4 ms·

This is not the first Ars Technica article I've seen that erroneously compares the "controversy" surrounding evolution with the controversy surrounding global w

by ellyagg 16y ago

This is not the first Ars Technica article I've seen that erroneously compares the "controversy" surrounding evolution with the controversy surrounding global warming. Evolution is a binary fact. It's either true or not and, as rational, informed people know, it's true. On the other hand, anthropogenic global warming is a matter of degree. Scientists largely agree that there has been some AGW (although it's not settled to nearly the confidence of evolution). What people object to is the constant bombardment with doomsday scenarios. The magnitude and implications of AGW are NOT settled and yet it's often claimed that hugely invasive and costly public policy initiatives must be enacted to combat worst case outcomes. Scientists and activists who carry the science further than its legs undermine their credibility and make it tough to discuss the issues fairly. It's pretty sneaky to suggest that if you don't toe the popular line on AGW, you're probably a Creationist.

swah 16y ago
I never thought about evolution and creationism as mutually exclusive.
- ewanmcteagle 16y ago
  This is because you are using your intuitive definition of creationism and not the one that has been historically used in this argument.
- Dove 16y ago
  They aren't. Here's the spectrum of beliefs as I understand it. YC = Young Earth Creationist PC = Progressive Creationist TE = Theistic Evolutionist NE = Naturalistic Evolutionist ID = Intelligent Design - - | | Selection pressure drives changes in balance of genetic traits | | in a population over time | | | YC Trivial, yet novel, beneficial mutations happen | | | | Some mutations permanently change populations | | | ... Trivial speciation occurs via natural means | | | Species within a 'kind' of animal (e.g., dogs and wolves) may | | share a common ancestor | | | | Earth and universe are billions of years old | | | PC Different species have arisen over millions of years of history | | ID | Some classes of creatures not mentioned in Genesis (e.g., bacteria, | | algae) may share a common ancestor | | | ... Fossil record accurately reflects biological diversity over time | | | | 'Kinds' of animals are not necessarily uniquely created; some may have | | been the result of external genetic tinkering | | | | Some types of creatures may have been created *ex nihilo*, some may | | have been genetically engineered, some may have evolved from others; | | no ideological preference, it is a purely scientific question. | | | | All life may have a common ancestor | | | | Biological diversity is explained entirely via mutation and natural | TE selection, but some mutations may be of 'hidden' supernatural origin | | (e.g., God orchestrates cosmic rays to make unlikely things happen) | | | | Any creative influence exerted by God on evolution occured in | | the setup of the universe; biological diversity in history is solely | | a result of the operation of natural laws. - | | The origin of life itself has a purely naturalistic explanation. - | NE The origin and diversity of life, including the suitability of the | universe to life, is explicable solely in terms of natural laws. -
zeteo 16y ago
To add to your point that there is no comparison, the claims of evolutionists can be easily checked (DNA analysis, fossil morphology, speciation in the wild etc.). The _historical_ claims of climate scientists can also be verified (pollen analysis, study of ice cores etc.), although it is much more difficult to do so (what with people throwing away the original data sets and so forth). However, the _predictive_ claims of climate scientists only follow from the historical facts through the means of statistical, computerized models that are, AFAIK, essentially unproven. In fact, exact quantitative predictions have consistently failed for the last two decades. There is no more science in _predictive_ climatology, I believe, than there is in forecasting the stock market (where the same kind of computer models are also used extensively).
- lutorm 16y ago
  I completely disagree with you. While there are certainly uncertainties in global circulation models, they are based on the laws of physics. Stock market modeling is not, it's entirely based on unproved/ad-hoc statistical models that likely have no relevance to the real world.
  - zeteo 16y ago
    Yes, but stock market modeling is also based on the law of supply and demand, which is pretty well proven. The trouble is that, in both cases, the base is far removed from the superstructure, and there's a chaotic system in between.
    - lutorm 16y ago
      The "law" in law of supply and demand is a very different thing than the law in the laws of physics... I agree with you about the chaotic thing, though.
      - zeteo 16y ago
        It's not that different from the laws of gases, really. Increase pressure, temperature increases (can't tell what individual molecules do). Increase demand, price increases. (Of course, this only works predictably for very, very atomized markets.)
say_ 16y ago
>On the other hand, anthropogenic global warming is a matter of degree. Yes, few informed people would disagree. The problem, however, is with how the debate is presented to the public. Watching CNN or MSNBC someone would come away with the impression that the debate is between the political conservative position (either wait and see, or it's not a problem), and the IPCC. In reality, the scientific debate is centered around the IPCC[1], with some scientists being more conservative in future projections, and some being more dire. The scientific uncertainty that you speak of cuts both ways, and could also end up revealing a nightmare scenario of climate feedbacks. See:http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html [1] http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full...

by ellyagg 16y ago

swah 16y ago

I never thought about evolution and creationism as mutually exclusive.

ewanmcteagle 16y ago
This is because you are using your intuitive definition of creationism and not the one that has been historically used in this argument.
Dove 16y ago
They aren't. Here's the spectrum of beliefs as I understand it. YC = Young Earth Creationist PC = Progressive Creationist TE = Theistic Evolutionist NE = Naturalistic Evolutionist ID = Intelligent Design - - | | Selection pressure drives changes in balance of genetic traits | | in a population over time | | | YC Trivial, yet novel, beneficial mutations happen | | | | Some mutations permanently change populations | | | ... Trivial speciation occurs via natural means | | | Species within a 'kind' of animal (e.g., dogs and wolves) may | | share a common ancestor | | | | Earth and universe are billions of years old | | | PC Different species have arisen over millions of years of history | | ID | Some classes of creatures not mentioned in Genesis (e.g., bacteria, | | algae) may share a common ancestor | | | ... Fossil record accurately reflects biological diversity over time | | | | 'Kinds' of animals are not necessarily uniquely created; some may have | | been the result of external genetic tinkering | | | | Some types of creatures may have been created *ex nihilo*, some may | | have been genetically engineered, some may have evolved from others; | | no ideological preference, it is a purely scientific question. | | | | All life may have a common ancestor | | | | Biological diversity is explained entirely via mutation and natural | TE selection, but some mutations may be of 'hidden' supernatural origin | | (e.g., God orchestrates cosmic rays to make unlikely things happen) | | | | Any creative influence exerted by God on evolution occured in | | the setup of the universe; biological diversity in history is solely | | a result of the operation of natural laws. - | | The origin of life itself has a purely naturalistic explanation. - | NE The origin and diversity of life, including the suitability of the | universe to life, is explicable solely in terms of natural laws. -

zeteo 16y ago

To add to your point that there is no comparison, the claims of evolutionists can be easily checked (DNA analysis, fossil morphology, speciation in the wild etc.). The _historical_ claims of climate scientists can also be verified (pollen analysis, study of ice cores etc.), although it is much more difficult to do so (what with people throwing away the original data sets and so forth). However, the _predictive_ claims of climate scientists only follow from the historical facts through the means of statistical, computerized models that are, AFAIK, essentially unproven. In fact, exact quantitative predictions have consistently failed for the last two decades. There is no more science in _predictive_ climatology, I believe, than there is in forecasting the stock market (where the same kind of computer models are also used extensively).

lutorm 16y ago
I completely disagree with you. While there are certainly uncertainties in global circulation models, they are based on the laws of physics. Stock market modeling is not, it's entirely based on unproved/ad-hoc statistical models that likely have no relevance to the real world.
- zeteo 16y ago
  Yes, but stock market modeling is also based on the law of supply and demand, which is pretty well proven. The trouble is that, in both cases, the base is far removed from the superstructure, and there's a chaotic system in between.
  - lutorm 16y ago
    The "law" in law of supply and demand is a very different thing than the law in the laws of physics... I agree with you about the chaotic thing, though.
    - zeteo 16y ago
      It's not that different from the laws of gases, really. Increase pressure, temperature increases (can't tell what individual molecules do). Increase demand, price increases. (Of course, this only works predictably for very, very atomized markets.)

say_ 16y ago

>On the other hand, anthropogenic global warming is a matter of degree. Yes, few informed people would disagree. The problem, however, is with how the debate is presented to the public. Watching CNN or MSNBC someone would come away with the impression that the debate is between the political conservative position (either wait and see, or it's not a problem), and the IPCC. In reality, the scientific debate is centered around the IPCC[1], with some scientists being more conservative in future projections, and some being more dire. The scientific uncertainty that you speak of cuts both ways, and could also end up revealing a nightmare scenario of climate feedbacks. See:http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html [1] http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full...