I think now i'm starting to see it--the moment where our tightly-focused readings is starting to branch out and pollinate other aspects of life. We spoke about what is perfection...we came to a conclusion that perfection on a tropical island will be very different than perfection in the chilly arctic. One environment does not require that its species be more well-equipt..it doesn't require its species to be more resilient, faster-moving, harder working..it only requires its species to be somewhat suited to it. The tango of species to the environment is, in itself a bit of trade off at times. There can be more fluctuation in the environment which creates more fluctuation in the organism. And that is not to say that all organisms work perfectly in their environments.

 This past Tuesday, we discussed how if people believe that everything is controlled by something which an individual has no influence over, then that person cannot play a casual role in the world or whatever is being controlled. But, then we also said that people can play a role in life when everything is not controlled. These statements really got me thinking- while this might be the obvious way of looking at life, is it the most sensitive? If people believe that life in general is under the total control of something and that nothing they do can change that, then why do people pray to God if they believe that He has control over everything. Are they just hoping to convince him with a persuading argument via their prayers? Or is this contradicting the earlier statements?

Everything that we have learned over the past month or so has led me to one conclusion: Darwin has issues. I almost feel really bad for him. His personal life was depressing and his entire life's work is still misunderstood and hated. Plus we just spent the past month tearing many of his ideas apart. Evolution is not progressive or reliant on selection or competition. I really do think that Darwin is among the ranks of the dead who had groundbreaking ideas that have been grossly overshadowed or disproved by developments in modern science. While Darwin is an extremely important historical figure, I can't help but think that in the science community he is just a washed-up old windbag.

I’ve nearly finished the reading assigned for this week of class; I found myself, only a few pages into Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, so interested in the author’s argument that I didn’t want to put the book down. (Alas, other classes demand my time as well.) I’m not sure, in retrospect, that Dennett has told me anything that I didn’t already suspect – nothing groundbreaking, at least – but the way in which he presents his conclusions fascinates me, and I find myself agreeing more often than not. (I particularly enjoy the analogies that he employs, even if I do suspect that they are included in a sort of fan-boyish emulation of On the Origin of Species.)

 In the book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Dennet brings up an idea that I had pondered in my first web paper. The idea that there are observations, revelations, and discoveries that are out there that may be key to understanding or enhancing a theory, but no one has connected it yet. Dennet talks about Mendel’s pea plants and the idea of heredity, and how his paper had been published without much attention in 1865 and then was found to be a key piece to the theory of evolution in the 1900s (Dennet, 20). 

In class on Tuesday, we discussed evolution as a process that strives to get to newer places, exploring new possibilities rather than having a goal or aim. Life forms become progressively more complex over time and instead of this progression reaching perfection, it is simply moving forward with a single goal/aim in mind. When Professor Grobstein mentioned evolution as part chance and part causal relations, I think of entropy. Entropy is a measure of disorder and is also nature's way of creating the most probable outcome in a given environment or situation.

In our discussion group on Thursday, we were discussing the differences between the differences in teaching.  Whether there is more benefit in a varied education with very little boundaries between the subjects, or in an education system in which students are tracked into a certain field.  I find it very interesting that different countries and cultures choose differently.  I personally believe students should all be exposed to all subjects, but later on be allowed to choose whether or not they would like to specialize or continue to explore.  This would allow for academic expansion and the students would be exposed to different fields and would be able to choose later on what they want to specialize.  After specialization, they would have had the exposure to ot

In the discussion with Professor Dalke on Thursday, we discussed whether or not evolution and social Darwinism should be taught in the same class in high school. We also talked about how a student may be a “science person”, “history person”, “literary person”, etc. Coming into this class as a “science person”, I initially thought that these two topics should absolutely be taught in different classes. Evolution is more objective, whereas social Darwinism and other topics are more subjective and could be allowed for interpretation. However, as our discussion progressed, my mind was changed and I think these two subjects would work well in a class for high school students.