Neo-Darwinism, in its dominant forms (epitomized by E. O. Wilson and
Richard Dawkins) is clearly incompatible with most sociology. It
understands human behavior by reducing it to a set of genetically
determined impulses. While some believe that human society can simply
be lopped off from neo-darwinism, if you believe everything is
reducible to genes, there isn't any reason to believe humans are an
exception, unless you want to introduce a Cartesian duality into the
process (something Dawkins himself has toyed with). So neo-Darwinism
(the only version ever represented in mainstream debates) is
incompatible with sociology. Something to think about as we look at
these debates. The answer is not to posit an 'intelligent designer'
(a crackpot theory by both scientific AND theological standards (i.e.
how do you explain evil, let alone innumerable unintelligent aspects of
the animal kingdom)) but to understand the universe as a series of
non-reductionist processes (genes, organisms, societies, cultures,
etc). I wonder if governor Huntsman considers neo-classical
economics, which shares with neo-darwinism a crude reductionism,
suitable for young minds?
Steven Sherman
-----Original Message-----
From: Del Thomas Ph. D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: teachsoc <[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:51:02 -0400
Subject: TEACHSOC: Teaching environment
A recent report found that 90+ Americans believed that the universe
was created by a supreme being. I have no more information, and it
could be spin.
However, there have been a series of "findings" indicating that close
to half the population has been born again and or rejects Darwin.
Students and sociologists will be included
in these findings. That leads me to the following questions.
1. Can you be a sociologist and believe that the universe was created
by a supreme being?
2. How would such a teaching environment impact the definition of the
classroom?
Del
