6 ms·

Defending Darwin

78 points by hownottowrite 12y ago

stenl 12y ago
Incredible that Darwin should need defending in any advanced country today. I'm also a university (associate) professor and though I don't teach evolution per se it obviously crops up now and then (I teach molecular biology, in Sweden). None of the students ever (ever!) even as much as hinted that evolution might be questionable. But some of the foreign postdocs of course are religious. There was one guy (catholic) who believed the Earth was created 4000 years ago by God including all the evidence for evolution as a kind of mind trick on scientists. I find it hard to understand how you can hold such weird beliefs and also be a scientist, but it isn't very rare.
- crimsonalucard 12y ago
  It's not incredible at all. Humans are conflicted creatures. The bias and irrational thought we see in religious people are weaknesses inherent in all of us. Bias by it's nature and definition means that we will never be able to understand our own prejudices by observing ourselves. We can only seek to understand it by observing it in other people.
  - eivarv 12y ago
    That's not entirely true, though. By being aware of ones biases, one can attempt to overcome them, or at least modulate one's thoughts and actions to take into account the fact that they are there. Take Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, for instance, in which patients seek to recognize their own biased ways of thinking in order to lessen their biases and dissociate these thoughts from emotion and action. The same principles applies to reflecting upon one's thought processes (metacognition) in general, though perhaps to a lesser degree. While becoming aware of one's biases by oneself is difficult, one can understand ones own prejudices - certainly those that we know that more or less everybody has a propensity towards. In my opinion, these biases and irrational thoughts are not weaknesses inherent in all of us. I think they are rather something we all have potential for, but which is expressed differently in each of us.
- mcguire 12y ago
  Sweden is a very unified country. The US is not.
- ylem 12y ago
  I thought the Catholic church was ok with evolution, the big bang theory, etc.
  - acqq 12y ago
    From the article: "When I again pointed out that John Paul accepted evolution—and he certainly wasn’t an atheist—the student countered that Catholics aren’t Christians. Several simply let me know they will be praying for me and praying hard. One student explained that as a devout Catholic he had no choice but to reject evolution. He accused me of fabricating the pope’s statements. When I explained that he could go to the Vatican website for verification or call the Vatican to talk to a scientist, he insisted that there was no such information available from the Vatican. He then pointed his finger at me and said the only way he would believe me is if Pope John Paul II came to my class to confirm these quotes face-to-face. The student then stomped out, again slamming the auditorium door behind him." From the Pope's mouth (2007): http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2007/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070724_clero-cadore.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2007/j... "Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because (...) there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such."
  - RogerL 12y ago
    It is, but as significant number of people have not gotten the memo, or have been told but refuse to accept it.
  - marcosdumay 12y ago
    It is. But some people will believe in anything they want, and are completely sure that they have institutional support. (And the fact that even the institution is questionable won't even cross their minds.) That happens for every kind of institution, not only religious. Violent sports fans are a very explicit example.
- noir_lord 12y ago
  It's incredible even for non-scientists like myself. That people deny reality when there is such an overwhelming mountain of evidence that the Earth is over 4000 years old (as one example) is deeply depressing.
- sklivvz1971 12y ago
  Catholics can't fundamentally choose what to believe in. There's a unique interpretation of the Bible, the catechism, which supports "directed evolution". Are you sure he's not a Baptist? See for example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/10/28/pope-francis-backs-theory-of-evolution-says-god-is-no-wizard/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/10/28...
  - jamestnz 12y ago
    >There's a unique interpretation of the Bible, the catechism, which supports "directed evolution" Actually, doctrinally, Catholics are free to believe in believe in evolution or not. The Church accepts scientific evidence of evolution, but does not make it a policy issue, so to speak. Contrast this with, say, the Church's stance on belief in the literal historicity of Adam and Eve (and a whole slew of specific claims besides), which is core Catholic doctrine and a non-negotiable belief. You don't need to take my word for it, the Vatican has the Catechism full-text online. You can read the Catechesis on Creation for yourself, where you'll see: "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers..." Which hardly seems to be taking as forceful a stand as you imply. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2... >Catholics can't fundamentally choose what to believe in Seriously? Have you met any adherent of any organised religion ever? :-)
  - stenl 12y ago
    Sorry, I should have said "from a predominantly catholic country".
mercurial 12y ago
This reminded me about this Paul Graham piece, where he pointed out that people are willing to be open-minded only until the topic is one they feel is part of their core set of beliefs (eg, religion or politics).
emilsedgh 12y ago
... one can accept evolution and maintain their religious beliefs. They are not mutually exclusive. To me its like saying I'm both Christian and Muslim. Sure, one can decide to be whatever weird thing he/she likes, but its bizarre and does not make any sense. Or am I mistaken?
- aet 12y ago
  Take a lesson from evolution: adapt or die. Religions evolve just as animals, etc.
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  There's a belief termed "theistic evolution" where one holds that God created the initial conditions of the universe and let it proceed organically from there. Naturally, this requires discounting the Genesis account of creation, among other things. It also starts to border closer to deism, which is at odds with conventional Abrahamic interpretations of a heavily interventionist God. Stephen Jay Gould dubbed this "Non-Overlapping Magisteria". As is the case with religion, it's possible to compartmentalize and select everything into a syncretic faith. Whether it is "bizarre" or "nonsensical" is of no relevance.
  - pageld 12y ago
    If you want a more 'fun' take on it, look at the Futurama episode A Clockwork Origin. The professor litterally 'seeds' a planet and it evolves following the basic evolutionary process of earth. Compartmentalizing for this really only needs to happen if you are in the group where the Bible/whatever is word for word acurate. If you think it's a guide book and 7 days really isn't seven Earth days but some description of time passing, God "guiding" evolution still makes sense.
- protomyth 12y ago
  The Catholic Church accepts both, so I think you might be mistaken. They believe its divinely inspired, but that doesn't really change the science. Now, some of the American Protestant churches are a different story. I always wonder how Genesis 1:26 would work without evolution and genetics?
christophmccann 12y ago
It is almost impossible to argue with the individuals who espouse these beliefs as they expect you to prove a negative i.e. prove a higher power doesn't exist. As the article describes, the argument also quickly devolves into extreme defensiveness. What makes this so bogus is the enormous weight of peer-reviewed primary research and scientific evidence of evolutionary basis for life. Thankfully, in the UK, a much smaller minority hold these views. I heard a Mitt Romney speech in London once and he was asked about his view on creationism vs evolution - he couldn't answer, but if we were to support evolution he just lost any chances of future election. If a UK prime minister espoused creationism, the reverse would be true.
japhyr 12y ago
I teach high school math and science. I don't let my students use the phrase "believe in evolution", no matter their perspective. Instead, I focus people's attention on questions such as: "What is the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis?" "What happens if we only ever use one kind of antibiotic in the world?" "Does evolution imply that a monkey gave birth to a human baby?" Only after students have answered those questions clearly and correctly do we enter into conversations about what it means to "believe in evolution". Once we have clear answers to these questions, students no longer feel the need to use that phrase.
christophmccann 12y ago
Also want to say - I have studied medicine. There were people on my course who held these beliefs and fully believed what they were now being taught was rubbish, but learnt it to "pass exams". They had done so since school. No amount of education would or could change their viewpoint, which, for me, is the most frightening thing.
- japhyr 12y ago
  Do you have any sense of how these people reconciled their understanding of antibiotic-resistant bacteria with their denial of evolution? (I assume they are aware of the mechanics of how antibiotic-resistant bacterial populations develop.)
  - IndianAstronaut 12y ago
    The creationist movement will have explanations for this. They also have explanations for fossils, for distant galaxies, etc. Keep in mind the movement has the support of a significant percentage of the US population and there are numerous "research" institutes around the country. Many of them are very skilled debaters who can lead the unwary into traps.
    - japhyr 12y ago
      I just googled "creationist explain antibiotic resistance". Wow. But it would be fun to talk to some of these people!
      - christophmccann 12y ago
        Trust me, it's not fun. Its a land of denial, self-deception and complete frustration!
      - IndianAstronaut 12y ago
        They also have a different explanation for cosmology as well. It's not just evolution they are against. Many also believe that all these extrasolar planets we are finding are myths.
kailuowang 12y ago
I think it's futile trying to defend Darwin in a scientific way (i.e. based on sound logic and evidence), or based on the utility of it in current life, here is why. There are two possible common scenarios of people who dismiss evolution after reasonable education: If a people chose to dismiss evolution simply because the Bible (or some influential people) said so, it wont make much difference to convince him evolution, because even if you succeeded, it's just because you said so, not based on his own independent thinking. If a people choose to believe in God based on his own independent thinking, he probably already chose to not using the scientific way of thinking on this matter. And you have to respect that the scientific way isn't perfect itself (it's mostly based on induction not undeniable logic). The second scenario is far rarer than the first one. But with them, it's more productive to have a more philosophical discussion than a scientific one.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
  It's not futile. Christians do not have binary faith in the accuracy of the bible. If one has doubts, they may eventually be swayed.
  - kailuowang 12y ago
    You see, that's the fundamental issue - their faith is not based on evidence, they fact that they don't always ignore counter evidence isn't that relevant.
- mcguire 12y ago
  Keep in mind that there are two confounding factors here: 1. The conflict between religion and science is at a much deeper level than "evolution" or any other specific question about facts. Religion is based on belief in the absence of (or even in conflict with) evidence. Science is (or should be) based on doubt even in the presence of evidence. (Quick quiz: Did Albert Einstein waste the last half of his life opposing quantum mechanics?) I enjoyed Stephen J. Gould's book on the conflict between religion and science, but he rather missed the actual point. ("I make it clear that one can accept evolution and maintain their religious beliefs. They are not mutually exclusive:" yes, at the risk of having to compartmentalize the activities of science and religion; but everyone does that anyway. I like to fancy myself a scientist, but my understanding of most of science is at the level of religion; I don't have enough physics to really evaluate evidence, so I'm just going along based on results. Likewise, I don't have the chemistry or the biology. I suspect the vast majority of any scientists or engineers are in a similar boat, although I know too many of both to expect not to be set on fire for this statement. In any case, I'm mostly going along because I like the results.) 2. "Evolution", on the student side in this article at least, is essentially irrelevant to the lives of the students. (Modulo, of course, the evolutionary medicine points; many of those are as compatible with creationism, though.) This is a course on biology for non-biologists; the facts of biology have no practical, visible effects on their lives. That might change if they go full-crazy and assert something like the immutability of species, but that isn't the mainstream of creationist thought. Whether whales descended from a strange, wolfy sort of critter is as irrelevant to non-biologically inclined students as whether whales' tails are oriented vertically or horizontally to students in Kansas. Or, whether nitrogen compounds are exciting[1]. Teaching evolution in these classes is valuable solely because it teaches an understanding of how science works, which (a) most practising scientists don't really have but which (b) is kind of important if one is going to be dealing with most policy decisions. Which one is. On the one hand, that makes this class one of the most important that the students could take, but on the other it makes this class one of the least important: I don't care if you "believe" in evolution or not if you can make reasonable, reasoned decisions. (Unless you believe the world was created 4000 years ago, all of the evidence otherwise was planted as a trick, and that the god who did so is benevolent. I'm staying away from that guy.) [1] http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2013/01/09/things_i_wont_work_with_azidoazide_azides_more_or_less.php http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2013/01/09/things_i_won...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
keslag 12y ago
Evolution is fact. Natural Selection is fact. To argue against either of these is beyond ignorance, it's delusion. We can observe these daily, so this isn't up for debate. The one plausible scepticism is speciation, which must be inferred from the data as opposed to being directly observed. This is due to the required isolation of gene pools and the time said isolation need to occur for variants to affect the gene pool enough for two groups to diverge sufficiently that their offspring can no longer become viable. But even this middle stage can be observed (like horses and donkeys) where we can create sterile offspring. Science isn't at odds with religion, science is at odds with ignorance. If all facts lead to a deities existence, then science would have a theory of this deities involvement. We would then try to understand how the deity created the universe and us. Science is simply the utilization of fact to explain the 'how'.
- threatofrain 12y ago
  Evolution and natural selection are not facts. I understand why you use the word fact. It's because too many people are playing word games ("belief, opinion, theory!"), that you feel you need to counterattack by using such a solid word like fact. In the vernacular, fact also has another meaning: true. Not conclusively true, not noisily true, but Simply True. Unrevisable. Unimprovable. Just Truth. And that's the game you've decided to be a part of. "It is a FACT that I am standing here right now." Some groups are well aware of this confounding of terms and they deceitfully abuse it. But facts are data points. They are the things which you combine to formulate a theory. If all you have are facts, then all you have is a bundle of disconnected trivia. Theory is true power over facts, but in the vernacular, theory means opinion. Theory is weak. Theory is revisable. Theory is improvable. How do you know your theory won't change tomorrow? But Fact is Truth. It won't change tomorrow, or ever. But in science, theory is power. Theory is sexiness. Theory is freedom from a huge bundle of disconnected, incoherent facts. "You have no theory, all you have are facts!", is a damning statement. Historians have a lot of difficulty producing a decent theory of history. They have tons of facts, but where's the general theory of civil war? Everything in history is retrospective hyper-domain-specific explanation. So some people appreciate the difficulty of theory. Maybe if people don't play these word games, then they also lose. But I don't currently believe that. I think the other side that plays word games is dishonest, and that those who join with me on this opinion should resist such immoral PR tactics. These are people who pervert the good instruments of societal transaction and improvement, because winning is everything to them. Whatever the damage to public relationship to science, whatever the cost to language, whatever -- let the kids of the future clean it up after we've won the "war".
eatonphil 12y ago
Only logical issue I see is his that in saying evolution is a theory and a fact this did not follow his pattern of things that are facts and theories. For instance, he said the existence of cells is a fact and cell theory is a reasonable way of explaining how cells function. I guess I'm just confused because he uses the same word "evolution". It seems like this is the same thing as saying cells are a theory and a fact. But that doesn't even make sense as far as the word "cells" goes. Wouldn't it make more sense to say life is a fact and evolution is a reasonable way of explaining how life functions? Or something along those lines, I can't quite wrap my head around it. Perhaps someone can explain this more clearly? He might just be using two definitions of the word "evolution" to make a point/sound more poetic. But this just comes off as more confusing to me.
- crazychrome 12y ago
  according to my understanding, there is no "fact" in science. there are observations, hypotheses (and null hypotheses if related to stats) and theories. i think "fact" is used in the article as theories or hypotheses that explain corresponding observations well enough, and over and over again.
  - acqq 12y ago
    Observation, if verified that it's done correctly, is a fact. Evolution is actually observed, so it's a fact.
- airza 12y ago
  I think the argument towards evolution being a fact is that we have watched bacteria evolve in real time. (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/ http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-r...) So not only is it a good model, it happens to be elevated to the level of fact because we have directly observed it happening.
- inglor 12y ago
  This is a termionology issue based on what "theory" actually means in science. Theory in science means a foundation of how we think things work. For example people are perfectly fine with the "Theory of Gravity" being a "Theory" although no one doubts the observable effects of gravity. In the scientific community evolution has a similar standing.
ylem 12y ago
Another interesting article is: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/03/teaching_human_evolution_at_the_university_of_kentucky_there_are_some_students.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201... I like that the professor in this example tries to engage his students despite the conflict with their religious beliefs. It seems like he sometimes has success with it and is realistic in his expectations...
- japhyr 12y ago
  It's the same author, and basically the same article: This essay is adapted from a piece originally printed in the March/April 2015 issue of Orion.
  - hownottowrite 12y ago
    Correct. I posted the original source for this very reason.
cubano 12y ago
People choose to believe (and to not believe) in all sorts of wacky stuff[1]. UFOs, Illuminati conspiracies, Rumpology... But when it come to not believing in scientific theories that are obviously standing the hard tests of the scientific method and that are making correct, testable predictions, well, it does become somewhat frightening at that point. Perhaps it's just social norming at work, and people find it easier to say whatever they need to continue to fit into their social cliques. TBH, I hope this is mostly the case, because at least then there is some method to the madness. Also, it's hard to not throw Hayek's Scientism[2] into the mix again here...for too long, perhaps, Researchers have attempted to apply scientific principles to area's of study that simply are not suited for such attempts, thus creating a generation of layperson's who are having much easier time dismissing anything that does not fit comfortably into their intuition due to often-flawed research. In any case, I am finding this same disheartening truth when I talk to people about some of the few solid findings that neuroscience has made about our decision-making processes, so I believe I have some direct, albeit minor, understanding of the issue. [1] http://listverse.com/2013/06/12/10-bizarre-things-people-believe-in/ http://listverse.com/2013/06/12/10-bizarre-things-people-bel... [2] http://cafehayek.com/2011/12/hayek-on-scientistic-hubris.html http://cafehayek.com/2011/12/hayek-on-scientistic-hubris.htm...
sklivvz1971 12y ago
The irony is that science itself works in the same way as biological evolution. There are theories, variations and selective pressure (experiments). It so happens that clearly not understanding science becomes a prerequisite for not accepting evolution, and understanding science implicitly makes evolution an obvious fact.
crimsonalucard 12y ago
>This lecture should put students at ease knowing that religion and science need not be at odds Unfortunately, this isn't true. Evolution and certain religions may not be directly in conflict... but science and religion? The two by definition are fundamentally at odds.
- DanBC 12y ago
  Christians might say that God exists in the bits we can't explain yet.
  - mirekrusin 12y ago
    That would make scientists the best God discoverers, not priests.
  - tomp 12y ago
    And science says that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation even for the parts we can't explain yet. Still at odds, fundamentally.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      No they're not! Even if science explains everything there's still room for God.
      - krapp 12y ago
        You're defining God as a function of human ignorance. Where exactly is this 'room for God' and why is it suspiciously never anywhere anyone looks? The belief alone that God can't be disproved, even with evidence, is a fundamentally anti-scientific point of view. Once you come to the point of science 'proving everything' but still believing in God, what are you basing that belief on? Literally nothing.
      - tomp 12y ago
        Just as much room as there is for us living in the Matrix. All fantasy, no reality.

78 points by hownottowrite 12y ago

stenl 12y ago

Incredible that Darwin should need defending in any advanced country today. I'm also a university (associate) professor and though I don't teach evolution per se it obviously crops up now and then (I teach molecular biology, in Sweden). None of the students ever (ever!) even as much as hinted that evolution might be questionable. But some of the foreign postdocs of course are religious. There was one guy (catholic) who believed the Earth was created 4000 years ago by God including all the evidence for evolution as a kind of mind trick on scientists. I find it hard to understand how you can hold such weird beliefs and also be a scientist, but it isn't very rare.

crimsonalucard 12y ago
It's not incredible at all. Humans are conflicted creatures. The bias and irrational thought we see in religious people are weaknesses inherent in all of us. Bias by it's nature and definition means that we will never be able to understand our own prejudices by observing ourselves. We can only seek to understand it by observing it in other people.
- eivarv 12y ago
  That's not entirely true, though. By being aware of ones biases, one can attempt to overcome them, or at least modulate one's thoughts and actions to take into account the fact that they are there. Take Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, for instance, in which patients seek to recognize their own biased ways of thinking in order to lessen their biases and dissociate these thoughts from emotion and action. The same principles applies to reflecting upon one's thought processes (metacognition) in general, though perhaps to a lesser degree. While becoming aware of one's biases by oneself is difficult, one can understand ones own prejudices - certainly those that we know that more or less everybody has a propensity towards. In my opinion, these biases and irrational thoughts are not weaknesses inherent in all of us. I think they are rather something we all have potential for, but which is expressed differently in each of us.
mcguire 12y ago
Sweden is a very unified country. The US is not.
ylem 12y ago
I thought the Catholic church was ok with evolution, the big bang theory, etc.
- acqq 12y ago
  From the article: "When I again pointed out that John Paul accepted evolution—and he certainly wasn’t an atheist—the student countered that Catholics aren’t Christians. Several simply let me know they will be praying for me and praying hard. One student explained that as a devout Catholic he had no choice but to reject evolution. He accused me of fabricating the pope’s statements. When I explained that he could go to the Vatican website for verification or call the Vatican to talk to a scientist, he insisted that there was no such information available from the Vatican. He then pointed his finger at me and said the only way he would believe me is if Pope John Paul II came to my class to confirm these quotes face-to-face. The student then stomped out, again slamming the auditorium door behind him." From the Pope's mouth (2007): http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2007/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070724_clero-cadore.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2007/j... "Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because (...) there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such."
- RogerL 12y ago
  It is, but as significant number of people have not gotten the memo, or have been told but refuse to accept it.
- marcosdumay 12y ago
  It is. But some people will believe in anything they want, and are completely sure that they have institutional support. (And the fact that even the institution is questionable won't even cross their minds.) That happens for every kind of institution, not only religious. Violent sports fans are a very explicit example.
noir_lord 12y ago
It's incredible even for non-scientists like myself. That people deny reality when there is such an overwhelming mountain of evidence that the Earth is over 4000 years old (as one example) is deeply depressing.
sklivvz1971 12y ago
Catholics can't fundamentally choose what to believe in. There's a unique interpretation of the Bible, the catechism, which supports "directed evolution". Are you sure he's not a Baptist? See for example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/10/28/pope-francis-backs-theory-of-evolution-says-god-is-no-wizard/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/10/28...
- jamestnz 12y ago
  >There's a unique interpretation of the Bible, the catechism, which supports "directed evolution" Actually, doctrinally, Catholics are free to believe in believe in evolution or not. The Church accepts scientific evidence of evolution, but does not make it a policy issue, so to speak. Contrast this with, say, the Church's stance on belief in the literal historicity of Adam and Eve (and a whole slew of specific claims besides), which is core Catholic doctrine and a non-negotiable belief. You don't need to take my word for it, the Vatican has the Catechism full-text online. You can read the Catechesis on Creation for yourself, where you'll see: "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers..." Which hardly seems to be taking as forceful a stand as you imply. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2... >Catholics can't fundamentally choose what to believe in Seriously? Have you met any adherent of any organised religion ever? :-)
- stenl 12y ago
  Sorry, I should have said "from a predominantly catholic country".

mercurial 12y ago

This reminded me about this Paul Graham piece, where he pointed out that people are willing to be open-minded only until the topic is one they feel is part of their core set of beliefs (eg, religion or politics).

emilsedgh 12y ago

... one can accept evolution and maintain their religious beliefs. They are not mutually exclusive. To me its like saying I'm both Christian and Muslim. Sure, one can decide to be whatever weird thing he/she likes, but its bizarre and does not make any sense. Or am I mistaken?

aet 12y ago
Take a lesson from evolution: adapt or die. Religions evolve just as animals, etc.
vezzy-fnord 12y ago
There's a belief termed "theistic evolution" where one holds that God created the initial conditions of the universe and let it proceed organically from there. Naturally, this requires discounting the Genesis account of creation, among other things. It also starts to border closer to deism, which is at odds with conventional Abrahamic interpretations of a heavily interventionist God. Stephen Jay Gould dubbed this "Non-Overlapping Magisteria". As is the case with religion, it's possible to compartmentalize and select everything into a syncretic faith. Whether it is "bizarre" or "nonsensical" is of no relevance.
- pageld 12y ago
  If you want a more 'fun' take on it, look at the Futurama episode A Clockwork Origin. The professor litterally 'seeds' a planet and it evolves following the basic evolutionary process of earth. Compartmentalizing for this really only needs to happen if you are in the group where the Bible/whatever is word for word acurate. If you think it's a guide book and 7 days really isn't seven Earth days but some description of time passing, God "guiding" evolution still makes sense.
protomyth 12y ago
The Catholic Church accepts both, so I think you might be mistaken. They believe its divinely inspired, but that doesn't really change the science. Now, some of the American Protestant churches are a different story. I always wonder how Genesis 1:26 would work without evolution and genetics?

christophmccann 12y ago

It is almost impossible to argue with the individuals who espouse these beliefs as they expect you to prove a negative i.e. prove a higher power doesn't exist. As the article describes, the argument also quickly devolves into extreme defensiveness. What makes this so bogus is the enormous weight of peer-reviewed primary research and scientific evidence of evolutionary basis for life. Thankfully, in the UK, a much smaller minority hold these views. I heard a Mitt Romney speech in London once and he was asked about his view on creationism vs evolution - he couldn't answer, but if we were to support evolution he just lost any chances of future election. If a UK prime minister espoused creationism, the reverse would be true.

japhyr 12y ago

I teach high school math and science. I don't let my students use the phrase "believe in evolution", no matter their perspective. Instead, I focus people's attention on questions such as: "What is the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis?" "What happens if we only ever use one kind of antibiotic in the world?" "Does evolution imply that a monkey gave birth to a human baby?" Only after students have answered those questions clearly and correctly do we enter into conversations about what it means to "believe in evolution". Once we have clear answers to these questions, students no longer feel the need to use that phrase.

christophmccann 12y ago

Also want to say - I have studied medicine. There were people on my course who held these beliefs and fully believed what they were now being taught was rubbish, but learnt it to "pass exams". They had done so since school. No amount of education would or could change their viewpoint, which, for me, is the most frightening thing.

japhyr 12y ago
Do you have any sense of how these people reconciled their understanding of antibiotic-resistant bacteria with their denial of evolution? (I assume they are aware of the mechanics of how antibiotic-resistant bacterial populations develop.)
- IndianAstronaut 12y ago
  The creationist movement will have explanations for this. They also have explanations for fossils, for distant galaxies, etc. Keep in mind the movement has the support of a significant percentage of the US population and there are numerous "research" institutes around the country. Many of them are very skilled debaters who can lead the unwary into traps.
  - japhyr 12y ago
    I just googled "creationist explain antibiotic resistance". Wow. But it would be fun to talk to some of these people!
    - christophmccann 12y ago
      Trust me, it's not fun. Its a land of denial, self-deception and complete frustration!
    - IndianAstronaut 12y ago
      They also have a different explanation for cosmology as well. It's not just evolution they are against. Many also believe that all these extrasolar planets we are finding are myths.

kailuowang 12y ago

I think it's futile trying to defend Darwin in a scientific way (i.e. based on sound logic and evidence), or based on the utility of it in current life, here is why. There are two possible common scenarios of people who dismiss evolution after reasonable education: If a people chose to dismiss evolution simply because the Bible (or some influential people) said so, it wont make much difference to convince him evolution, because even if you succeeded, it's just because you said so, not based on his own independent thinking. If a people choose to believe in God based on his own independent thinking, he probably already chose to not using the scientific way of thinking on this matter. And you have to respect that the scientific way isn't perfect itself (it's mostly based on induction not undeniable logic). The second scenario is far rarer than the first one. But with them, it's more productive to have a more philosophical discussion than a scientific one.

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
It's not futile. Christians do not have binary faith in the accuracy of the bible. If one has doubts, they may eventually be swayed.
- kailuowang 12y ago
  You see, that's the fundamental issue - their faith is not based on evidence, they fact that they don't always ignore counter evidence isn't that relevant.
mcguire 12y ago
Keep in mind that there are two confounding factors here: 1. The conflict between religion and science is at a much deeper level than "evolution" or any other specific question about facts. Religion is based on belief in the absence of (or even in conflict with) evidence. Science is (or should be) based on doubt even in the presence of evidence. (Quick quiz: Did Albert Einstein waste the last half of his life opposing quantum mechanics?) I enjoyed Stephen J. Gould's book on the conflict between religion and science, but he rather missed the actual point. ("I make it clear that one can accept evolution and maintain their religious beliefs. They are not mutually exclusive:" yes, at the risk of having to compartmentalize the activities of science and religion; but everyone does that anyway. I like to fancy myself a scientist, but my understanding of most of science is at the level of religion; I don't have enough physics to really evaluate evidence, so I'm just going along based on results. Likewise, I don't have the chemistry or the biology. I suspect the vast majority of any scientists or engineers are in a similar boat, although I know too many of both to expect not to be set on fire for this statement. In any case, I'm mostly going along because I like the results.) 2. "Evolution", on the student side in this article at least, is essentially irrelevant to the lives of the students. (Modulo, of course, the evolutionary medicine points; many of those are as compatible with creationism, though.) This is a course on biology for non-biologists; the facts of biology have no practical, visible effects on their lives. That might change if they go full-crazy and assert something like the immutability of species, but that isn't the mainstream of creationist thought. Whether whales descended from a strange, wolfy sort of critter is as irrelevant to non-biologically inclined students as whether whales' tails are oriented vertically or horizontally to students in Kansas. Or, whether nitrogen compounds are exciting[1]. Teaching evolution in these classes is valuable solely because it teaches an understanding of how science works, which (a) most practising scientists don't really have but which (b) is kind of important if one is going to be dealing with most policy decisions. Which one is. On the one hand, that makes this class one of the most important that the students could take, but on the other it makes this class one of the least important: I don't care if you "believe" in evolution or not if you can make reasonable, reasoned decisions. (Unless you believe the world was created 4000 years ago, all of the evidence otherwise was planted as a trick, and that the god who did so is benevolent. I'm staying away from that guy.) [1] http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2013/01/09/things_i_wont_work_with_azidoazide_azides_more_or_less.php http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2013/01/09/things_i_won...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

keslag 12y ago

Evolution is fact. Natural Selection is fact. To argue against either of these is beyond ignorance, it's delusion. We can observe these daily, so this isn't up for debate. The one plausible scepticism is speciation, which must be inferred from the data as opposed to being directly observed. This is due to the required isolation of gene pools and the time said isolation need to occur for variants to affect the gene pool enough for two groups to diverge sufficiently that their offspring can no longer become viable. But even this middle stage can be observed (like horses and donkeys) where we can create sterile offspring. Science isn't at odds with religion, science is at odds with ignorance. If all facts lead to a deities existence, then science would have a theory of this deities involvement. We would then try to understand how the deity created the universe and us. Science is simply the utilization of fact to explain the 'how'.

threatofrain 12y ago
Evolution and natural selection are not facts. I understand why you use the word fact. It's because too many people are playing word games ("belief, opinion, theory!"), that you feel you need to counterattack by using such a solid word like fact. In the vernacular, fact also has another meaning: true. Not conclusively true, not noisily true, but Simply True. Unrevisable. Unimprovable. Just Truth. And that's the game you've decided to be a part of. "It is a FACT that I am standing here right now." Some groups are well aware of this confounding of terms and they deceitfully abuse it. But facts are data points. They are the things which you combine to formulate a theory. If all you have are facts, then all you have is a bundle of disconnected trivia. Theory is true power over facts, but in the vernacular, theory means opinion. Theory is weak. Theory is revisable. Theory is improvable. How do you know your theory won't change tomorrow? But Fact is Truth. It won't change tomorrow, or ever. But in science, theory is power. Theory is sexiness. Theory is freedom from a huge bundle of disconnected, incoherent facts. "You have no theory, all you have are facts!", is a damning statement. Historians have a lot of difficulty producing a decent theory of history. They have tons of facts, but where's the general theory of civil war? Everything in history is retrospective hyper-domain-specific explanation. So some people appreciate the difficulty of theory. Maybe if people don't play these word games, then they also lose. But I don't currently believe that. I think the other side that plays word games is dishonest, and that those who join with me on this opinion should resist such immoral PR tactics. These are people who pervert the good instruments of societal transaction and improvement, because winning is everything to them. Whatever the damage to public relationship to science, whatever the cost to language, whatever -- let the kids of the future clean it up after we've won the "war".

eatonphil 12y ago

Only logical issue I see is his that in saying evolution is a theory and a fact this did not follow his pattern of things that are facts and theories. For instance, he said the existence of cells is a fact and cell theory is a reasonable way of explaining how cells function. I guess I'm just confused because he uses the same word "evolution". It seems like this is the same thing as saying cells are a theory and a fact. But that doesn't even make sense as far as the word "cells" goes. Wouldn't it make more sense to say life is a fact and evolution is a reasonable way of explaining how life functions? Or something along those lines, I can't quite wrap my head around it. Perhaps someone can explain this more clearly? He might just be using two definitions of the word "evolution" to make a point/sound more poetic. But this just comes off as more confusing to me.

crazychrome 12y ago
according to my understanding, there is no "fact" in science. there are observations, hypotheses (and null hypotheses if related to stats) and theories. i think "fact" is used in the article as theories or hypotheses that explain corresponding observations well enough, and over and over again.
- acqq 12y ago
  Observation, if verified that it's done correctly, is a fact. Evolution is actually observed, so it's a fact.
airza 12y ago
I think the argument towards evolution being a fact is that we have watched bacteria evolve in real time. (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/ http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-r...) So not only is it a good model, it happens to be elevated to the level of fact because we have directly observed it happening.
inglor 12y ago
This is a termionology issue based on what "theory" actually means in science. Theory in science means a foundation of how we think things work. For example people are perfectly fine with the "Theory of Gravity" being a "Theory" although no one doubts the observable effects of gravity. In the scientific community evolution has a similar standing.

ylem 12y ago

Another interesting article is: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/03/teaching_human_evolution_at_the_university_of_kentucky_there_are_some_students.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201... I like that the professor in this example tries to engage his students despite the conflict with their religious beliefs. It seems like he sometimes has success with it and is realistic in his expectations...

japhyr 12y ago
It's the same author, and basically the same article: This essay is adapted from a piece originally printed in the March/April 2015 issue of Orion.
- hownottowrite 12y ago
  Correct. I posted the original source for this very reason.

cubano 12y ago

People choose to believe (and to not believe) in all sorts of wacky stuff[1]. UFOs, Illuminati conspiracies, Rumpology... But when it come to not believing in scientific theories that are obviously standing the hard tests of the scientific method and that are making correct, testable predictions, well, it does become somewhat frightening at that point. Perhaps it's just social norming at work, and people find it easier to say whatever they need to continue to fit into their social cliques. TBH, I hope this is mostly the case, because at least then there is some method to the madness. Also, it's hard to not throw Hayek's Scientism[2] into the mix again here...for too long, perhaps, Researchers have attempted to apply scientific principles to area's of study that simply are not suited for such attempts, thus creating a generation of layperson's who are having much easier time dismissing anything that does not fit comfortably into their intuition due to often-flawed research. In any case, I am finding this same disheartening truth when I talk to people about some of the few solid findings that neuroscience has made about our decision-making processes, so I believe I have some direct, albeit minor, understanding of the issue. [1] http://listverse.com/2013/06/12/10-bizarre-things-people-believe-in/ http://listverse.com/2013/06/12/10-bizarre-things-people-bel... [2] http://cafehayek.com/2011/12/hayek-on-scientistic-hubris.html http://cafehayek.com/2011/12/hayek-on-scientistic-hubris.htm...

sklivvz1971 12y ago

The irony is that science itself works in the same way as biological evolution. There are theories, variations and selective pressure (experiments). It so happens that clearly not understanding science becomes a prerequisite for not accepting evolution, and understanding science implicitly makes evolution an obvious fact.

crimsonalucard 12y ago

>This lecture should put students at ease knowing that religion and science need not be at odds Unfortunately, this isn't true. Evolution and certain religions may not be directly in conflict... but science and religion? The two by definition are fundamentally at odds.

DanBC 12y ago
Christians might say that God exists in the bits we can't explain yet.
- mirekrusin 12y ago
  That would make scientists the best God discoverers, not priests.
- tomp 12y ago
  And science says that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation even for the parts we can't explain yet. Still at odds, fundamentally.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    No they're not! Even if science explains everything there's still room for God.
    - krapp 12y ago
      You're defining God as a function of human ignorance. Where exactly is this 'room for God' and why is it suspiciously never anywhere anyone looks? The belief alone that God can't be disproved, even with evidence, is a fundamentally anti-scientific point of view. Once you come to the point of science 'proving everything' but still believing in God, what are you basing that belief on? Literally nothing.
    - tomp 12y ago
      Just as much room as there is for us living in the Matrix. All fantasy, no reality.