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
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 hemisuses
science for political and social purposes- or scientific racism.” (Gould, 1985,
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, whenit isn’t exact.
He believes that no one knows
the truthful answers unless one has lived through theera. 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 theGalapagos islands: “vultures, condors, vampire
bats, jaguars, and snakes.” Rifking also wrote, ” it was a savage, primeval
bloodletting and ferocious, unremitted battle for survival.
The airwas 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 onthe subject to make a honest opinion.
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