Science 240, Fall 1998

Short paper #4

Due: 5:00 pm, Tuesday, 15 December

Reminder: Late papers will be penalized

Choose one of the following topics and write a 3-4 page paper that develops and defends a philosophical position. Your paper is not a report, and you should not simply repeat what you have read or what you have heard in lecture. Your paper should consist mostly of philosophical analysis and argumentation. Present and critique specific arguments for and against each side of the question. Avoid vague generalities or trite claims. Cite details to defend your claims.

Topic 1: The creation science versus evolutionary science controversy

The creation science versus evolutionary science controversy relates to many issues that we have discussed in this course. The following are a few of the issues raised by claims made by creation scientists:

  1. What are the criteria for a theory or discipline to qualify as "scientific"?
  2. Should evolutionary biology be considered a genuine science, or is it a pseudo-science as creationists sometimes argue? Is it inferior, say, to chemistry and physics?
  3. Is evolutionary science as much a matter of "faith" as creation science?
  4. Does evolutionary science teach atheism and reduce humans (and their ethics) to the level of animals, so that it is in effect a religion itself?
  5. How might a standard scientific realist, a non-Kuhnian instrumentalist, and a Kuhnian respond to the claim of equal scientific merit (or nonmerit) of creation science and evolutionary science.

Using those issues as background develop and defend your own position on the creation science/evolutionary science controversy. You should focus on one (perhaps two) of the specific issues mentioned above, but don't feel obliged to cover everything.

Suggestions: Imagine that you are an expert witness or attorney for the creationist side or the evolutionist side. How would you develop your case? Imagine that you were the presiding judge in the 1981 Arkansas case. How would you decide the case and how would you justify the decision?

Topic 2: Is evolutionary theory good science? Are historical explanations testable?

Some philosophers and scientists claim that evolutionary biology is inferior to chemistry and physics as a scientific discipline. They claim that evolutionary biology does not meet scientific standards of acceptability. Do you agree or disagree? Write a paper that critically discusses this issue.

Your paper should

  1. Identify one or more important or interesting reasons why someone might think that evolutionary biology is inferior science.
  2. Discuss and evaluate these reasons in light of one or two ideas about the proper aims and methods of scientific inquiry (e.g., the traditional realist view of science, the non-Kuhnian instrumentalist view of science, the Kuhnian instrumentalist view of science). Don't forget the internal virtues and Kosso's discussion of coherence.
  3. Develop and defend your own position about the nature of science in general and the status of evolutionary biology in particular.

Sugggestion: You may want to compare evolutionary biology with specific examples of "good" science from physics or chemistry or with examples from some other field. For example, you might want to compare and contrast evolutionary theory with the theory of quantum mechanics. (Of course, Einstein didn't like quantum mechanics.)

Grading Criteria:

An "A" paper must do well with respect to all these criteria.

  1. Is there a clear and identifiable thesis in the introduction which the paper as a whole supports?
  2. Does the paper show a good understanding of the relevant lectures and readings?
  3. Does the paper successfully identify the obvious and important applications of the lectures and readings to the chosen topic?
  4. Does the author of the paper support his/her claims with concrete details and arguments? Remember that the paper is not a descriptive report, but is primarily a critical analysis.
  5. Does the author of the paper discuss and address some possible objections to her/his position? Good philosophy papers defend a thesis by giving positive arguments for the thesis, and by addressing some possible objections to the thesis.
  6. Does the paper show some insight and creativity? That is, is there a genuine effort to delve deeply into the issues, rather than being satisfied with superficial platitudes?
  7. Does the author use good writing techniques and grammar? E.g, use only complete sentences, give the paper a clear logical structure, make logical connections between ideas and paragraphs, etc.