Re: Science questions

• From: Steinhice
• Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 19:33:18 -0700
• Message-ID: <000TCIDJE.000PQE654.12170551-quizbowl_at_...>

(Trying to post this for the 2nd time - not
sure
why it didn't take on the first try
last
night)

Just for the moment assuming that was NOT
an
April
Fool's post, I'm actually going to offer
an
answer to
the question. Truth be told, I've
been
wondering
if this would come up as a
serious
issue
somewhere, especially since I host high school
tournaments
with a few independent Christian schools among
the
attendees.

My reply is simple: One does not have to agree
with
a generally accepted scientific theory to know
it.
If someone doesn't believe in evolution, then
to
argue their side with those of us that do,
they
certainly need to know the whys and wherefores
of
evolutionary theory. In other words, disagreeing
with
conventional wisdom is no excuse for not knowing it.
Science
questions in other, vaguer areas (e.g. astrophysics)
are
based on theories that may yet turn out not to be
true,
but they still have answers based on the body
of
scientific knowledge so far, and anyone who plays this
game
needs to know those answers regardless of whether
they
accept them.

Besides, science
questions need not
be about stuff that's correct. We ask
about things
like phlogiston and the inheritance of
acquired
characteristics and stuff like that from the

rejects
pile of science, and that doesn't mean we agree
with
it. Another example: I've seen questions
that
referred to certain substances as carcinogens that
I
personally don't think are (e.g. cyclamates, which got a
bad
rap based on flawed research.) But since
cyclamates
are generally deemed as carcinogens, I'd never
beef
about a question that called them
such.

The same
holds true in non-science disciplines as
well. Robert
Trent utterly loathes the work of
Nabokov but has no
qualms about answering questions
that treat ol' Vlad as
though he's really good. And
heaven knows I've answered
enough flattering
questions on conservative political
philosophers and
serialist composers and the New York Yankees
and others
I could never support.

--
Charlie
(who, for the record, thinks the complex progress
of
evolution, and the resulting intricacy and variety of
life
on Earth, is a much more eloquent testimony to
the
glory of God than anything that any deity could
have
thrown together in a lousy six days)