Bob Novak, on Crossfire:
Why don’t we teach evolution and intelligent design and let students figure it out on their own?
The response from an unknown God-hating scientist:
Fine. Why don’t we teach students the South won the civil war and let them figure it out on their own? Why don’t we teach students that the moon is made of green cheese and let the students figure it out on their own.
Meanwhile, in bizarro land, Terry Jeffrey is advocating that belief in objective truth requires that you believe in intelligent design. This would make a great SNL skit, except you can’t parody these guys.
From the new evolution trials in Kansas:
Charles Thaxton, who lives near Atlanta but is a visiting assistant professor of chemistry at the Charles University in the Czech Republic, also presented another key criticism of evolution. He testified that there’s no evidence that life formed from a primordial soup.
Irigonegaray asked Thaxton whether he accepted the theory that humans and apes had a common ancestor.
“Personally, I do not,” he said. “I’m not an expert on this. I don’t study this.”
Insert your own quip, and then just go here.
At some point, people are going to recognize that faith is not a very useful building block for a logical syllogism or a good foundation for scientific inquiry. A belief in evolution does not preclude faith in God. On the other hand, teaching creationism does do damage to science.
*** Update ***
A great piece on NPR on what is really going on in Kansas.
Also, for the sake of my sanity, please use this glossary before using the terms ‘theory’ or ‘fact’ or ‘law.’ Or read this, most notably this:
A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with “laws of nature,” suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, “It’s only a theory.” For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because “Gravity is only a theory.”
*** Update **
See also this and this (via Have Coffee Will Write.
This isn’t real), but it sums up my opinion of people peddling IT and Creationism:
While that isn’t real, it is important to recognize that Creationists ARE attacking the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics:
Creationism would replace mathematics with metaphors. Metaphors may or may not serve to illustrate a fact, but they are not the fact itself. One thing is certain: metaphors are completely useless when it comes to the thermodynamics of calculating the efficiency of a heat engine, or the entropy change of free expansion of a gas, or the power required to operate a compressor. This can only be done with mathematics, not metaphors. Creationists have created a “voodoo” thermodynamics based solely on metaphors. This in order to convince those not familiar with real thermodynamics that their sectarian religious views have scientific validity.
Thomas
Part of me really wants to take up these frauds on their offer. By all means, teach. Show the umpteen million pieces of evidence for biological adaptation. Let them get destroyed point-by-point by scientists. Let the ID con-men flounder about defining complexity, suffer humiliating refutation, and then repeat exactly what they said before. Let them mangle scepticism into an obligation to be a sucker.
Then afterwards, some good Christian rock songs about judicial activism.
John Cole
ID is nothing more than a smoke-screen for creationism, and creationism is absurd. Any ‘scientific theory’ you can refute with two words is useless. Those two words:
“Carbon Dating.”
And then they are forced to engage in Scopes Monkey trial style gibberish about the concept of time and what a day really means.
That we continue to have these debates is just depressing- this one 80 years ago sufficed, in my estimation:
Steven
The real problem is that evolution is so poorly taught in high schools that teaching ID along side it would probably convince kids that ID is right. After all, ID is not a coherent theory; it is at best an unscientific criticism of evolution. It provides the answer whenever there is an evidentiary gap in the fossil record: it must have been designed. For many high school students, that would unfortunately be a more persuasive answer than: we don’t yet, we’re still looking.
Birkel
The advocates of evolution probably try to prove too much. Teachers can show that evolution is a fact that can be witnessed over the course of ten days using fruit flys. But those same teachers should admit that the whys and the wherefores are not completely understood when the theory is used to map the development of life from the primordial soup to today. But all that can be done while maintaining rigorous critical thinking.
In the meanwhile, ID and creationism are not theories. A theory must be proveable or disproveable. Neither ID nor creationism is. And I don’t want either taught in public schools because we ought to be teaching critical thinking (and the scientific method, which requires critical thinking) in schools.
Stormy70
My Dad is an atheist and he thinks the evolution theory is not adequately been proved , yet.
I agree with Birkel that critical thinking skills should be taught in school, but the teachers will still have to contend with students who do not beleive in evolution. I went to school in the eighties and we learned evolution, and Creationism was never mentioned. I know 2/3 of my class beleived in Creationism, but noone ever questioned the teacher about it. They did the experiments , passed the tests, and went on with their lives. No harm, no foul. This was an advanced class where most students went into engineering, medicine, computers,etc. They just factored evolution into their faith.
Creationism and Intelligent Design does not need to be taught in public schools. How are these students supposed to compete at the collegiate level, and in the real world if they want a degree in the sciences.
J.S.
Great piece. Our sites seem to have a similar mission.
J.S.
http://voicesofreason.info
John Cole
My Dad is an atheist and he thinks the evolution theory is not adequately been proved , yet.
Which is why it is a theory, and not a law.
Intelligent Design and Creationism are neither.
Intelligent Design can best be summed up as:
“Hey- this shit is complicated and I don’t understand it- some ‘intellgient’ being or thing must have designed this. Oh, and by the way, these creationists over here think God did it all in seven days.”
Fitz
Think of it as an opportunity. The more young people from Kansas with a worthless scientific education, the more math, science, and engineering employement opportunities for a young person in China or India…
JG
I think the coolest thing about evolution theory is that it is chageable. You can question it and based on new observations the theory can adapt. Creation, like ID and religion in general, cannot be questioned. Its the truth now sit down and shut up.
smurd
And most importantly:
the vast majority of Christians — I repeat, THE VAST MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS — do NOT have an issue with Darwin’s science.
John Cole
Great point, smurd. The same people pushing ID and creationism are the same people farting around the far edge of reason on every other issue in the culture wars.
Alex
The proponents of faith-based reality like to carp about how they’re mistreated by the “liberal” press and its squinch-faced allies.
Make no mistake–if the folks who want to teach the bible as science have their way, all sorts of Old Testament revenges will be visited upon those who dare to imagine otherwise.
Because simple belief, one’s own opinion as Truth, is just that: simple. There’s a book out by some conservative commentator titled “They Think You’re Stupid.”
We all know what the answer is there.
Stormy70
I don’t have a problem with the theory of evolution, and I’m a Christian. Science is cool. Go Discovery channel! I like my science alarmist and glitzy. I’m a sucker for the Yellowstone Mega-volcano program, and there is proof all over Wyoming that it erupted 500,000 years ago. Not 7000 years ago. Of course, I will have to consult Slartibartfast to be sure.
bleh
I’m all for teaching ID in schools. I’m also for teaching the logical fallacies of Christian belief in churches.
Why not give it equal time, and let the parishioners decide for themselves?
BillD
The thing to do if the Revival Tent Cosmologists force the teaching of both is to focus on HOW we know what we know. Teach HOW Kepler and Newton et.al proved the solar-centric system we know. Show HOW we know dinosaurs existed 60+ million years ago, not 6,000. Focus on how science works and countless youngsters will be hooked on the process and begin asking hard questions. ID and other such claptrap will wilt under the examination of the students
John
The most important thing to remember about evolution is that IT DOES NOT try to explain the origin of life. It only seeks to explain the journey from when life was created to the abundance of different types of life that we have now. No one is saying that evolution created life, just that it is the best explanation for the differentiation of species.
Gladys Nightspurt
http://www.pandasthumb.org is a great blog for keeping up and commenting on the ID peddlers and their disgusting anti-science agenda.
Katherine "Never Argue With A Nut" Williams
If schools are to teach “ID” (Idiotic Design), they should teach all the different cultures stories, um, theories: The Egyptian Creation story is great, and the Norse (Viking) is really grusome, lots of fun. The Hindus have a really teriffic Creation Myth. They should all be taught. The course could be called, umm… I know! Comparitive Religion!
Personally I think Religion belongs in the church.
Justin Faulkner
smurd said: “HE VAST MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS — do NOT have an issue with Darwin’s science.”
I think that just confirms that we have a President who–in the infamous words of Jeff Gannon–has divorced himself from reality.
Jon H
The creationists and ID people amaze me, in their insistence on their God being a small, weak one.
A God who creates a huge, millions-of-light-years-wide universe in a big bang, and waits 15 billion years for man to evolve (which he knew would happen), strikes me as a far more omnipotent and omniscient being than one kept within the limited bounds of the imagination of a preliterate Middle Eastern culture.
And even if God tried to tell the Israelites the true story of creation, they probably didn’t even have a concept or number for “billion”.
Under those conditions, even God would fall back to a fairy story to get his point across.
TP
ID is a vast left-wing conspiracy to weaken America! If you don’t want to teach evolution, what’s next? Genetics? Atomic theory? How could you spit on the brave men and women warriors who bleed for this proud land of the free?
You IDiots would deny them access to the very best bioengineered antidotes to plagues spread by our legion enemies! And go ask a true patriot like Edward Teller about the accuracy of atomic dating before you spread this crap about a “young Earth”. His belief in the “theory” of nuclear fusion halted the Red hordes and their plans for world dominiation!
You pussilanimous weaklings at the Institute of Creation Research make me sick! How dare you call yourself Americans.
octopod
The picture is from the Onion article on fundamentalist Christians lobbying to repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It’s in the archives.
Marc
At times like this, I’m reminded of Barry Goldwater’s comment when Falwell raised a stick about the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court. “I think every good Christian ought to go out and kick Falwell’s ass.”
RW
Not going to take the bait on the religious stuff, but unless every textbook I ever laid my hands on were incorrect, it’s not Newton’s theory of gravity. It’s Newton’s law of gravity.
For some reason, people still use the “gravity” example to use against anti-evolution arguments.
Gravity is a law.
Our public schools are really failing us (and please, everyone, spare me the parsing).
Brian C.B.
Man, think of the work we could all save if we could just use God to fill in the blanks? Lose your glasses? God must of taken them. Computer acting up at work, again? Sure, you could try to fix it, or you could blow it off and call it an act of God. Balcony collapse kills dozens of guests at a Kansas City hotel? We could figure out the bearing capacity of the various elements and explore why one or another of them failed, and how human error compounded the initial mistake, and try to draw out a larger lesson from the tragedy, or we could just attribute it to the will of God.
CaseyL
RW’s right: it’s a law of gravity, not a theory. (There’s a bumper sticker I love: “Gravity: Not Just a Good Idea. It’s the Law.”)
But there are other theories that have the same rhetorical effect, like Relativity. If we didn’t treat Relativity as a fact, most of the last half century’s work in physics, telecommunications, computer science, and astronautics would vanish.
Brian C.B.
People use the gravity example because gravity (the larger theory about the attraction of dense bodies) is every bit the intellectual construct explaining physical behaviour that is the theory of evolution. Physical laws explain activity, but act within a larger theory. Kepler’s laws allow us to predict the motion of planets, but Newton’s (or, Einstein’s) provide the underpinning.
As for the broad-brush smear of public schools, is the method of improving them to start using scientific texts from the sixteenth century? Thomas Jefferson wrote something about the truth being able to stand challenge on its own, but falsehood needing assistance. Cue the crutch-bearers of the Sunflower State.
Bob
Religious intolerance, in this case to science, has over the course of human history crippled and destroyed many an empire. Why do you think the Pentagon does its stem cell research in Scandanavia?
jweidner
I think the best quote I saw on evolution came from an interview with Richard Dawkins in Slate recently. Speaking to the validity of evolution Dawkins related the following:
‘British scientist J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what would constitute evidence against evolution, famously said, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.” They’ve neve been found. Nothing like that has ever been found. Evolution could be disproved by such facts. But all the fossils that have been found are in the right place.’
I just love that – fossil rabbits in the Precambrian…
natasha
“Not going to take the bait on the religious stuff, but unless every textbook I ever laid my hands on were incorrect, it’s not Newton’s theory of gravity. It’s Newton’s law of gravity.”
It’s both, or more accurately, both exist. There are verifiable laws regarding gravity’s effects, like the fact that things fall towards the Earth at a rate of 32 feet per second/ per second.The theory part is about what causes those effects, the mechanics of it, and the answer remains that we still don’t know.
There’s a disconnect between Newton and Einstein, which will probably win a handful of bright people a Nobel someday when they bridge it. Parts of Newton’s and Einstein’s theories may be proved wrong, in fact almost certainly will, but objects will still fall toward the Earth at the same rate, and energy will still equal mass times the speed of light squared.
RSA
Dawkins’s interview was in Salon, I think. I liked the fossil rabbits comment as well; my first reaction was, “Those rabbits would have been dynamite!”
neologic
THEORY AND LAW
JOHN THEY ARE NOT RELATED AND ONE DOES NOT FOLLOW THE OTHER- IN SCIENCE, THEORY IS THE “HIGHEST” LEVEL THAT CAN BE REACHED- LAWS DESCRIBE CONCRETE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PHYSICAL PARAMETERS, AND A THEORY IS USED TO EXPLAIN THE LAW
Brian
How about we cut a deal? They can have their madrasses and teach whatever they want. The earth is flat and rests on the back of a giant turtle. Whatever.
In exchange they have to forfeit all technology based on modern science. No vaccines. No antibiotics. Live like the Amish.
A few generations and we’ll be on the way to being rid of our fundy problem as they drop dead of disease like it was the Dark Ages to which they so long to return.
George
Comparative religion classes in high school: wonderful idea. Cover as many of the world’s religions as possible, including those of Asia, those of the native peoples of the Americas, Australia, etc., the various forms of paganism (reverence for nature), and so on.
Let’s also have a class on “methods of inquiry,” which describes the means of search for truth in all of the significant human endeavors: science (hypothesize, test empirically, publish, refine), religion (prayer and meditation, study of scriptures, good works), athletics (systematic training and discipline of body and mind in the quest for excellence), the arts / literature / music (art/music/literary history studies, introspection and inspiration, peer influences), the law (logical arguement, evidence, precedent, judicial review), and so on. The common denominator being that each discipline has its own methodological skill-set and tool-set, and although they may inform each other and cross-pollinate, they are neither fully interchangeable nor mutually reducible.
The antidote to obscurantism is an increase of the scope of knowledge.
Religious people of good will and good faith, will welcome such things. Religious extremists, who are motivated essentially by will-to-power, will go ballistic. Speaking of sorting the sheep from the goats!
John Cole
Brian- No one should have to live with the results of their attacks on science, which is part of why I am so vocal about it.
Neologic- I don’t think I have misstated anything.
Dave Ruddell
Actually, gravity is a good counter-example against creationists. Just ask them “How does gravity work?” You see, the scientific community can’t tell you, and yet, if I hold a pencil at eye level and let it go, it unfailingly falls to the ground.
Jay
I gave up religion a long time ago when I found out the infallible Popes forced Gallileo to accept the Sun revolved around the Earth. Scientific truth should not be a matter of political convenience to Christian Fascists.
Jeff
Dude, face the harsh fact: U R a Democrat. I mean, by comparison with the Republican Party as it exists today.
Birkel
Who are these Christian Fascists? (Capital letters and all so I know it must be true.)
The history of fascists is one of death and destruction. I don’t see those outcomes coming from modern day American Christians who have every bit as much right to participate fully in American political life as anybody else.
Clearly they’re silly for believing in the purple dragon from the candy planet but no more so than the people who believe communism could work if only the right people try it.
I’d say name calling was bad for the soul if I believed in that sort of thing. Instead I’ll tell you it doesn’t help your point.
Slartibartfast
Just a quick note; I know that I beat this drum all the time. BUT:
Gravity is a law, to be certain. Gravity is eminently testable, and has been tested for a long period of time. However, no one really understands how gravity works. The idea that other scientific theories have to be as well-understood as gravity is ignorant of both how little we know about gravity, and of how relatively complex the phenomenon of species evolution is compared with gravity.
Shorter me: we know less about gravity than you’d like to, but we can still predict its behavior. Evolution is much more complicated, but it’s still falsifiable. Which is more than one can say for ID. In fact, ID supposes intelligent design, and I believe Steven denBeste has pointed out that in some cases the design is…rather subotimal.
AlanDownUnder
I’m a faith-based rocket scientist. In honor of the brave souls in Kansas fighting the good fight, I’m offering them all free tickets for my first moon trip.
Brian Boru
The problem a lot of people, especially in the south, is actually two problems: 1) they don’t want to have a common ancestor with an ape and 2) they REALLY, REALLY don’t want all modern humans to have come out of Africa.
Desert Rat
Superb post, John. Good to see I can agree with conservatives on at least one issue. :)
MYOB
The problem people of deep religious faith have with evolution is the needs it must fill in thier minds.
When they think about evolution they see the holes, without realizing they are merely holes, not cracks. That these holes were once many and have since dwindled down to near nothing as more and more scientists since Darwins time have studied the theory and filled in the gaps with their own experiences and knowledge which Darwin lacked.
But they still see holes.
But holes mean that evolution cant answer everything.
But religion does.
They can hold up a bible and see how it holds the answers to all their questions in a nice, neat, and concise manner that makes for good television should someone, someday, clone Cecil B. Demille from his rotting corpse. Evolution has answers too complex for their mind to accept. But the bible doesn’t. It answers all their questions, even though they often fail to ask the right questions such as those Darrow asks which point out the massive number of flaws in both the book of geneis and so many others in the bible.
These people need their crutch. Something that helps them sleep at night when they wonder if after death they will simply not exist. How can they live with this? Knowing that they will never see their friends and loved ones ever again? Though thee is no proof of an afterlife there is really none to suggest the contrary either. Just no evidence to support the judeo-christian ideal of an afterlife. But the bible is simple and easy to understand. All they have to do is believe and follow, and they will receive eternal life and happiness.
Boy what a bargain!
MYOB’
.
RW
Don’t forget that they idiotically generalize in a sophmoric fashion.
Deckko
Thanks for he solid post John.
Jimi
The fact of evolution is that all living things on earthe are related. The theories of evolution, including Darwinism, are attempts to explain that relatedness. The fact of lift is soemthing we experience every time you get on a plane, or sport an umbrella on a windy day. There are at least 2 theories of lift: the Bernoullian, which explains it by air pressure differentials, and the Newtonian, which explains lift as a result of downward forces acting on an airfoil. There are people who don’t believe in lift even though they experience it.
Orac
As a conservative, I’ve never understood why these religious fundamentalists have to try to force others to learn what are in essence their religious beliefs disguised as “science.” Worse, I’ve never understood why fellow conservatives who are not so fundamentalist-inclined keep quiet in the face of these attacks on science. Intelligent design is not a theory as science defines theories. It makes no testable hypotheses, explains no natural observations other than “God did it”; and is not falsifiable. I have no problem with teaching ID as philosophy or religion, but trying to teach it as science is a travesty and can only hurt the already lousy state of science education in this country.
Worse, they disingenuously try to use disagreements between scientists on the mechanism that drives evolution to imply that the fact that evolution occurs is somehow disputed. It is indeed shameful that, 80 years after the Scopes Trial, this is still even a controversy.
Prom-e-theus
Just as Newton, while searching for the mind of G*d, began the destruction of the belief in heaven above, that place where G*d reigns supreme and all good Christians go after they die,(you use to just look up in the night sky and there it was for all to behold),ID entrepeneurs will do the same, because after all what they really purposes is that their Designer is nothing other than a scientist.The practice of science is not under threat in this case, what is most disturbing however is that Christianity will be further weakened and left even more anemic than before. By looking for proof in support of the religion and with vanity that parallels Newton’s they will in fact annihilate the one thing that is necessary, an unadulerated belief in G*d. Christians Beware!!!.
Gus diZerega
Birkel asks whether it is appropriate to name the folks being slammed here “Christian Fascists” because they haven’t killed anyone yet. Alas, I think it is. The key word is “yet” and the key question is “Why not yet?”
They believe there is only one source of truth. They believe those who do not believe their views will suffer for eternity. They believe that it is important to save as many as possible, which has as a logical correlation, to prevent error being spread that might cause people to lose their immortal souls.
What prevents them from acting on the logical requirement to suppress error is not their commitment to democracy but simple lack of opportunity. We can be grateful to our Founders for this lack of opportunity. And similarly grateful for all Americans of whatever belief who have honored their insight on the basic requirements for internal peace.
Europe suffered literally millions of deaths in religious wars between Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists, along with smaller groups and sects. One third of Germany was killed, so was about a third of what is now the Czech Republic. And many more in other lands. The violence was enough to turn Poland from Protestant to Catholic. All this death and destruction was in a population far smaller than today’s. AS A PERCENTAGE KILLED, I would suspect more Europeans were slaughtered by Christians in the name of Christianity than were Russians by Stalin, Chinese by Mao, or Europeans by Hitler.
The reaction to these excesses was the Enlightenment.
Many of the people doing the killing were sincere believers who doubtless were fine folk within their own communities. The difference between them and the religious right today is primarily opportunity, not that today’s religious extremists are any more decent, civilized, or Christian than their bloody handed ancestors.
DensityDuck
So nice to see all these tolerant open-minded people acting the same way that “religious” “conservatives” do when discussing homosexuality.
Garbage like this is the main reason why conservatives don’t band together with “skeptics”–because we are well aware that should we say “yes, I go to church” or “I’m not ready to burn the Bible”, we’ll be tossed into the same pit as people who think God made the world six thousand years ago.
From the looks of things, the skeptical attitude is “you’re either with us, or you’re with the creationists”.
But hey, go back to your strawmen! Tweny-Minute Hates are always fun.
Orac
Oh, please, give me a break. It is not “intolerant” to point out that intelligent design is not science and should not be taught as science. It is not “intolerant” not to want religion taught falsely as “science.”
TheQuestioner
The feeble answer I have heard from a creationist when presented with the carbon dating issue was this: “If god created the world, which he did, what makes you think he wouldn’t create something that *appears* to be millions of years old”. I’ll give him credit for a creative answer at least.
JG
‘”If god created the world, which he did, what makes you think he wouldn’t create something that *appears* to be millions of years old”. ‘
Exactly. And God put dinosaurs fossils in the ground to test our faith. LOL
RW
Orac,
Perhaps you haven’t read the same comments as the rest of us. If you don’t see any hatred spewed forth from John’s new audience, your blinders are in overdrive.
Kimmitt
Okay, hang on.
There’s no such thing as a “Law.” Newton’s “Law of Gravity” is demonstrably false — or, at least, is demonstrably an approximation. A “Law” is a theory which is relatively simple and which has been thoroughly and massively tested, such that it underlies other theories.
We don’t have new “Laws” any more, because scientists these days don’t believe in this clockwork universe claptrap, so the idea of “Laws” has become kind of absurd and faintly embarassing.
If there were a “Law” of biology, it would probably be the cell theory of the organism, but even that has its exceptions (e.g. prions).
Slartibartfast
And, more recently, the Soviet Union and China suffered literally tens of millions of deaths in pogroms. Now, one could blame secularism for this, but that would make one rather an ass for doing so.
Just out of curiosity, Kimmitt, in what way are you thinking of the law of gravity as “demonstrably false”? I can think of a few ways that are sort of locally inconsistent with the strict interpretation, but Newton was well aware of those.
Dave W
I’m all for teaching ID as long as they give space aliens the same emphasis as they would of biblicial creationism. There are billions and billions of stars and one of those stars might have a planet with some super smart beings who planted earth with thier seed, you never now. It’s just all so complicated so there must be some alien influence. It could happen right?
Slartibartfast
Oh, and Kimmitt, about there being no such thing as a “Law”, better tell the rest of the world that these don’t exist:
1) First and second Laws of Thermodynamics
2) Newton’s Laws of motion and gravity, Kepler’s Laws
3) Ohm’s Law; Kirchoff’s voltage and current Laws.
4) Biot-Savart Law, Ampere’s Law, Coulomb’s Law.
5) Boyle’s Law.
6) Assorted laws of conservation of mass, energy, charge, linear and angular momentum, baryon number, etc.
There are a lot more. Clearly, there are in fact physical laws. “Law”, in this context, might not mean what you want it to, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any.
Brian C.B.
If the “design” is supposed to be “intelligent,” how come you’re supposed to call a doctor if your erection lasts more than four hours, huh?
Anyway, the last Pope, John Paul II, no friend of liberal interpretations of anything, ginned up from the Doctrine and Faith Department a statement of his church’s view on evolution and Christianity. Essentially, it was, “No conflict.” The conflict isn’t between the mainstream of Christian thought and biology, it’s between the fundamentalist, literalist stream and evolutionary science. This literalist stream has been around for a minority of the time that Christianity has itself existed–perhaps 150 years.
James
RW, I don’t think “hatred” is quite the right word. Contempt is better. And I’ll stand by it. I rightly have contempt for the anti-intellectual, intractably ignorant who attempt to foist their religious views on the American public under the guise of “science” or “balance”.
If you don’t enjoy being the subject of ridicule, stop doing ridiculous things.
And this quote from Richard Dawkins is priceless:
[Interviewr]: “Still, so many people resist believing in evolution. Where does the resistance come from?”
[Dawkins]: “It comes, I’m sorry to say, from religion. And from bad religion. You won’t find any opposition to the idea of evolution among sophisticated, educated theologians. It comes from an exceedingly retarded, primitive version of religion, which unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the United States. Not in Europe, not in Britain, but in the United States.”
dhw
On the theory of gravity:
It is, in fact, Newton’s Theory of Gravitation. This theory states (roughly): Newton’s Law of Gravitation accurately describes the universe. Newton’s Law of Gravitation is (if memory serves) F = Gm1m2/d^2 where F is the force between two objects of mass m1 and m2, d is the distance between them, and G is the universal gravitational constant.
Now, this theory is wrong. This is what the precession of Mercury tells us. Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation, which says that the universe is described by Einstein’s field equations (which are, um, complicated) is also wrong. Einstein’s equations DO predict the above-mentioned irregularity in Mercury’s orbit, but they demonstrably fail when the objects we are observing are too small, or have too high an angular velocity.
None of this, however, makes these theories useless: Newton’s for baseball, and Einstein’s for the Global Positioning System (amongst other things). Furthermore, both have (within their domains of applicablility) explanatory power that allows us to understand the world, and suggests to us ways to improve our future scientific theories of Gravitation.
Likewise the Theory of Evolution. It’s useful (antibiotics, farm animal breeding, tons of other stuff), it has explanatory power, and (most importantly) it suggests new ways of understanding the world. ID, Creationism, etc. completely fail to have any of these characteristics. This is fine for religion, but destructive for science. Teaching these ‘theories’ as scientific is detrimental to our scientific apparatus, which has been demonstrated to be the most effective method of understanding and thus controlling the world. This is bad because our society is in competition with others (China, et al) who will not hesitate to use science to kick our asses.
–dhw
dhw
For slartibartfast:
None of the laws that you quoted are known to be universally true, and most of them are known to be false in certain circumstances. This is fine, when you understand that law doesn’t mean “is always true” (which anyone with even rudimentary scientific training would tell you), but the general public hears law and thinks that we have arrived at some sort of eternal Truth or something.
–dhw
Halffasthero
Holy Cow! Posts all over the place on this subject. Looks like a hotbutton from Hell! What is interesting is that a lot of people don’t disagree as much on what is going on as much as the semantics of each others argument. Kimmits point that the “Laws” are inaccurate is technically correct but they are still useful and applicable. Just not applicable in all circumstances. So both he and Slartibartfast are correct but are arguing over each other’s details. Interesting but entirely too much detail. Not that I claim to be above trying to win points myself when I get into an argument.
In any case, I still stand by the fact that Kansas is embarrassing themselves (and us) with this science-be-damned discussion that everyone worldwide is witnessing.
Anderson
May I inject a request amongst all these comments?
As a dyed-in-the-wool Darwinist, one thing that bugs me is that I can’t find a good single-volume pop account of evolution that goes into any depth. Dawkins has written some good polemics; the Modern Library came out with a nice little book that’s as much sociology as science; Dennett’s “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” is of course philosophy. Ernst Mayr’s “What Is Evolution?” assumes too much knowledge of biology in general (it cries out for a revision by someone).
Anyone got a good “this is evolution & how it works” account? Not Darwin btw, Origin is good but I want something that takes the evolutionary synthesis into account.
Kimmitt
dhw has said anything I would have said in response. The universe is the universe. Any model we use to describe its behavior, however accurate, is human artifact.
RW
Whatever makes you sleep better, I supposed. I realized long ago that people seldom see themselves as they truly are.
Something I consider every time the Democrats choose Ted Kennedy to speak for them.
JWeidner
“I realized long ago that people seldom see themselves as they truly are.”
An accurate sentiment that can be applied to many people on both sides of the aisle.
rap
Much of the original opposition to evolution by Christians was because the Christians were then the “progressives”. The textbook that was the basis of the Scopes Monkey Trial was very strong on “linear evolution”, which has long since been disproven. The book itself made a strong evolutionary case concerning the advancement from the low apes, through the higher apes, then progressively to the black Africans, the Oriental, and finally, as the most advanced, the white Europeans.
Many diseases, as well as laziness and other “ailments” were all attributed to evolutionary biology. Consequently, this was a sound scientific and rational basis for banning interracial marriage (to avoid diluting the superior white race). In Europe there was even a strong movement toward eugenics among the best and brightest rational secular thinkers. Christians were among the vanguard in fighting against the entrenchment of these ideas.
The battle lines moved again during the sixties and seventies when the teaching of evolution become much more integrated in the biology curricula around the country. Of course there were some strict creationists (the bible says the world is 6600 years old) that raised knee-jerk objections to every aspect of evolution. However, once again rational scientific Christians had a legitimate beef (IMHO) with some of the teaching of evolution. During this era Christianity was being largely pushed out of the public square in many different areas. Some writings of the time used evolution to “prove” that God does not exist. In my opinion, this era birthed the notion that all Christians are anti-intellectuals and not “reality-based” people. [It appears that some people in this thread also adhere to this view.]
I am a Christian living in the heart of the bible-belt (Kansas), but I run an oil exploration company and studied evolution under Stephen J. Gould at Harvard. I believe God created the universe, but it does not impact my daily scientific work as a petroleum geologist.
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory because it is non-falsifiable. It should not be included in the science curricula. However, the existence of a supreme being is likewise non-falsifiable by the scientific method. I do not understand the contempt many “liberal” intellectuals have for Christians as unthinking, irrational people. Since there is no verifiable “proof” that there is no God, I do not understand how a liberal thinker could not grant that my viewpoint could be equally valid to their own.
It seems to me that Mr. Cole’s discussion threads tend to run fairly secular. I apologize for the long post, but this topic is too complex for “sound-bites”. I just wanted to throw in my preferred outcome from my viewpoint as both a Christian and someone that makes their daily living as a scientist.
IMHO, if the evolution discussion in 9th grade biology class turns to the question of a deity, then I would like the science teacher to have the ability to say that the scientific theory of evolution proves nothing and says nothing about the presence or absence of a supreme being. These are questions for a religion or philosophy class and the answers to these questions cannot be determined via the scientific method.
John Cole
Excellent comment, rap.
I don’t think all Christians are anti-intellectual, but I do think including Intelligent Design in science classes is both anti-intellectual and anti-science.
I have no problem with valid criticisms of evolutionary theory, but pretending ID and Creaitonism provide those criticisms is, too use a phrase that would be understood in Kansas, hogwash.
rap
I agree Mr. Cole, with your statement that creationism is both anti-intellectual and anti-science. However, some teaching of evolution also becomes anti-intellectual and anti-science when it becomes dogmatic for idealogical reasons and people attempt to use evolutionary biology to explain things far beyond its purview.
I do not agree with your statement about ID. In fact, your second statement, about ID providing only hogwash criticisms of evolutionary theory, is non-sensical to my understanding of intelligent design theory. [However, I suspect the definition of ID theory is becoming increasingly fuzzy.)
My understanding of ID theory is that the sheer complexity of the biosphere, the inter-woven relationships between various species, the ability of life to fill any ecological niche, is analogous to the mechanism of a watch where all the parts must work in perfect synchronicity or the watch does not function. The ID theorists then argue that our watch (life on earth) is clearly functioning. Therefore, the evidence of a “watch” necessarily proves there is a watch-maker.
This theory is not anti-intellectual, it has an intellectual basis. What needs to be remembered by both sides is that ID is not a scientific theory, but rather a philosophical theory. As such, it is not anti-science, but is non-science.
You are correct that ID theory makes no valid criticisms of evolutionary theory. However, evolutionary theory does not (and cannot) prove or disprove ID theory.
I personally believe in a “watchmaker”. However, I really can’t see any utility in intelligent design as a philosophical theory. It is non-falsifiable by scientific theory, and therefore can never “prove” there is a creator.
I suspect most of your readers don’t give a rat’s ass what I think. However, on topics of heated debate, I enjoy reading points of view far from my own. Therefore, I add one final anecdote — don’t believe everything you read about “flyover” country. I taught a brief section on fossils to the 2nd graders at the request of the local Catholic school — and they knew I was a (gasp!) Presbyterian. They also asked me to teach a section on “geologic time” to the 8th grade science class. I was unable to teach this module, but I would have been interested to see if I stepped on any toes.
“Science without religion is lame, but religion without science is blind.”
Albert Einstein
Thank you for your band-width, and thank you for all of the posters who comment without the snark. (And thank you for those who post snarky comments as long as they also bring some further enlightenment or humor to the discussion.)
RW
Since it had no qualifiers, I see why no person would take the original comment in any other way.
Then again, since this site is now officially a broken record, I can see how people can get confused.
Or bored.
Slartibartfast
As far as I’m aware, the precession of Mercury doesn’t in any way negate that the gravitational force is what Newton’s equations predict. If you know otherwise, please let me know, and I’ll have learned something today.
Kimmitt, the universe is the universe is precisely why they’re called laws. Because they’re derived from observed phenomena rather than first principles. Them being manmade is irrelevant. I don’t think anyone who knows what they’re talking about imagines that there was some law of gravity lying about, waiting for someone to notice it. Of course they’re manmade.
Kimmitt
As far as I’m aware, the precession of Mercury doesn’t in any way negate that the gravitational force is what Newton’s equations predict.
I am sorry to contradict you, but it does, because Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation states:
Every object in the Universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects.
If one were to use this “Law” to attempt to predict Mercury’s orbit, one would get the wrong result. One has to use General Relativity to accurately predict Mercury’s orbit.
Essentially, Newton predicted a static space through which gravity propagated (the ether). This prediction is false; spacetime is warped by the presence of the particles within it, which leads to errors when using Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation on very large or very dense objects.
This is not to say that the “Law” is useless — the Cassini spacecraft’s successful approach is thorough disproof of that. But the promotion of a “theory” to a “Law” is a human process, not a physical one, and it is, like all human processes, prone to error. It is this error-prone nature which has pushed scientists to stop bothering with this “Law” business and stick to “well-supported theory.”
Slartibartfast
I hate to correct you in the middle of your correcting me, but “force” doesn’t integrate to velocity. Newton’s spacetime ideas have nothing at all to do with the applicability of the law of gravity.
And, on the contrary, the Law of Gravity ain’t a theory. Newton had no idea how gravity worked, just that it did.
Slartibartfast
In other words (I was kind of in a hurry in that last response), the Law of Gravity predicts a force. That force results in an acceleration. If it weren’t for relativity, that force would result in an acceleration that would be frame-independent. In other words, relativity doesn’t contradict the Law of gravity (at least, not in this particular case) because the force of gravity results in an acceleration that’s consistent with the Law of gravity, but only in the frame of the observer, and the observer has to be in the moving frame.
I could be full of crap, but what you’ve said so far isn’t indicative of that.
Kimmitt
the Law of Gravity predicts a force. That force results in an acceleration.
Er, no — the Law of Gravity predicts a force and then assigns properties to it. That’s Newton’s Law of Gravity. If you are trying to define Gravity down to “Newton predicted that items with mass will exert some kind of force on each other in some fashion,” then you are doing Isaac Newton’s spectacular insight a grave disservice. It was the universality of the force, combined with the ease of predicting its magnitude and direction, which made his discovery momentous.
If you measure Mercury’s velocity, then calculate the force exerted on Mercury based on Newton’s Law of Gravity, you will get the wrong answer — you will get the answer that Mercury is not in a stable orbit. You need the insights provided by General Relativity to successfully predict that Mercury’s orbit is stable.
Kimmitt
And all of this puts aside the fact that Newton’s Law of Gravity completely fails to predict Event Horizons and is, in fact, not terribly compatible with them.
Slartibartfast
What properties? Force is a vector; vector properties are magnitude and direction. Are you claiming that the Law of Gravity assigns some other properties to force, other than basic vector properties?
You’re misunderstanding me, Kimmitt; I never did any such thing.
Yes…
You’re already headed down the wrong path…
Of course you will, because you’re assuming Newtonian laws of motion. It doesn’t matter what kind of force is being exerted; if you’ve got (for example) a rocket having 1 kN of thrust, the acceleration recorded by a stationary observer due to that thrust will be different at if it’s travelling at 99% c than if it’s travelling at .01% c. The acceleration recorded by an observer on the rocket will be consistent with 1 kN thrust. Likewise, the acceleration of Mercury as calculated by an observer on Mercury will be consistent with Newton’s Law of Gravity, but an external observer will get a different answer.
By the way, Newton’s laws of motion are what you ought to have picked for laws that have been proven inaccurate. Although it’d be more precise to say they’ve been generalized on, not contradicted.
Again, there may be in fact something else going on with Mercury that I don’t understand, but your “correction” is incorrect.
Slartibartfast
You’re really going to have to explain yourself on this. This is tantamount to saying that Ohm’s Law fails to predict electromagnetic radiation: true, but irrelevant. AFAIK, Newton’s Law of Gravity works just fine for singularities. The laws of Motion don’t work close to the singularity, but I think I covered that previously.
CJ
Rap,
“Since there is no verifiable “proof” that there is no God, I do not understand how a liberal thinker could not grant that my viewpoint could be equally valid to their own.”
So, since one can’t prove the absence of something (for which there is no verifiable evidence of it’s existence) – a negative, we must except that the existence or nonexistence are equal likelihoods?
Doesn’t follow.
Kimmitt
Newton’s Law of Gravity works just fine for singularities.
How so? Newton’s Law of Gravity — granted, in the context of Newton’s other Laws of Motion — very specifically fails to predict that there is a limit to how fast one can go in relation to another object. It is this failure which causes the inaccuracies which Special and General Relativity clear up.
Inherent to the Law of Gravity is universality; that’s the point. If what you’re saying is that Newton’s Law of Gravity works when you wrap Relativity around it . . . that’s true, but it’s irrelevant to someone who is trying to predict Mercury’s orbit without access to the tools of Relativity. The universality and non-relativity of the Law of Gravity is inherent to its formulation.
Slartibartfast
Kimmitt, the law of gravity is not the same as the laws of motion. The law of gravity merely dictates the force, magnitude and direction, that one mass exerts on another mass. Any observed acceleration discrepancy due to relativistic effects is not a condemnation of the law of gravity. And, in fact, the whole of the discrepancy between predicted motion and observed motion can be explained by general relativity. Finally, that discrepancy would be exactly duplicated if the force of gravity were somehow removed and replaced by a rocket engine having the same force as the gravitational attraction predicted by Newton’s equation.
No, I’m saying that relativity is irrelevant to the law of gravity.
Slartibartfast
Kimmitt, the law of gravity is not the same as the laws of motion. The law of gravity merely dictates the force, magnitude and direction, that one mass exerts on another mass. Any observed acceleration discrepancy due to relativistic effects is not a condemnation of the law of gravity. And, in fact, the whole of the discrepancy between predicted motion and observed motion can be explained by general relativity. Finally, that discrepancy would be exactly duplicated if the force of gravity were somehow removed and replaced by a rocket engine having the same force as the gravitational attraction predicted by Newton’s equation.
No, I’m saying that relativity is irrelevant to the law of gravity.
Kimmitt
This is the part I think we disagree on:
The universality and non-relativity of the Law of Gravity is inherent to its formulation.
I’m pretty sure we’re going to have to call this one on account of I think I’m right and you think you’re right, and we’re splitting a pretty fine hair.
Slartibartfast
Maybe, Kimmitt. But here’s the thing: general relativity does the same thing to any applied force, not just gravity.
And, I think more to the point, we’re going to have to call this one on account of neither of us is qualified to have this discussion. I don’t actually think much of what I said above would turn out to be strictly accurate, from a physics point of view, because my understanding of physics at this level is not all that great. It’d be nice to have someone chime in who knows.
From my understanding, though, F=ma continues to hold under perhaps all conditions, provided that a is assessed in the accelerating frame of reference.