3 ms·

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

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...

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...