It’s the birthday of one of the blokes who did some thinking on evolution. As is normal in major leaps forward in human thinking, Darwin was just the first or at least the best able to get his name attached to the idea that the earth was old and organisms evolved. Many others were heading towards that conclusion. None of the names I’ve seen mentioned were of women - can’t imagine why.
Avoiding any controversy about creationism and evolution for the moment, I’d rather mention the work of Elaine Morgan and her Aquatic Ape theory which has bubbled around for some time.
She is an interesting person and this link contains an interview with her in 2003.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/may/01/academicexperts.highereducation
This link provides more info: http://www.primitivism.com/aquatic-ape.htm
Less well known is the work of Evelyn Reed who in her book Woman’s Evolution takes on the drivel of male anthropologists in their theories of primitive people, which tend to be male-centric and unquestioning of patriarchal norms.
http://www.angelfire.com/pr/red/feminism/challenge_of_the_matriarchy.htm
http://www.word-power.co.uk/books/womans-evolution-I9780873484220/
I am too busy right now to give this the biting rantolicious treatment it deserves so leave it up to anyone interested to look into why evolution is a flawed but inherently scientific theory and the damage leaving it to patriarchal scientists to develop has done to women’s position in society – evolutionary biologists/psychologists and the inexcusable biological determinists anyone??
OK, to return to the creationists in the name of shared airtime or some such pseudo equality nonsense ...
I had a chemistry lecturer who was a creationist long before it became fashionable to spout young earth theory/beliefs/delusions. I'm very annoyed with my non-hoarding tendencies because only a few years ago I threw out copies of his publicity on this subject. From memory, these were information sheets explaining how oil was made in a young earth/creationist scientific way. I think it involved huge amounts of pressure on vegetable matter in a short space of time in comparison to the billions of years of leetle teeny beasties being squashed under layers of rock. I suspect coal got the same treatment, but with pressure on trees in a speeded up timeframe.
My chemistry lecturer was a really nice chap, but a tad earnest in his scientific/creationist views, although he was meticulous in not mentioning these in lectures and chose instead to set out his stall in the foyer at lunch times and spoke only to those who approached him on the subject. That I can respect as he did not force the educational establishment to include his version of science and faithfully taught chemistry as it was intended.
There are some who reject the usual scientific theory of oil creation and the creationists and have found their own ideas. I'm tempted to give them a cheer for their 'plague on all your houses' attitude. Theirs is the abiogenic origin of petroleum deposits.
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.html
And what do I believe? I'm certainly not a creationist, so I suppose I go along with the broad outline of evolution as far as my understanding takes me. However, I was exposed at a sensitive age to yet another concept and some of that has remained lodged in the wishful thinking section of my consciousness. Yes, we were seeded on earth by aliens! Well, probably not, but having read my way through early Von Daniken books and far too much science fiction for my own good, I have a wistful hankering for the presence of alien DNA in my mitochondria.
Forty five years of proselytising and only 10,000 acolytes. What's he doing wrong?
http://www.daniken.com/e/index.html
2 comments:
The only thing we can do with Daniken's theories is apply a nice sharp Occam's Razor. If we were seeded by aliens, where did they come from? And so on receding ever to infinity. Why multiply these entities? (for purposes of Star Trek is quite a good enough answer).
I begin to think some modern scientists have gone off down Daniken's colourfully irrational byway. I read that they say life on earth hitched a ride here from comets. Well, I hope they can understand me when I say this does not so much explain anything as avoid explanation. They now need to explain how life got on comets. And so on receding to infinity.
Of course, there is no life out there. We really are alone. (Thank
goodness - http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/sound%20files/03%20essay_rt_bostrum_4B2D4626.mp3).
How do I know? Well, if any life existed anywhere else, some of it would have become intelligent, and some of that would have become civilisations, and some of those would have got into space, and some would have become very powerful, and for goodness sake we would see the evidence. The universe is 13 billion years old so I hope our credulous scientists are not going to tell me that their imaginary life could not have progressed beyond ourselves before now.
Re evolution and women, I was much taken with the debate on the female orgasm this week. I read Professor Elizabeth Lloyd(http://mypage.iu.edu/~ealloyd/) at http://mypage.iu.edu/~ealloyd/Reviews.html#IReadRecentlyThat. I won't summarise her arguments, but just mention that she calls the female orgasm the 'fantastic bonus'.
I've always thought there was something odd about the female orgasm, or perhaps I mean the clitoris. If the clitoris was evolutionarily selected, it ought surely to have ended up just inside the vagina. Where it is suggests that it is, like men's nipples, a by-product of selection operating on the other sex.
But where does it fit in that the clitoris turns out to be an enormous organ encircling the vagina? Maybe it has been modified by selection within the female sex because this bigger version is rather better.
Anyway, enough about the froth of human life and back to fundamentals. Andrew Strauss is clearly far too cautious to be England captain, Andrew Flintoff should bat no higher than no. 7, and though we all knew England cricket had demeaned itself by its fawning to Allen Stanford, I don't think any of us knew it was going to be proved the hard way.
Interesting comment, Jerzz. A fair amount I could make further comment on, but might reserve that for a future post.
However, I'm not sure I shouldn't censor the references to cricket - might attract the wrong sort of visitor to this blog.
Post a Comment