The Voltage Gate

There was a bit of discussion on yesterday's post on chelicerates and insects regarding scientific terminology, specifically the use of the word "bug" as scientifically descriptive of certain orders of insects. There was a back and forth about the applicability and appropriateness of the word.

I think our conversation, however enjoyable, illustrates a big problem people have with science in general. They might look at the points raised and say something like, "Who cares what you call them? They are what they are, no matter what names we give them. Scientists are so damn nitpicky."

And they would be right. Scientists are nitpicky because science is nitpicky. If you want accurate information gleaned from a certain system or methodology, that system better be damn thorough. Call it what you like. Those sorts of discussions are responsible for progress.

The conversation reminded me of a recent comment I received from a creationist. I don't get trolled by creationists at TVG very often, so when I do, it's worth noting:

Why spiders SHOULD be considered "insects". Or at least a sub-category of insects. Exo-skeleton. Multiple legs. Creepy crawly. And if it quacks like a duck, people. So for some stuffy scientists, biologists, zoologists, paleantolgists, etc, to come up with artificial nit-picky labelings and distinctions, to make spiders a totally different species, like "arachnids", is silly. Why can't "aranchids" simply be considered a TYPE of "insect"??? (As well as scorpions, or dust mites, or whatever else.) The average person (and even insect and animal lover) doesn't generally in practical purposes separate spiders from the category of "bugs" or "insects". Why?? Cuz even though there ARE SOME basic differences here and there (like 8 legs instead of 6, two body segments instead of three, and claw jaw munching distinctions, whatever blah blah, those are just hair-splitting differences in the overall picture of it. Cuz again, just who came up with these uptight definitions of these things in the first place. When you see a spider in your bathtub (and I like spiders, by the way), you automatically think "bug" or "insect" or "creepy crawly" not "aracnid". So let's lose the silliness already on this subject. (By the way, "evolve" is presumed as fact, without sound solid basis for it, though 80% of scientists dogmatically insist differently. No real evidence. Gaps are still gappish. Just a side point and another topic.)

This misguided individual liked this comment so much, he posted it on three different threads; the last one had nothing to do with spiders or evolution.

He (yes, I'm choosing the male pronoun to avoid he/she, his/her awkwardness; I hope my feminine readers will not be offended in this particular case) could have found all of the answers to his questions within the post. The morphological differences between insects and spiders are profound, and as the second post of the spider series drives at, it is because of their evolutionary heritage. Their present forms provide clues for scientists to tease out their common ancestry, and while that reconstruction is a constant effort, we are largely aware of the basic evolutionary framework of arthropod ancestry. Spiders are not a type of insect because they have followed a different evolutionary trajectory, filled different, specialized niches, and perhaps most obviously, because their distinct lineage predates the insects'.

But the commenter is not interested in learning anything. Knowledge is abhorrent, even threatening to these folks. The promotion and celebration of ignorance is integral to their philosophy. The only natural distinction that they make is the line they draw between human beings and the rest of the natural world.

As I've said before, we get about five Christian channels (our of 60) up here in Western Maryland. I usually breeze right through them, but I caught John Hagee discussing angels and demons the other day, just in time for the release of the new Harry Potter movie. He equated pornography and higher thought (as in trying to think as a god) and denounced them as "products of imagination."

Imagination is dangerous to the creationist cause. Imagination encourages humans to consider a myriad of possibilities and make intuitive connections between phenomena, in nature, in society and in our minds, and therefore, imagination is integral to science, that most nitpicky discipline, that "reductionist worldview", that makes so many distinctions. Drawing lines, creating categorizations and reducing phenomena to units from which useful conclusions can be made has given all humans the technology we use to ease our lives and feed our populace and the medicine we use to keep our loved ones alive and close.

A spider may still be a bug to us when we brush it from our shoulder, but how many doors does the knowledge of its true nature open in our minds? How far can that knowledge stretch the imagination of a child and influence her vast potential? It could mean the difference between living in a free society that thrives on its collective creativity and one ruled by Big Brother, the anticreative philosophy of creationism.