Entry details

Younghusband
Author

Younghusband

Date

August 15th, 2006

Tags

Comments

89 Comments so far.
Add yours.

A matter of opinion II

A few days ago we looked at the amazing results of Muslim opinion, well today we will look at mostly Western opinion, namely the Public Acceptance of Evolution. Congratulations America! You are #2… kinda…

Public Acceptance of Evolution - Science

Via Stranger Fruit via Kottke via Daring Fireball. Source Science article here. (sub req’d)

Comments to this entry

sun bin
August 15, 2006
4:52 pm
i wonder what the numbers are like for cuba, china, nk and eastern europe, ex-cis......hypothesis, similar to the proud scandinavians.
Darin
August 15, 2006
5:16 pm
It's times like these where I proclaim, "really I'm Dutch though, just the passport is American!!" in an attempt to save face. I can probably play off the people that don't believe in creationism in the Netherlands as being Muslim immigrants too -- or people that were high when surveyed and think aliens created us.

'My fellow Americans' are a bunch of idiots...
staypuftman
August 15, 2006
5:31 pm
Numbers like this are hard to draw any conclusion from - most of these impromptu polls never seem to have any controls. We need a baseline number for general stupidity first.

Can you guys set up a Santa Claus poll - better yet 'Is oxygen required to sustain life?' poll. My guess is the results will stun you - then we can readjust the numbers.
Mi-Hwa
August 15, 2006
10:24 pm
The Americans polled either have a healthy dose of skepticism, faith in a Creator, or are scientifically uneducated.

I personally believe in Intelligent Design of the Universe, so I am actually encouraged by the fact that I have lots of company among Americans.
alec
August 15, 2006
10:40 pm
As heard in my dorm first year of college, 'how can anyone believe we came from monkeys?'. Just think of the logic, or the irony, or both.
ghola
August 16, 2006
12:23 am
actually, we didn't come from monkeys. it's only a recent split from the evolutionary tree. farther back, we came from single celled life forms. bacteria, we share 30% percent of our genetic make up with bacteria ! though i'm not so sure about the percetage, but it's in the neighborhood.. i think. rats.. even, up to 90 %.
Captain James Cook
August 16, 2006
12:52 am
@ alec
Nobody has ever stated that humans have descended from monkeys, except for those who have not properly studied evolution. The theory is that primates and humans have a common ancestor, not that one came about from the other.
Kenneth
August 16, 2006
1:00 am
Far too many people in this world form their belief-sets on the basis of what they "feel" rather than think. That's all I can say.
Kirk H. Sowell
August 16, 2006
2:44 am
Do I sense a dose of Canadian sarcasm here?
Younghusband
August 16, 2006
3:06 am
I would be really interested to see how Canada ranked on this. I would expect somewhere near the UK, but who knows.
Jeff Medcalf
August 16, 2006
3:24 am
Here's the thing, though. While I believe in macro-evolution as well as micro-evolution, there are two critiques that evolution cannot address. The first is, what if god started the Universe at a certain point, and let everything run from there according to rules he set up? (This is basically Deism, and assumes an omnipotent and transcendent Deity.) The second is, what if god controls life down to the very last detail, but for reasons of his own (perhaps to encourage us to use our free will to seek knowledge and make us eventually worth talking to directly) wants the Universe to appear to operate according to specific rules? (This is basically the position of intelligent design advocates, and has the same assumptions as the last question.)

The point is, science cannot answer either of those criticisms, because they are explicitly outside the realm of what science can answer: mechanistic questions about how the Universe works. Any assumptions that are either non-natural or non-mechanistic are beyond the realm of science, and in truth science cannot say either way. A scientist who is unerringly faithful to the scientific method, and believes only what he can demonstrate and that has not been disproved, can only logically be agnostic.

The entire idea that god does not exist, because science doesn't allow for it, is not science but superstition. In this case, it is Scientism, the elevation of things that sound like science to the position of godhood, and the granting of the assumption of omnipotence to that force no less than the monotheists grant that assumption to their transcendent god.
Nathan Hamm
August 16, 2006
4:04 am
Jeff, neither of those are criticisms. They are simply... well... not even conjectures really. They are of equal critical weight to the scientific theory of evolution as suggesting that my cat willed the universe into existence. Kind of neat to think about, but it's hardly an indictment of any hypothesis about the nature of reality.

You are right, science has nothing do say about the supernatural. It only deals with the plain old natural. And no responsible scientist would say that science does not allow for the existence of the supernatural or the divine.
Mi-Hwa
August 16, 2006
4:05 am
The probability that a human could have evolved from a bacteria-like organism based on random mutations is practically zero, meaning that it could not have happened. The human body is too intricate and functions in extremely precise ways that it could not have been accidental.
Catholicgauze
August 16, 2006
4:09 am
I have the opinion of evolution probably happened but I really do not care much about it. My faith is in no way troubled if Gensis is not literal truth (the first was never meant to be taken literally).

It would be interesting to compare the opinions of those who believe in the US doing 9/11 (the hippies) to the Islamists.
Kenneth
August 16, 2006
4:17 am
_The probability that a human could have evolved from a bacteria-like organism based on random mutations is practically zero, meaning that it could not have happened. The human body is too intricate and functions in extremely precise ways that it could not have been accidental._

It isn't purely random. It's a process ultimately determined by the external environment, the logical corollary of variance, heritability, and selective mating. Beneficial mutations survive and propagate while harmful ones are weeded out. Of course humanity could not have evolved to a high degree of probability but this is irrelevant: if the probability of humanity's undirected evolution is 1/N, then there are N other possibilities, each with a probability of 1/N, so any outcome has a very low probability. Your argument from probability is thus moot, a variation on the anthropic principle. The same "irreducible complexity" that supposedly indicates intelligent design is also a major design flaw: when human engineers build planes, for instance, they make auxiliary systems that take over when the primary ones fail. The fact that the human body fails if just one primary component fails shows that even if we were designed, we were not done so very intelligently.
Kenneth
August 16, 2006
4:25 am
Addendum: Any argument from probability is necessarily inconclusive. Even if the chances of the Earth being uninhabited were very high, any perception of the situation by life if it does arise will be tainted by a "survivors bias". That is, life, when and where it emerges, will always perceive itself as being "lucky". Moreover, low probability doesn't prove anything in a non-iterated trial.
snow
August 16, 2006
5:41 am
"It would be interesting to compare the opinions of those who believe in the US doing 9/11 (the hippies) to the Islamists."

Yes, when I saw this poll, I thought it would be about the strength of the conspiracy theorists regarding 9/11 amonst non-muslims. Such a poll could have some interesting or surprising results.

I've met a number of expats in Korea who believe that 9/11 was the US government's doing and they usually don't like it when I tell them that the conspiracy theory doesn't make any sense whatsoever, that it's nothing short of tin hat territory (besides a number of factual errors such theorists claim, the idea that anyone, especially the president risking absolutely everything-career, reputation, family, life- on such a mind-bogglingly risky operation is enough to show that the conspiracy theorists are wrong).
ghola
August 16, 2006
6:12 am
all in all, life is much grander than any one of us can possibly hypothesize it to be at our point in time. perhaps in a billion years or so, the mind, the brain, can develope couple of more layers and then, maybe..
till then, why don't we believe what we want, formulate our theories as best we can and not impose our ideas and beliefs to individuals and groups as if it were the absolute truth.. lets not deny others the right to explore..new ideas.
Matt
August 16, 2006
11:37 am
What question did they ask? If someone asked me "The theory of evolution is correct - true or false?", I could not answer it. If someone asked me if evolution was a plausible theory for the diversity of species, then I would answer yes.
Dan tdaxp
August 16, 2006
1:34 pm
Mi-Hwa, Agreed.

Ghoula, that neededn't be convincing. I'm sure most Young-Earth Creationists would happily agree we share nearly all of our molecular material with chimpanzees, while denying a relationship. If a YEC God has no trouble manifesting his works in carbon, why should he have trouble manifesting them in common DNA sequences?

Kenneth, agreed. But such is the nature of all paradigms...

Jeff, in a real sense, science cannot answer anything at all. It creates useful, if imaginary, theories that produce useful, and concrete, results. Trusting a certain form of rationalism-naturalism-reductionism as a sure epistomology seems odd, but using it instrumentally to live a happier life surely is very human.

Nathan, you confuse "critical weight" with "scientific weight." A common mistake.

Catholicgauze, good comment! The same holds true for Einsteinien gravity, additionally. The foundations of Christianity are faith, hope, and love, with love being the greatest. Scientific lines of inquiry simply do not rate.
Nathan Hamm
August 16, 2006
2:03 pm
The argument is actually of similar scientific and critical weight. In short, it's not worth much. What Jeff called critiques are not that, and even if one considers them to be, all "critiques" relying on supernatural, untestable propositions are of equal scientific and critical weight.

But then again, I don't sweat the criticism. Your agreement with Mi-Hwa displays a shallow understanding of science.
Dan tdaxp
August 16, 2006
2:49 pm
Nathan, youch! Harsh words for a fellow evolutionist! \
tdl
August 16, 2006
3:25 pm
To what extent are the results of this poll do to the contentious political debates that are occurring at the local level in the U.S. in regards to education? Where all of a sudden we have more pressure groups demanding that this, that, or the other thing must be included in the curriculum. Is this not the end result of the increased politicization of education in the U.S. (people are forced to take sides, as opposed to being open to different views, because a choice has to be made? Instead of letting our knowledge evolve, we are forced to take sides because all of a sudden everything concerns some form of government action, even if it is not a legitimate government concern.

Regards,
TDL
bc99
August 16, 2006
7:18 pm
The poll indicates that Americans are split almost 50/50 concerning evolution, but something tells me that most Americans believe evolution is false. Maybe I'm thinking this because I have been living in Georgia over the past year and a half. Having grown up in southeast Georgia I can say that a lot of teachers get away with indirectly teaching some sort of creationism in their class curriculums in public schools. It would be nice if the U.S. could catch on to most Europeans concerning evolution.
Sonagi
August 16, 2006
7:27 pm
I've met a number of expats in Korea who believe that 9/11 was the US government's doing and they usually don't like it when I tell them that the conspiracy theory doesn't make any sense whatsoever, that it's nothing short of tin hat territory

Really, Snow? I'm a leftie with lots of progressive friends, and I don't personally know anybody who gives any credence to those conspiracy theories. Can you characterize these expats?
Dan tdaxp
August 16, 2006
9:08 pm
Where all of a sudden we have more pressure groups demanding that this, that, or the other thing must be included in the curriculum.

Sums up the position of the evolution-fundementalists perfectly ;-) "X must be included! X must be the only thing included!" Method be damned, to some folks...
snow
August 16, 2006
9:16 pm
Sonagi, perhaps I was overstating when I said that they sincerely believed that it was the US government's doing. A couple of guys I worked with were willing to give at least some credence to the theory (and one of them blamed Bush for the terrorist attacks in Bali-not that Bush did them, but that he was to blame) and another co-worker actually did believe it, though I think he had something missing upstairs (he was definitely an oddball). And in passing, I've heard reference to conspiracy theories in remarks criticizing the US or Bush. So I'm not sure that any, besides the true nut, actually believes the theory, but a number seem to give at least some credence to it, though I think it actually had more to do with an opportunity to bash Bush or the US (and some people will say some crazy things when they're drunk).
Jeff Medcalf
August 16, 2006
9:39 pm
Nathan, that was kind of my point: science cannot reach supernatural phenomena. This does not necessarily mean that supernatural explanations are wrong; they are merely not amenable to scientific explanation.
Lexington Green
August 16, 2006
9:44 pm
I suppose most of the Americans answering that have not studied evolution in years and years, if ever, and have found no practical need to do so. Meanwhile, they know for a fact that the proponents of evolution seem to be mainly motivated by a desire to mock and vilify their religion and their morality. So, the natural response is to say, no, I don't buy that stuff, because that is the position held by the people who attack my deepest beliefs. It is an indication of partisanship in a culture war far more than it is any indication of scientific or technical knowledge or competency.
alec
August 16, 2006
10:22 pm
Haha, oh christ (I didn't even intend that ironic quip, but I'm leaving it). I can separate my personal condescension for religion from a belief in evolution. I don't think evolution disproves anybody's God or beliefs and can coexist with most beliefs, for that matter. And listen, your personal beliefs aside, I would like to see America get a better science and math curriculum, so we do more than export McDonald's, Bible's, and Evangelical War.

The point in the post about comparing America's belief in evolution to the Muslim poll is well... guess what? A majority of American's believe in the same old monotheism that we demonize as polluting the Middle East. The only movement that has saved America from its own version of Islamism is the progressive element.
snow
August 16, 2006
10:55 pm
"The only movement that has saved America from its own version of Islamism is the progressive element."

By progressive I hope you don't mean 'progressives' or leftists. If you do, then the statement is laughable at best. It has long been the goal of many leftists to destroy America and capitalism.
Dan tdaxp
August 16, 2006
11:27 pm
Jeff, why the arbitrary division of phenomonon into "natural" and "supernatural"? As I mentioned in a book review, every supernatural statement can be trivially translated into a natural statement -- so why bother with the intellectual burden of declaring some beliefs inadmissable before consideration?
Sonagi
August 16, 2006
11:38 pm
Sums up the position of the evolution-fundementalists perfectly ;-) "X must be included! X must be the only thing included!"� Method be damned, to some folks"¦

A scientific theory must be stated in a way that it can be proven false. Carbon dating and DNA mapping have thus far supported evolution although scientists have had to rearrange the evolutionary tree when a new fossil is discovered or a species' DNA is sequenced. These methods could prove evolution false if very old fossils dramatically out of sync with the current timeline were found. How can intelligent design be proven false? Creationism does not belong in the science curriculum not because evolutionists are narrow-minded; in fact, evolution is only a theory, not a fact or a truth. Creationism does not belong in the science curriculum because it is not a scientific theory.

It has long been the goal of many leftists to destroy America and capitalism.


You're on to us, Snow. :0
Sonagi
August 16, 2006
11:47 pm
This does not necessarily mean that supernatural explanations are wrong; they are merely not amenable to scientific explanation.

The 'supernatural' are merely not amenable to current scientific explanation.
Dan tdaxp
August 17, 2006
1:01 am
Matt,

"A scientific theory must be stated in a way that it can be proven false. "

An important point, but not one that touches on the natural/supernatural divide. Ultimately, "God did X, but destroyed evidence" and "Bob Sandres did X, but destroyed all evidence" are equiavelent, unscientific statements, though one is natural and one is unnatural. Likewise, "God ordaned that the world flooded 4000 years ago, and thus one should see a spike in fossils of drowned elephants from that period" and "The world flooded 4000 years ago through unknown mechanism, and thus one should see a spike in fossils of drowned elephants from that period" are equiavelent scientific statements, though one is natural and one is unnatural.

"evolution is only a theory, not a fact or a truth. "

And here we run into a problem of terminology, that both sides have exploided.

There is an observed and repeatedably process of microevolution, change within a species-type, that is accepted by everyone.
There is an unobserved process of macroevolution, change from one species-type to another, that is accepted by "evolutionists," refuted by Creationists, and straddled by IDers.
There is a theory of evolution, properly called descent with modification and really a paradigm, which assumes a common universal ancestor for all life-forms with macroevolution as an included process.
Dan tdaxp
August 17, 2006
1:01 am
s/Matt/Sonagi/

;-)
Elizabeth
August 17, 2006
2:15 am
That is almost exactly where we are in terms of infant mortality rates, as well. What a an amazing coincidence... however I note that even in Iceland it appears that one in five adults does not buy the statement that "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." That's more than I expected.

Sun bin- in Central Asia, the figures would probably mirror those in Turkey.

Mi Hwa

"The Americans polled either have a healthy dose of skepticism, faith in a Creator, or are scientifically uneducated."

Far more Americans claim faith in a benevolent Creator-with-a-capital-C than disagree with the statement in the poll. Likewise, "scientifically uneducated" probably applies to far more people than those who don't believe in evolution, as well.

"I personally believe in Intelligent Design of the Universe, so I am actually encouraged by the fact that I have lots of company among Americans."

The poll doesn't say anything about Intelligent Design. It is totally possible that both intelligent design and that humans evolved from an earlier non-human species. This would alter a lot in the theory of evolution, but why not?

Lexington

"the proponents of evolution seem to be mainly motivated by a desire to mock and vilify their religion and their morality"

Really? Having read a couple Gould books and several by Jared Diamond- I never felt that the authors had anything much to do with my religion.

bc99- Thank the Lord God Almighty that the entire country is not like Georgia.
Dan tdaxp
August 17, 2006
2:45 am
Elizabeth,

Gould pulled his punches with creationists, because he shared with them a skepticism of gradual modification. More substantively, he also shared with them a denial of evolutionary implications of human psychology.

I enjoyed his anti-Luther history of the reformation, but of course I am a Catholic... ;-)
Elizabeth
August 17, 2006
3:43 am
I liked Gould because he didn't like anybody... and nobody liked him. Creationists might have used him but they didn't agree with him, either. They shamelessly used academicians when the academicians backed up their arguments and then rail against the authority of popular figures and science "based on lies" when it suits them. Not that many so-called scientists are any better.

I will have to look up Gould's book on the reformation...
Kenneth
August 17, 2006
5:55 am
_Trusting a certain form of rationalism-naturalism-reductionism as a sure epistomology seems odd, but using it instrumentally to live a happier life surely is very human._

It's the only conceivable way of reasoning systematically. Any conclusion presupposes rationalism, as rationalism is just systematic reasoning: x and y, therefore z. Even with "revelation" their must be some basis for concluding that this revelation was inspired by a God rather than aliens or the flying spaghetti monster.
Dan tdaxp
August 17, 2006
11:14 am
Elizabeth,

I dislike Gould because of his personal and sometimes bizarre attacks on scientists in fields he disliked. His Marxist attack on Edward O. Wilson and sociobiology helped stimy work for decades.

Kenneth,

If rationalism is "just" systematic reasoning, then it has no axioms or postulates? If it has any, of course, then one can assume the opposite and create an equally systematic system that comes to different conclusions... (Or do you, like this ancient Euclidians, claims that the truth is self-evident, and that no alternative system could explain observed facts?)
alec
August 17, 2006
2:46 pm
This argument is crap. Earth is wild and untamed. We only satisfy Aries, God of War, so he shall look favorably upon our couplings. Science and other forms of wizardry are forbidden.

No, but seriously, as I was perusing my daily New York Times to maintain my ever vigilant liberal disposition and anti-American beliefs, I came across an article that investigated a hidden passage from the BIBLE that strictly forbids any of Jesus' acolytes from using the Internet. So sorry chaps, it looks like for some of you its back to the old miniature American flag collection.
IJ
August 17, 2006
3:38 pm
Another biblical reference. Some years ago the FT reported that the introduction of the euro, led by France, had tamed Germany, confounded the UK, launched a rival to the dollar, and thrown the wicked currency traders out of the European temple. Such is the power of politics over economics.
Kenneth
August 17, 2006
4:26 pm
_If rationalism is "just"Â? systematic reasoning, then it has no axioms or postulates?_

Other than that truth is objective, no. But the alternative to this is inconceivable: saying that truth is subjective is tantamount to offering a "objective" vision of reality. Reason and rationalism simply operate on the premise of objective truth. So yes, I suppose I am rather like the ancient Euclideans you mention. Truth is not necessarily self-evident, but there is an underlying, objective truth. There must be.
davesgonechina
August 17, 2006
4:43 pm
I'm curious about how much exposure students in Europe, UK and Canada get to philosophical concepts - particularly axiomatic logic, epistemology, phenomenalism, etc. US students overall get none. Conjectures such as Jeff's ("what if god controls life down to the very last detail, but ... wants the Universe to appear to operate according to specific rules"), defining the term "supernatural" and discussing starting axioms as Tdaxp mentions would all be better discussed in a philosophy class, which would be inclusive of all faiths, as opposed to a biology class. Let science present its evidence in science class. Then students can debate the different frameworks in which to judge it, in a philosophy class. That would also solve the "curriculum inclusion" problem. A student like Nathan could even argue for his cat.

Tdaxp, good to see you out and about.
Elizabeth
August 17, 2006
4:47 pm
"Any conclusion presupposes rationalism, as rationalism is just systematic reasoning: x and y, therefore z"

That's not exactly true. Systematic reasoning- in particular the set of rules said to govern rational thought- is normally called formal logic. "Rationalism" as a theory supposes that if we cannot understand something rationally, through "pure reason", then we should not believe it. If you want to know why you might not want to believe rationalism, read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. A little dense but absolutely lovely.

Objections to rationalism in most cases are far more well-founded than objections to formal logic (at present, I think that there is only one serious philosopher who seriously objects to formal logic or one of its axioms).

And one can easily be rationalist and subjectivist, or empiricist and objectivist, though one doesn't find many temperaments keen on this.
Elizabeth
August 17, 2006
4:51 pm
Dave- you posted just as I was posting- and I could not agree more. The lack of even the most basic education in philosophy and formal logic is one of the biggest problems with our system. I used to tutor formal logic in a university and I would wonder how some of these pre-med and philology students were capable of writing a single paper...
davesgonechina
August 17, 2006
5:06 pm
@Elizabeth:

Yeah, and if our system had that, then maybe there'd be more 16 year olds participating in this conversation than just Kenneth! (you're a credit to your demographic, you are)

Also, I think a foundation curriculum through K-12 could be implemented. Montclair State has a whole institute for it, including a textbook called Pixie aimed at primary school. In middle school and high school students could go through the whole of intellectual history in a condensed form, from Descartes to the dreaded PoMos. It would take the wind out of the sails of fundamentalists on both sides - after all, you can't talk about Descartes, Aquinas, Augustine, Kant, Spinoza, etc. without discussing their faith and doubt.
Kenneth
August 17, 2006
5:30 pm
_That's not exactly true. Systematic reasoning- in particular the set of rules said to govern rational thought- is normally called formal logic. "Rationalism"Â? as a theory supposes that if we cannot understand something rationally, through "pure reason"Â?, then we should not believe it. If you want to know why you might not want to believe rationalism, read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. A little dense but absolutely lovely._

Of course, not everything can be deduced since the constants of the universe are not automatically known/self-evident. Excuse my lack of precision: in informal vernacular, "rationalism" is typically understood as belief in the power of both science and reason. I suppose then I am a logical positivist.
Prose Before Hos » I love Blogs… down my throat
August 17, 2006
6:19 pm
[...] Public Acceptance of Evolution via Coming Anarchy Via Stranger Fruit via Kottke via Daring Fireball via Science Magazine. That’s how the Internet was ‘created’ (not evolved, pagans), much like the platypus, the funniest of all God’s creations. I also threw in my opinion, but no one seemed to listen: This argument is crap. Earth is wild and untamed. We only satisfy Aries, God of War, so he shall look favorably upon our couplings. Science and other forms of wizardry are forbidden. [...]
kushibo
August 17, 2006
6:31 pm
I am nora park. I have a mangina.
Sonagi
August 17, 2006
6:50 pm
Hey, Kush, is that really you? Do you still check your blog? I'm now in northern Virginia. If you're ever in the DC area, shoot me an email.
BillyBob
August 18, 2006
12:28 am
Sonag, you'v gotta be kidding. That is someone faking as Kushibo. Very much.
Sonagi
August 18, 2006
1:40 am
It didn't sound like him, but I guess anybody can copy an avatar.
Fabian
August 18, 2006
1:48 am
Hey where the heck's Australia?
R. Elgin
August 18, 2006
2:36 am
Far too many people in this world form their belief-sets on the basis of what they "feel"Â? rather than think. That's all I can say.
Yes indeed. When people substitute belief for fact, one will believe anything and everything and such is delusion. Considering the numbers for the U.S., it is an indictment of our educational system and the politics that has driven it.

P.S. Fabian, sadly, I don't know where Australia is but, judging from the neo-Wiccan nutjobs I've seen, it must be low.
snow
August 18, 2006
8:56 am
"Truth is not necessarily self-evident, but there is an underlying, objective truth. There must be."

Sounds very 'Christian' to me, Kenneth (I know you're not one).
Alexander Augustinius
August 18, 2006
5:31 pm
Sometimes there is not enough science and too much sociology. Evolution is a scientifically evidenced phenomenon, all but exactly proven, based on real-time observations of small organisms, let alone empirical evidence specifically from humans.

Religion is often a powerful excuse for avoiding thought, which can be very painful for certain people. Two facets of Americans never cease to amaze me: (1) we are an impressively stupid bunch; and (2) the Christians in the US seem to have left the New Testament out of their Bibles (let alone what my Catholic brethren editted out at the first instance).
marquer
August 18, 2006
6:14 pm

[Gould's] Marxist attack on Edward O. Wilson and sociobiology helped stimy work for decades.


Well remembered should be the leftist students who picketed E.O. Wilson's lectures on sociobiology.

Their chant was "No free speech for racists!"

As one observer noted at the time, everything after the first three words of that credo is redundant -- quite regardless of what one might think of the merits or demerits of Wilson's work.
Kenneth
August 18, 2006
8:16 pm
_Sounds very "ËœChristian' to me, Kenneth (I know you're not one)._

I wouldn't say so. The concept of objective truth discoverable by reasoned inquiry can be traced back to Aristotle. A "Western" concept perhaps, but certainly not a Christian one.
snow
August 19, 2006
3:26 am
Yes, that's true, Kenneth. I know such ideas came from Plato and Aristotle (through Socrates), but they were were hugely influential to the church. I was actually just ribbing you a bit, as I know you are not a Christian, and yet such sentiments are central to Christian beliefs.
Elizabeth
August 19, 2006
4:50 am
Snow- I think you just meet more Christian objectivists (small "o") because in our socieities there are more Christians. And that sentiment is implied in Judeo-Christian thought, within the concept of God, however, no more than it is implied by Objectivism (which relies on the instinct of an absolute), Islam, and even Hinduism. Even Buddhism relies on the concept of an objective reality.

Eastern religions take a more subjective view of the individual and his actions, but they still require an absolute objective.

I think you are confusing Christianity, or perhaps even fundamentalist Christianity, with religion or faith.
Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace
August 19, 2006
3:35 pm
Frankly the poll is an embarrassment, but it is irrelevant "“ whether people "Ëœbelieve' the world is a sphere or not, it is"¦ Same with evolution; whether one "Ëœbelieves' or not, it is a useful description of our biosphere. You might check out Gary Trudeau's take - http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20051218

More interesting, perhaps, is that the mainstream Christian and Jewish denominations all support the scientific enquiry into evolution "“ but this poll is an indication of their lack of leadership success.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8975_statements_from_religious_org_12_19_2002.asp
Dan tdaxp
August 19, 2006
5:39 pm
Kenneth,

Truth is not necessarily self-evident, but there is an underlying, objective truth. There must be.


Unless Truth is subjective, intersubjective, postmodernist/multitextual, etc. etc.

PS: Merely identifying the nature of Truth does not tell us how to go about finding it. Turth may well be Objective in a way that leads Science doesn irrelevent or incorrect avenues. Likewise, it is imaginable that Truth is Intersubjective in a way that makes Science the best method...

Alexander,

(let alone what my Catholic brethren editted out at the first instance).


Catholic bibles, unlike protestant ones, conctain the Apocryphal ("Hidden") Books and verses. Not sure what you are refering too.

Elizabeth,

I'm admiring your last few comments.

Dr. ARW

"Useful" is the best description, and the one that can be most honestly supported. Applying an epistemology (science) designed for observing current phenomona as a historical tool is questionable, but saying that this farmework is useful is perfectly defensible. Truth, especially Historical Truth, may be beyond us. Utilitarian concerns are not.

With the exception of the Catholic Church, "mainstream" Christianity is a joke. The Presbytarian Church (USA)'s press's recent identification of the current administration as demonic plotters behind 9/11 shows unusual spunk. In general the mainline protestant denominations are besides the point. America has three theological traditions, Confessionalism, Ecumenicalism, and Evangelicalism. Confessionalism collapsed fifty years ago, and elements that adopted Ecumencalism are dying now. Religion as a political force in the United States is largely evangelical, and there the ground is split between groups that actively support Creationism/ID and those that believe religion is not the proper forum to address such concerns. Very few active supporters in that movement.
Younghusband
August 19, 2006
5:46 pm
Dr. ARW, brilliant comic!
Mi-Hwa
August 19, 2006
8:32 pm
I get tired of people who compare evolution to the fact that the earth is round. The two things are not the same at all. Evolution does not have any hard facts that prove it, and in fact, the outpouring of new discoveries in science question the validity of evolution. Life on earth has much more complexity and precision than what evolution can account for.
Kenneth
August 19, 2006
9:28 pm
_Unless Truth is subjective, intersubjective, postmodernist/multitextual, etc. etc_

But this in itself is an objective truth. The notion that truth is subjective refutes itself, because the notion that truth is subjective would itself be "subjective".

Mi-Hwa: _Evolution does not have any hard facts that prove it_

"Wrong":http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

_Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest._
_All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism._
_Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life._
_Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits._
_Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record._
_The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation._
_Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight._
_Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories._
_Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth._
_The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included._
_Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions._
_The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm._
_When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too._
*_The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking._*
*_Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional._*
_Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry._
_Speciation has been observed._
_The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent._

_Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002)._

_The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts._

_[T]he outpouring of new discoveries in science question the validity of evolution_

Like what? I have already shown the inconclusivity of the probability argument. The simple fact is, evolution is overwhelmingly supported, both by "the evidence":http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html and "the scientists":http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html. Your statement is not merely false; it is the opposite of the truth.
Sonagi
August 20, 2006
12:47 am
The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking._


Perhaps "suboptimal" is not the right word. We cannot breathe and swallow at the same time because of our larnyx being lower in our throat, a position which allows us a greater range of sounds. If I had a choice between moving my larnyx up and sounding like a 6-month-old (babies are born with the larnyx high in the throat; it slides down by toddlerhood), and keeping my larnyx where it is, with a slight risk of choking, I'd choose the latter, and evolution, of course, has already made this choice.

Maybe you already knew this and alluded it to it with the phrase "constraints of evolutionary history."
Dan tdaxp
August 20, 2006
8:50 pm
The notion that truth is subjective refutes itself, because the notion that truth is subjective would itself be "subjective"Â?.

Truth determines the validity of statements. The statement "Truth is objective" is true, always, everywhere, in a purely objective universe. The statement "Truth is objective" is true in a subjective universe when it is subjectively decided to be so, and false when that is decided to be so. The statement "Truth is objective" is true in a Critical universe when in aligns with political objectives, and false when it runs counter. The statement "Truth is objective" is true in a intersubjective universe when folks agree that it is, and false when folks disagree.
Sonagi
August 20, 2006
10:52 pm
Not having taken a single philosophy course nor read a single philosophy book, some of these posts had my head spinning, but Dan, I think I get your most recent post and will rephrase your idea:

Since humans decide whether or not truth is objective, it is by nature subjective. Buddhism teaches a very similar idea: there is absolute and objective truth, but once we put it into words, it becomes subjective because language is subjective.
Elizabeth
August 21, 2006
1:20 am
"Truth determines the validity of statements."

Statements aren't valid, statements are true or false (or, according to some, neither). Arguments are valid or invalid.

However, it's not true that "truth is subjective" refutes itself... as Dan hints at, it is only the assertion that "it is objectively true that truth is subjective" that doesn't make sense. However truth can be said to be subjective, where it is, and this is also a subjective truth.
Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace
August 21, 2006
1:49 am
Much of the criticism of "Ëœevolution' starts from the premise that it must be wrong because it apparently conflicts with Genesis (or some other sacred texts "“ there are some creative Islamic creationists in Turkey, for example). The criticism then looks for things that seem arse-backward, and suggests that these are evidence that evolution is a canard. But such critics have entirely, and I really do mean ENTIRELY, misunderstood what modern biology understands about the process.

The major misconception is that evolution is aiming for perfection; there is no evidence for this, nor is it predicted by any theory. What natural selection predicts is that any change that improves the chances of survival and passing on the genotype to offspring will likely be selected FOR, and any change with the opposite effect will be selected AGAINST. Our eyes are a good example of a "Ëœdesign' that could likely be improved upon (nerves at the back of the rods and cones, for example, rather than in the way as they are at the front), but it is very unlikely that such a change will happen because almost any change in that direction will likely be deleterious. Another example is the complete greed of plants "“ they absorb far more light than they can use, apparently to stop other plants getting it. This is the major problem for renewable biofuels "“ the quantum efficiency of corn production is ridiculously low - about 0.25%, but theoretically it could be as high as 10% if the plants weren't so greedily wasteful. But being greedy is the best strategy for passing on the corn genome"¦

Metaphysical discussions about 'truth' have no place in scientific discussions "“ we do experiments, make hypotheses based on the results, test those hypotheses and correct them until we reach the level of understanding we were after. Usually someone else picks up the baton and moves the process on, perhaps more deeply or more fundamentally, or perhaps with technological use in mind. But all the time the whole scientific enterprise is testing hypotheses, and discarding those that fail"¦ evolution by natural selection is constantly surviving that testing so it is used every day.
Mi-Hwa
August 21, 2006
5:28 am
Does it make sense to believe that Beethoven's symphonies were created but not Beethoven himself?

The creators of masterpieces are greater creations than their works.
snow
August 21, 2006
5:39 am
"Eastern religions take a more subjective view of the individual and his actions, but they still require an absolute objective."

Yes, you're right, Elizabeth. I originally was just trying to give Kenneth a hard time, but I think it was Plato and Aristotle who first formulated (in written form) such concepts, which became very influential in the development of Christianity, and from what I understand, Aristotle's thought was very influential in the development of the East (Islam and other religions?). I wasn't trying to claim 'objective truth' as a uniquely Christian concept.
Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace
August 21, 2006
11:55 am
Mi-Hwa: it's not a question of making sense, its a question of a useful predictive science. Does it make sense that your food rots if you don't preserve it in some fashion? Not really, but there is a perfectly good biological (read natural selection) explanation which correctly predicts how to deal with the problem.
And if you think Beethoven was designed to compose symphonies, are you comfortable with the rather bizarre cruelty that he couldn't hear the later ones?
Sonagi
August 21, 2006
10:14 pm
but it is very unlikely that such a change will happen because almost any change in that direction will likely be deleterious.

Not to mention that changes occur only through spontaneous genetic mutations. Perhaps human eyes have nerves in front of the rods and cones simply because our ancestors never experienced genetic mutations that would switch the locations.
Elizabeth
August 22, 2006
5:00 pm
"Much of the criticism of "Ëœevolution' starts from the premise that it must be wrong because it apparently conflicts with Genesis"

In fact, the main criticism by fundamentalist Christian creationists of evolution is rather that according to the theory of evolution, death was required before human beings came to be. Even if Genesis is metaphorical, it is absolutely essential that humankind existed before death came into the world, because if death is not a result of sin, then the gospel is meaningless.

Hence, Christians cannot believe the theory of evolution without rejecting the very basis of their faith. Even if a Christian does not believe that the story in Genesis is literally true, he cannot believe the theory of evolution.

Now, when fundamentalist Christian creationists criticize evolution as a self-contained theory, they generally criticize it for being against the odds and showing weak evidence for species transformation.

Most fundamentalist Christian creationists would not argue that their motives are scientific- obviously they are not. They would instead argue that the motives of evolutionists are not scientific either, but political and ultimately, sinister.

This is key in understanding how they manage to be so effective despite a weaker base, scientifically, than evolutionists.
Dan tdaxp
August 22, 2006
7:30 pm
Elizabeth,

An interesting theory. References?

Or are you refering to some kook, gnostic branch of Christianity?
Elizabeth
August 22, 2006
7:42 pm
Theory? I don't have a lot of references, I have heard that in my hometown church, from Christians in science and philosophy classes... Ken Ham is a famous creationist speaker, quite well known among fundamentalist churches, who has a magazine (forget what it's called) and this is the sort of thing you read there.
davesgonechina
August 22, 2006
9:45 pm
@Mi-Hwa:

Does it make sense to believe that Beethoven's symphonies were created but not Beethoven himself?

In this analogy, how do you define "creation"? Beethoven wrote his symphonies over years, scribbling little ideas in notebooks and they would slowly coalesce into more complex music. In other words, they evolved. They did not spring forth fully formed from his mind.
Sonagi
August 22, 2006
10:45 pm
Elizabeth said:

Even if Genesis is metaphorical, it is absolutely essential that humankind existed before death came into the world, because if death is not a result of sin, then the gospel is meaningless.


Please explain. Eternal life is for humans only in Judeo-Christianity. Animals do not sin, and animal death has nothing to do with sin and salvation. Although the first humans started as vegans, commanded to eat from any tree in the Garden except the Tree of Knowledge, the Bible never promises or talks about eternal life free from death for animals, only humans. Animals are bit players in the story of Genesis. It is Adam whom God breathes the breath of life into, not some deer or a wolf. It is for Adam God creates a female partner. It is humans who disobey and are chased out of the Garden of Eden and its Tree of Life. Any presumption that animals were ever free from death is only weakly implied by the fact that Adam and Eve were not instructed to eat them.

I guess all the animals in the Garden of Eden were strict herbivores if there was no animal death prior to Adam and Eve's disobedience. Since Ken Ham does not accept evolution, only a limited diversification of the species loaded on Noah's ark, I'd like to attend one of his talks and ask him to reconcile the fact that numerous carnivorous species exist yet the only food in the Garden of Eden was fruit.

Even in evolution, there was an Adam and Eve, the first humans to appear, and thus, the introduction of sin, which only humans are capable of.

They would instead argue that the motives of evolutionists are not scientific either, but political and ultimately, sinister.

By this you mean that creatists believe the evolutionists promote evolution and oppose intelligent design in the science curriculum because they seek to destroy Christianity?
Sonagi
August 22, 2006
11:21 pm
Far from evolutionists aiming at Christianity, I wonder if Ken Ham didn't cook this 'animal death' counterattack to force Christians to choose between their faith and evolution.
Elizabeth
August 23, 2006
12:46 am
Sonagi, first of all, I am not talking about my own point of view. I was trying to explain what I believe is the dominant justification for refusing to believe in evolution among fundamentalist Christian creationists.

And *I* do not mean to say that evolutionists promote evolution because they seek to destroy Christianity, but this comes very close to what fundamentalist Christian creationists do in fact believe. I say "close" because most fundamentalist Christians (and Muslims) believe that their opponents are tools of Satan, caught up in some kind of evil force they don't understand. Probably they think most evolutionists (and Christians) are unaware of the theological implications of the theory.

As for Ken Ham- first of all, that was just one name I gave to help Dan in his searching if he is really interested in following this up. However the notion of evolution has long been refuted in this way among Christians: nothing could have died before the first humans came to be.

It's a bit of a red herring, though, because "death" is used to mean alternately physical death and spiritual death (i.e. separation from God, being in hell) throughout the Old and New Testaments, so most Christians can get around this.
Sonagi
August 23, 2006
1:04 am
Elizabeth, I realize you were explaining a viewpoint that is not your own, so I didn't mean to sound like I was challenging you.

I agree with your 'red herring' statement; all of the major religions make a distinction between body and soul. It is the soul that lives on after the physical death of the body.

I hadn't heard of this 'animal death' counterargument before and your explanation added a new wrinkle to the creation-evolution debate.
Elizabeth
August 23, 2006
1:12 am
Sonagi- I suspected you got that point but didn't really want to be taken for arguing that particular point of view, just in case. Incidentally, I don't think it's only "animal death", but any death at all, that was supposed to have entered the world with sin. But that's an interesting point you have raised.

Considering that creationists believe that there isn't a species alive now that wasn't present on the earth at the time of creation, this poses an interesting question: first of all, do they think it's only animal death that entered the world? In that case, would it not be absolutely necessary for all species to be either animals or not, but absolutely not something bordering on the animal-vegetable divide (as appears to be the case with some organisms we now know of)? Presumably it's good enough if God knows which is which- but suppose that they truly are neither? This could be a big problem for their argument.
Mi-Hwa
August 23, 2006
3:50 am
To davesgonechina:

Let me rephrase my Beethoven analogy.
If only a genius could have composed Beethoven's music, then shouldn't a genius be responsible for creating people like Beethoven?
In other words, only the genius of God could have created the original humans, among whose descendents are many geniuses.

Random mutations and selection could not have created genius people any more than random notes put together can create a great symphony.

To Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace:

The fact that Beethoven wrote some of his greatest music while deaf is a greater testament to the genius of his mind, which is beyond what evolutionary science can explain.
davesgonechina
August 23, 2006
6:17 am
@Mi-Hwa:

You've merely replaced "creator" with "genius", which means my point simply changes to: How do you define "genius"?

First, you're setting up a false analogy since it does not follow logically that since a) Beethoven was a genius that therefore one requires b) a bigger genius to create him. You're assuming it takes a genius to create a genius, without bothering to disprove any other possibilities. Similarly you claim a creator of masterpieces must be greater than the works themselves. Why? What about evil geniuses?

Second, "genius" is a vague and unclear term. What exactly makes somene a genius? How does a genius go about "geniusing"?

You're also not addressing my point that Beethoven wrote through a slow, arduous process of taking notes over years and trying different ideas, dead end paths, crappy tunes. His music and his thoughts about his music followed a process of selection. Beethoven said himself that art and the source of music was a mystery to man - meaning himself too.

If I take the Beethoven analogy to its logical conclusion, then God sits in a room full of notebooks and failed universes, accumulated over years of trial and error, collecting fragments to slowly put together into a complete Earth. And if you asked God where he gets his ideas, he'd say "I dunno". This is "genius", as I understand it.

As for your response to Dr. Wallace, you missed his point. He was pointing out that if Beethoven was designed, it was not very nice to design him so he couldn't enjoy the fruits of his own labor. He was asking how you feel about the "cruelty" involved, I think perhaps with a bit of levity.

This sentence, by the way

"the genius of his mind, which is beyond what evolutionary science can explain."

Is bollocks. Care to back it up?
von Kaufman-Turkestansky
August 26, 2006
5:44 pm
Sadly, Canadian public servants do not appear to be much better informed than the Turkish or US public. See this article:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/CN/199_canadian_controversy_in_review_8_4_2006.asp
Kenneth
August 27, 2006
3:32 am
I cannot believe so many people could be so ignorant in this epoch.