The Story of Evolution and the Evolution of Stories: EvoLit

 So I was just browsing youtube when I came across this video, which I though was very disturbing. My question is; is this natural selection as the scientist claims, or are humans trying to display their "dominance" and play God? 

 The one topic from the last class that I have been thinking a lot about has been the discussion on the objectivity (or lack thereof) of science.  At first I was very opposed to the discussion that we were having about how subjective science really is.  I was thinking specifically of certain tests, for instance an NMR test.  In one of these tests I would interpret the results the same way any other chemist in the world would.  I felt that in our class discussion we were talking about science in too broad of terms, because I still believe that there are many fields in science that are truly objective.  Then this weekend my views were even further played with by a New Yorker article that I was reading for another Biology class.

I am a firm believer of evolution.  To me it seems like the most natural thing in the world; we see it everyday with breeders, medicine, etc.  Evolution is a matter of change, whether in a positive direction or in a negative direction, in all living and non-living things.  Living creatures have been changing in order to adapt to their environment throughout the course of time, whether it is naturally or manipulated.  Naturally, we can use the example of the finches in the Galapagos Islands.  When climate changes occur, some species are more favorable than other; therefore, the favorable finches beat the unfavorable ones, hence changes within the finch species.  Manipulated evolution can be seen with breeders.  Many horse trainers study closely the diff

From all the discussion and statements uttered during the first two days, one quote in particular stuck out to me. Professor Grobstein said something along the lines, "In the movies, you see the scientist running out of the room screaming 'I was right! I was right!' in elation. What scientists want to prove most is that what they were thinking--and what everyone else in the world was thinking--was wrong. This statement made me incredibly happy. It gave me his feeling that I usually get when I am about to go on a long vacation to a new town in a different state, as though life is moving around me at a barreling pace, and whisks me along in a hopeful and caring wind. However, this feeling ended very soon.

One of the things that I found most intriguing was this idea that there is no such thing as truth. But I guess that really only pertains to that which is related to science. I was seeing "truth" in its broader spectrum of everyday usage, but in those instances, such as when it correlates to honesty, I would claim that there is such a thing as truth. For an individual, in situations that they themselves live through, there can be a definite yes or no statement relevant to the situation in which something can be proved.

 I was very interested in our class discussion on Thursday about truth and the idea that nothing can ever be proven true.  In my Biology class we recently read an article on truth in science and how common it is for scientists to edit their results in order to publish something of significance.  In the final lines of the article, the author questions the scientific method and states “Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved.

I think there are so many reasons why Darwin's theory of evolution is one of the greatest ever conceived and developed.  There's the story behind it, the Beagle voyage, the social implications, Darwin's reluctance to publish, which is pretty incredible.  There's also the fact that the intellectual rigor and experimentation Darwin applied to his theory, spending years testing his theory in every way he possibly could, which is one of the reasons Darwin is so representative of how science and scientists should be.  But I've always been attracted to how the theory of evolution is so beautifully applicable to fields outside of biology.  There's now a field of psychology referred to as evolutionary psychology, it has affected anthropologists, doctors, scientists,

 Thursday's class brought up some interesting points.  I liked the idea of evolution being a story which explains the past.  Science is not an absolute, and nothing in it is true.  As Einstein said, everything is relative, and how Darwin perceived history is not necessarily how anyone else would.  I am not a science major, but science interests me because it can be both imaginative and logical.  Literature does not necessarily need to be logical, it just needs to be imaginative.  Science, in a way, is applying stories to real life and seeing if a particular story actually works.  Darwin's theory of evolution can apply to science, too.  Evolution is not what works best, but just what works.

 I feel like this first week of class helped me to see how science as a whole is not as stiff or fixed as I often make it out to be. I have always been more interested in my english classes than my science classes, and  I love experiencing and interpreting other people's stories. To me, science has always seemed so distant, so unapproachable, especially compared to my beloved literature, which I found myself able to jump into. However, in class on Thursday, through our discussion on how a lot of science (like the sun rising) is not considered true, but instead probable, I found that I was given a new outlook on science.