Evolution as Faith
I found this at Weapons of Mass Distraction interesting because it is written by a non-Christian. It is an essay on why evolution is far more faith than science. Here's my favorite excerpt:
"Third, evolutionists are obsessed by Christianity and Creationism, with which they imagine themselves to be in mortal combat. This is peculiar to them. Note that other sciences, such as astronomy and geology, even archaeology, are equally threatened by the notion that the world was created in 4004 BC. Astronomers pay not the slightest attention to creationist ideas. Nobody does—except evolutionists. We are dealing with competing religions—overarching explanations of origin and destiny. Thus the fury of their response to skepticism.
I found it pointless to tell them that I wasn’t a Creationist. They refused to believe it. If they had, they would have had to answer questions that they would rather avoid. Like any zealots, they cannot recognize their own zealotry. Thus their constant classification of skeptics as enemies (a word they often use)—of truth, of science, of Darwin, of progress.
This tactical demonization is not unique to evolution. "Creationist" is to evolution what "racist" is to politics: A way of preventing discussion of what you do not want to discuss. Evolution is the political correctness of science."
Read the rest. Hat tip: A Physicist's Perspective
"Third, evolutionists are obsessed by Christianity and Creationism, with which they imagine themselves to be in mortal combat. This is peculiar to them. Note that other sciences, such as astronomy and geology, even archaeology, are equally threatened by the notion that the world was created in 4004 BC. Astronomers pay not the slightest attention to creationist ideas. Nobody does—except evolutionists. We are dealing with competing religions—overarching explanations of origin and destiny. Thus the fury of their response to skepticism.
I found it pointless to tell them that I wasn’t a Creationist. They refused to believe it. If they had, they would have had to answer questions that they would rather avoid. Like any zealots, they cannot recognize their own zealotry. Thus their constant classification of skeptics as enemies (a word they often use)—of truth, of science, of Darwin, of progress.
This tactical demonization is not unique to evolution. "Creationist" is to evolution what "racist" is to politics: A way of preventing discussion of what you do not want to discuss. Evolution is the political correctness of science."
Read the rest. Hat tip: A Physicist's Perspective
posted by Hammertime at
3/12/2005 10:11:00 AM
17 Comments:
Already answered so I don't have to.
Ok, I still will. Evolution is the only science systematically attacked by well funded advocacy groups trying to destroy the science. That's the reason evolutionists sound different than other scientists from time to time. When and if the creationists gain further power and start attacking the other sciences just as hard you can expect a similar reaction.
Observation based sciences are always at a disadvantage compared to experimentally based sciences. This isn't unique to evolution.
None of the reasonable complaints listed have anything to do with AIG or any other young Earth beliefs. The only complaint was about the very earliest origins of life. Personally I have no problem with conceding a few points about the unknowns of those earliest days, but those have nothing to do with evolution itself, the process that takes over after that point. That is as well supported as any science.
This guy does attack evolution itself, talking about giraffes and such, but here he is attacking the parts of evolution even the AIG folks agree with.
Then he goes on to state that if evolution has been shown to solve every single puzzle it is nothing other than faith. Excuse me? This implies there is no such thing as science and never will be until we've solved everything. Of course there are still questions. So what? So far, evolution has worked very well in solving these issues. Right now we don't even understand how a caterpillar becomes a butterfly at all, so there isn't even a starting point to begin theorizing the evolution of the species. What does that prove? Nothing.
By
Xactiphyn, at 3/13/2005 05:39:00 PM
Mark,
As Panda's Thumb isnot on my top-ten list, I haven't yet read your post. I'll check it out and come back.
Basically, I don't think you addressed this fellow's position at all. You blame the demonization of critics on well-funded advocacy groups? I did not even read why this person doesn't beleive evolution - I was interested in his description of why it is not science. Whether he agrees with AIG or not is irrelevant. His point is that evolution is not treated like any other science. It is treated like a militant faith, in that any expressed doubt about any of its details results in demonization by its 'followers'. Poor reaction to a visit from Ken Hamm is understandable. The wholesale trend is not.
When you say 'observation based sciences', what do you mean? I think you mean, like, psychology, but I'm not sure.
By
Hammertime, at 3/14/2005 12:28:00 PM
OK, I have at least read the source doc for my link. More on the real question:
"I have been on several lists on the internet that deal with matters such as evolution, have written on the subject, and have discussed evolution with various of its adherents. These men (almost all of them are) have frequently been very bright indeed, often Ivy League professors, some of them with names you would recognize. They are not amateurs of evolution or high-school principals in Kansas eager to prove their modernity. I asked them the questions in the foregoing (about whether we really know what the primeval seas consisted of, etc.) I knew the answers; I wanted to see how serious proponents of evolutionary biology would respond to awkward questions.
It was like giving a bobcat a prostate exam. I got everything but answers. They told me I was a crank, implied over and over that I was a Creationist, said that I was an enemy of science (someone who asks for evidence is an enemy of science). They said that I was trying to pull down modern biology (if you ask questions about an aspect of biology, you want to pull down biology). They told me I didn’t know anything (that’s why I was asking questions), and that I was a mere journalist (the validity of a question depends on its source rather than its content).
But they didn’t answer the questions. They ducked and dodged and evaded. After thirty years in journalism, I know ducking and dodging when I see it. It was like cross-examining hostile witnesses. I tried to force the issue, pointing out that the available answers were “Yes,” “No,” “I don’t know,” or “The question is not legitimate,” followed by any desired discussion. Still no straight answer. They would neither tell me of what the early oceans consisted, nor admit that they didn’t know.
This is the behavior not of scientists, but of advocates, of True Believers. I used to think that science was about asking questions, not about defending things you didn’t really know. Religion, I thought, was the other way around. I guess I was wrong."
I don't think not knowing the answer makes evolution false, by the way. Good grief, I don't claim to know how God made the universe. However, I also acknowledge that it is, in fact, faith that I believe it, and not science.
By
Hammertime, at 3/14/2005 12:34:00 PM
I'm still reading...
He doesn't attack the theory of giraffe evolution. He asks questions and admits that he doesn't know if the answers are already out there, as far as I can tell.
"An idea is not intellectually disreputable because some of the people who hold it are."
By
Hammertime, at 3/14/2005 12:43:00 PM
I read halfway down the comments at Panda's Thumb. You'll notice, Mark, that the discussion did EXACTLY what 'Fred' said it would - a "Jonathan Abbey" wrote that Fred asked good questions, mentioned that acknowledging that evolutionists don't know everything is ok, pointed out that Panda's Thumb had some of the answers he may be interested in, and thanked him for posting intelligent and respectable stuff.
What happened? The notBible-thumpers attacked him repeately for not swearing immediate fealty to ET and not calling Fred names.
The militant faith manner of those who choose ET is the problem - not the science.
For the record, I think good science should change with time, and shifts in evolutionary theory do not invalidate it at all.
By
Hammertime, at 3/14/2005 12:55:00 PM
I'll admit I'm being a bit of an apologist here. I agree that many evolutionists often overreact instead of granting certain points here and there. My point is the overreaction doesn't say anything special about evolution as a science, but evolution as it is treated in today's society. It's the constant attack on evolution and evolutionists that lead to this overreaction. They get defensive.
Go ahead and start a huge, well funded campaign to undermine any other science and keep it up for 100 years. You'll start to see the same overreaction. That just human nature.
Science is fundamentally based on looking for natural causes for natural phenomena. The "faith" part of evolution, the part that claims we will fill in those holes that currently exist without needing to invoke supernatural causes isn't unique to evolution at all. Attacking that "faith" is an attack on science.
Of course, many claim this isn't "faith" at all, it's just the rational believe that techniques that worked in the past (i.e., the scientific method) will continue to work in the future.
By
Xactiphyn, at 3/14/2005 03:07:00 PM
Mark,
I really think you exaggerate the "huge" and "well funded campaigns to destroy the science". I would wager that 80% of Americans have never heard of Kent Hovind, "Dr. Dino", Ken Hamm, AIG, the Cambrian explosion, young earth theory, or the vast majority of the actual positions that these groups have. In contrast, I would say that less then 20% of Americans have not heard of or seen Haeckel's embryos, the spotted moths in Britain, Darwin's finches, progressive drawing of hominids leading to modern humans, and many other significant evolutionary concepts (both acknowledged correct and incorrect).
I think your description of the opposition is rather overstated. OK, really overstated.
The rest of your post is excellent. I'll comment back tomorrow, as I have a radio spot to do now!
By
Hammertime, at 3/14/2005 05:21:00 PM
I just realized I didn't answer the question on what observation based science is. Roughly speaking you can categorize sciences along two axis . One axis is observation versus experiment, the other is physical versus 'soft'. This leads to four quadrants:
1) Experimental, physical
2) Experimental, soft
3) Observational, physical
4) Observational, soft
The first category contains most of what we usually think of as science, like physics and chemistry. You perform repeatable experiments under (usually) laboratory conditions on physical objects.
The second category includes disciplines like psychology. You still have repeatable experiments under laboratory conditions, but the subjects are human or some other thing that might respond differently even under identical conditions. Interpretation of the data usually requires some kind of subjective opinion, so psychology has to go to great lengths to take the subjectivity out, like double blind experiments, surveying opinions of neutral observers, etc.
(Quantum mechanics tries to violate the physical, soft boundary, but it doesn't quite make it.)
The third quadrant includes astronomy, cosmology, geology and much of evolutionary theory. You can't actually perform any experiments, all you can do is make observations. These observations are still physical in that you can make exact measurements, compare DNA, etc.
I'm having trouble coming up with good, fourth quadrant examples. It would have to be something that can't be directly and objectively measured and only through non-experimental observations. Perhaps some of the social sciences fit this, or some animal behavior research in the field.
Of course, not everything falls into neat little categories. In evolution we have level 1 research into the power of the evolutionary algorithm with computer simulations, genetic algorithms, etc. Something like the evolution of human consciousness might drop to level 4.
My point was even physical sciences like biology are often at a disadvantage if they don't have reproducible experiments and will often feel less like science to some people. Astronomy has the same problem. You can predict that blackholes might exist, but all you can do is look for them and hope to 'see' one some day. That's not as clear cut as if I do X and Y I'll get Z.
But it is still science. No one really accepted Einstein's theory of relativity until they measured apparent star locations during a solar eclipse -- an observation, not an experiment. (Though, admittedly, as close to an experiment as an observation can get.)
By
Xactiphyn, at 3/14/2005 05:31:00 PM
I don't think I overstated the opposition because it plays itself out in our courts. Everyone has heard about the "controversy" over evolution. Most believe the controversy is scientific -- it isn't, it's political and religious.
Surely you aren't claiming that evolution isn't singularly under assault, are you? (Too many negatives. How about, do you believe any other science is under assault as intensely evolution has been?)
By
Xactiphyn, at 3/14/2005 05:38:00 PM
It the same old game some liberals play...and I say "play" because I don't want to insult them by saying I think they don't actually know what they're doing.
It's a good thing several hours went by between when I read this and now, when I reply, because my initial thought was "that's just the kind of holier than thou crap conservatives constantly spew..." Good think I didn't say that, eh?
Because if I did respond that way I would have been just as over the top as you were. And you were just as over the top as Dr. GH.
This kind of overreaction isn't a liberal or conservative trait, it's a human trait. Dr. GH's response is mostly pretty good, but it's filled with contempt of the one asking the questions and overstates the case multiple times, just as you noticed.
How about the "point" that it might prove evolution is the explanation of life?
Yea, right. Creationists would claim this only proved that a cell could be intelligently designed. Dr. GH clearly overstates his case but your response is doesn't make much sense, either. Biogeneis is not nearly as well understood as evolution itself, but some are working on it. But the cell isn't really the main or hard part, as I understand it, first we need the proteins.
A hypothesis isn’t a guess. A theory isn’t a guess. ?? It isn't?
Neither are just guesses, as your definitions point out. Heck, even your posted definition of theory didn't use the word 'guess'. Overstated? A bit. Did you know what he meant? Of course you did, and your definitions backed him up.
Ideally, every one of us would stop, think and reply in a way designed to appeal to reason and persuade the other side. But sometimes conservatives blurt out such bullshi.. er, sometimes we get angry at what we read and overreact.
By
Xactiphyn, at 3/16/2005 04:23:00 AM
Oh, and obviously "well funded" is a relative term. The creationists don't have billions of dollars at their disposal, but there are several organizations out there with staffs, offices, etc. They're funded.
The point was evolution is singular among all sciences in the way it is attacked by an organized opposition. I don't believe that requires being backed up by any additional evidence, does it? You might disagree why this is true, but certainly it is true.
My point is evolutionists tend to overreact, circle the wagons in defense, etc. not because the science is more of a faith than other sciences, as claimed by some, but because it is under attack.
Actually, I can think of one other similar case, though it is pretty small and isolated. Have you ever seen that Egyptologist Zahi Hawass on TV? He always seems like a nice, even jovial guy, but if someone brings up Atlantis or any weird pyramid theory he goes ballistic. His eyes start boiling. His reaction to anything remotely outside the mainstream is complete and total rejection, beyond the purely rational. But this isn't because Egyptology is particularly faith based, it's because Hawass grew sick and tired of refuting crackpot Atlantis and UFO theories.
By
Xactiphyn, at 3/16/2005 04:45:00 AM
You guys got kind of fired up!
Just two short inputs:
I am reasonably certain that scientists are pretty sure that they have figured out what the chemical composition of the atmosphere and earth was at its genesis. They have been unable to show a cell randomly appearing. That's the beef. I think it is clearly possible to design a scenario that involves a closed system and show that it can happen without any outside interference.
The opsition is anything but well-organized, Mark. AIG, Kent Hovind, Behe, and the other 'notable' creationists fight about stuff all the time. The same is true for evolutionists, who disagree about several details. Both creationists and evolutionists are united only on one point - that the other guys are wrong.
Lastly (did I say two? whoops) Einstein's theory of relativity clearly states that time travel is possible once we exceed the speed of light - as I recall from my Modern Physics class. No one is trumpeting this from the mountaintops. Why not? Why must evolution be the theory (I would call it a hypothesis) that must be forced upon our children?
Great discssion, though I prefer less baiting.
By
Hammertime, at 3/16/2005 11:22:00 AM
David, the reason all the direct examples of speciation are strange and technical is it is very rare to happen in our lifetimes. Cross breeding wouldn't be an example. These are examples where mutations in a group separated from the base species evolve into their own, separate species. They are know to be separate species because they can no longer mate with the base group.
AIG fully accepts this, btw, and has an example at their own site. In fact, they explain the ark's capacity by invoking evolution of new species after Noah. However, they claim speciation can only occur within 'kind' and only by the loss of information.
I like AIG because, as opposed to everyone else, they actually put up real, testable theories. Unfortunately, there have been huge numbers of computer model studies that show a gain in information due to random mutation, competition and survival: i.e., evolution. That leaves them to assume genetics must be a special, weaker case.
It's true we have never observed evolution from one 'kind' to another outside of the fossil record, but one would expect us to observe something like that, either, it takes too much time. Of course, they have other arguments against conventional interpretation of the fossil record.
By
Xactiphyn, at 3/16/2005 12:48:00 PM
I just realized I saw David's short post but missed the long one....
David, I'm not worried about offending you -- I offend myself when I respond in kind. I try really hard not to do that, but I don't always succeed. It serves no useful purpose other than 1) make both sides convinced they are obviously correct and the other guys are obviously idiots, and 2) produce chemicals in the brain that are actually addictive (I read that somewhere, never been able to find a good link later).
Evolution gets slammed down our throats? I'm trying to remember how often it actually came up in school growing up. I don't think all that often, to tell the truth. But then I didn't react negatively each time, so it won't stick out in my mind. It seems to be forced more than other sciences because so many hate it so much. Try to remember each good call in the last basketball game you watched; now try to remember each bad call. You can almost convince yourself there were more bad calls than good calls because the bad ones actually get remembered.
Relativity and QM are far more bizarre than evolution and have been around for half a century less time, but they don't offend anyone. (Well, QM offended Einstein, but that's another story...)
By
Xactiphyn, at 3/16/2005 01:03:00 PM
Hammer, you are right that biogenesis has never been demonstrated -- a point I wish evolutionists would concede easier. But evolution isn't biogenesis, it's what takes place later. Evolution itself is on extremely solid scientific ground. Even AIG has to concede (and use!) evolution works and is well supported, with only one slight but important change in definition (loss of information).
But ironically, the one part the attack (information) is the one part that is actually been shown experimentally and is reproducible in computer simulation. Combine what they concede with the computer models and you have full, complete evolution.
In fact, evolutionary techniques have been proven to be so powerful, so creative that computer circuits designed by genetic algorithms are being awarded patents (or are about to, not sure it's actually happened just yet).
Evolution is such a powerful, magical force -- one that's based on mathematics, not physical phenomena -- it's almost enough to make you think something intelligent must have designed it for this purpose! (Ok, that's partially bating, but not completely -- I often feel that way when thinking about the fundamental laws and properties of the universe. The self organization of complex systems, the mathematics behind evolution, strange attractors in chaos theory and similar phenomena, is a very new field but many believe will lead to fundamental laws usually reserved to physics. Math isn't supposed to produce anything on its own in science, it's just the language scientists use, yet here it is answering it's own questions.)
By
Xactiphyn, at 3/16/2005 01:32:00 PM
Oh yea, evolution gets jammed down our throats in school, but not as much as that Thanksgiving story with the Pilgrims and Indians with corn grown with three dead fish... And math, they kept making me take those dang multiplication speed tests over and over again. Never did pass. And the jammed vowels and nouns and verbs down my throat, too. And science fair projects! And I had to write really big papers on forth (California), fifth (some state) and sixth (some country) grades.
And in junior high they forced vocabulary words down my throat, and made me dissect a star fish (nope, make that a 'sea star', not a fish, can't call it that!), and I had to learn about world history!
So yea, evolution was in there somewhere, I think. Quite honestly I hardly remember, but I assume it was. It's what virtually every biologist believes, it's part of modern biology. The only thing that makes it different is the reaction it invokes in some.
By
Xactiphyn, at 3/17/2005 08:00:00 PM
Well, evolution is at the same level as other science. So, within a science class, yea, they teach science. In math they teach math, etc., etc.
Science and basic literacy aren't at the same level, I guess, but that wasn't really the point.
By
Xactiphyn, at 3/22/2005 03:12:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home