Time For Some Education on Evolution
There was a good post on Pharyngula yesterday, a science blog I read daily. PZ Meyers quoted an email with a list of questions that a creationist sent him. Here’s the email with the questions:
1. Is a theory a fact or a belief?
2. Where did the gases (big bang theory) come from?
3. After the water was formed, what was the first creature to come out of it?
4. Was it amphibious? Or did it run in and out of the water until it developed lungs?
5. If, yes why would it develop lungs under water?
6. What are the true mathematical odds (ask someone in your physics department) of something evolving? Of course you won’t because you don’t like the physics department, because they always prove biologist wrong.
7. If any of these questions are answered with a no, then using science they can not be facts at all!
This would make the cartoon completely hypocritical. You see if you just simply BELIEVE in evolution, then you have a religion! The religion maybe Darwinism, but if you answer I don’t know to any of the questions above then you have a faith based concept of how we as a planet came about. Not a fact based!
I would challenge you to answer these questions, and give me a reply! I doubt you will, because most of you people are only interested in your truth and not actual truth. Try reading LEE STROBEL, “A Case for Christ.”
I see you won’t answer my questions, but I figured you wouldn’t because most liberals can’t handle the truth.
Meyers of Pharyngula did answer the questions (even the barely coherent comments) here. I learned some new things and had a good review of a couple of others. Go check it out.
I am going to quote one of the answers and one of the comments because they demonstrate the open-mindedness and honesty that science demands. I am doing this in response to Ben’s assertions in a previous comment that:
1. Scientists and science educators should be realistic about the reach of their field.
2. The answer to a given question should be pursued in the manner best suited to the intellectual discipline that is investigating it, with clear disclaimers as to the sense in which that discipline understands the question.
Given the context of the comment, Ben seemed to me to imply that scientists and educators make claims that are outside the bounds of their field and are not honest with their limitations. My response to him was that they already do exactly as he wishes. The problem is that the average non-scientist just doesn’t recognize it.
The post on Phyrangula has examples of two different scientists staying within Ben’s prescribed bounds. And I assert to Ben that, in my experience, this is standard among the scientific community. It is natural to how that culture thinks. Scientists also require it of one another. They’re picky that way.
In answer to the creationist’s question about whether a theory is a fact or a belief, PZ Meyers answers:
1. A theory is neither a fact nor a belief. A theory is a logical construct that explains a class of phenomena and has predictive power. We don’t hold a theory because we believe in it, but because it works—and if a better theory comes along, we abandon the old version.
The creationist’s second question was about the Big Bang. Meyers explained that he was unqualified to answer a questions regarding physics, as it is not his field. One of his readers, who seems to have a knowledge of physics, or at least of astronomy (I am not sure of his qualifications) gave an answer and used the same language of openness. After explaining how protons, neutrons and electrons interact and react with each other in a way that produces certain gases, Rob Knop explains how the observations “match very well with the predictions of the Big Bang! This is one of the three pillars on which the Big Bang theory rests, and is one of the reasons we believe that theory to be a good one.”
He did not say, “this proves the Big Bang Theory to be fact.” He did not say “this is why we believe in The Big Bang.” He said it is why scientists believe the theory is good. As long as the theories of Evolution and the Big Bang continue to make accurate predictions and get good results, scientists will continue to use them and build on them.
Knop made another comment relevant to Ben’s assertions regarding the Big Bang:
One of the interesting things about the Big Bang theory is that the theory as it exists today doesn’t really address the actual moment of creation. The Big Bang theory only really starts some 10^-40 or so seconds after the moment of the “classical Big Bang” — we can’t really predict what’s before that until we figure out quantum gravity. The earliest moment we can really say anything about right now is the “end of Inflation”– and Inflation is more of a paradigm than a theory. Yeah, the latest WMAP results help support it, but we’re shakier on that than we are on the rock-solid stuff that comes later (nucleosynthesis, cosmic microwave background, etc).
Once again we have an example of someone outlining the limitations of what science understands. This is not unusual for scientists. It is just very different from how the non-scientists, especially religious people, think.
While these examples of scientists’ objectivity is interesting and important, PZ Meyer’s answers to the rest of the questions are also very interesting. Don’t forget to take a look and improve your knowledge on evolution.
19 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
March 22nd, 2006 @ 7:08 am
Thanks for the great links–you are pointing me to all kinds of new and interesting blogs! Lots of food for thought.
March 22nd, 2006 @ 7:10 am
Katy–As long as you come back to Mama, it’s all good.
March 22nd, 2006 @ 7:47 am
This is great stuff. As Gregg100 points out, science is a MOVING target. Every time someone ignites their Bunson burner, peers down into their electron microscope or up in their telescope, there is the potential for discovery. New information can, and often does change the status quo.
People who cling tightly to their religious beliefs cannot fathom this. What they believe is chiseled in stone. There is no evolution (no pun intended,) no movement. Noell, as with Jazzy Cat’s answers to my queries, wherein he reverted back to the bible, and voiced no thoughts of his own, it is troubling, as that tends to stifle meaningful discussion. My question to him was “What’s in it for god?” Perhaps he thought it would be hubris on his part to attempt discerning the mind of god.
TLS
PS - By the way, actually, I doubt there are many Bunson burners still being ignited anymore, but it made for a decent allusion.
March 22nd, 2006 @ 10:21 am
I can barely bring myself to read past this first line “Is a theory a fact or a belief?”
As if the word theory has to mean of these two things! Did it occur to this person that perhaps a theory is something else entirely? And that if it were the same thing as a fact or a belief, it might not need a separate term like that?
Personally, I have a Ph.D. in Math, specializing in “Number Theory”. My husband is a professor of Number Theory, and has written several books on the subject.
I would like to see this creationist attend one of my husband’s lectures and (during the Q&A at the end) ask my husband if “the Theory of Numbers” (i.e. Number Theory) is a “fact” or a “belief”.
Of course the person would never do that because the question is obviously not intended for people who have some idea of how research works, but rather is calculated to persuade lay people mistrust scientists and other researchers (as is the rest of the email).
March 22nd, 2006 @ 1:36 pm
What often gets neglected in discussions about the theory of evolution is that evolution, itself, is a fact. It’s the same as with the theory of gravity. Disagree with the theory all you want, but you are still going to be held securely to the ground by the facts.
March 22nd, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
One way to approach the evolution vs ID argument: Well, I have a THEORY. You have BELIEF. The theory I ascribe to has mountains (literally) of hard data - i.e. fossil records, archaeology, anthropology, paleontology, geology, genetics, etc. - to back it up. Your belief has only your faith on which to build a base.
Hmmm!
TLS
March 22nd, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
I have a concern about the linked ScienceBlog that I hope never creeps in to this blog. There is a sense of intellectual smugness that is a symptom of a pervasive problem with secular/naturalistic worldview advocates. I know the signs because I have been accused of it myself. Is the secular view going to be the domain of the well educated? This has a Randian “Atlas Shrugged” air to it. The religions appeal to the masses and don’t require that someone be a person trained in or at least interested in the physical sciences to relate to the message.
On the other side of the coin, I recently attended my first Humanist Association meeting and was shocked, to say the least, at the audience who clearly had no foundation in the fundamentals of secular basics (metaphysics, ontology, epistemology or any other “ology”) that would enable them to articulate their motivation for the secular viewpoint in a discussion with a well trained/educated creationist (like a priest or Rabbi) or any other prepared religious person. (One member of the audience kept saying that Jesus was the answer to all our problems!! What was he doing there?)
I think we, as secularists, have a massive educational job ahead of us and it should be on a respectful level. As the old saying goes, “If you really want to learn your subject, teach it.” At the same time, the message needs to be in a form that reaches to the masses. I applaud the “Brights” for their interest in marketing ploys like the name and the logo that are geared toward that “appeal to the masses” concept. I don’t like the name “Brights” (It sounds like a division of Mensa.) but that is not the point. I suspect that a significant portion of the reason so many people are religious is simply because they do not have the educational background to understand the science involved. Now that is a serious challenge!
Finally, for those interested, there is a good article in the December issue of “Scientific American” on one aspect of the evolution of animals leaving the water for the land. This article addresses the development of feet from fins and is a great example of how science develops a theory and learns more over time and realizes that the original theory was wrong and develops revisions.
March 22nd, 2006 @ 4:06 pm
We need to be clear here. There is no argument about evolution. It is confirmed fact. The theory, on the other hand applies itself to the fact of evolution, as documented in mountains of evidence, to parse out the details of the process. The main problem with ID is that there is no fact it is trying to explain (unless you are talking about the existence of the entire universe, which is a little too broad to qualify). If that weren’t enough, ID isn’t a theory or even a hypothsis; it is technically a conjecture.
conjecture: An opinion, or judgment, formed on defective or presumptive evidence; probable inference; surmise; guess; suspicion.
“Conjectures, fancies, built on nothing firm”. –Milton.
hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; “a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory”.
March 22nd, 2006 @ 8:29 pm
I must agree with Gregg. The appeal of religion to the majority of people in the world is difficult to counter. It is very easy to fall in line with one’s peers and be in tune with the status quo which requires little or no thought.
In order to inculcate an appreciation of the secular view, it will be necessary to teach the basics on a wide scale. That will not be easy as there are few decision makers in the country’s educational systems who would be disposed to the inclusion of targeted secular classes. Further, there would likely be few parents who would support such an inclusion. It would be preferable to work with adults at the outset.
What strikes me as a little funny here is that this all sounds so nefarious - as if we are figuring out how to brain wash the masses. Of course, it is my opinion that that is just what religious organizations do. Almost from the moment of birth religious groups virtually smother their children in religious dogmatism.
TLS
March 23rd, 2006 @ 10:39 am
Terry, I would like to think that we are trying to “un-brainwash” the masses. It is definitely a difficult task. I would hope that as our society becomes more educated we would naturally start turning away from religion. I was raised a fundamentalist Christian, but have discovered my atheism through education. I started questioning things in high-school and looked for the answers myself instead of asking my church. Now, my husband and I are raising our children without religion. Hopefully, we will start seeing more people do the same.
March 24th, 2006 @ 4:06 pm
Stephanie,
You mentioned that you and your husband are raising your children without religion. I’d be interested to know if you have ever tried to put a one word name to what you are raising your children WITH. I find this is an interesting challenge and a good answer that does not carry a lot of negative baggage would be a major contribution. Anyone?
March 24th, 2006 @ 5:44 pm
That’s a great question Gregg100! The first thing I thought of when I read your comment was that we are raising our children with humanity. I’ll have to think some more and see what else I can come up with.
March 29th, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
Gregg100, I’m late into this discussion so this will probably echo lonesomely in cyberland…
We are raising our children as Unitarian Universalists. I’ve found that for me (your spiritual needs may vary), it is a good fit for my family. We do not believe in any god, but rather than call myself atheist, which only describes what I do not believe, I describe myself as a pantheist (focuses on nature and the universe as worthy of reverence in an of itself, rather than express a need for any supernatural entity to worship). I would like for my kids to choose for themselves, so I don’t want to give them that label, however. At the UU congregation, they are part of a body that they feel like they belong to, and it is one that makes its focus acceptance of whatever your personal spiritual choice may be.
That’s how we do it, anyway…
March 29th, 2006 @ 9:43 pm
Jen,
An interesting approach. It is what I refer to as the philosophy of “and” as opposed to “either/or”. The pantheist movement is recognized as primarily atheist yet the UU movement clearly has religious services. My impression is that it would require you to embrace the credo of both movements and somehow resolve any conflicts you encounter. It sounds challenging but it clearly has worked for you especially if you have been able pick the best of both concepts. For example, I would expect one way would be to enjoy the community of a congregation that accepts pantheists while generally ignoring the deist aspects of any religious services. Not everyone could do that.
March 30th, 2006 @ 7:20 am
I visited a UU religious service once and, while I chose not to become a part of them, I found nothing that contradicted my atheist philosophy. Perhaps if the minister is a believer who speaks from the point of view that there is a god there would be a need to reconcile that difference within oneself. My experience was not that way, however.
Their religious-styled symbols and rituals do not necessarily point to an existence of a god. They are there to meet the needs that humans naturally have for them (those needs are one reason humans cling to religion so tightly).
For example, what I loved most was the “prayer” aspect of the meeting, which was not like a typical prayer at all. Instead of saying an actual prayer to a god, they called the prayer time something like, “Service Is Our Prayer.” During that part of the meeting, there was no addressing anybody but the congregation. What the person did was describe a situation of people in need and gave information on how members can help that situation. The idea was that, rather than pray and ask for an unseen power in the sky to solve the problem, we take that time to learn about a problem ourselves and make the commitment to take a step toward solving it.
I loved their approach. I don’t know if these particulars vary from congregation to congregation, but I doubt it. While I chose not to be a part of UU, it appeared to me that atheists could fit right in; as long as your views and politics are liberal that is.
March 31st, 2006 @ 5:21 am
Gregg, it is actually not difficult at all. UU has no religious creedo. It is a place I can go and feel spiritual in my own manner - which for me is reverence of nature, with science as my “textbook”. I’d guess that about half of our congregation would call themselves humanist or atheist if pinned down, but it’s really not something that we focus on. God is occasionally mentioned in the sermon, as some of the members do believe in some sort of god or presence, just as pagaen traditions and beliefs are mentioned occasionally, or buddhist beliefs, etc. But they are presented as discussion points - not as fact.
Noell is exactly right, too, that they attract very liberal-leaning members - which isn’t a problem for me since that describes me perfectly, but it would definitly make a conservative feel uncomfortable. They can also tend to appear as quite elitist.
I brought it up because you had asked about raising children and how to articulate the spirituality you impart to them. A joke I often hear about UUs is that the definition of a UU is “an atheist with children.” …Which is exactly when/why I joined. It gave me a name for them to relate to that didn’t conflict with my own spiritual beliefs but didn’t pin them down yet either.
And just so I don’t feel too guilty for highjacking Noell’s discussion on evolution, some claim that Charles Darwin was a UU.
March 31st, 2006 @ 6:14 am
Hey, Jen, I don’t mind the diversion. There are probably a number of readers who would really enjoy and benefit from UU. I encourage anyone who misses having a church community to go check it out. I had a great time there and it was very tempting. I am just not interested in committing my family to a regular Sunday thing. Although, if there was one within ten minutes from my house I’d probably visit periodically.
The children’s program sounds great. The group I visited was all about exposing the children to nature. Not your typical Sunday School.
March 31st, 2006 @ 9:25 am
I think those interested in the evolution debate would be interested in this amazing (to me at least) article in the Los Angles Times. see http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-evolution31mar31,0,7446182.story?coll=la-home-nation
December 12th, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
this is extremely interesting…even though i am a strong baptist, by looking at this, it helps me understand more of why i am a baptist and daughter of God. I thank you for this and wish you well. I hope that God will bless your lives and open your eyes up so that you may be able to see the truth.