Someone recommended the Nova documentary, "Judgment Day" to me the other day. I spent some time viewing it over the past couple of days. Many would probably be uninterested in this documentary because they feel that views regarding evolutionary theory are unimportant and irrelevant to their lives. But, the reality is quite to the contrary.
I could now go into the beauty and elegance that I sense as I view the world through the lens of evolution. I could explain the peaceful connectedness I feel with the earth that my understanding of evolutionary theory has given me. But, I admit these experiences are entirely subjective and would not necessarily be experienced by others.
There is another issue, however, regarding views about evolutionary theory that indeed does affect everyone quite profoundly. Evolutionary theory is largely at the core of a big problem that exists between American society and the field of science. It represents a distrust of the field of science that ought not be there. Scientists are often visualized as the mad professors conducting heinous experiences in their basements or as conspirators joining together to cause great harm to people. For this reason, people often feel threatened by scientists and the advancements they are seeking to make.
People have always been very slow to accept scientific discovery. People were killed for suggesting the world was actually round rather than flat. Convincing people that infectious agents and genetic errors are the driving force behind disease rather than sin or demons has been no small accomplishment. The largest "new" scientific discovery being fought against is the theory of evolution. I use the term "new" lightly in that it is 150 years old. But, the overwhelming evidence for evolutionary theory is quite new when compared to the length of human history.
The evidence for evolutionary theory is indeed overwhelming. And yet, roughly half of American citizens reject it. It goes against the way they have always thought about how human beings came to be, and many feel threatened by this. The rejection of evolutionary theory pushes the idea that scientists are not out to do good and are happy to trick and deceive people. After all, why else would they say something is true if there is no evidence that it is? It also pushes an undeserved disrespect for the scientific process and the scientific method. This affects the funding available for many areas of important research and even affects the kinds of research that are legally allowed to be conducted.
But, getting down to business, why does this matter? Why does it matter if someone wants to believe that evolutionary biologists are conspirators out to destroy man's belief in God and that the stories in the first couple of chapters of Genesis are true? Isn't this a harmless belief? I contend that it is not harmless.
Science has provided so much for us. For many of us, it has saved our lives. I would not be alive right now were it not for a medication science developed about 10 years ago. When we read about human history and the large and frequent plagues of terrible and terrifying diseases that regularly swept across the globe, it becomes clear how few of us would actually be alive if it weren't for scientific advancements. A friend of mine has a 9-year-old son living with leukemia. If he had been diagnosed with leukemia 20 years ago, he would have already died a painful death, leaving his parents in devastation. Instead, because of science, he is receiving treatment that offers him a 90% chance of a full recovery. Computers, etc. have dramatically increased our ability to keep in touch with loved ones that we would have otherwise been forced to be distant from for years at a time. It allows us to travel to places in the world that we otherwise would have never even known about.
Science has done so much for us. And yet, people approach it with great fear and distrust. I remember Sarah Palin making a negative comment about useless scientists doing research on fruit flies and many people, including those who couldn't even stand Sarah Palin, echoed their support of this criticism. They didn't know that we are learning so much about our own genes and genetic disorders and cures for these genetic disorders through this research on fruit flies. Anti-evolutionists charge scientists with questionable motives for advancing evolutionary theory, casting doubt in roughly half of Americans as to the sincerity of almost all scientists and the validity of the scientific method in spite of all that these scientists and the scientific method have provided for them.
This baseless idea inhibits scientific research that can save lives and improve the quality of life for hundreds of thousands...and eventually, millions upon millions...of people. It is in our grasp to develop means of giving everyone an organ transplant that needs one long before they have to wait on very long waiting lists while severely ill, hoping they get one before they die. Diabetes, various forms of cancer, and autoimmune diseases (an area that covers a very large number of disabling diseases) could be a thing of the past. But, getting support, funding, and even permission to conduct these studies has proved difficult due to the distrust in science that many people hold that is spread to others and confirmed through the anti-evolution sector. It is literally costing lives. This is an issue that matters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't have time to consider your entire argument but I wanted to make one comment and ask one question.
ReplyDeleteIt goes against the way they have always thought about how human beings came to be, and many feel threatened by this.
This may be true for some, but it's not the only reason people reject Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.
BTW: "Evolution" is an ambiguous term. Here is how Francisco Ayala distinguishes between the three aspects of "evolution":
1. Evolution: the process of change and diversification of living things over time.
2. Evolutionary history: the reconstruction of the universal tree of life (common ancestry).
3. "Darwinism": the mechanism behind evolutionary change is natural selection operating on random variations in living things.
Here are a couple of quotes from him about these three aspects:
"The evolution of organisms is universally accepted by biological scientists, while the mechanisms of evolution are still actively investigated and are the subject of debate among scientists."
-Evolutionary and Molecular Biology: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action
"To reconstruct evolutionary history, we have to know how the mechanisms operate in detail, and we have only the vaguest idea of how they operate at the genetic level, how genetic change relates to development and to function."
—Where Darwin meets the Bible: creationists and evolutionists in America
It's just not accurate to say that "evolution" (when you mean the full Darwinian Theory) is established and settled among scientists and rejected (or viewed with skepticism) only among the unlearned for whom it conflicts with their Sunday School lessons.
It represents a distrust of the field of science that ought not be there.
Why not. Why should be trust scientists when we have so much evidence that their opinions are as biased and unreliable as anybody's. Distrust, like trust, is earned.
This just shows that you understand little of how science works. Yes, scientists debate about some of the mechanisms that lead to specific aspects of evolution...that does NOT in any way mean that they are not in agreement regarding evolutionary theory as a whole nor are they in disagreement regarding common descent.
ReplyDeleteWhen scientists run experiments, there are all kinds of measures that must be taken to get their bias OUT...and scientists challenge each other's experimental results by running experiments of their own to test the validity of another's experiment...not in competition, but to either show an error or to provide further support to the conclusions (depending on how the experiment turns out).
these people writing books about Darwin in the Bible are twisting around what is really happening in the field of science, and people that are not educated on the issue cannot see through this.
There is not "so much" evidence that scientific "opinions" are biased and unreliable...first of all, conclusions based on actual data and are not "opinions." Secondly, as I said, measure are taken to take out bias. I cannot say the same for the references you gave, and I have found more dishonesty among those that oppose evolution than any other group that writes about science. And you are falling for it.
Francisco Ayala does not oppose evolution. Far from it! He is one the country's leading evolutionary geneticists, and is a high profile advocate of evolutionary theory known for his debates with ID proponents. In both of the books I quoted he was taking up the Darwinian cause. Wiki him.
ReplyDelete...conclusions based on actual data and are not "opinions."
OK. Then what are such conclusions? Facts? Educated guesses?
I think you give scientists too much credit. They have biases just like everybody else and, just like everybody else, those biases affect their conclusions.
...people that are not educated on the issue cannot see through this.
You're certainly right about that.
I still want to respond to your argument as a whole, but in the mean time I have another question.
ReplyDeleteYou write about funding being restricted and advancements being held up. Are you talking about stem cell research or do you have other types of research in mind? Do you think anti-Darwinism is what underlies people's resistance to stem cell research?
I have distilled your argument down to this: Too many people, having been taught to believe that a Supernatural Being is behind the creation of the universe and all life within it, have become opponents of science ever since Darwin's Theory challenged (refuted?) their deeply held (but irrational) religious beliefs. This opposition to science is denying society many medical advances that have life-saving and life-enhancing potential. Once a large majority of American society learns to accept Darwinism, science will march forward at a much faster pace and we will all be the better for it.
Is that about right?
First, I never said scientists don't have biases. I said that there are measures taken in their research that remove their bias from the research. Of course there are studies out there that are bogus. But, if you go into the field of science, you are repeatedly taught to critique any studies you read to ensure that the conclusions the researcher is drawing from the data can really be drawn from that data.
ReplyDeleteWhen an idea is repeatedly tested in many, many different ways by many, many different people, and the conclusion is supported every time, the conclusion becomes either a fact or a law, depending on what it is. When lots of related conclusions come about through this means, they jointly become a theory, which is an explanation for a large number of facts that are very strongly supported by a large, large number of studies.
It is not unusual for a scientist to doubt what another scientist has concluded and run an experiment to re-test the conclusions...this is done over and over. When something is commonly accepted by almost all scientists, it is because there is such a large body of evidence to support it. And this is how evolutionary theory has become the predominant theory in biology...some even call it the backbone of biology. The evidence for it is so vast from so many sources...with every prediction based on evolutionary theory made in a laboratory turning out to be supported over and over and over and over soooooooooo many times...it would be absurd to doubt it at this point. And it has certainly been raised far above the level of some opinion.
No, you have not described my argument well. First, evolution does not obligate one to not belive in a supernatural being. Evolutionary theory makes no comment on the existence or non-existence of God. It does, however, obligate someone to reject creationism. I think theistic evolution is a reasonable alternative if someone believes in God...which is NOT what most ID'ers are pushing. I also think it's reasonable if someone wants to believe that God caused that original spark of life in the waters that ultimately lead to the first single celled organism.
But, evolutionary theory does largely contradict the foundations of Christian beliefs. If the creationism story is not literally true, one must question if the other stories in the Bible are literally true. To someone who refuses to even consider such a notion, evolutionary theory is a threat they want extinguished. Also, if we are the product of evolution, the story of Adam and Eve cannot be reasonably taken as literal, either, which is pretty much at the core of fundamentalist Christian beliefs...that Adam and Eve sinned by eating from a tree they shouldn't have and as a result, we are all born depraved and are in need of a savior. If you take away Adam and Eve and a literal garden of Eden, any sort of literal interpretation of fundamentalist Christianity is pretty well destroyed.
Some believe the story of Adam and Eve is simply symbolic of the entrance of the soul into mankind at some point in our evolutionary past as well as the entrance of depravity through some means. I'm not as concerned about people that hold such views (at least not in relation to the issue at hand).
What is harming scientific advancements is the extreme and unfounded distrust of scientists as a whole. I am not suggesting that everyone believe everything any scientist says. But, when the vast majority of the scientific community hold something to be true, that idea shouldn't be seen as ridiculous and baseless, which is what many Christian fundamentalists believe...I have repeatedly heard people say there is NO evidence for evolutionary theory whatsoever, and that is just absurd.
I am not talking about stem-cell research, though this is a related subject. I am talking about overall scientific research. When a particular political group is in control (I'm not wanting political debates here for the most part), the funding for a large amount of research shoots way, way down. I used the example I did regarding the fruit flies to point out how easily people became convinced that scientists were wasting huge amounts of money studying something as unimportant as fruit flies. We are finding treatments for horrible genetic diseases through this research! It is certainly not a waste!
ReplyDeleteThe distrust of scientists is at the heart of this issue, and many anti-evolutionists are pushing this distrust forward by telling people that scientists are lying and telling people that there is evidence for something when there actually isn't..describing them as though they are deceitful and in some world wide conspiracy.
If people came to finally accept evolutionary theory, I believe the situation would improve as people would realize scientists aren't out to destroy, but it's possible this problem wouldn't go away entirely...because it's been here for so long...people were killed for suggesting the earth was round because the Bible describes the earth as though it is flat in a few places and the religious were threatened by this view. People were attacked for suggesting that diseases are not caused by evil spirits. And yet, even though the idea that the earth is round and the germ theory of disease is now accepted by almost everyone, the distrust of the scientists that brought us these ideas remains in spite of it. Any time a scientist comes up with an idea that opposes the religious, there is a strong opposition to it. Who knows, maybe new evidence will lead to a new theory that further contradicts some sort of religious belief and we'll have to go through it all over again.
My hopes, however, are that people will finally realize how ridiculous these oppositions are and have more trust in the scientific community and what they are doing...not to remove any sort of critical eye, but to do away with the idea that scientists are conspiring against everyone and God.
What is harming scientific advancements is the extreme and unfounded distrust of scientists as a whole.
ReplyDeleteIn what way is distrust by some segment of the public interfering significantly with scientific advancements? Other than the debate over stem-cell research I'm not aware of any such interference, but I'm not up on these things. (And the stem-cell interference is not due to distrust, but concern over the moral implications.) Frankly, I think characterizing the public's distrust of scientists as "extreme" is an exaggeration. The public's distrust of politicians is extreme. The public's distrust of Wall Street and Banking CEO's is extreme. But scientists? Not so much.
I have repeatedly heard people say there is NO evidence for evolutionary theory whatsoever, and that is just absurd.
I agree, but I seriously doubt they have the power to restrict scientific advancement.
We are finding treatments for horrible genetic diseases through [fruit fly] research!
I'm in no position to disagree, but it seems to me that if the public was made aware of the horrible diseases for which such research was finding treatments, their opposition (such as it is) would quickly subside.
Basically I'm quite skeptical of your assertion that anti-evolutionists are interfering (to any notable degree) with scientific advancement. I agree that anti-evolutionists of the religion-based variety (because not all anti-evolutionism has religious grounds) have a unduly negative opinion of science. But, as you mentioned, science has always had it's opponents and it keeps chugging right along in spite of it all. (The same can be said of religion.)
Any time a scientist comes up with an idea that opposes the religious, there is a strong opposition to it.
I'm of the opinion that a scientific idea can't possible oppose a religious one. Religion is primarily in the realm of metaphysics, and science has no business in that neighborhood. Of course, some scientific ideas like evolution can be taken to have certain metaphysical implications and those implications can cause some people to oppose them. Those implications can also be the primary reason other people support them. I think there is good reason to believe that the acceptance of Darwinism owes as much (or more) to a commitment to metaphysical naturalism as it does to empirical physical evidence. For example:
"It is sometimes said that Darwin converted the scientific world to evolution by showing them the process by which it had occurred," [but] it was more Darwin's insistence on totally natural explanations than on natural selection that won their adherence."
-Neal C. Gillespie in Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation
For the record, I think Darwinism (#2 and #3 above) is bogus. I think within a generation or two it will be completely discarded. I think that current scientific progress owes nothing to Darwinism. Further, if all traces of Darwinism were immediately erased from the minds of every working scientist, scientific progress would not slow down one bit, in fact, it would likely speed up.
That said, I also think you have a point about a misplaced skepticism against science (and education and culture) by Chicken Little fundamentalists whose narrow view of the world does more damage to religion than it does to science.
If you think that scientific progress owes nothing to Darwinism, you are quite mistaken. Evolutionary theory/Darwinism is considered the backbone of biology these days and I cannot begin to tell you how much scientific research is based on it. I don't even know what to say in response to your idea that the scientific process will speed up if Darwinism is discarded. I think you clearly have no idea of the kind of research that is being done based on evolutionary theory and how much it has helped us in scientific advancements.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think the fact that about half of American citizens that are not within the realm of science believe evolutionary theory is bogus and that scientists are proposing a theory with no evidence whatsoever proves my point that the anti-evolutionists are having an impact...and when half of the people in a society believe scientists are liars or don't know what they're talking about, it most certainly does affect scientific progress through the means I have already mentioned.
But, honestly, if you really believe that this theory will disappear in a generation or two and that it slows down scientific advancement, I see little reason to continue addressing much with you regarding this particular issue because I don't believe you have looked into the matter very thoroughly. When 99.9% of scientists across the world agree with a theory and 0% of scientists or even non-science individuals have offered a single piece of evidence that contradicts the theory, that is hardly indicative of a theory that's about to go the wayside. The evidence for evolutionary theory is so vast and so solid, your statement would be the equivalent of saying that you believe the germ theory of disease is going to disappear in a generation or two.
I think you clearly have no idea of the kind of research that is being done based on evolutionary theory and how much it has helped us in scientific advancements.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I don't, but I'm willing to learn. Give me one example of current research or a recent scientific advancement that is based on evolution as described in #2 or #3 in my first post.
...and when half of the people in a society believe scientists are liars or don't know what they're talking about...
Is it really true that half of American society think that scientists are liars or are stupid? I think you've gone a little overboard on this point. I don't believe in evolution (#2, #3) but I don't think scientists are stupid liars. I think a very small fraction of Darwin doubters are overtly antagonistic towards scientists, certainly not enough to thwart scientific advancement, Here again I'd be open to change my mind if you could provide an example of scientific research being hampered by the collective clout of anti-evolutionists.
When 99.9% of scientists across the world agree with a theory and 0% of scientists or even non-science individuals have offered a single piece of evidence that contradicts the theory.
What theory? Darwinism? Read S.J. Gould (for starters) for evidence against that.
The evidence for evolutionary theory is so vast and so solid, your statement would be the equivalent of saying that you believe the germ theory of disease is going to disappear in a generation or two.
Betcha $5. I'll be here with my hand out in 25 years!
First, about half of Americans do not believe in evolutionary theory. Yet, scientists state regularly that the evidence for evolutionary theory is so vast, it is just undeniable. So, either they are stupid or they are liars if evolutionary theory is untrue.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I have read plenty of books, etc. by anti-evolutionist authors. I have never found a valid argument against it. All of the arguments I have seen either misrepresent what evolutionary theory even claims or they make claims themselves for which they have no supporting data. If you want to bring any of these claims here, I will happily discuss them with you.
Third, you admit that you probably don't really know much about evolutionary theory...yet, you claim it's going to die out in a generation or two and that it is untrue. This is your admission that you have dismissed a theory before even researching it. Why would you do that? Why would you only read its opponents without educating yourself on the theory so you can evaluate what those opponents are saying? One of the reasons these opponents have so many followers is because they can deceive a large number of people who simply don’t know any better because they are ignorant on the subject these authors are writing about.
Lastly, regarding you asking if there is research on #2 and #3...I honestly wouldn't even know where to start...we are talking about numbers in the thousands...not just a few studies here and there. Besides the fossil record (I can discuss this in more detail if you'd like), there is a tremendous amount of evidence through studying genomes, not only in the DNA itself, but in retroviral evidence, etc. We have made many, many predictions using this information and ancestral trees and these predictions are regularly supported upon being tested.
There are also a large number of studies in which we have directly observed natural selection take a place. An excellent place to do this is in strings of islands. When a species leaves its own island to a nearby environment with different selection pressures, we see that species take on significantly altered traits in as short as 10 years. If that much change can happen in 10 years, imagine how much change can occur in 4.5 billion years.
If you are genuinely interested in learning about evolutionary theory and the evidence for it with an open mind, I will suggest some resources for you. I will also spend time going over the evidence with you and explaining it. Understand, though, that we are talking about a very, very large amount of evidence. I couldn't possibly explain all of it to you, but I could at least cover some basics. You'd have to spend some serious time reading to really understand the details of the evidence...I don't know what your level is in understanding biology as a whole.
And if you have any claims that you believe validly dispute evolutionary theory, I invite you to bring them here and I will respond to them.
In other words, I am inviting you to actually learn about something before making judgments about its validity...why would any other method make sense? I honestly don't understand why anyone would make judgments about anything like "It will die out in 25 years" before even looking at the subject in the first place. So if you are open to learning about it, I will help you with this. However, if you are uninterested in genuinely learning and unwilling to approach the subject with an open mind, that would be a tremendous waste of my time.
I will raise the stakes and bet you 1 million dollars that evolutionary theory will not be a dead theory in 25 years.
Laughing Boy,
ReplyDeleteOne good place to start would be to read the book, "The Language of God." It is written by Dr. Francis Collins who is a Christian and also agrees with evolution. He served as the head of The Human Genome Project...a tremendous accomplishment. He discusses why he believes in God, and he also discusses evolutionary theory. It is extremely, extremely basic with very few actual details...but it can provide a general framework for what we are talking about perhaps in a setting you would feel more comfortable with (since he shares many of your religious beliefs, I assume). It is a quick read and from there, you may be in a better place to press forward in learning about evolutionary theory once you have a framework within which to work.