Both extremes wrong in evolution debate

St. Paul Pioneer Press ^ | 10/17/03 | Jean Swenson

[Zender500]

Some people think evolution should not be mentioned at all in public schools, while others think any evidence that may contradict evolution should not be allowed.

Both views reflect poor science, and if either side wins, students will lose. Unfortunately, that's just what might happen in Minnesota.

Although many people view Darwinian evolution as a valid explanation, others have begun questioning parts of this theory.

For example, a growing number of prominent biologists are signing on to the following statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Written in 2001 to encourage open-mindedness within the scientific community, the statement has been supported by Nobel Prize nominee Fritz Schaeffer, Smithsonian Institution molecular biologist Richard Sternberg and Stanley Salthe, author of "Evolutionary Biology."

Minnesota is setting new content standards for K-12 science education. Committees have written a draft of these standards and, along with Education Commissioner Cheri Yecke, are inviting feedback from people like you at public hearings and through e-mail letters. (See The Minnesota Department of Education for information and a copy of the standards.)

I commend the standards committee for its emphasis on knowledge and the scientific method. However, I'm concerned that some citizens and committee members want Darwinian evolution taught as undisputed fact while prohibiting any critical analysis of this and other scientific theories. This is no less biased than those who do not want evolution mentioned at all. History reveals how such suppression of data actually hinders science, while honest inquiry promotes it.

For example, the Earth-centered theory of the solar system proposed by Ptolemy in the first century was upheld as absolute truth for 1,500 years. Unfortunately, the church suppressed the work of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and others who challenged this theory with scientific evidence. Isaac Newton's publication about gravity and the sun-centered theory in 1687 finally overcame this bias and exposed the Earth-centered theory as dogma, not scientific fact.

Faith in God influenced these latter four scientists' pursuit of scientific discovery, so their conflict was not with religion but rather with bias against other theories. Those who would forbid any challenges to Darwinian theory are displaying this same kind of partiality.

Instead of answering these challenges with evidence that supports their theory, some defenders of "evolution-only" are taking another tactic — accusing all critics of trying to bring religion into the classroom. However, critical scientific analysis of Darwinian evolution is not religion, and exploration of all the facts should be encouraged.

Such exploration exemplifies the scientific method, which begins with observation and leads to a hypothesis (an educated guess that tries to explain the observation). This hypothesis is then tested, and if test results contradict the hypothesis, it is discarded or revised. A hypothesis that has been tested and supported by large amounts of data becomes a theory. A theory that withstands rigorous testing by independent scientists over time eventually becomes a scientific law.

All theories and even scientific laws must be tentative. For example, who would have thought Newton's Laws could ever be contradicted? Yet, Einstein and other scientists found that these laws could not explain certain complex problems.

Quantum mechanics became the new guiding principle, though Newton's Laws are sufficiently accurate for most aspects of daily activity.

The scientific method that has been so instrumental in advancing science requires that all scientific theories and even scientific laws at least be open to further testing. We should not be afraid to question and analyze scientific evidence; data that is valid will stand the tests.

We have the opportunity to set responsible and rigorous standards for science education in Minnesota. We should help students practice the scientific method in all areas of science, including the study of evolution — let's not encourage them to violate it.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Perhaps the Creationists who claim that "humans are not animals" would suggest dissecting horsetails rather than cats in comparitave anatomy? How should new drugs be tested? On mandrakes?

[Sabertooth]

Except that large numbers of people simply cannot live with the idea that their existance is the result of a long history of random chance. It literally rocks their world to consider that they might NOT be created by some higher power, for some higher purpose.

Such people will resist ALL evidence, as the crevo threads show in graphic detail.

There is no evidence, none, that existence is the result of random chance. That question is beyond the purview of science.

You've strayed from science into theology. You've accepted the same premise that literal Creationists have, but the presence of evolution in one form or another has zero bearing on the presence of a Creator.

[Sabertooth]

surely you must see the underlying intent of Ms. Swenson's article.

Ain't it possible that she has more than one intention?
Might not some intentions be more valid than others?
Might one of them be to counter logically unnecessary leaps such as addressed at #82?

(And, quite frankly, I'm a bit hesitant to disagree with someone who uses the word, "syzygy" in internet forums).

One of my favorite words. Three syllables, and the five usual suspects don't make an appearance.

[RipSawyer]

"Oh, and I forgot--f.christian, who may be a some obscure form of computer virus."

Nonsense, Fletcher Christian was the executive officer on the HMS Bounty. He looked a lot like Marlon Brando.

[PresbyRev]

Surely you are not suggesting that atheist scientists, committed to atheistic evolution, enter into their theorizing, research, etc. without a worldview?

The atheistic scientist carries with him or her a 'theory' --- he or she no doubt has, as every human being, a particular worldview, a 'faith' if you will. I suspect that most atheistic scientists do not enter into their work open to the possibility of intelligent design. From the public writings of most, they are decidedly set against that option. So too, no doubt most creationists are not open to the possiblity that there is no Creator.

However, when a scientist, theist or atheist, goes about his or her work --- measuring, weighing, quantifying, hypothesizing, evaluating and so on ---- they do that from a particular worldview. To advance a hypothesis, one must have some view of reality, the world, natural probabilities, etc. My point simply is, neutrality is a myth.

Beyond that, it is my estimation, that atheistic evolutionists are smuggling the language of theism into their own rhetoric in order to prop up their worldview. In a universe and world of random chance, chaos, meaninglessness - one cannot speak of rationality, logic, and so on unless their is a basis, a standard, from and against which to define and evaluate that which is reasonable, rational, logical and the like. Only a intelligent designer or Creator provides such a standard.

Nonetheless, I don't begrudge the scientist who attempts to do his or her work as thought there is no Creator. I simply think it makes them look silly.

[Dimensio]

Surely you are not suggesting that atheist scientists, committed to atheistic evolution, enter into their theorizing, research, etc. without a worldview?...

Do you have anything to ask that doesn't involve long strings of meaningless strawmen?

[PresbyRev]

Do atheistic evolutionists ever question that over long ages and epochs, representing perhaps billions of years, matter and then life spontanteously appeared, developed and evolved? The internals of the theory may be modified - the universe is six billion instead of four billion years old; poodles instead of chimpanzees are genetically closer to human beings -- but the theory remains intact and held as a matter of . . . faith.

I am heartened by the moderation of folks on this thread. And I thank you for your comments. As I say, I believe in evolution. My wife and I homeschool our children and we use evolutionary textbooks. But, behind a universe billions of years old, behind the complexities of organic life forms, and on and on, we see and teach an Intelligent Designer, a Creative Intelligence of some sort, behind the universe, undergirding reality.

[PresbyRev]

You don't have to answer, it would be an admission fatal to atheism as sole claimant to 'neutrality' or objectivity. I understand.

[Dimensio]

You don't have to answer, it would be an admission fatal to atheism as sole claimant to 'neutrality' or objectivity.

I don't have to answer what? Your question was not addressed to anyone specific, but it assumed various strawman positions. It was a loaded question, no more valid than "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

[PresbyRev]

My response was to question 39 which posited a non-theistic evolutionary position as one that is constantly tested, refined and not a matter of faith.

My questions then go to the presuppositions advanced in that post, namely, that atheist scientists engage in their fields of study apart from 'faith' which I define as ultimate commitment, a worldview, a way of seeing reality.

I have not come across yet an atheist not committed to her/his worldview (read: faith).

I surely didn't intend it to be a loaded question. I did intend to question the notion that evolutionists who reject theism are in sole possession of neutrality or objectivity. They are not. They are committed to a way of seeing the world and evaluating evidences and data.

[PatrickHenry]

Rational placemarker.

[Dimensio]

I didn't see non-theism explicitly stated in "39". I assume you meant post 39? If not, please be more specific.

My questions then go to the presuppositions advanced in that post, namely, that atheist scientists engage in their fields of study apart from 'faith' which I define as ultimate commitment, a worldview, a way of seeing reality.

Who said that the only scientists out there were atheists? Or are you defining an "atheist" scientist as one who simply doesn't mention a deity in their hypothesis and theories (ie, one who does science properly without introducing non-scientific concepts)?

I have not come across yet an atheist not committed to her/his worldview (read: faith).

Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. There is no inherent "worldview" associated with it.

I surely didn't intend it to be a loaded question.

If not, then you should learn more about evolution theory and modern science.

I did intend to question the notion that evolutionists who reject theism are in sole possession of neutrality or objectivity.

You're assuming that rejection of theism and acceptance of evolution has some connection. They do not.

[CobaltBlue]

This is where the weird syzygy of leaped conclusions by both evolutionary atheists and creationists occurs, in thinking that the pros and cons of evolutionary theory have real bearing on the realities of the human soul and the Creator.

Excellent point.

[Rudder]

No, "data" is plural and is commonly used (by those who collect data) as such.

[Rudder]

Data is not the issue.

Data are the only issues science uses to make decisions. Philosopical discourse doesn't mean squat in this matter. That's why threads like this are somewhat irritating because we all resort to argument and persuasion when only data will make the difference. If you favor creationism...act like a scientist and go generate some data.

[Rudder]

I don't whether it's my profession (life sciences, research-clinical, for over 30 years) or some other intrinsic bent, but my intuitive grasp of random mutations in a sea of selective pressures does allow for the current, evolving, life forms.

I am particularly impressed by the variation target tissue across species and how a case can be made for the evolution of not new chemical "bullets" but of targets for extant chemicals. In this regard, the cellular organism seems almost "hospitable" for mutation viability.

My goal as a scientist has never been to find evidence supportive of evolution, but rather to merely describe how things work. Nevertheless, I may appear as a rabid evolutionist from your perspective--which apparently is more skeptical on this matter. There are some (too many, I fear) life scientists whose driving force seems to be the glorification of evolution. I always challenge these types because of the inherent circularity in their thinking. Those who rush to the fore to ascribe "evolutionary significance" to their latest finding are specially loathsome.

Any scientist who states that he's skeptical of evolution sure as hell better have an alternative. To make such an assertion without backup is known in scientific circles as "blowing your wad." (My dissertation adviser, circa 1967)

That is, as a professional scientist, if your ideas are not well-formulated enough to "finish the thought," then you'd best keep your mouth shut until you're ready to give the whole picture. In other words: if evolution ain't right and you don't know what is, then you're not ready for public discourse. No reputable scientist would be caught dead challenging evolution without providing a plausible alternative. (That's why I was skeptical of this entire article.)

Many on these threads, and you tonight, seem to be in awe of the complexity of it all and, for that reason alone, assert that it's too much for a random machine to have done, even with selection picking the best of the mutations.

Across the valley from me I often hike through the tunnels carved through the solid stone rock by the glacial melt run-off. Their intricacy is amazing to me, not unlike karyokinesis, for example.

One of housemates while I was in Berkeley also went to the Santa Cruz Mountains and built a tri-mariner. He sailed it through the canal, landed in Vermont and teaches at U of V now.

Human beings are unique among many species of animals.

You wouldn't be saying that if you were a squirrel.

[HankReardon]

WOW! You people are viscious! I do hope I didn't come about as that way. I really do believe we are not animals, nor tulip bulbs, we are humans and there are animals, the many differences are immense. Let me throw this out. in 5 billion years, did life accidently happen in the primordal ooze just once and all life accidently mutated and adapted over and over? Did life happen accidently twice? 20 times? Could it accidently happen today? A human is much more complex than a automobile, or a computer, just for conversation, if we already did not know it was manufactured (close one, I almost said created!)would it be a logical arguement to poster that it just happened by accident.

[js1138]

My goal as a scientist has never been to find evidence supportive of evolution, but rather to merely describe how things work. Nevertheless, I may appear as a rabid evolutionist from your perspective--which apparently is more skeptical on this matter. There are some (too many, I fear) life scientists whose driving force seems to be the glorification of evolution. I always challenge these types because of the inherent circularity in their thinking. Those who rush to the fore to ascribe "evolutionary significance" to their latest finding are specially loathsome.

Any scientist who states that he's skeptical of evolution sure as hell better have an alternative. To make such an assertion without backup is known in scientific circles as "blowing your wad." (My dissertation adviser, circa 1967)

That is, as a professional scientist, if your ideas are not well-formulated enough to "finish the thought," then you'd best keep your mouth shut until you're ready to give the whole picture. In other words: if evolution ain't right and you don't know what is, then you're not ready for public discourse. No reputable scientist would be caught dead challenging evolution without providing a plausible alternative.

Suitable for framing. Lots of folks here have expressed these thoughts, but seldom as well, and often less deftly.

[HankReardon]

Thank you, like many things, the evolution theory is something many desperately WANT to believe in.

[HankReardon]

I study science, I read, believe me, for decades this has been of great interest to me, I was taught evolution. So, "I know you are, but what am I" Geesh!