One's Own Theory

It seems to me that creationists do not understand what the Theory of Evolution actually says. I'm sure I'm not the only evolutionist who thinks this. We, as evolutionists, are constantly fighting strawmen on this forum. It seems, in fact, that creationists are not even making any effort to understand at all.I realize that some of what evolution proposes is not really intuitive on the scale humans are used to thinking on, but it doesn't seem like an astronomical feat to me to realize that, for example, Mendelian genetics and descent with modification are compatible ideas.I formalized this as a statement while thinking through a response to AndrewPD on his new intermediates thread. The statement (which did not make the final cut) went like this:

quote:

---

Why is it that nobody who believes evolution ever thinks about it enough to figure out what it actually says?

---

Indeed, it seems that, only if a theory is "one's own" will one actually develop enough understanding of it to actually make authoritative arguments about it.I remember my "conversion" to evolution a few years back. I had decided to accept it long before I really had a deep understanding of how it worked, and have only since then developed a solid grasp of the concepts involved.Furthermore, the further I get involved in science, ToE and this debate, the less patience I find myself having for reading ID/creation materials, for even considering their arguments, etc.This makes me wonder, on more general terms, how and why we filter information about our worldviews and theories, and what impacts this might have on what we accept or reject.Some questions to ask:Does belief always come before understanding? Should it?
How large is the role of confirmation bias in our learning process?
Are we doing the same thing to Intelligent Design that they obviously are to the Theory of Evolution?
Are any of us really beating up anything other than strawmen?
What does this mean for science education? Surely our professors (are ourselves, for those who are professors) have their "own theories": won't this color their lectures? Expect me to play devil's advocate, because I don't think anybody else will be willing to do so, and this will be a boring discussion of nobody does.Maybe "Is it Science?" is a good place for this?Edited by Admin, : No reason given.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Hooah. Do you think it always does? It always seems to in my case.As far as whether it should or not, I'm torn. Without people passionately advocating certain theories, I'm not sure the scientific community would ever become motivated enough to run the tests.We often overlook the impact of scientists' egos on the rise and full of scientific ideas.----- I've been in classes with a lot of teachers and professors, and I don't think I can say that any of them really taught without personal bias.I've heard arguments from religious people that this can be a good thing (you know, if I don't teach my kid about Jesus while he's young, he won't grow up in the truth).And, I'm sorry to say, I have met many scientists who would probably likewise assert that teaching their viewpoint is the only sensible way to run a classroom.As a current grad student, most of my training has so far focused on how to convince people that I'm right about something, and the part about how to actually be right about something has been pretty much left to me to figure out on my own.Hence, the obsessive focus on my own thought process right now.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Paul. So, do you think, in general, that evolutionists are capable of fully understanding Intelligent Design?I always get the eerie feeling that I might be not grasping something a creationist is trying to say to me. I generally conclude that it's because, at worst, the idea doesn't have merit, or, at best, because they aren't explaining themselves well, but I never really feel certain of that.----- This is certainly the truth. My sister-in-law came home from high school in Utah one day and told me how her teacher had disproven evolution: clearly, since there are still apes, humans could not have evolved from apes. Duh.Fortunately, my middle-school science teacher (in Baptist Tennessee, amazingly) taught my class evolution, and taught it very effectively. He did preface it with a remark that he hoped, after death, there was a place where he could go and watch the recorded history of the earth on the big screen.That was the first time I remember asking to myself where Adam and Eve fit in that timeline. I also remember concluding that they must have fit in the Pleistocene, because that was where man started.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Straggler.I figured you'd make an appearance on a thread like this. I’m obviously not the only person who suffers mental blocks about things that I don’t want to like. People like me are common in religious communities, so much so that I have tried hard to distance myself from those communities in various ways.But, what troubles me is that I see a prevalance of the same kind of mindset in the scientific communities I participate in. How many scientists do you know who have actually changed their mind on a major point during their professional career? I know only a few.I sometimes wonder which side is actually more obstinate in this regard.----- I collected a whole lot of data this last summer. In the end though, I am only going to use a small fraction of it (enough to show the trend that I suspected was there). What bothers me is that I found some surprisingly high covariation with other variables that I was not really prepared to incorporate into my study, and I know have to decide what is to be done about it.In a broader sense, how can I be sure that I am basing a given conclusion on enough data?
It’s such a tenuous thing, and I certainly haven't mastered the skill yet.----- This is perhaps another reason why we should be more concerned with early education than university and graduate education. At the college level, you have multiple professors teaching related topics from their different perspectives. Hopefully, this will give some kind of balance to all the bias.At the high school level and below, at least in the US, you only get one teacher for each class, so you don't have a whole department of biologists with differing viewpoints and emphases.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Straggler. Well, for some, it is, yes. But, not for all of us.This is what I introduced in this thread before it was superseded by RAZD's thread (Honest Debate: how do you read?). I submit that most of us accept an idea before we actually understand it or know the evidence for it. Story first, evidence after.This is assuredly the case for our acceptance of the scientific method. We're taught that using experiments to address specific hypotheses is the best way to alleviate problems with error and bias, and we say, "Yeah, that makes sense." We accept the story because it fits with our common sense, not because someone proved to us that it works better.Here's an example to consider. In the Book of Mormon there is a section called "Moroni's promise" (Moroni 10:3-5). In that section, the ancient prophet Moroni writes a promise that, if we ponder a doctrinal matter in our mind, and then ask God if our conclusion about that doctrine are correct, we will receive a certain prompting that will confirm or deny our conclusion, and we can use this method to discern truth from error.Millions of Mormons around the world use this method regularly, for both scriptural and everyday purposes. I have done so myself. And, I can tell you that there can be a certain feeling that accompanies the performance of the scriptural promise.What does this mean? Millions of Mormons would tell me that, because they have used this method to ask God about the truth of the Book of Mormon, and have received the promised prompting, that the experiment works, and that they can therefore be certain that the Book of Mormon is true.You know that I am always going to be a cautious skeptic about stuff like this, but isn't this example based on the exact same principle of reasoning that the scientific method, in the broad sense you described, is based on?So, what is the difference between the millions of Mormons’ belief in this method and the millions of biology students’ belief in the real scientific method?That’s the real question. And I submit that there really is no difference. We all have our sources, and we retain the right to transfer the perceived strengths of our sources to our own arguments.Remember that I’m not trying to compare the actual methods: I’m trying to compare the individuals who accept the conclusions of the different methods. And I submit that the average evolutionist is no more objective, no more honest and no more rational than the average creationist. In my mind, this nullifies a huge chunk of the arguments we regularly bring against creationists.----- Well, for reality in our immediate vicinity, I think you are right.But, not all of an external reality is in our immediate vicinity. You could say that there is a correlation between the vicinity of the subject to an individual and the individual’s reliance on empirical evidence to explain it. Indeed, I would say that empirical evidence actually becomes less powerful when explaining more remote topic, such as the origin of life, natural history or the afterlife, so I don’t think sanity requires empirically-evidenced explanations for these things.But, I feel like I’m getting dragged into the RAZD-v-Straggler evidence feud, and like I’m about to get hit by invisible pink unicorns or brains in jars. I would very much like to avoid that, if you don’t mind.Edited by Bluejay, : Link to RAZD's thread.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Straggler. Well, it’s not an invisible unicorn, but... ----- Agreed.But, I’m not talking about the conclusion that an invisible man whooshed everything into existence.I’m talking about the tendency of evolutionists to let that viewpoint color their opinion of everything else the creationist says. Whenever a creationist opens his or her mouth, evolutionists hear them saying, Invisible, magic man in the sky. Invisible, magic man in the sky. No offense, but I think you’re helping prove my point here.Did Peg’s belief in magic men in the sky make her wrong about population dynamics?All we saw was somebody who disagrees with our theory. And, once we took that position, we got stupid. We understand our own theory; we trust our own theory; and we were determined to defend it. We did not understand our opponent’s argument, and we let our worldview color our understanding of the evidence. In fact, we ignored empirical evidence to support our own theory.----- And I never said otherwise.Again, I’m not talking about ToE vs creationism or rationality vs spirituality. I’m only talking about debate styles and the psychology behind it.We always complain about creationists ignoring evidence, giving free reign to their confirmation bias, etc. I say that this is just a side effect of believing in a theory or worldview, and that we are generally as guilty as they are.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Slevesque.Sorry for ignoring you for so long. I wasn't sure how to reply to this at first, so I was ruminating. Then I got distracted by other posters. Maybe I overgeneralized, but I’m really not in any kind of mood to cater all of my responses to every sect and sub-faction of creationism and Intelligent Design. That gets annoying very fast. However, let me say that I don’t think the above comment applies to you personally. Still, the simple fact is that many creationists and IDists beat up on strawmen of ToE.----- And, I agree with you. In fact, I count myself among those who don’t really understand ID.Still, even though I feel that evolutionists don’t give enough credit to IDists, and am adamant with Straggler that not everything is about the ulterior motives, Straggler’s fixation on the magic man in the sky is not really that far off.----- And, those at the top generally do not have the qualifications necessary to determine what is and is not good science (or good math or good history, for that matter).

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Hooah. I have a more research-oriented perspective coming into this discussion. I think the rules are completely different for teaching.For absolute certain, teachers need to be objective. The purpose of teaching is not to generate disciples, but to help a new generation make good decisions in their career fields.But, history shows that researchers who are overly cautious about objectivity are simply not as productive as assertive and opinionated researchers. In the long run, conflict between opinions probably results in better accomplishment by the overall community. However, with my individual perspective, I'm not focusing on what the community will accomplish in the future, but on what I am personally doing right now.----- I don't think you can actually back this up with statistics.
Open-mindedness probably does frequently lead to paradigm shifts, but I think the directionality of the shift is certainly in doubt. Pessimism probably causes as many "apostasies" as open-mindedness.----- And I think you may be kind of the poster child for this debate.You have an assertive, opinionated debate style; but you're not close-minded, like most opinionated people are. That, I think, is the ideal attitude for successful researchers and debaters.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.