Cape Cod Institute
 
Behavior OnLine Forums  
The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals.
 
Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine.

Go Back   Behavior OnLine Forums > BOL Forums > Evolutionary Psychology

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread August 14th, 2006, 10:41 PM
Carey N Carey N is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 138
Default Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy

This is a satisfying rant about the state of affairs in public science education - probably most of you have read it already, but if not . . . .

NY Times Article
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread August 15th, 2006, 12:02 PM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Default Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy

When it comes to the age of things, the ignorance, and/or intellectual dishonesty/lack of rigor, and/or denial, of the young earth creationists is readily discernable, and their young-earth POV is obviously and laughably erroneous to anyone with merely a superficial understanding of geology and cosmology. So it’s hard for me to get too upset over a Kansas school board chairman/veterinarian who also happens to believe that God created the universe 6,500 years ago. (He apparently “compartmentalizes,” as they say.)

Additionally, what many of these folk are actually fighting is the blatant atheism that many neo-Darwinian proponents, e.g. Dawkins, insist biological evolution mandates. So, IMO, it’s pretty much a bullshit debate. Besides, I’d guess that the veterinarian/school board chairman referred to in the article probably has the highest regard for the importance of basic math and science, which is really where so many American kids are failing, and which is really the scientific/mathematical “illiteracy” that we need to be concerned about; not whether they’ve bought into the Dawkins neo-Darwinian view of a directionless evolution.

I’d say there’s lots of ignorance, and/or disingenuousness, and/or agendas on both sides of this issue. A blatant example on the pro Darwinian side is in the article itself when the author, regarding what he says is a “remarkable misunderstanding of the nature of the scientific method,” and that we use “evidence from the past in formulating hypotheses,” asserts that, “This is how we distinguish theories that work, like evolution or gravitation.”

But lumping “evolution” and “gravitation” into so-called “theories that work” is a disingenuous, misleading non sequitur—“evolution” and “gravity” are different things. The reality is simply that the available evidence indicates that life, like everything else in the universe, evolved over time—“evolution,” essentially, is simply a fact, and the actual question/issue is by what mechanisms life evolves. E.g., selection pressures imposed by the environment appear to be a factor. Gravity, OTOH, is a basic force of nature, and Newton’s laws of motion and gravity and Einstein’s general relativity are superb theories of gravity that provide equations that make (extraordinarily accurate) predictions, and that are obviously falsifiable.

Last edited by Fred H.; August 16th, 2006 at 09:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread August 15th, 2006, 05:47 PM
Carey N Carey N is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 138
Default Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy

Quote:
what many of these folk are actually fighting is the blatant atheism . . .
Highly doubtful - they are fighting any notion that (they perceive) even remotely conflicts with their own beliefs. Among many with whom I've spoken, I have never encountered a single biology teacher who a) is remotely as hostile toward religion as religious zealots are toward evolution, or b) feels compelled to teach "atheism" in the classroom. Teaching evolution and teaching the view that there is no God are two completely different animals (This misconception is what drives the 'religiously enthusiastic' people in Kansas insane). I have, on the other hand, found many strong proponents of evolution (by natural selection) who still more or less independently maintain their own religious beliefs. Ken Miller is an excellent example.

Second, when the author compared gravitation to evolution, he was referring to the sense in which evolution is a flat fact, just like gravity. Many of the school board members who oppose evolution in the classroom actually believe that evolution (regardless of the mechanism) didn't/doesn't happen at all. Such a position is just as ludicrous as believing the world to be flat, or that there is no gravity.

Last edited by Carey N; August 16th, 2006 at 01:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread August 16th, 2006, 09:19 AM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Default Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy

Actually Carey, you have “encountered a biology teacher who is as hostile toward religion as religious zealots are toward evolution” and "feels compelled to teach 'atheism'"— Mr. Selfish Gene himself, Richard Dawkins, the highly credentialed Oxford zoologist and one of your most famous Darwinian gurus and spokesmen—recall his teachings:
Quote:
In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
Regarding your sentiment that the author of the article was merely “referring to the sense in which evolution is a flat fact just like gravity,” I suggest you carefully reread what he actually, explicitly wrote: “This is how we distinguish theories that work, like evolution or gravitation.” See that?—theories, like evolution and gravity? (Is it just me or do you perhaps need to work a bit on your intellectual honesty and/or rigor?)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread August 16th, 2006, 11:12 AM
Carey N Carey N is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 138
Default Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy

1) Richard Dawkins's primary contributions to the field, such as 'Selfish Gene', made few reference to religion, which were not in a negative light. Granted, Dawkins has spoken quite aggressively against religion in other contexts, but to assume that his views are concordant with those of all (or even most) other evolutionary biologists, or with the everyday teachers in real science classrooms, is deeply inaccurate. In fact, many evolutionists resent his behavior - not necessarily because they embrace religion themselves, but because the evolution and religion don't usually belong in the same conversation, and certainly not in the same classroom.

2a) Whether or not he was referring to evolution in general, or to evolution by natural selection in particular, is not easy to discern because he used the word "theory". Either way, his message is correct. That evolution occurred is a fact. That the theory of natural selection works is undisputed among people who actually study this subject (and other people who don't study this subject professionally but are willing to honestly address it), both theoretically and empirically.

2b) Think again about gravitation. That gravity exists is indisputable, just like evolution. As to what causes gravitation - we have only theory, albeit very strong and well-supported theory. Guess what? The state of affairs with natural selection is similar: it is a theory regarding what causes adaptive evolution to occur, and it is supported by a massive amount of evidence. I think the NY Times author's comparison is pretty tight.

Last edited by Carey N; August 16th, 2006 at 04:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread August 16th, 2006, 05:23 PM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Default Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy

Quote:
Carey: Think again about gravitation. That gravity exists is indisputable, just like evolution. As to what causes gravitation - we have only theory, albeit very strong and well-supported theory. Guess what? The state of affairs with natural selection is similar: it is a theory regarding what causes adaptive evolution to occur, and it is supported by a massive amount of evidence. I think the NY Times author's comparison is pretty tight.
OK, sure, let’s think again about gravitation.

The question is not what “causes” gravitation, but more what gravitation is and do we understand it enough so as to predict it’s affect/effect—Newton said it was a “force” (and most of us still think of it that way), and his theory predicted planetary positions/orbits to, I think, maybe 6 or 7 decimal places. However, under Einstein’s general relativity, and his foundational principle of “equivalence,” gravitation is no longer regarded as a “force,” as was Newton’s gravity, but rather gravitation manifests itself as space-time curvature.

And using Einstein’s general relativity equations, Hulse and Taylor (received Nobel in 93) were able to predict and affirm the accuracy of the orbits of a double neutron star system to better than a trillionth percent precision (14 decimal places). As Penrose notes, Hulse and Taylor's work "makes Einstein’s general relativity, in this particular sense, the most accurately tested theory known to science."

Evolution OTOH, is really nothing more than a term that more or less encapsulates our observations from the available evidence—that life, over time, well, “evolves.” But then everything in the universe “evolves,” so BFD.

Of course now you mention “natural selection,” and I suppose that it does seem that various environments do impose selection pressures, similar perhaps in some ways to how various human breeders select for various traits in whatever they happen to be breeding; and it does seem that this so-called natural (unconscious) selection (as opposed to the “artificial conscious selection of human breeders) results in the selection of traits that are the most adaptive, the fittest. And sure enough, we always observe, over the long haul, that the fittest survive and reproduce, and the rest don’t—and we know that the ones that survive are the fittest b/c otherwise they’d not have survived.

And although I find the circularity of that “natural selection” somewhat troubling, you, as you’ve noted elsewhere, insist that the “apparent circularity [of natural selection] just isn't important at all.”

So I suppose that’s why you naively believe that natural selection is somehow comparable to an actual superb theory, like say gravity as explained by Einstein’s general relativity, which actually is “the most accurately tested theory known to science." Fine.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.