How many Darwinists does it take to

  • Thread starter Thread starter PIT2
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This forum discussion humorously explores the question of how many Darwinists it takes to screw in a light bulb, using various perspectives from notable figures in evolutionary biology. Charles Darwin emphasizes the importance of testable propositions, while Eugenie Scott critiques the notion of attributing actions to Darwinists without scientific backing. Richard Dawkins and Stephen J. Gould provide insights on the inevitability of light bulbs reaching sockets through natural selection and gradual processes, respectively. The discussion highlights the interplay between humor and serious scientific discourse.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of evolutionary theory and its key proponents, including Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins.
  • Familiarity with scientific methodology and the concept of testable propositions.
  • Knowledge of logical fallacies, particularly the 'Darwinist Of The Gaps' fallacy.
  • Awareness of the cultural and philosophical implications of evolution in public discourse.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the concept of testable propositions in scientific theories.
  • Explore the works of Richard Dawkins, particularly "The Selfish Gene."
  • Study logical fallacies and their impact on scientific arguments.
  • Investigate the role of humor in science communication and public understanding of evolution.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for educators, science communicators, and anyone interested in the intersection of humor and evolutionary biology, as well as those looking to understand public perceptions of Darwinism.

PIT2
Messages
897
Reaction score
2
I thought this was funny :smile:

How many Darwinists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Charles Darwin: None. But if it could be shown that the bulb entered the socket without a series of clockwise turns, my theory would absolutely break down.

ACLU: None! We have separation of church and state in this country.

Eugenie Scott: None. To say a Darwinist did it is not a scientific explanation.

Panda’s Thumb: None. To say that light bulbs don’t screw themselves in is not a testable proposition. You can’t prove they don’t. That would be an argument from incredulity. You are committing a ‘Darwinist Of The Gaps’ fallacy.

Generic 1: None. Time and chance are sufficient. Eventually it is inevitable that the bulb will be in the socket. Say, in a billion years.

Generic 2: None. The quintessentially non-random process of natural selection is sufficient. Those objects capable of giving off light when screwed into sockets will be in sockets. Those that aren’t will be in the trash.

Richard Dawkins: None. A light bulb that gives off 1% light intensity is very much worth having. A bulb sitting on the shelf at the supermarket gives off a certain amount of light. One in the cupboard at home gives off more. One five feet from the socket gives off more, and one two feet away even more. One in the socket gives off the most of all. It is therefore inevitable that the bulb will reach the socket.

Stephen J. Gould: None. The bulb jumped into the socket when no one was looking. Gradually.

more...


There are more comments on the site.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That was just lame. :rolleyes:
 
Yes, of course, evolution should certainly be compared with screwing a light bulb in. The analogy makes perfect sense and inevitably leads to meaningful conclusions!

- Warren
 
I don't get it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 99 ·
4
Replies
99
Views
21K
Replies
3
Views
9K
Replies
76
Views
13K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
8K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
9K