Project Steve

[alias_sqbr]

1000 scientists called Steve affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. EDIT via Hoyden about Town

I will now rant because I am feeling ranty.

1) There are times when an non-expert in a given subject disagrees with an expert, and the non-expert is right. Sometimes even the consensus of experts is wrong. But if you can't find any expert who agrees with you? You are almost certainly wrong on such a deep level there's no chance you could be right.

Any time creationists trot out "scientists" who favour creationism, their background is in mechanical engineering or some such. Having done a Phd in science, there is such a huge gap in understanding between people who have a Phd in that subject and those who don't (whether or not they're an expert in something else) that the latter are almost never in a position to argue with them.

2) I do not have a Phd or any tertiary training in biology. I find the subject interesting, but don't understand it very deeply. I think people like me should avoid biological arguments about creationism, we'll just make mistakes and bring the side down. It also plays into the idea that science is a democracy and every opinion is equal. My response to such arguments is to say "Find me a convincing argument by a creationist with a Phd in biology and maybe I'll listen".

3) This is not a science vs religion thing. It's a science vs anti-science thing, with religious people on both sides. Heck, there are anti-science atheists (see Soviet Russia) I think atheist organisations should get involved to the extent that it's also a separation-of-church-and-state thing, but the argument should, again, be "Our society trusts the consensus of scientists to decide school curriculum, and scientists say evolution is right", it's not our job to get into the biology of it.

Individual non-bioloigists (atheist or not) who want to take the workload off biologists by helping explain/defend evolution to creationists can do so, but I don't think atheist organisations should encourage it in an official capacity.

EDIT 3b) If your religious faith says that creationism is true, I actually don't have a problem with that. You can believe it, and you can teach it in your churches etc. But the logical response to scientific opinion disagreeing with your faith is to either shrug and say "Well, science changes, you'll realise we're right in the end" or become a scientist and prove them wrong scientifically. It is not to use bad science and pretend it's good science. That does a disservice to both science and religion.

Opinion 3 caused me a certain amount of strife on the Brights forum.

Comments

[seaya.livejournal.com]

How was Soviet Russia anti-science?

[tedprior.livejournal.com]

Because they followed the teachings of Yakov Smirnoff.

[mexicanjewlizrd.livejournal.com]

*snigger*

[alias_sqbr]

I have no reference and might be misremembering, but I'm pretty sure that at some point science which didn't fit the state ideology was rejected.

[arcadiagt5.livejournal.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

Politically correct science...

[alias_sqbr]

That's it!

[capnoblivious.livejournal.com]

I get frustrated with creationists who want "equal time with evolution". Creationism had equal time with creationism. That was the nineteenth century. Things have moved on - may as well not believe in electrons as evolution.

Have you ever seen an electron?

[capnoblivious.livejournal.com]

Conversely, though: there is (I am told by an ex-creationist) a lot of Christian doctrine that hinges on creationism. I don't consider it my role to shake the pillars of anyone's universe - I figure if it's important enough for someone to argue about with me, it's not my place to push them.

[alias_sqbr]

They can believe it all they want, but they have to admit that current scientific evidence is against them. If they're right the tide will turn eventually, but that's no excuse for lying about the evidence we have now. *adds 3b)*

[capnoblivious.livejournal.com]

I'm not responsible for anyone else's morality, either. If someone lies to me, it's not my responsibility to make them admit the truth.

But, you know, I'm probably not going to trust them very much, either.

[warpwind.livejournal.com]

Ugh, I was going to comment saying a few things about "Flood Geology" aka one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard of but I went looking for references to christian geologists who disagree with flood geology and got to annoyed/depressed upon reading the content of a YEC (young earth creationists) "scientific" convention.

Suffice to say they dazzle ordinary people with scientific technobabble that most scientists would dispute (as the YEC ignore anything that they don't like).

[alias_sqbr]

Oh, yes, the geological arguments are so spurious even I can debunk them, with my whole 2 semesters of first year geology. Young earth creationist theories are just laughably absurd.

[warpwind.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, let's ignore the other 8 or so methods of radioisotope dating and focus on the one (C-14) or two (He) that give us the dates that we want. Even then the dates they give are about 6000 years old give or take and only on certain specimens. They are treating outlier results as gospel and ignoring the rest of the data available!

argh need to stop ranting and start working on work stuff

[alias_sqbr]

I understand, once while on holiday I came across some people from the Citizens Electoral Council claiming to be able to square the circle. I stood there and gave them a half hour lecture about Galois Theory :D

[baby-elvis.livejournal.com]

I thought that Young Earth Creationists were some sort of Creationist youth movement when I first read this.

[alias_sqbr]

Heh, me too when I first encountered the term :)

[splintax.livejournal.com]

The problem is simple: there are too many people out there with little to no critical thinking ability.

The solution is to teach people to choose what they believe based on evidence, not based on an authority. (In other words, to teach people to approach all things scientifically.) This is fundamentally at odds with the idea of 'having faith'.

Trying to get people to pay attention to 'experts' is pointless, because you're only getting them to put their faith elsewhere.

That's not to suggest that the opinion of an expert isn't valuable - it is. But you should always think critically about anything anybody says, expert or not, and evaluate the merits of their arguments based on the evidence available. "Believing in evolution" because x% of biology PhDs (or other "experts in the field") do is no better than believing in creationism because that's what it says in your religious text of choice.

[alias_sqbr]

That's not practical though: there are just too many things to understand in the world, and you can't be an expert on all of them, or even most of them. Evolution is kind of a bad example because it's SO OBVIOUS but I am, for example, happy to take Quantum Mechanics on faith despite having only the vaguest understanding as to why it's true. If I was offered Newton's laws of motion and Einstein's laws and asked to choose, without paying attention to which was favoured by the scientific orthodoxy, I'd choose Newton's, they satisfy Occam's razor and match everything I have every experienced or am likely to experience.

I mean faith in experts shouldn't be absolute, they are sometimes wrong, and when experts disagree you have to decide for yourself. But in a case like evolution where all the experts agree I'm not going to argue without a very good reason.

[splintax.livejournal.com]

I guess I made it sound like it's wrong to have faith in anything. That wasn't my intention. It's perfectly okay to have faith in something as long as you don't wilfully ignore the evidence.

So it's okay for you to take quantum mechanics on faith - as long as you don't try to argue whether or not it accurately describes the way the universe works. And if you want to argue that the laws of motion from classical mechanics are correct, then you must understand the evidence that caused us to revise those laws in the first place.

The question is "why are humans here?" Creationists choose to put faith in religious texts which say that we're here because an omnipotent being put us here. Some people put faith in scientists who say that we're here because we evolved from monkeys (to simplify it somewhat). None of these people can say they are informed on the subject, and there's nothing wrong with that.

However, some creationists choose to argue with those who have considered the evidence and choose to believe in evolution because they think it fits the evidence better (ie. most scientists), even though those creationists refuse to consider the same evidence. That's what's wrong - not accepting something on faith, but arguing with those who are going on more than just faith.

[alias_sqbr]

That's what's wrong - not accepting something on faith, but arguing with those who are going on more than just faith.

Well, you can as long as you admit that you're arguing from a position of faith ie a creationist christian trying to convince a scientist christian by appealing to their shared faith in the existence of God and the truth of the Bible. Of course if the person you're arguing with doesn't share your faith then you're reduced to "If you realised God existed you'd realise I'm right!"

But when they (a) pretend to be arguing based on scientific evidence or (b) Admit it's based on faith but think public policy should be based on faith, then I get narky.

[vegetus.livejournal.com]

The Darwin Big Idea exhibit on at the Natural History Museum had a section explaining why creationism isn't science. Part of me thinks it is sad that they had to include it at all (though the rest of the exhibition was most awesome).

Most excellent rant BTW.

[alias_sqbr]

I think if you're talking about Darwin specifically you should talk about creationism, same way you might talk about Lamarkism etc. It may not be part of the science but it is part of the history. It does depend on the nature of the exhibit I guess.

[havocthecat]

I love this whole post and the comments. I just felt the need to say that in the approximately five minutes I have left online before I have to go and get stuff done.

[alias_sqbr]

Awesome, thanks. Praising me is always a good use of limited time resources :)

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

There is no simple explanation for what's going on with people's beliefs at the moment. After all, religious belief, church attendance and creationism are on the downswing at the same time as firm belief in the Theory of Evolution is on the downswing. It's not a case of one outpacing the other, they're both on the decline (would like to find you a reference but I have read some moderately authoritative reportage on that subject recently).

People have stopped trying to resolve the universe: the people who think hardest admit they don't or can't have answers, and the people who don't think much admit they can't be bothered committing.

By the way I'm with capnoblivious on the "equal time" thing ... but then we all know what a disreputable, dirty front for hardline Christianity the "Intelligent Design" thing is. To suggest that in the absence of absolute certainties everything has equal value in the marketplace of ideas is pernicious.

[alias_sqbr]

After all, religious belief, church attendance and creationism are on the downswing at the same time as firm belief in the Theory of Evolution is on the downswing

Yes, I find that really interesting, and it does put paid to simplistic, zero-sum ideas about a religion vs atheism "war".

To suggest that in the absence of absolute certainties everything has equal value in the marketplace of ideas is pernicious

And absurd! It's not like they actually want schools teaching ALL the alternative ideas, just their ones.

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. It's very dishonest. Of course, it must be hard when you fervently believe something and have to come up against the establishment stonewall:

"Mainstream science is right."
"But but ..."
"MAINSTREAM SCIENCE IS RIGHT!"
"*sigh*"

To riff on Voltaire: "I disagree with what they have to say, but I can sympathise with their desire to be heard."

I wonder whether the tank-thinkers over at the Discovery Institute imagine, in their sillier moments, that they're terribly clever.

[alias_sqbr]

I am for some reason reminded of the people I have to smack down at webcomics who are convinced that if they post their comic often enough they will suddenly become popular. Everyone wants to be heard, but not everyone is worth listening to :)

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

When it comes to creationists I have had to resort to 'do not attempt to understand them, do not attempt to make them understand you', this is a tactic of defeat but sometimes one needs to just turn ones back and get on with something more important. The gulf between their thinking and mine is just far, far too wide.