I've recently watched the documentary on the court case in the USA over the teaching of Intelligent Design in the science curriculum ("Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial").
It seems few who engage in this argument appreciate that science and religion are "sister belief systems" – both objectify the causal agent for the evolution of biological systems, as being 'random mutations' and 'God', resp.
Both are "wrong" (within the context of the general understanding, analysis and discussions). Within a broader, deeper context (as covered by the Key Principles of Life, for Life) both are "right" in that the system we experience is newly forming and being formed by intelligent interaction with the physical environment.
[Copyright Steaphen Pirie 2008]
Given current world circumstances (e.g. the 2008 global economic situation; recent and current controversies in the USA over the teaching of "Intelligent Design" and recent demonstrations against cartoons and books that are deemed blasphemous) perhaps it's timely that we gain a fuller perspective.
In QUADRANT March 2000 No. 364 Vol XLIV Number 3 pages 47 - 56. © Quadrant and E.J. Steele**
Is it possible for an active scientist to communicate esoteric research findings in plain everyday language ? The short answer is no. This may only be possible for stories on more popular topics such as dinosaurs, the "Big Bang" and extraterrestrial life - they readily capture the public's attention and numerous definitions and qualifications are not necessary. Nevertheless I have agreed to do so following a kind request from the editor for a "plain language version of our work re Lamarckianism". While this is difficult, we have already tried to do just this in our recent book Lamarck's Signature .
The proposition that characteristics, both physical and mental, acquired during an individual's lifetime may be passed on genetically to offspring is no doubt part of the popular imagination. As such it should be easily communicable to a wider non-scientific audience. However, such knowledge is often rudimentary and distorted ("the sins of the father" and such) or contaminated with a vague feeling that it does not "smell right" scientifically. One can also hear the more erudite utterances: "Does this not smack of that discredited fellow Lamarck who Darwin showed was wrong?".. and .. "Samuel Butler, George Bernard Shaw and Arthur Koestler were delusional romantics, all brilliant humanists but hopeless scientists." Here I will show that these hopeless romantics were probably right. I will attempt to condense the main features of our work to encourage those interested in the topic to delve further and confront the large body of evidence.
