assistant was in fact bribed - and escaped with a warning, as "the bribe was so high". The student disappeared overseas, incidentally.
And why do they bother? I tell everyone in advance what the questions will be, anyway - some believe me, some don't, and the marks end up on the normal distribution curve anyway, because in order to answer the questions, they have to learn pretty much the whole syllabus...which is the point, isn't it?
I must actually state, at this juncture, that I consider exams to be an unconscionable waste of time; examinations at University level are an archaic ritual which is a poor means of assessing the career preparedness or level of training of the people who come here to be taught.
And there's half the problem...being "taught". Students in general, and South African students in particular, seem to need to be taught, whereas what they should be doing is being educated - which is largely a self-driven thing.
But we are still left with the need to "assess" - and there's the other half of the problem. The sooner we can fall back on multiple choice exams administered via the Web, the happier I'll be: if I have to read one more slavish regurgitation of my freely-given course material, in handwriting that emulates a spiky wave-trace on an oscilloscope rather than anything actually legible, I will strip my moer.
You have been warned....
[Raving
]
05 November, 2007 13:30
Oh, and...
Apropos of how nice it is to work at UCT, I forgot to put this one in: demotivation....
[Raving
]
02 November, 2007 14:08
Nasty whites, nasty
This today in the Cape Crimes:
"THE lawyer employed by the University of Cape Town to give it legal advice, Paul Ngobeni - found guilty of misconduct and barred from practising in three American states - says news of his difficulties emerged only after he leapt to the defence of embattled Cape Judge President John Hlophe.
It was a smear campaign by some whites, said Ngobeni."
Really? Not just by people concerned that UCT may be employing someone whose professional reputation is besmirched? Oh, and it gets better:
"Ngobeni said he did not have to inform UCT of the charges and convictions before his appointment, as they were public knowledge and had been published on the internet. "
Riiiiight.... So as long as it is on the internet - somewhere - you are not under any obligation to inform your new employer that there may be some rather large problems looming up on the horizon? And as for the statement that "...the matters before the US court "will be dismissed as frivolous and unfounded", you might take a look at this....
I will be reading further developments with great interest.
[Raving
]
01 November, 2007 15:54
Another day, another...?
So UCT actually HAS a blogging site - albeit not official - and the rave is on...!
Let me qualify that: I have, in other more private correspondence, bemoaned the fact there does not appear to be a legitimate forum at UCT to raise institution-wide grievances. Other than Senate, of course, and you have to (a) be a member, (b) stay awake long enough and (c) be quick enough to make ANY kind of point, let alone (d) get it answered.
So this was a great find - totally accidental; it came up on a Google search I was doing for the Academy of Science of South Africa home page. But who cares; all I have to say is - viva! UCT blog pages, viva!
And just maybe we can get some semi- or quasi-official responses to some of the matters raised here...and if you believe that, you believe that Not the Monday Paper is a serious publication.
Till later.
