P1: Responses to Others

February 12 , 2006

MEAGAN

Hey, Meagan,

You say that "Though evolution is considered solely to be a theory, it has enough factual evidence to prove that the process is very likely and has been taking place throughout the earth’s history." I disagree with this characterization of evolution as "only a theory" -- since you're arguing the pro-evolution side.  Like most scientific ideas, evolution will never be a "law" because it can always be disproven.

Generally, Lamarck puts up a good defense of evolution, but you don't really address one part of the resolution: whether spirituality and evolution are mutually exclusive.

RACHEL

Hey Rachel,

I like Mary Anning. She is likable! Conversation, however, was not as fluid as I would have liked. I got stuck a few times, like after the "rumors" answer -- I thought this last part was a prompt:

...understand how they were so long ago, when the bones I pick loose from the earth were still cased in skin and sinew as healthy as ye own!
You say, "sinew"
Mary Anning says, "hmm, is that so.."

Guess not. Maybe you could set off keywords somehow, with *asterisks*?

I was also unable to find any text that actually pertained to the resolution -- i.e. spirituality of nature v. evolution. Mary seems to disprove this implicitly but I think you should have her answer an explicit question.

In the "ditties" answer, you misspell "ditties:" "Still, I feel fortunate to have some dittys of my very own."

SHARON

I would change the beginning of your project. You write "A debate that began in the Oxford University Museum in the 1860s continues today. I am Kenneth R. Miller, a professor at Brown University. I have a question to ask those of you present today." You use "today" twice almost consecutively. I'd get rid of the first sentence altogether or merge it with the second. "Good evening, ladies and gents. I'm Kenneth R. Miller and I'd like to speak to you about a debate that began... etc."

More generally, I think you should include some more pictures, especially since there are lots of places you could illustrate the natural selection v. evolution debate.

Good show!

BRIAN

Hey, Brian,

Maybe it would be easier to put Thomas Aquinas's keywords under his description? This way I have to click twice, and as you know, I just don't have that kind of time.

Under "evolution", Aquinas says:
"Given this understanding, the form of beings which we can now understand due to evolution are still spiritual in nature." The double use of understanding seems awkward to me. I suggest "Given these assumptions, the form of beings which we can now understand due to evolution are still spiritual in nature."

I really like how you frame this debate from Aquinas's perspective, and I find it very convincing. However, I don't think you can say Darwinism eschews a spiritual approach to nature.  Merriam-Webster defines Darwinism as "biological evolutionism." Anti-spirituality is not the view of "Darwinism," but rather "some Darwinists."

NOEL
Hey Noel,

I like the screenplay-ish approach to the project!

Some minor grammatical things:
" This counts ten percent of my
final grade!" to " This counts FOR ten percent of my
final grade!"

This seems really abrupt:
"There is public transporter gateway." Establish setting a little more. Also, "there is A public.."

THOMAS

Hey Thomas,

I like the choice of Owen Barfield -- he seems terribly interesting.

"It is one hundred years to the day since the ‘Great Evolutionary Debate’ took place at the Oxford Museum of Natural History. " to "It has been one hundred years to the day since the ‘Great Evolutionary Debate’ took place at the Oxford Museum of Natural History. "

Some more pictures would be nice -- especially since you describe dinosaurs and fossils very vividly. Everyone likes pictures of dinosaurs!

LAURA

Laura, I love your intro paragraph so very much.

Minor grammatical things:
"In addition to the regulars like Huxley and Wilberforce Bryan sees Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace, Lee Spetner, Philip Johnson, and even John Scopes, the man he prosecuted while representing the World Christian Fundamentals Association. " - comma after Wilberforce.

Generally, it ends pretty abruptly.  Bryan doesn't get around to pointing out how evolution and spirituality are mutually exclusive. I'd like to see him refute the watchmaker model.