Now, before evolutionists go all apeshit batty on me, let me say that as far as evolution is concerned, my current position is that I am inclined to grant that it is possible, perhaps even probable. My problem is that I simply do not know enough about the requisite sciences to make a truly informed decision, so I am forced to rely on authorities and argumentation that I can understand. (I think I'm in good company in this situation, too; even some of the most belligerent and devout atheists doubtless fall into this category.)
So far, I haven't really felt a need to really dig deep into the sciences related to the theory. I have read this or that book, talked to this or that person, on both sides of the issue. Both sides have their array of purported evidence (which I personally cannot verify) and both have arguments, objections to arguments, and answers to objections (and so on ad nauseum). Both sides seem utterly convinced that they are right and that others (often) are at best ignorant and at worse deviously conniving in the service of their ideologies. Given that I was raised in a "young earth" environment, that I am willing to give evolution the benefit of the doubt is some evidence of my open mindedness.
It's this consideration of questionable motives that makes me hesitant to trust either side, because both sides seem convinced that if they can just prove the other wrong in this scientific question then the other's belief system will come crashing down around their ears and, simultaneously, make their own belief system the only viable alternative. Because so much ideology is entrenched, it is difficult at best to tease out the truth. Both sides have relatively cogent argumentation, so the only way to certainly resolve it would be to be more than we are, to be able to directly and personally observe the evolution of the species over time, or at least to be able to reliably reproduce evolution on the scale that it is supposed to have happened in a controlled scientific experiment. Otherwise we're left with extrapolation, not verifiable experimental evidence or personal observation/experience.
Given that we can't do these things, the best I can offer evolution in terms of assent is that it is possible, perhaps even probable, but I remain skeptical. And when I read argumentation to the contrary (for instance this), the doubts are renewed. My position is not driven by a fear that my belief system is at stake; I've written about this elsewhere. I don't feel threatened by the theory at all (actually, I find it intriguing--it opens up some interesting theological speculation as well). Disproving evolution alone does not necessitate a young earth/literal creationist position; it doesn't even necessitate belief in God. But it certainly does provide the foundation for much contemporary atheism, so it's no wonder that atheists feel threatened by challenges to it and respond to such challenges with much vitriol.
So it is from this position of tentative assent that I guess I am more skeptical than others when someone attributes some cause to evolution. I've seen it often enough, in this or that program on TV (that have little to do with science or evolution as a subject), in explanations of spirituality, even in explanations in favor of this or that diet (interestingly, different dietary theories use evolution-based theories to justify their claims).
My latest encounter was this morning, as I was beginning to read Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole, I (perhaps predictably) ran into this statement right in the beginning of the book: "We evolved in an environment containing many agents— family members, friends, rivals, predators, prey, and so on. Spotting and understanding other agents helps us survive and reproduce."[1] Ah, the old H.A.D.D. hypothesis...
Things like this are often presumed based on relatively paltry evidence. We look at this or that bone fragment, this or that physiological similarity, this or that genetic similarity, and we deduce grand narratives on the origins of species. And such a general theory may indeed be true (I do not treat it as a conviction, personally). But then like a jazz player, people start riffing off this general theory, embellishing the narrative here and there to tell a story about why this or that thing is the way it is. In reality, scientifically and objectively speaking, we have little to no ground to stand on for such embellishments. We cannot employ the scientific method for these cases, often because the environment we are investigating is lost deep in the past.
But by enlisting the general theory of evolution (which again itself stands on relatively paltry scientific grounds--compared to other scientific endeavors like technology, experimental physics, medicine), people feel entitled to derive all sorts of interesting stories. In reality, these stories are more akin to ancient mythologies than science. They employ just enough of what contemporaries believe to be true about the world and apply that to the past to build a narrative believable to contemporary ears. The difference for our contemporaries is that where in the past people would have attributed causes to a God or gods, today they attribute the cause to evolution. Evolutiondidit. And thus, my aforementioned smirk. Even a very well educated and thoughtful guy like Law falls into the enticing trap of constructing (or at least giving credence to) such evolutionary myths.
Another interesting analogical observation is that the relative credence one seems to be willing to give such myths is directly proportional to one's conviction in the supporting broader narrative. Evolutionists want to believe that evolution (or some other natural cause) is the explanation. Theists want to believe that God (or some god/supernatural cause) is the explanation. The mental processes and proclivities are the same--we are all human and subject to our prejudices.
One last observation about evolution in general. It seems to me that a lot of ink, time, energy, and money has been spilled over this issue, and I'm not sure I understand, from a scientific point of view, why it is so important. Evolution's primary focus is the past, offering a rationale for why the biological world is the way it is. As a theory, it doesn't seem to offer much in the way of practical applicability, certainly nowhere near as much practical potential as other sciences, and in terms of insights that might lead to practical advances, they seem limited at best (such as the occasional hypothesis that can be tested and results in some practical application). In my eyes, this is further evidence that evolution is less about science that "works" and more about ideologies. On that ground alone perhaps one could question whether or not it should be taught as core curriculum in science.
1. Law, Stephen (2011-05-19). Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole (Kindle Locations 157-158). Prometheus Books. Kindle Edition.
It's not that you "do not know enough about the requisite sciences to make a truly informed decision" or that you "personally cannot verify" the evidence, it's that you're being lazy. Of course you can learn, and of course you can verify the evidence. But making that wrong assumption that you can't doesn't prevent you from pontificating about it or judging the science likely or unlikely, or "paltry". There is a lot more evidence than "this or that bone fragment, this or that physiological similarity, this or that genetic similarity". It's not similarities. It's basically everything we know about biology that confirms evolution. Evolution, whether you like it or not, is right there with the best verified scientific theories (scientific theory meaning verified, not educated guess). That some people talk out of their asses and use it to assert things without evidence is a different problem and doesn't falsify anything. Please, talk to a paleontologist and/or a biologist.
ReplyDeleteAnd what's the point of the post exactly? I don't get it? Is it to tell us that because you claim you can't know, nobody can?
Bertrand
Bertrand,
ReplyDeleteThe best I can do is to read things and talk to people when I have the chance. I have done that. But as I said, it's relying on the authority and trustworthiness of these people, and their related argumentation. Since I personally cannot observe and experiment (due to simple practical considerations), that's what I'm left with. Both sides present evidence and argumentation, as I said.
In an earlier post, you asked what the problems are, saying that they've all been addressed adequately, and the reason people get mad is that they are tired of addressing the same objections. I can sympathize with that, but at the end of the day, there are responses to the responses, and people still cling to their conclusions on both sides of the debate.
All that said, the main reason I am more inclined to accept evolution as possible, even probably, is the consideration of the majority of authorities. The reason I am inclined to not fully trust it is due to the objections as well as the terrible polemics on both sides--when people are so invested ideological, that bias can't help but taint their scientific endeavors.
At the end of the day, whether or not evolution is true has little practical impact on me personally, so it's not about me wanting or not wanting it to be true.
I think you got the point of the post, but you're just distracted and ticked that I am skeptical of evolutionary theory. Really, if my writing so regularly upsets you, maybe you should stop reading. I hate to be the cause of so much angst for you.
OK, I understand where you're standing, but hear me out (and don't worry about me, I can cope). My argument here is very precisely about your assertion that you have to rely on authority and not about much else. It may come out a little strong for me to call you lazy, but that's me trying to hammer a point home.
ReplyDeleteDespite appearances, there is a fundamental difference between arguments from authority (or from majority) and scientific knowledge. That fundamental difference is that attacks, independent verification and repeatability are not only expected but necessary to the whole process.
An fallout of it is that democratization of that knowledge, its diffusion to people who like you feel they don't have access to it, is possible. There are good authors out there who can explain scientific theories in ways that you will not only understand but that will give you the keys that you need to trust that it's actual solid knowledge and not just speculations. If you need more than that, there is nothing that is ever inaccessible. Even the experiments at the LHC are accessible if you know where to look. That is by design.
Objections to objections do exist, yes, but that doesn't make them all as valuable, nor does it make their truth a matter of opinion. Those things are verifiable and verified. The very fact that you too could (not have but could) verify the validity of that knowledge and evidence is what makes it more trustworthy than any argument from authority.
For example, flat-earthers do exist, their objections to a round-Earth are well known, they are easily refuted, but they do have refutations for those refutations that could look convincing in a vacuum.
I can show you how to set-up simple experiments to show that the Earth is round, and it should convince anyone in their right minds, but it won't convince flat-earthers, who are not in their right minds and who will have objections for each of those experiments and objections. Or they will ignore the arguments and keep repeating the same BS. Creationists are doing the exact same thing.
There is an easy way to recognize it for what it is though: so-called creation science has not resulted in a single real world application. You don't have to and shouldn't consider creationism or flat-earthism in a vacuum to judge whether they are likely or not to be true. All you have to do is see whether it *works*. Creationism and flat-earthism have produced nothing and just don't work. On the other hand, you need General Relativity for GPS to work, you need Quantum Mechanics for computers to work, and you need Evolution for biology, medicine and genetic engineering to work.
To dumb it down in the extreme, I know that Thailand exists although I've never been there. Not just because people say so, but because I could go there and verify. I don't need to go there, just being able to is enough.
Am I making more sense now? ;)
I see what you are getting at. It's like the difference between asking someone to trust you at face value alone versus daring them to prove you wrong. Unfortunately, the dare is sometimes practically impossible, so it can equate to the same thing.
ReplyDeleteI suppose it would be helpful to clarify that the skepticism is more on what is often referred to as unguided macroevolution. It seems to me that evolution at that scale is what is not possible to scientifically verify or falsify. We can surely extrapolate that it makes sense from smaller scales, but that is where the problem arises, specifically with regards to entropy. Also, in terms of the "it works" argument, it seems that the majority of any practical advancements we've gained from considering the theories of evolution is at the micro level, which are not really disputed as much.
Flat earth seems on a different scale of incredulousness, because I can readily observe those things that originally gave rise to the round earth theory (thinking of viewing the horizon, for instance). Also, I personally have traveled to South America and observed the inverse of the seasons first hand, not to mention there is tons of satellite and aerial imagery.
The long term/macro evolution, however, and common descent is not so readily verifiable or falsifiable. And it is, I think, the heart of the disagreements, keeping in mind the attached philosophies on both sides.
Personally, I am more inclined to assent perhaps because the extrapolation, at a basic level, does make sense; on the other hand, so do some of the objections. Further, I don't see how believing or not believing in these has much practical impact either way.
And that's what I was referring to above in my original post.
mmh, not exactly no. Nobody's daring anyone. What I'm saying is that you don't need to check everything in order to believe it, as long as it is verifiable. It's not an argument from authority if the originators of the argument are inviting you (not daring you), encouraging you and giving you the means to reproduce and verify their claims.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that you are referring now to specific claims. "Macroevolution" is a term that you will never see biologists use in their work because it's an arbitrary distinction invented by creationists. First, what we know of the rate of directly observable evolution in microorganisms extrapolates just fine to the rates that we do observe over millions of years on larger organisms. It's a continuum. Second, the genetic evidence corroborates that just fine, as does the totality of the available fossil record. That's several independent lines of evidence telling us the exact same story. Finally, I wish you would be a little more specific about what you mean with that argument about entropy. I know a few creationist claims about entropy, and they all grossly misunderstand what entropy is and how it works. Would you care to elaborate?
As for asking for applications of large scale evolution, that would be moving the goalpost beyond reasonable reach, as the science of evolution is way too young to allow for anything more. But that's fine: as I said, real evolutionary science doesn't make a distinction between two kinds of evolution, so any application provides validation. I could also cite agriculture or the domestication of animals such as wolves and the evolution of dogs over just a few thousand years that in retrospect constitute experiments in evolution with artificial selection taking the place of natural selection.
I knew what I was doing when mentioning flat earth: I maintain that you can verify facts about evolution, for example by visiting your local natural history museum. That is not harder than visiting South America. Trusting satellite images is not qualitatively different from reading papers and books about genetic evidence for evolution.
Believing or not believing the scientific results has an immense impact: it influences political decisions about what gets taught in public (and private) schools, and that in turn has long-term economic impact on the whole country, if not on the whole world. I'm very worried by the declining standards of American education, and we all have our shared responsibility in that. Not to mention the moral obligation to teach our children the truth, or our best attempt at approximating it.
Would you believe me if I told you that I had a conversation about you with Richard Dawkins today? Cause I totally did :)
Hi Bertrand,
DeleteApologies for the much delayed response. As you know, I've got another wee bit around the house since I last posted this, and well one thing leads to another and now it is late May.
So I think it boils down to the same thing with regard to "dare" versus "encourage/invite." I do get the point, though, in the distinction between verifiable and not verifiable. But I suppose the distinction still relies on a lot of qualifiers in terms of practicality, both for individuals and absolutely (i.e., those that rely on extremely large amounts of time for verification).
I was hesitant to use the term "macroevolution" because I have had others say that it is a shibboleth for evolutionists. But it remains that it is a different thing to accept that a species can adapt within its own reproductive pool and that this same process generated all of the different species we know of today. I understand that your position is that we can and should extrapolate from available verifiable evidence of evolution to that which cannot be verified because the science is too young. Unfortunately, since that is not verifiable, it requires a willingness to accept the extrapolations based on the evidence available. It seems like science (being what it is) should require that scientists accept what is verifiable, not extrapolations from it, though.
As I mentioned before, folks on both sides of the debate have philosophical axes to grind, so it's not like this is your run of the mill disinterested science going on. It makes it hard to trust either side's account of the evidence.
About entropy, here's an example of the line of argumentation: http://www.icr.org/article/does-entropy-contradict-evolution/
You mention that I'm moving the goalposts beyond reach. Unfortunately, that's inherent to the nature of the claims. If science is about empirically verifiable knowledge, then we should hold it to that standard, and if we can't perform experiments to verify/falsify a claim, then science shouldn't represent something as scientific fact. It can represent it, as you say, within a continuum of credibility, but it should always be up front with things like this that can only be known indirectly to us due to their reliance on extrapolation and fragmentary evidence (fossil record).
I cannot yet accept that "any application provides validation." I don't see it, certainly not as a general principle, nor even applied to this special case.
You mention husbandry as evidence, but I'd say it would be more akin to intelligence-based/directed evolution than undirected/chance-based.
It's kind of funny to me that you mention visiting a museum. We know that museums are curated, that exhibits are put forward by people with a story to tell. I think of the classic progression of man exhibit that is stamped on popular culture these days (now I understand it has been invalidated by current theory). The point is, sure, I can go to a museum whose curators accept as a presupposition that macroevolution (if you will permit me to at least make the distinction for the purposes of this discussion) is established scientific fact. I fail to see how such displays of embellished evidence are akin to the examples I cited.
(end of part 1; more to come)
(part 2; due to blogger's limitations had to break it up)
DeleteYou really needn't bother trying to convince me further on this because as I said I fail to see its significance. I think it's somewhat telling that you attach so much significance to the acceptance of common ancestry/origins in our educational system. It's a common rhetorical device of evolutionists to pretend that not accepting this one thing somehow brings down our entire educational system, even portraying our entire society as ignorant, science hating religious zealots based on this one thing. I don't buy it. How about literacy, for one? Mathematics? Critical thinking/analysis? Physics? Chemistry? Even most of biology. The list could go on and on of things that have basically nothing to do with our opinions on the origin of man. And in fact, much of modern progress has occurred under the auspices of largely religious/Christian societies, despite our "backward" ways of thinking about our origins and God.
I just don't see how this is relevant to the overall state of education in our country. Poverty has much more to do with it. Failed one-size-fits-all, centralized, bureaucratic school systems. The breakdown in traditional family values, leading to increased single parenthood and less disciplined children who don't apply themselves in school. The entitlement culture that teaches kids to expect everything to be handed to them on a platter. The nanny culture that teaches kids that everybody is as special/good/qualified as everyone else, so they have no motivation to excel or differentiate themselves. And so on. These are just some examples of other factors that could be contributing to our poor results in our public educational system. They seem far more likely to have an effect than whether or not creation is taught alongside evolution as a theory on the origin of man.
The subject of evolution is just not that compelling to me, specifically those aspects dealing with our biological origins. Yes, it is interesting to me, and it does provide new ground for theological exploration if true, so it does have an appeal. But I have no vested interest in adhering or not adhering to it at this point, and I just have too many other things to spend my time on right now.
Lastly, I didn't know you are on conversational terms with Richard Dawkins. That's cool. Say hi for me next time you talk to him. I hope someday he'll come around to be less hostile to religious people. Maybe we theists and atheists could actually have meaningful dialectic if he and his buddies weren't always trying to portray us so negatively.