Stephen Jay Gould: The Nature Of Science

It wasn’t long before Gould’s precision became apparent, as he revisited most of his references in order to explain their significance. Although not all of the references were accessible to the general reader from the beginning, the eventual unfolding and connecting of key ideas were rewards for the diligent reader. It felt like an accomplishment to be able to fill my partner in on the details, as if Gould had given me permission to reap the benefits of his expertise.

Gould espouses more of the ideology of Williams and Colomb regarding why the theories of dinosaurs being incapable of having children and overdosing on psychoactive plants are entirely without merit. Williams and Colomb say, “we engage one another cooperatively in arguments, we aim not to coerce or seduce others into mindless agreement, but to enlist them into helping us to find the best, most reasonable solution to a shared problem”(67). Williams

Gould explains how Evolution is a theory and a fact. Evolution is a fact but how evolution happened is a theory. Darwin's theory of natural selection as an example of how evolution happened. Creationists deny evolution. Creationists believes in a supernatural creator of plants and animals. They believe that science would never discover how the creator created creations. Gould believes that Scientific creationism is a meaningless phrase because it’s

Throughout “Nonmoral Nature”, Gould explains that we need to look at nature without personifying it or putting human values on it. He believes that those who approach a scientific situation with a pre-established view in mind are preventing the kind of objectivity and fairness that scientific examination is supposed to produce. Gould explains that the existence of what seems to be evil in nature creates an argument between scientists and creationists. Many phenomena that occur in nature seem to be wrong or disturbing, and go against the idea that God creates everything and that everything is benevolent. One such creature is the ichneumon wasp. The ichneumon wasp is the stuff of nightmares; the larva are planted inside of a caterpillar or other

Mark Christianson identifies three main ideas throughout Stephen Jay Gould’s “the Geometer of Race,” which are; scientists’ theories can never be completely objective, scientists must realize that their scientific theories have a powerful ideological impact on society, and that scientific theories form a “mental geometry” that remains in people’s minds.

Human morality is a product of evolution by heritable variation and natural selection. It is fully part of the natural world but is none the worse for that – on the contrary. In the last sentence of On the Origin of Species, Darwin states that “there is grandeur in this view of life… on which endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” The beautiful and wonderful forms include true moral agents who respond to real moral facts and who form a natural moral community. Their existence contributes to the grandeur of Darwin’s evolutionary view of life.

Although Darwin’s (1809-1882) work in evolutionary observation might appear radically different from those focused on other areas, the theories he developed from these observation lead to such groundbreaking publishing’s as The Origin of Species. These intern caused an upset within the then accepted norms of philosophy and religion, had a profound impact on the academia, and further

Stephen Jay Gould in his article "The Evolution Of Life On Earth" aims to clarify the misconception of natural selection as the sole reason for evolution. Yet, he emphasizes on the presence of other causes and the complex unforeseeable nature of the universe that can not be explained in one theory. Even though the article is concerned with a deep scientific subject and factual information, we see the usage of description in every sentence. Description has an intrinsic role in this article where the uniqueness and the beauty of the language relies on the strong descriptive construction. It employs the power of the language and the readers senses to bring life to the subject. It also simplifies it by liking the described setting or object to something else that the readers are easily able to visualize and associate in their minds. In addition, using specific descriptive words make a statement more dynamic and effectual to the readers convincing them and inviting them to see the situation from the author perspective.( to help convince the reader and strengthen the argument of the author). It could exaggerate the details to effect the readers in a more emotional way and capture their attention. This won 't only engage the targeted audience, but it will allure other readers as well.

Throughout his article Gould seems to consider Bryan to be a pleasant and driven, but ultimately misguided man who did not really know what he was talking about in regards to evolution. Gould agrees with Bryan on just two points: the use of Social Darwinism as a defense of war was a serious problem for this time (Gould 16) and the fact the textbook that John Scopes taught out of which caused the Scopes Trial should not have been used (Gould 17). In regards to the textbook, A Civic Biology, Gould thought it was unfortunate that the book so strongly supported Social Darwinism. He said that it was incredibly inappropriate when authors of textbooks add “their own social preferences as facts of nature in their technical writings.” (Gould 17).

In Creation Science is not Science, Michael Ruse argues that Creation science is not science and in Science at the Bar- Causes for Concern, Larry Laudan opposes this view by arguing that Creation Science is science, but that it is false. In this paper, I argue that Michael Ruse had the better argument and that Creation Science is not science. First, I explain Ruse’s argument for why creation science does not meet the criteria for science. Second, I consider and explain Larry Laudan’s opposing view that creation science is false science. I then argue why I believe Ruse has the better argument.

Biology professor Kenneth Miller’s central argument is that science should not undermine one’s faith in God. “Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God.” He makes this argument by stating that science explains the things that God has made and in doing so, trying to prove the existence of God through natural or scientific means does not make sense. Once the supernatural is introduced, there is no way to use nature, thus science, to prove or disprove its existence. Miller argues that science gives us the window to the dynamic and creative universe that increases our appreciation of God’s work. The central point of his argument is evolution. Creationists, of the intelligent design movement, argue that nature has irreducible complex systems that could have only arisen from a creature or designer. This theory is widely supported among devout believers in the Bible and God. Miller argues that if they truly believe this, completely ignoring hard facts and theories, then they are seeking their God in the darkness. Miller, a Christian himself, believes that this “flow of logic is depressing”; to fear the acquisition of knowledge and suggest that the creator dwells in the shadows of science and understanding is taking us back to the Middle Ages, where people used God as an explanation for something they have yet to or want

Creationists, mistaking the uncertain in science for the unscientific, see the debate among evolutionists regarding how best to explain evolution as a sign of weakness. Scientists, on the other hand, see uncertainty as simply an inevitable element of scientific knowledge. They regard debates on fundamental theoretical issues as healthy and stimulating. Science, says evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, is "most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old information may be explained in surprisingly new ways." Thus, through all the debate over evolutionary mechanisms biologists have not been led to doubt that evolution has occurred. "We are debating how it happened," says Gould (1983, p.256).

The article, “A Matter of Scale,” urges the audience to observe the small and extraordinary components of the biosphere and acknowledge its genetic variations as explained by Darwin’s theory of evolution. However, Kelly’s essay, “Evolution: An Article of Faith,” considers Darwin’s theory as a “false religion” suppressing God’s ability to create the “work of intelligence.” (Evolution) The heated debate over the credibility of Darwin’s theory of evolution has led to the division of scientific and religious groups. Devoted, religious people discover two major flaws with Darwin’s theory of evolution regarding the inaccuracies of the fossil record and the contradicting phrase “survival of the fittest” that has passed on harmful mutations to next

No, i don’t think science can answer moral questions; at least, not all moral questions in its current capacity, and human emotions usually trump rational thought. Because flawed as we are, and keeping in line with Hume’s thesis, reason alone cannot move us to action. Our emotions hold more sway over us than reason or rational thought ought to have, and in most cases it can be argued,

Starting over 500 years ago with Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton paving the way for the possibility of new scientific exploration into studies such as “stratigraphy, the study of the rock and soil layers of the earth” by Robert Hooke and Carolus Linnaeus’ study of taxonomy, “the system of naming and classifying organisms” based on morphological similarities and differences, humanity would begin to uncrack the code of where life came from in a nonbiblical sense. (Fuentes, 26) Further studies by George-Louis Leclerc – Comte du Buffon, Erasmus Darwin (Charles’ grandfather), Georges Cuvier, James Hutton and Charles Lyell as well as Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet – Chevalier de Lamarck’s studies in which he “correctly identified the environment as a challenge to organisms and adaptation as the result of changing to meet environmental challenges” helped prompt the formulation of the current understanding of evolution by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace each in their own special way.