Evolution is the religion of fools.

[han]

I'm getting very upset with the preachers here on the UW campus. They often bring their wives and babies, and let their 5-year old daughters hand out folders. How low can you go?

 

After going after the homosexuals last week, this week they attacked evolution theory. "Evolution is the religion of fools", their posters said.

 

It made me wonder, will the basics of evolution theory ever be generally recognized in this country?

 

I included enough options so that even the religious fundamentalists should feel at home in this thread.

[matmat]

you left out an important option, han:

 

evolution is the religion of fools

[han]

That's the last option.

[han]

I voted for "this century" btw.

[hrothgar]

A more interesting question would be why and when did the basics of evolutionary theory stop being accepted in the United States.

 

130 years ago, things seemed to be going swimmingly... It looked as if religion and science might be able to reach some kind of accomodation on these types of sensitive issues. Many of the mainstream Protestant churches professed that genesis could be understood allegorically and did not rule out the possibility that "God" used evolution as his tool as part of the act of Creation. (The Roman Catholic Church maintains a very similar position today)

 

However, some very weird stuff started happening about 100 years ago. First of all, there was a dramatic resurgence of so-called "young earth creationism". This resurgence was strongly associated with a sect called the Seventh Day Adventists, however, its now spread to infect an enormous number of Christian Churches.

 

It was at this same time that the doctrine of "the Rapture" was conceived out of whole cloth. (This has also spread to an alarming extent).

 

Regretfully, the US is very prone to bouts of extreme religious mania. Every so often, a whole bunch of folks go off the deep end. (Search on the expression "Great Awakening").

 

Personally, I'm expecting things to get significantly worse before they get any better. The whack jobs are driving anyone with half a brain out of the mainstream churches. Eventually, this is going to lead to some very ugly show downs between the believers and the non-believers. Normally, it expect the non-believers to have the upper hand, but the religious types breed like rabbits.

 

Its going to be very interesting to watch what happens to The Episcopal Church this coming weekend...

[Gerben42]

Normally, it expect the non-believers to have the upper hand, but the religious types breed like rabbits.

 

I'm aware that atheists have the evolutionary disadvantage of not following "go forth and multiply".

 

So if at some point no one thinks evolution is a good theory, Darwin had it right and no one will care. Funny, isn't it B)

[helene_t]

Not sure if there is much relation between believing in the Abrahamic god and not understanding evolution. There may currently be some correlation at the statistical level, especially in the U.S., but I can easily imagine a future in which either both, or neither, are popular.

[Elianna]

As some of you know, I teach science at a religious school. I don't have control of the curriculum, but I also don't have to sit and go over it with anyone. Basically, I am told, "here is the book, here are state standards, teach them".

 

So I teach about evolution at my religious (Orthodox Jewish) school. I make sure to use specific examples (selective breeding, etc.) to teach that evolution clearly works, and then explain that the Evolution Theory is not that evolution exists (which is incontroversial) but that it is the cause of diversity of life today. Some points I make sure to cover:

 

a) Evolutionists do not believe that people descended from monkeys

 

B) Evolution does not mean ruling out that G-d had a hand in people's development

 

c) "Theory" does not mean just a guess (this goes in the beginning of every science class, before evolution is even mentioned)

 

d) They have to learn about it, and the evidence for it, and can discuss it in their religious classes (I try to give their Judaic studies teachers a heads-up).

 

e) I find before I teach, even, that some students already believe that evolution is true without knowing anything about it (picked it up off the streets), and others already believe that it is false.

 

I just make sure to discuss selective breeding and extinct species ahead of time.

 

What I have the hardest time with students is about the age of the Earth/universe. I don't really have a good way of getting around the religious aspect, so I basically say that scientific evidence teaches us "....", and whether they believe the evidence or not is up to them (I don't say that, but I don't test them on that topic, either).

 

In general, I think that people will become more and more polarized, as the more religious people will not have their children educated in public schools.

[barmar]

a) Evolutionists do not believe that people descended from monkeys

While that is literally true, it uses semantics to obscure the truth. What is believed is that humans and monkeys descended from a common ancestor species. And based on the fossil record of the time when this split occurred, we'd recognizes this species as more monkey-like than human. It definitely didn't have any of the features that are considered to set humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, such as our higher intelligence and language ability, so we'd consider it a dumb animal.

 

As for the poll question, I have a hard time guessing what it will take for Americans to come to their senses. I don't understand the mentality that has gotten us into this situation in the first place. The problem is that it's very good at perpetuating itself.

[Al_U_Card]

But what about the space aliens!?! How can you forget about them?

[Fluffy]

Evolution Theory is a Theory, it is not demostrated, isn't it?

[helene_t]

Has physics been demonstrated? Surely there are some parts of physics that are controversial, but claiming that physics as such might be false is futile. The same can be said about evolutionary biology. It is a large subject, what you can read in hi-school textbooks about evolution are all established facts, but there are lots of minor details that are debated.

[Fluffy]

You do not call Gravitation a Theory any more.

[helene_t]

You do not call Gravitation a Theory any more.

Yes you do. Calling something a theory doesn't suggest that there is any controversy about it.

[matmat]

That's the last option.

you are wrong, sir!

 

fundamental difference in believing that the stance is correct or recognizing that someone else has the right to believe that the stance is correct.

[matmat]

You do not call Gravitation a Theory any more.

Yes you do. Calling something a theory doesn't suggest that there is any controversy about it.

whereas they are most undoubtedly a theory, they are referred to as "laws" of gravitation more often than not. this is mainly to the fact that they have been passed by the US congress not too long ago.

 

in physics the words "law" and "theory" are fairly interchangable, given the nature of the science, where things are explained very well, but in essence, nothing is really certain.

 

nb. theory of gravity, electromagetic theory, theory of general/specific relativity, quantum field theory, string theory (ok, that last one is pretty much just a theory, but hey, it sounds good), the theory of the standard model, theory of good chocolate (just checking if you're still reading...)

[jdonn]

You do not call Gravitation a Theory any more.

From www.dictionary.com -

 

'Theory', 'hypothesis' are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity.

[helene_t]

A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity.

OK, the theory of natural selection accounts for the fact of evolution, like the theory of gravity accounts for the fact that heavy things sometimes fall to the ground.

[BillHiggin]

When all bridge players demonstrate the ability to consistently count to 13.

 

Not thinking is just too much easier than thinking. Certain types recognize this and realize that it can be very lucrative to attract a large number of non-thinkers to their church (would you rather seek donations from thinking people or from maleable lambs).

[cherdano]

You do not call Gravitation a Theory any more.

Yes, it is usually referred to as "Theory of Gravity". Fluffy you should stop this non-sense, I can accept if you believe there must have been a creator at some point, and that the world we live in isn't just some random outcome of the laws of physics, but claiming that evolution is a controversial or not completely accepted theory among biologists is just wrong. Not pretty much wrong or mostly wrong but just 100% wrong.

[Winstonm]

What causes the fear of accepting evolution?

[Elianna]

a) Evolutionists do not believe that people descended from monkeys

While that is literally true, it uses semantics to obscure the truth. What is believed is that humans and monkeys descended from a common ancestor species. And based on the fossil record of the time when this split occurred, we'd recognizes this species as more monkey-like than human. It definitely didn't have any of the features that are considered to set humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, such as our higher intelligence and language ability, so we'd consider it a dumb animal.

 

As for the poll question, I have a hard time guessing what it will take for Americans to come to their senses. I don't understand the mentality that has gotten us into this situation in the first place. The problem is that it's very good at perpetuating itself.

But semantics is important for the students that I teach, and people I've overheard talking on the streets. They can't believe in evolution because "their grandfather was no monkey". Semantics is important to them. And just saying "common ancestor" doesn't quite get the point across, because I've discovered many kids that think that evolutionists think that monkeys can give birth to humans.

 

Yes, I know that they're missing other points, but I find that making that point helps them get over the fact that their grandfather was a human.

[matmat]

I've discovered many kids that think that evolutionists think that monkeys can give birth to humans.

they can! I hesitate to give examples, but I am certain it is true.

[Gerben42]

What I have the hardest time with students is about the age of the Earth/universe. I don't really have a good way of getting around the religious aspect, so I basically say that scientific evidence teaches us "....", and whether they believe the evidence or not is up to them (I don't say that, but I don't test them on that topic, either).

 

I cannot disprove that the Earth, the universe, Bridge Base Online and this forum have all been magically created 10 minutes ago.

 

Has physics been demonstrated? Surely there are some parts of physics that are controversial, but claiming that physics as such might be false is futile.

 

Physics is the study of regularity in the universe. The "Laws" of Physics is a set of rules we have made up to make prediction of the behaviour of the universe around us. These "Laws" just work because that is how they are designed, and may have nothing to with the underlying structure.

 

For example Newton's Laws work fine for everyday life, but they are only valid in the approximation of "large" objects (no quantum physics) and "slow" movement (compared to light speed). This means that Newton's Laws don't have any truth value in terms of structure of the universe, but nevertheless they are Good Physics because they work.

[helene_t]

What causes the fear of accepting evolution?

I'm not sure if "fear" is the right word. Maybe it is. Obviously I'm not the right person to answer that question since I never had any problems with evolution. Some scientist used to believe in a super-natural creator or some such when they were children, I never did that. The ideas of an eternal soul, of a super-natural moral supervisor and of para-psychological and spiritism-like phenomena once appealed to me, but the idea of creation never did.

 

Daniel Denett wrote a book about your question, entitled "Darwin's dangerous idea". He observes that many people, even some biologists, have problems with the theory of natural selection and somehow seem to wish that the theory wasn't true.

 

I think there are many issues. Maybe the most important one is people confusing cause with justification. I once had this dialog with a very religious, but also science-literate person:

Ariel: Why are Humans on Earth?

Helene: Because it has the right temperature. Mars is too cold and Venus too hot.

Ariel (laughing): OK, very good! But why are Humans in the Universe, then?

 

The semantics of the word "why" is interesting. It can mean "what is the cause of ..." or it can mean "what it the moral/utilitarian justification of ...". I assumed that Ariel referred to the first meaning, but I might have been wrong. The fact that he laughed about my answer may suggest that.

 

Margaret Thatcher' s ideology was sometimes referred to as "social Darwinism". This is an insult to biology, as if biologists make the moral assertion that it is right/just/good that some die and others survive. Hitler's "Mein Kampf" refers to natural selection as a principle that works in nature and therefore serves as a moral guide for how human societies ought to work.

 

Peter Singer's A Darwinian Left addresses the issue of how to reconcile natural selection with leftist ideological imperatives such as social responsibility. I think it's an utterly absurd issue. Something like Matmat's theory of good chocolate, (how to reconcile general relativity with a taste for chocolate). One of the core messages of Singer's book:

Never infer from what is Natural to what is Right

is so elementary that it should not be necessary to say it, let alone writing a book about it.

 

They can't believe in evolution because "their grandfather was no monkey". Semantics is important to them. And just saying "common ancestor" doesn't quite get the point across, because I've discovered many kids that think that evolutionists think that monkeys can give birth to humans.

If that's the level of public understanding of evolution, it hardly matters if people "believe" it or not. I can understand if someone says "I have no clue what the theory says and what the evidence is, so I have no opinion about it." That's how I feel about string theory, for example. What I cannot understand is that so many people, who have no clue about evolution and natural selection, still claim to have strong opinions about it.