When "believe" is a bad word
We read:
"Watch your language! It’s a common message from Eugenie Scott, a physical anthropologist and director of the National Center for Science Education, an organization dedicated to promoting and defending the teaching of evolution in public schools. Scott recently spoke with Science News writer Susan Milius.
So you urge scientists not to say that they “believe” in evolution?!
Right. What your audience hears is more important than what you say.… What [people] hear is that evolution is a belief, it’s an opinion, it’s not well-substantiated science. And that is something that scientists need to avoid communicating.
You believe in God. You believe your sports team is going to win. But you don’t believe in cell division. You don’t believe in thermodynamics. Instead, you might say you “accept evolution.”
Source
I happen to be an atheist but I see nothing misleading in talking about a "belief" in evolution. It's just another theory and one that has its fair share of holes. Its only virtue is that it does not require a belief in supernatural entities or events. I actually think that unreserved acceptance of evolution as the sole explanation for our existence as we are now is nearly as big a leap of faith as belief in God.
I find it easy to say: "I don't know". Apparently many other people do not. I guess I just don't have a talent for dogmatism. The lady above certainly sounds very dogmatic to me -- religious almost.
22 comments:
Whenever discussing religion, faith, or belief, i think the only logical answer one can give is, "i don't know".
Evolution has nothing to do with faith or belief. It is what most scientists agree on in principle as the best scientific explanation of biological processes, but may disagree on detail. As science it is always open to continued research and revision. Whereas most religious views are not open to modification and involve views that cannot be verified scientifically.
In my humble opinion, you have to use the word 'believe' in regards to the Theory of Evolution. Since it is a 'theory' and has yet to be completely proved or disproved. Unlike the Laws of Thermodynamics or the Law of Gravity. These aren't theories, they are proven fact. Evolution isn't there, yet.
A scientific 'theory' and a regular 'theory' are different.
A regular theory would be more along the lines of what a scientist would call a 'hypothesis'. Which is an untested idea or one with no factual data backing it.
A scientific theory is backed by facts and data.
Also. A scientific 'theory' does not graduate to become a 'law'. For example, The germ theory of disease. Very few people doubt it, it's been proven time and again, yet it's still a theory.
One main characteristic of a Law is that it can be expressed mathematically. Evolution, no matter how much data we obtain, can never be expressed as an equation, it can therefore never be called as a 'Law'.
"most religious views are not open to modification and involve views that cannot be verified scientifically."
Like evolution?
well, since evolution can and has been verified AND also consistently modified to fit newer data, no, not like evolution.
Evolution started out described by Charles Darwin as a very gradual adaptation of organisms until over time they "evolved" into a different species. This sounds reasonable. The critics of the day the theory said he was saying that creatures suddenly appeared. He stated at the time that the fossil record was incomplete which was why there were gaps and that the change is gradual. Well, now after 100 years of digging, the fossil record is much closer to being complete and demonstrates that species suddenly appeared without a gradual change. So instead of abandoning a theory which no longer fit the fossil record. They developed the "Hopeful Monster" theory which relied on sudden mutations explaining the appearance of new creatures. This name is not helpful when you are trying to convince people, so a newer spiffier name: Punctuated Evolutionary Equilibrium. Unfortunately, while the fossil record shows that animals did not gradually evolve, evolutionary scientists still use the gradual argument when they are debating with "unbelievers". Some of the biggest critics of the theory of evolution are mathematicians. For instance, the odds of a completely functioning eye coming into existence by accident are so astronomical as to be impossible. The mathematician say that the 16 billion years the earth has existed is simply not ENOUGH time. The evolutionary establishment response is that since we are here, evolution is proved and it must have happened no matter what the odds are. WOW, I don't know about you but I call that Faith.
The science of genetics is an even better "proof" of evolution than a "never-quite-complete" fossil record.
Do mathematicians understand biological processes better than biologists? When continued natural selection promotes a "better eye" the process of change is quicker than if change was merely random.
There is scientific evidence, in the fossil record and lab work among other evidence, behind evolution.
Could someone show me any evidence behind the competing "theory"?
The Theory of Evolution is a PROCESS THEORY. It neither proves nor disproves the existence of God, and has nothing to say about His or Her necessity. It is a theory of how life evolved from one form to another, and possibly of how life arose. It does not speak to the Creation Event of Space Time itself (also called the Big Bang), nor to any purpose the Universe may or may not have.
For men of Faith to be threatened by a PROCESS THEORY is an immature response, very similar to young children who are upset to hear that Santa Clause may not be the PROCESS by which Gifts end up under the Christmas Tree. And about as relevant to the entire "God/No god" argument.
For those advocating one PROCESS THEORY over another to be threatened by those they consider "ignorant" (and a quick review of the posts here shows their irrational reaction to being "threatened") is also silly and unproductive. You cannot force me to "believe" your process theory, any more than I can force you to believe mine.
When did Scientific Theories suddenly start to require the validation of the masses to be useful?
"Whereas most religious views are not open to modification".
Oh yeah? The Bible has been modified by the Catholic Church, Martin Luther, King James, just to name a few. Oh yeah, let's not forget pay-to-pray preachers that can put their own spin on the "Word of God".
I think the meaning was that most individuals with religious views don't usually modify them according to incoming scientific evidence, rather they will refute it if doesn't concur or will twist it to make it fit their existing world-view. However, many christians accept the "theory of evolution" and see nothing inconsistent with their belief in God (including the Vatican). It seems to be only fundamentalist christians and moslems who, because they believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible/Koran, must refute the scientific evidence or skew it some way.
Okay, I have to comment on this thread. The idea that scientific theories do not graduate to scientific laws. The exact text of a professor of Ecology in the first course period: "Since there is so much more overwhelming evidence of evolution over creationism, evolution will be treated as a scientific law and not a scientific theory for the duration of this class. Complete your assignments accordingly."
Evolution is a non-provable theory as to how life began and diversified into many different forms. Much of the argument centers on macro vs micro-evolution. You take a group of flies, spray them with bug killer, and the grand majority die off. You then spray the offspring of the ones who survived with bug killer and less die off. Over time, the theory goes, immunity to bug killer results. Macroevolution takes this concept and escalates it saying that over billions of years, this process greatly alters lifeforms - reptiles become humans, etc. There is direct, provable evidence behind microevolution, but there can't be for macroevolution for the simple reason that you can't design an experiment to prove or disprove it. It is like the expanding universe theory - great theory, but you can't really prove or disprove it by experiment. Prove something by experiment and it can become law - gravity, thermodynamics, etc.
The Theory of Evolution is an explanation of the evidence not a proof of course. Neither can creationists prove their beliefs.
The science of genetics supports the "theory of evolution" very well. Micro and Macro evolution is an artificial distinction devised by creationists when they couldn't refute observable evolution.
"The lady above certainly sounds very dogmatic to me -- religious almost."
Would be true if she really had said any such thing: "I actually think that unreserved acceptance of evolution as the sole explanation for our existence as we are now is nearly as big a leap of faith as belief in God." However, she didn't. Keep it clean.
Yes, I suppose that any statement made about anything can be called almost "religious" if the person saying it thinks it is true. Another case of words being misused to stretch a point.
"Its only virtue is that it does not require a belief in supernatural entities or events."
No, it only requires that one "accept" that random chance is a perfectly acceptable and scientific basis for explaining complex, ordered constructs.
@Phil in Cow Town said...
"A scientific theory is backed by facts and data."
Funny thing is that so many "facts" and "data" provided by science are nothing more than pure speculation and assumption.
In the end, it's all about our lowly Human minds trying to speculate on things that happened for which we have absolutely ZERO historical records.
@Anonymous said...
"The Theory of Evolution is an explanation of the evidence not a proof of course. Neither can creationists prove their beliefs."
You point out a very accurate fact. So now please explain why the scientific community so fervently claims that this theory is "truth" and "fact" when it can clearly NEVER be proven.
Because the evidence supports it so far.
Post a Comment