Sweet Home, Alabama, where skies are blue, and some yokel moron named Roy Moore is actually campaigning against a guy by "accusing" him of believing in evolution, and worse, advocated teaching it to children. THE HUMANITY!!!!.
You know what would make a lot more sense? Campaigning against a guy because he does not accept evolution as the most likely explanation for our existence.
Pointing at someone as in the final scene in Julius Caesar and shouting "I accuse you of believing in evolution" ought to cause the audience to look at the accuser like a freak. I'm guessing that's not the case here (except for me and hopefully a few of my readers).
If Roy wants to reject science (which provides us with a tested and supported theory of human evolution) and instead cling to a religious myth (meaning simply that it is unproven) to explain human existence, that's his prerogative. Just like he can choose to believe in little green men, shadow governments, immaculate conception, that President Obama was not born in the US, and that the earth is flat. He has every right to cling to those beliefs despite the factual evidence to the contrary. It's still a free country.
But here is where we diverge: his belief in religious narrative to explain human existence is NOT science. It is theology. And NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO TEACH A PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS THEOLOGY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. So that guy who advocated teaching evolution in schools, he's right there with modern 20th century thinking while his nutty opponent, Judge Roy Moore, would have locked Charles Darwin in prison.
Further, telling children to reject science and instead cling to de-bunked mythological explanations is a form of child abuse, IMHO. To quote a good friend of mine who is a teacher, do you want everyone to think your kids are stupid?
So, I suggest Roy (at home) tags his little Design caveat on evolution so his kids can at least be conversant about the topic. At least that allows a little bit of science to seep through. (Though let me be clear, the Design mumbo-jumbo is not science either.)
Finally, let me say this to those of you who may be shocked or offended by my pro-science, anti-religion diatribe: If there is a conflict between science and religion, science will ALWAYS win. It always has. Check your history. And it will continue to win because science is based on information, testing, observation, facts. Religion is based on none of those things. Religion is based on faith, believing things without evidence. So if you cannot conform your religious beliefs with advances in science, you are doomed to choose.
What's more, choosing to reject demonstrated scientific principles in order to cling to religious dogma is a form of delusion that gives us people like Roy Moore, the Champion of Myth and the Enemy of Science.
OMG! Your blogs get funnier and funnier! Please keep typing... You make me laugh after a long day at work:)
ReplyDeleteCommenting on my own blog seems, well, weird. But I just realized: Roy looks a little like the Geico cavemen. A little missing linky.
ReplyDeleteI hesitated to start one this but....
ReplyDeleteI don't know about you, Heather, but I'm a scientist. No really--for those who don't know me, I have a PhD and everything :). I like to know what scientific discovery has shown us, and I don't want others ignorant of the evidence. I greatly value science for what it truly is.
However, you're mindless name-calling and over confidence in your own understanding is really annoying.
Do you know how many very learned, very intelligent people I've known who have serious questions about he scientific evidence used to claim that evolution ALONE brought about humanity? Have you even seriously looked into the most salient arguments on the matter?
Now I KNOW that there are plenty of poorly constructed arguments out there from non-scientists trying to disprove evolution or prove various forms of creationism, and I hate to see them because they make easy straw-man targets for those with anti-religious sentiments. But there are also plenty of problems within the "evolution only" model--even those recognized by evolutionist themselves.
One problem I have with it is that of time-line. Even if you take all the evidence at face value for how long everything has existed, from everything I've read, the probabilities don't add up to produce the complexity of animals we see--especially humanity.
On a side note: It is also possible that (given aspects of relativity and quantum mechanics) the "myth" you speak of is, in fact, an accurate picture of how we came to be--just not one we can easily interpret for scientific understanding.
(Continued...)
(continued...)
ReplyDeleteFinally, I have a lot of thoughts on the whole philosophy of science and what it is and is not, but let me share just a few: At its core, science uses observed evidence to model the patterns we find in our experiences and tests those models to discard or refine them. But GOOD science should never put faith in the model as being an absolute truth! We've too often had to radically change models in the past, and for a TRUE scientist, the model should be only a means to an end--not a matter of absolute believe. The REAL power of science is the power to USE a model to make predictions that are, in the end, beneficial. If I cannot do that with a scientific model, then science ceases being a truly useful endeavor and becomes a kind of academic faith. That's so UN-scientific and so sad as well.
Evolution is a model that seems to fit much of the evidence we have observed. However, if the model attempts to explain all the evidence in-and-of itself, then in its current state, it fails. Perhaps the model is close and just needs the proper tweaking. Perhaps our understanding of the evidence is slightly flawed, and when we discover the flaw, the model will fit. Or, perhaps the model is just a weak approximation of reality. Perhaps we will need to radically alter or even abandon the current model for a very different one before we will be able to fully fit all the observed evidence. A good scientist should not be surprised at any of these outcomes and should not CARE which outcome produces the best model. The utility of the model is all that matters, not its absolute truth. After all, science can never prove the absolute truth of its models and it has no need to do so to be useful. THAT is what makes it so powerful!
-Jason
Jason,
ReplyDeleteAs a scientist, you probably understand that unanswered questions require observation, investigation and testing. Science does not, however, resort to myth and superstition to explain the unexplained.
As to my "mindless name calling," suffice to say, I do have a mind, a very high functioning mind, and I can call Roy Moore names in MY BLOG if I want to. Moreover, the names I called him, "Champion of Myth" and "Enemy of Science," I think are quite creative and ingenious, in addition to being completely appropriate.
Mindless name calling would have been "stupid, ignorant, pandering, moron." But I did not go there.
As to your philosophy of science, sounds fine to me. So far, no one has come up with a better evolutionary (or other-named) model than the one we have. Until we do, the widely supported and accepted theory of evolution based on natural selection is the best scientific explanation.
Heather,
ReplyDeleteOkay, it was late, so forgive the "mindless name-calling" comment. However, I am also free to have my own opinions bout YOUR BLOG, am I not? :)
One last thing about the theory of evolution. As I see it, it does a good job of modeling much of the diversity we see, but falls pretty short (due to time-line considerations, for example) in explaining the development of all species. Evolution (change in response to environment) has been observed. Genetics are a vital part of our understanding of biology, etc. These concepts should be taught and understood. However, especially because the model falls short in this matter, there is no need (or good scientific basis) for claiming that the model is the right explanation for how all life came from nothing more than chance accident.
That, to me, is where the science ends and the faith-based (though "secular") beliefs begin.
By the way, I've come full circle on the whole "what is science" concept. I used to think it was totally wrong to see science is just "modeling"--science was about discovering how things REALLY worked. My studies in particle physics have lead me to see that as a very unscientific idea.
NOW, that idealistic concept of science can motivate to a lot of creative thinking and advancement, but in the end, I believe it does a disservice if truly taken seriously. It causes science to become a faith. One can never truly know whether a future discovery will lead to drastic changes in our current scientific theories and models. We can never know if they are really "true," and if science is going to be as strong/logical as it can be, it shouldn't CARE if theories and models are actually true. Science should only care that the model can accurately describe the evidence and make useful predictions. Occum's Razor, for example, is about picking the simpler model if more than one model can explain the evidence to the same degree. It doesn't prove which model is true, just which is more practical.
OKay, I'll shut up.
-Jason