Student post by Kelli Upton, in response to Eugenie Scott’s recent talk at Fresno State.
Dr. Scott, although I was previously unaware, is a highly regarded advocate of evolution and for keeping intelligent design out of schools. As the director of the National Center for Science Education, she has mastered handling interrogation from opposing sides of her argument. This was evident when members of the community confronted her on issues after the seminar. She only slipped a few times as far as I’m concerned, with being too condescending. Even though a self-described young-earth creationist applauded Dr. Scott for her continuum from creation to evolution, I thought that this continuum had the sole purpose of tying intelligent design proponents with ridiculous movements such as “flat earthers.” I believe that arguments made from creationists like Michael Behe etc., including arguments of irreducible complexity, are helpful in that they force us to investigate further into what the scientific community has already accepted as a reality. They also give us tools to provide better evidence against intelligent design. The dichotomy that Dr. Scott suggests we so desperately need to reject is only made more distinct when scientists are demeaning towards the other side. The way evolution is taught by some on this campus is exactly as such. In actuality, it would do a young scientist good to learn creationist/intelligent design points of view so that we are able to have constructive conversations with one another and not alienate people from science. Although this information should be pursued outside of the classroom, it would no doubt be helpful when inevitable debate pops up during class discussion. Overall, I believe Dr. Scott did a nice job of conveying this and I think the take home message was that scientists cannot account for the supernatural and therefore only the natural world should be considered when studying science. I was enthralled with her presentation and it was a real treat to have her on campus. I look forward to reading some of her work.
What an overwhelming response we had at Eugenie Scott's wonderful lecture last week on "
The study conducted by Smith took place in the Cascade Mountains of southwestern British Columbia, which is significant, because the Cascade Mountains create a rain shadow with the forests to the east being very dry and prone to burning. In this area, lodgepole pines are ubiquitous and their cones are serotinous, they remain closed for years after maturation to enable them to reseed areas after frequent burns (Smith, 1970). Douglas-firs are also common in this area and will alternate between years of crop failures and years of crop masts; large production. The squirrel population in this area is very stable, they first feed on Douglas-firs but switch to lodgepole pines during crop failures (Smith, 1970). The lodgepole pines serve as a nearly constant food source. On the west side of the Cascade Mountains, the situation is quite reversed. Lodgepole pines are rare, are nonserotinous, and may have cone crop failures (Mowat 1960). This results in a fluctuating squirrel population exerting less selection pressure on lodgepole pines, as they do not exploit as much of the cones. The squirrels in the east exert a selection pressure for harder lodgepole pine cones, and less seeds per cone in the Douglas-firs. Thus, the lodgepole pines exert a selection pressure for squirrels with stronger jaws, those that can eat the stronger cones (Smith, 1970). This change in squirrels is evident as the squirrels in the east have stronger jaw muscles than those in the west.
Posts
