OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Charles Again

Entry 853, on 2008-09-17 at 22:35:31 (Rating 2, Science)

Many people have difficulty in accepting the idea that Charles Darwin was the most influential person in the history of science. I'm not saying that the statement is necessarily true because it depends on what you define as "science", what type of influence you are talking about, and over what time period. Other great figures from the past like Aristotle, Newton, and Einstein might also have some case for being the greatest.

But there is no doubt that the debate over evolution continues now far more than any dispute over other scientific theories. Maybe its because evolution is fairly easy to understand, unlike relativity and quantum theory, because based on how much sense the theory makes those other two should be rejected far more. Of course, there's no reason to believe that the Universe should behave in such a simple way that it would make sense to the sort of superficial analysis most people would give it.

So I would expect the idea that time goes slower when you move faster, that space is warped by mass, that something can be a wave and a particle at the same time, and that particles exist in multiple states until they are observed, would be far more challenging to the average person than the idea that some types of life become more numerous because they are better suited to their environment.

I guess evolution is just more personal because it inevitably leads to the fact that humans evolved from the same ancestors as other animals (most recently chimps, but ultimately everything). The other theories don't have quite so much to say about humans as a species so they aren't rejected to the same extent.

This all leads to the conclusion that the opposition to these theories, especially evolution, is based on emotion, not logic or any reasonable process of thought. I know that if I was going to reject a theory based on common sense it would certainly be quantum theory. It just doesn't make sense at all! Evolution is really totally obvious in comparison!

Comment 1 (1618) by NJS on 2008-09-18 at 08:59:07:

You've fallen into the same mistake that the creationists do: we _didn't_ evolve from chimps, chimps and humans both evolved from the same common ancestor. Chimps are therefore more like cousins. Otherwise, good post :)

Comment 2 (1619) by OJB on 2008-09-18 at 12:44:31:

If you read the post carefully you will see that's exactly what I said: humans evolved from the same ancestor as other animals and I gave the example of the chimp. Do you really think I would make a mistake as simple as that! I'm insulted now!

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.