LETTERS 



All the unisexual species 

 of whiptails evolved as hy- 

 brids of two ancestral spe- 

 cies that included both sexes 

 and required fertilization to 

 reproduce. In certain cases, 

 one of the resultant hybrid 

 females was able to clone 

 herself instead of being ster- 

 ile, like a mule. The out- 

 come is often that both an- 

 cestral species and the new 

 unisexual clone survive. 

 Individuals of the all-female 

 species can disperse and col- 

 onize new localities, with 

 no dependence on their an- 

 cestors or on males. 

 Charles J. Cole 

 American Museum of Natural 



History 

 New York, New York 



Douglas J. Futuyma 

 replies: Charles J. Cole is 

 correct; I should have re- 

 ferred to the hybrid origin 

 of the all-female popula- 

 tions of whiptail lizards. 

 There are other animals, 

 though, such as the tall 

 cankerworm moth, in 

 which asexual female lin- 

 eages that have not origi- 

 nated by hybridization co- 

 exist with sexual forms of 

 the same species. My 

 point remains, however, 

 that no one knows why 

 the sexual species of whip- 

 tails persist, despite the 

 higher potential rate of 

 population growth among 

 the asexual species. 



Darts and Laurels 



I was disappointed by Neil 

 deGrasse Tyson's article, 

 "The Perimeter of 

 Ignorance" [1 1/05]. I'm not 

 a proponent of intelligent 

 design; in fact, I strongly 

 disagree with much of it. 

 But the tone of the article 



seemed to attack more than 

 just intelligent design; it at- 

 tacked the belief in God in 

 general. Many religious 

 people do not believe that 

 God precludes evolution, 

 and vice versa. Educate me 

 about science and nature, 

 but don't patronize me for 

 believing in God. 

 Joshua Boyle 

 Mesa, Arizona 



I've read every single issue of 

 your magazine for more 

 than twenty years. One of 

 the greatest blows to me was 

 the passing of Stephen Jay 

 Gould. He was my 

 favorite professor in college, 

 and his columns were an 

 unalloyed pleasure. 

 Although I enjoyed Neil 

 DeGrasse Tyson's columns, I 

 had vaguely lamented his 

 promotion to the monthly 

 replacement for Gould. 



Mr. Tyson, I owe you an 

 apology. Your November 

 2005 column is the hnest 

 science writing I've read in 

 several years. I laughed a 

 few times, my eyes misted 

 up at other times, I learned 

 a fair bit, and I was thor- 

 oughly engaged by every 

 single word. You have justly 

 inherited the mantle of 

 monthly mentor for Natural 

 History. Gould would have 

 been proud to have penned 

 such a gripping essay. 

 Albert C. P. Doyle Jr. 

 Boston, Massachusetts 



Neil deGrasse Tyson 

 REPLIES: I am grateful for 

 the responses (even the 

 negative ones) to my arti- 

 cle, and I am especially 

 honored by Albert C. P. 

 Doyle Jr.'s comparison with 

 Stephen Jay Gould, who 

 practically invented the 



modern essay form in these 

 pages. But I wish to reply 

 specifically to Joshua Boyle, 

 who was offended by the 

 article's tone. I had never 

 intended, either in content 

 or tone, to suggest that 

 God does not exist. And I 

 thought I had made it clear 

 that many contemporary 

 scientists believe in God. 

 But I am nonetheless led to 

 the famous quote from 

 Harry S Truman: When a 

 campaign supporter 

 shouted, "Give 'em hell, 

 Harry!" Truman replied, 

 "I don't give them hell. I 

 just tell the truth and they 

 think it's hell." 



Teaching the Controversy 



I find Peter Brown's editor- 

 ial, "Disciplined Change" 

 [10/05] a bit disturbing. 

 That scientific debate is 

 "not for the uninformed," 

 and that "scientific contro- 

 versy is for scientists," seems 

 to imply that we should not 

 acknowledge that any dis- 

 agreement exists concern- 

 ing theories that have been 

 approved by scientists. 



I remember the attitude 

 of my own biology profes- 

 sor — a man devoted to the 

 "scientific method" — to 

 the theory of continental 

 dritt. He expressed outrage 

 over the idea that conti- 

 nents could in any way 

 have floated or moved to 

 their mid-twentieth cen- 

 tury position. Since then, I 

 understand that many sci- 

 entists with their scientific 

 "union cards" have come 

 to support that theory. 



The moral of the story is 

 that I was not harmed by 

 knowing that the big guys in 

 science disagreed over a the- 

 ory. I fear that you put your- 



selves into the position of 

 those who say, "Don't ask 

 questions, just believe," 

 when you recommend not 

 raising any controversy at the 

 high school level. 

 Anne Graves 

 Houston, Texas 



Peter Brown's editorial 

 points out that the nature of 

 scientific inquiry is widely 

 misunderstood. "Science is 

 a method, not a set of con- 

 clusions," he writes, insist- 

 ing that science does not 

 grant equal validity to dif- 

 ferent opinions. Students 

 are well aware of the con- 

 troversy of teaching evolu- 

 tion in schools, if not its 

 particulars. Ignoring the call 

 by proponents of intelligent 

 design to "teach the con- 

 troversy" can give students 

 the impression that closed- 

 minded teachers are un- 

 fairly indoctrinating them. 

 A better approach would be 

 for science teachers in all 

 disciplines to use their first 

 class to explain and review 

 the scientific method. At 

 the end of this class, they 

 could announce that the se- 

 mester is to be devoted to 

 what we think we know 

 about the matter at hand, 

 which is always subject to 

 disciplined change. 

 Peter Starr 



Albuquerque, New Mexico 



Peter Brown replies: As 

 perceptive commentators 

 have pointed out recently, 

 the slogan adopted by the 

 proponents of "intelligent 

 design" ("teach the contro- 

 versy") has its genesis in 

 humanistic, postmodern 

 academic views. Ironically 

 the relativism of those 

 (Continued on page 74) 



12 



NATURAl IMSloKY March 2006 



