What is Darwin's Theory?

Many scientists have different understandings and uses of

bioengineering. Darwin's Theory on natural selection has stirred up some

controversies on whether or not to remain studying and researching for

information on the theory. Jeremy Rifkin, a philosopher and environmental

activist, portrays in his article the world will be coming to an end if we remain

to use bioengineering the way that we have been. He feels it is a waste of

time and money to keep researching on Darwin's Theory. Where as Stephen

Jay Gould, biology and geology professor at Harvard University, feels that

bioengineering is a complex yet useful item in science. He believes if one can

understand the history behind the theory, then it would be a useful item for

future use. Both authors main view is to create a better environment for

humans to live in, but have different thoughts on how to reach the better side.

Gould believes "Rifkin does not understand science, therefore he misuses

science for political and social purposes- or scientific racism." (Gould, 1985,

pg 676)

Rifkins outlook on bioengineering is not being totally against it,

but as a method that is not useful. He feels that science may be misused and

pointless, therefore why have scientists work day and night over projects

which are pointless. He doesn't want society to spend so much money on a

cause that is what he thinks is worthless. In one case, he says that evolution

is a false science. The whole theory of Darwin is fake because it was

created due to scientists experimenting over and over again until they came

up with some conclusions. He believes scientists should not waste time on

tying to find an answer, when it isn't exact. He believes that no one knows

the truthful answers unless one has lived through the era. Gould along with

many other scientist disagree to that piece of information Rifkin gives. Gould

believes that Rifkin doesn't understand science to the full extent. He has no

knowledge or experience behind the field, therefore leading him to the wrong

answers about science. Most scientists agree because research and

experimentation is the way to learn about the past and future.

There was also a statement that Rifkin wrote in Algeny, a book

about alchemy of genes, that Gould found hilarious. Rifkin wrote about

what he had seen at the Galapagos islands: "vultures, condors, vampire

bats, jaguars, and snakes." Rifking also wrote, " it was a savage, primeval

bloodletting and ferocious, unremitted battle for survival. The air was dank

and foul and the thick stench of volcanoes ash veiled the islands with a kind

of goulash drape." (Gould, 1985, 682) He gave a very harsh, scary

description of the islands. Gould laughs and believes Rifkin has never set

foot on the islands. Gould says the total opposite of the environment and

physical description of the Galapogas. He says it is a beautiful and there are

no harmful animals at the location.

Rifkin doesn't totally disagree on science, but is making many

false accusations. Hr loves science, but critics believe some of view points

against evolution and Darwin's theory do not have enough understanding

behind them. Gould believes that Rifkin doesn't comprehend or have

enough facts and information on the subject to make a honest opinion. He

feels that Rifkin just looks straight and won't look to the side, where he could

find deeper information. Many scientists and critics do not appreciate

Rifkin's rambling on about science and saying things he doesn't know.

Rifkin feels he has a say in anything, and these are his opinions on the matter

at hand.