An opinion column by two associate professors of sociology at UC San Diego, appearing in the AJC and the Washington Post, proposes a compromise in the evolution debate.

The authors write in part: “Opponents of teaching intelligent design — civil libertarians, scientists and educators alike — have fought these challenges with a scorched-earth line of attack. No compromise, ever. Bloggers opposed to the idea of intelligent design ridicule its proponents as fundamentalist hicks, while formal assessments tend to condemn them in a slightly more civil tone. Those who study social movements, as we do, know that loss does not always deter; in fact, crushing one’s opponents, especially again and again, can create feelings of persecution and solidarity among them and deepen their commitment to their cause.

“From a tactical perspective, this may not be the best way to protect the science curriculum or the separation of church and state. From a more humanistic viewpoint, stigmatizing those who believe in intelligent design does not get us any closer to a respectful discourse.”

They continue, in a later paragraph: “We propose a compromise that would neither violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment nor limit the teaching of evolution in the public schools. Most defenders of evolution do not consider valid the critics’ fears that evolution teaches values. Even so, teachers could take these concerns seriously by clarifying what evolutionary theory does not imply about values. To assuage the type of concern articulated by William Jennings Bryan, teachers could tell students that even though evolutionary science talks about the survival of the fittest organism, it is not a model for how humans should treat each other. They could explain that students should not make an “ought” about human behavior from an “is” of nature and that competition in contemporary society will not lead to increased survival rates. Moreover, they could explicitly note that just because mutations in organisms are random, it does not follow that human morality is random.”

Read the full column

Do you think a compromise is possible in the evolution debate?

Permalink | Comments (49) | Categories: Forum

That synching feeling in traffic

By OpinionTalk | Thursday, July 31, 2008, 07:00 AM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Have you ever hit a green light at the beginning of a long stretch of road and then proceeded to hit every green light ahead? Don’t you wish you could always do that?

Synchronizing traffic lights is a science in some cities and an art in others. It can also be a good way to save lots of gas, since drivers aren’t stopping and starting all the time.

“Traffic” author Tom Vanderbilt points out that synchronizing lights can often be quite complicated. For example, synchronizing your lights sounds OK, but what about the driver on the cross street? Who will synchronize his lights? And what about pedestrians at the crosswalk?

Can you share some examples of intersections or roads in metro Atlanta where the lights could be programmed to move traffic more efficiently? Think about timing, too; Where are some of the area’s longest red lights?

Read the Sunday @issue report on traffic:

Eaten alive by traffic

Q&A with author Tom Vanderbilt

Road warriors’ quiz | Slower speeds more efficient

Permalink | Comments (21) | Categories: Forum

Advertise here »