What's the best strategy for defending evolution?

I don't know about "science," but there is a case for evolution not fitting with Christianity. See the thread entitled "What we must accept if we accept evolution."But to get back to the point of this thread, Christians who do not take their beliefs literally might very well accept evolution and promote it effectively. In that case, Christianity becomes a sentiment.If that's your idea of Christianity, then it fits very well with evolution, since Christianity in that case is merely a positive feeling about life rather than a statement about the nature of reality. If that's all it is, I see no reason why anyone should believe it. I suppose one might believe it on a whim.ABE: Not all beliefs about the nature of life are subjective. Mine are not.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-26-2006 04:28 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-26-2006 04:32 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.

thats why i've started thinking that rather than evolution being incompatible with religion, evolution is incompatible with a literal interpretation of genesis.I think dawkin's needs to rein in on his zeal a bit, he is way over the top on his position, while he maybe have a right to some of it though.
I agree that no matter what people will believe what they want, i mean look at the shooting of jfk even after 40 years of people showing that he could be shot by one person there still are nuts that think there was someone on the grassy knoll
people will call the fact that we teach evolution in schools indoctoring, but the fact is, we have to teach evolution at that time or people will still grow up thinking the earth was created in six days by god and science that deals with origins is worthlessThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 02-26-2006 06:30 PM

Personally, my opinion on how best to defend evolution is to ignore the creation/ID side. The more we accept talk about it, the more we acknowledge that they are somehow scientifically valid, or at least that is how it would seem to non-scientifically oriented people. If there is one thing I have learned over the years is that the creationist can be very clever. Sinon must have been a creationist.

I agree with this statement, but not necessarily all of your conclusions.While I am not for overt censorship, I think people within science do need to be more openly critical of people like Dawkins when they overstep, just as much as with theists.My biggest worry in all of this is not whether the theory of evolution will suffer. After all it is not like Tinkerbell, requiring belief to sustain its existence. In fact as a scientist I realize that evidence could come along later which could change much of it anyhow.What I am worried about is the decline of science as a practice. As science has moved from fringe practice to mainstream part of education it has become part of popular culture, and that has resulted in cultural factions wanting science to "back them up".Every time science makes headway into culture, this is usually the result. And the fact is we are seeing it from both sides of the theist question. In trying to get science to back their belief system, they invariably begin to effect the practice of science. What's worse is that every side is trying to advance their cause in the court of public opinion and so are forced to "dumb it down" for those not in the field (if they have not already "dumbed it down" for themselves because they are not in a field). The result is that opinion is elevated above reason, and popularity gets viewed as some sort of importance for science. Public discource at low levels (like we see here at EvC) is considered equal to work in a lab or in the field.I guess this is to say we replace the rigorous logic and methods of modern science, with the tools of rhetoric and appeals to correlation (being what most people understand as sounding "scientific" and capable of rendering conclusion).It is a step backward, and while science won't die, ignorance will continue for no real reason. Indeed the likes of Dawkins are advancing a new line of ignorance to travel down.Perhaps the best strategy for defending evolution is for everyone to begin defending actual science. Criticize those who engage in popular speculation, and explain how work has to move forward on specific topics.This message has been edited by holmes, 02-28-2006 11:29 AM

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

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 completely agree, and as long as the task is focused on science education then I think success is possible. Science can even point to a number of successes in the courts. But if the task is allowed to expand beyond that then it becomes daunting because t isn't just creationism. There's a long list of pseudo-scientific claims that laypeople have a weakness for. Just off the top of my head there's magnetic bracelets, astrology, UFOs, ESP, clairvoyance, pyramid power, spoon bending, etc., etc., etc.And it isn't just pseudo-science that's a threat. Outside the realm of science there are pyramid schemes, lotteries, contests, stock-pushers, land schemes, get-rich-quick books and tapes, etc., etc., etc.We need a high school course whose description runs, "As you prepare to enter the real world, this course will teach you how to navigate the flim-flam that attempts to separate you from both your money and your reason."This is sort of an aside, but I've been asked my opinion in the past year or so about a couple schemes available on the Internet. Both are similar in that you pay an up-front fee and are given a set of webpages that are somewhat configurable. For example, you can define your own logo, control textual descriptions, etc.One of these schemes is for selling a group of company's beauty products. You recruit customers who go to your website to purchase products, and you get a small commission on each sale. The only problem is that the products are available at all supermarkets and drugstores for the same price, even cheaper once you factor in shipping charges, and you don't have to wait for delivery. Only people doing you a favor would shop that way. I advised against it, the person tried it anyway, and now more than a year later she has yet to make a single sale.The other scheme was financial. It's a complicated website and a complicated scheme, but basically you're set up to act as the middleman for selling financial paper and take a substantial commission for providing the service. I advised against this one, too, and a year later the person has yet to handle a single sale.I believe the price of entry for the beauty product scheme was less than a $100, but for the financial service scheme was around $500, with much more money to be spent in training courses should you choose to take them.I like these people no less for falling for these schemes, but despite how well I know them their experience provides me no insights as to why anyone could fall for them. It's a mystery.Bringing this post back on topic, the average person in the world is always going to be vulnerable to a wide range of nonsense. There's probably nothing that can be done to change that. But I do think scientists have a serious responsibility to protect science education, and it's a big part of the reason this site exists.--Percy

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!!!".

These are definitely two of the top issues. I think he's also "advancing a new line of ignorance" by merging theological discussions with science as if that were appropriate, as well as trying to gather atheists together as some sort of group with a singular identity. Well this may be my personal bias, but I don't think Sagan or Gould ever made the same types of concessions that Dawkins has. To me he feels desperate to latch on to new things to advance his ideas (or cause) among the public, rather than staying on target as a scientist promoting really good methodology.I suppose Sagan and Gould sacrificed some level of accessibility and so popularity, but then they couldn't be caught out later in making rather questionable conclusions as much as Dawkins has.I should say that I don't dislike everything Dawkins has to say. Its just that he has been consistent in making some bad decisions and so makes for a bad "spokes figure".

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

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 hadn't read Miller's Book so I can't speak to that. It seemed to me that Gould (iirc) was not actually trying to explain that science takes a stand for atheism (or is a part of athiesm) and is working to advance it. But that's probably what you meant by conciliatory. Heheheh... herding cats, definitely herding cats.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I agree. And its also why a lot of people serious about science come and post on this site.I think defending evolutionary theory begins with defending the scientific method. This becomes glaringly apparent as we witness our adversaries using the same logic in reverse as they try to redefine 'science' here in Kansas. While attacks on evolution are typically carried out by fundamentalists who feel threatened by apparent contradictions of their literal interpretion of the Bible and Christianity, the intellectual vulnerability of the general public to the hogwash of phony science like ID is perhaps more disturbing. I am reduced to concluding that the average American has very little appreciation for what constitutes real science, let alone any respect for it.Over the past century, science has evolved ever more complexity as it has provided increasingly powerful explanations for natural phenomena. Unfortunately, our general population has evolved ever shorter attention spans and ever higher expectations of immediate gratification in all their endeavors. Even though technology makes possible more convenience and opportunity in their lives than ever before, the underlying science is taken more and more for granted by an intellectually lazy public and scientists, as a group, are considered more and more out of touch with 'ordinary people', a concept the media seems happy to promote.Consider the following excerpt: Now while I am not at all happy with this overall assessment of things, there is a large measure of truth here w/r/t current public perceptions of science and scientists. I don't agree that, as scientists, we need to "adapt to a changing media environment". I don't think scientists can be held responsible for their portrayal by the media. I would argue that the media has done and continues to do, a very poor job of portraying science to the American public, although how to do it effectively with ever-shorter sound bites is obviously a challenge. However, the validity of evolutionary theory in public opinion should not hinge on our coming up with some 'catchphrase' - it's certainly a resounding defeat for the intellect of this country if it does.There was a good article in New Scientist a few weeks ago about the reasons for the rise of fundamentalism in both the east (Islam) and the west (Christianity) and it pointed out the allure of (1) simplistic explanations of the world, (2) the infallibility of a sacred text and, (3) spiritually-derived moralities. All these things have superficial but immediate appeal to people with minimal education seeking solid, unchanging truths about the world in times of unparalleled uncertainty and rapid change. Science does not and cannot provide such psychological crutches.Defense of evolution must begin with defense of science as the culmination of human intellect, the greatest enterprise of humanity, and our best means of approximating 'the truth'. We need to re-awaken public appreciation of what science really is and what it has done for society, and dare I say, elicit some public respect for scientists, the kind I remember growing up and deciding to become a scientist. If we could accomplish that, it would be child's play to demonstrate to an educated public that there is no controversy about evolution, that there are no scientifically viable alternative theories, and that those in opposition are not scientists at all.This message has been edited by EZscience, 02-28-2006 02:46 PM

Congrats on a Potm for this EZScience. I haven't followed the whole thread and hope you and others don't mind if I challenge a couple of aspects of what you say Unedukatted? It may be true, but I wonder did they include a graph showing the educational background of those involved.What we don't need a graph for, is to know that the majority of the large number of people who believe in evolution today have not got the in-depth education in the sciences that would truly allow one to give a reasoned basis for their belief. They were told so in school and on the tv - but telling somebody and them believing is not the same as them coming to a reasoned decision about its veracity for themselves. And nothing is going to change that fact. Faith in what science says will always be the reason most people believe in evolution - unless most become scientists. The ultimate trouble here is that science can never verify that this is the case. It can at best only ever claim to approximately the best way of approximating the truth. Approximating x approximating, is you will notice, a square function. A large reduction in the ability of science to claim to provide the "solid, unchanging truths about the world (or perhaps more accurately, themselves)" that people have sought forever. Religion has been in popular demand for millenia. Science has a hill to climb. This presupposes that faith in science can be increased to almost total proportions. But despite all the stunning successes of science, people resolutely refuse to give up on religious faith - as New Scientist points out. Atheistic communist regiemes succeeded in persecuting popular religious freedom of expression almost to the point of extinction - only to have it pop back into vibrant existance as soon as the pressure was removed. Nietzsche wrote "God is dead" The only thing we can be certain of in fact is that it is Nietzsche who is dead. God (of whatever hue) is as alive and well as He/she/it has ever been and shows no sign of going away anytime soon.As occupations go, science is vital to us, but there are many, many occupations which are vital too. Failing turning everyone into a scientist, the best that can be hoped for is to increase the masses faith in science. In that case, you are simply talking about creating another faith-based Religion. Welcome to the party!Religion is always about following laws and rules. Search as one may, one would be hard placed to think of a better raw material for a Religion than the realm of Science.This message has been edited by iano, 01-Mar-2006 01:36 AM

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.