What's the best strategy for defending evolution?

I completely agree. It's not only that ignorance and superstition "win" with the demise of science, with all the implications that entails. Rather, the loss of ability to rationally evaluate claims, or even question them, leads directly to events such as occurred on Nov 18, 1978 and Mar 25, 1997. And no, I don't believe that I'm advocating a "slippery slope" fallacy. When the fundamentalists finish the political destruction or restricting of biology, they will simply move on to the next science that doesn't fit their narrow preconceptions. Geology, paleontology, cosmology, much physics, etc., will slide into the abyss as well. Not to mention, history, anthropology, archeology, and so on - or at least those aspects of the above that conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible.My two cents.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-26-2006 02:35 PM

Okay, let me try and bring my post more in line with the topic. My statements were in fact an opening to an attempt to explain my position on why scientists need to defend science - especially evolution - and how.Yes, it is clear that some scientists have possibly over-stated their case (e.g., Dawkins) by openly expressing their opinion deliberately linking evolutionary science to atheism. On the other hand, I don't believe that such overstatement (if that's what it is) is going to make much difference to the fundamentalists who want to attack it. They aren't attacking evolution because they think it's atheistic - that's a ploy or tactic, not a belief - but rather because it utterly devastates their irrational, narrow interpretation of the Bible. Those who are pre-disposed to that mindset aren't going to care whether someone is an atheist. How many times on this board have fundamentalists trashed the Christians here who accept evolutionary theory? How many times has it been claimed that "you're obviously not True Christians (tm)"?Dawkins and his colleagues have resoundingly rebutted nearly every claim, accusation, and misstatement ever made by the creationists and IDists. Morton and his colleagues - who are obviously and quite clearly NOT atheists - have done the same. It has made ABSOLUTELY (sorry for shouting) no difference. Not one whit. So I say let Dawkins and company continue their work without trying to censor or silence them. Those who are amenable to reason will dismiss their more outre statements as rhetoric or opinion and look to the evidence to decide their position. Those who oppose evolution on religious grounds will continue to do so no matter who says it.A last note: I do find some of Dawkin's statements over-the-top. Especially the stuff about "brights" etc. Not because I think he shouldn't say it if that's what he believes. Rather, I think he is simply wrong. The belief in whatever superstition is independent of intelligence. IOW, religious conviction is not correlated to either intelligence or education.

I don't disagree with your overall points. I would, however, like to see some expansion on one of them: Dawkins may indeed be guilty of many things we wish he hadn't said (for instance), but I'm unclear as to the "new line of ignorance" he's espousing.* Certainly he is justly-acclaimed as a "popularizer" of science - in other words, making science accessible to a lay audience.*Unless you're referring to either his flirting with evopsych, or the "selfish gene" idea, in which case I agree with you. His book by the same name was very badly written, and he's had to backpedal a bit, although his follow-on book Extended Phenotype does a pretty good job of clearing up the mess he made with the first one. Of course, being a "dogmatic individual selectionist" as I think he referred to us in one of his articles, I don't find the entire concept all that compelling anyway (different topic, I guess). Completely agree. Even though there are a fair selection of scientists who have made great strides in explaining the real heart of science to the "masses" - from Azimov and Sagan to Gould, Ehrlich, Diamond, and yes, Dawkins - we need MORE scientists willing to make the effort. Unfortunately, when they "dumb down" (your term) science to make it accessible, I think it inevitable that there will be truly unfortunate instances of misinterpretations or even outright fallacies likely to creep in.

I wish we could. That in fact seems to have been the approach for a long time. Unfortuntely, it appears that unassailed "they" have managed to take a strong position in the absence of any counters - and have forced us to fight them on their own terms (or at lesat play catch-up). Sun Tzu said it a long time ago:

quote:

---

1. Sun Tzu said: Whoever is first in the field and awaits the coming of the enemy, will be fresh for the fight; whoever is second in the field and has to hasten to battle will arrive exhausted. (Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Chapter VI)

---

Sadly, ignoring a problem won't make it go away. It merely abdicates the field to the forces of ignorance and supertsitition.

---

"Cuisve hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare." Cicero

I agree. OTOH, "scientists" aren't the only ones equipped to deal with these kinds of superstitions and claims, although they often have. The best of the bunch for dealing with ESP, etc, include people like James Randi (magician), Michael Shermer (historian), Carl Sagan and Stephen J. Gould (scientists). At least in the non-creationist arena, scientists are often joined by non-scientists with as much to lose as the rest of us.As to the rest, both sound like pyramid schemes where the only way to make money is to sucker some other poor dumb bassid into buying in. The more suckers, the more money. Usually only works for the first couple of layers, after that the local market is.saturated and nobody buys. The "product" is merely the hook, and it's almost always unsellable. "Ponzi schemes go Internet". Can I hear an "AMEN!!!".

Thanks for clarifying. I think I disagree with your first part. Not because you're wrong, but rather because I think that IS an appropriate topic for discussion. In Dawkins' view, theology stuck its nose into science, and therefore it's appropriate to whack it off. If we're going to censor (or censure) Dawkins for his stance, then we need to censure Gould for Rock of Ages and Miller for Finding Darwin's God. In the former, the concept of "non-overlapping magisteria" could be construed as limiting religion and constraining God. Not only that, but if you read the book carefully, the neatly constructed religion that Gould postulates as being compatible with science doesn't (and possibly can't) actually exist. No one complains about Gould, of course, because the book was basically conciliatory, in stark contrast with Dawkins' writings.As to the second point, I agree. Trying to lump "atheists" into a single group can be likened to trying to cram 10 kgs of potatoes into a 5 kg bag. Or alternatively, to herding cats. It's a fools' game in any case. Besides, this is one of the areas where Dawkins reveals his fundamental arrogance - if there is to be an "Atheist" movement, Dawkins quite clearly envisions himself as the "leader" (how do you lead a bunch of non-conformists, anyway?) I agree. 'Course, who says he's a spokes figure? He sure as hell doesn't always speak for me. And therein lies the rub, I suppose. Popular imagination, fueled by creationist anti-evolution rhetoric and Dawkins' own arrogance has created the perception that he IS some kind of spokesperson. Everybody else is ignored - in spite of the fact that collectively they've obliterated everything creationists and IDists have ever proclaimed. What was that saying about the squeeking wheel?

I'm surprised I didn't catch this in EZ's post. Your question is a very valid one - and unfortunately off topic for this thread. I would merely like to point both you and EZ to an excellent book that discusses this very question: Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things (2002, Owl Books). I'd especially like to point out his final chapter: "Why Intelligent People Believe Weird Things". The answer is both intriguing, and quite refutes that statement of EZ's. There is NO correlation between intelligence, education, and belief in superstition, etc. They are, in Shermer's words, "orthagonal" to each other. I think his argument is compelling.

Take care, iano. Sorry to see you go. It's been a pleasure all around, I'm sure. Drop back in as the occasion chances.