# New Scientist on evolution



## Anthony G Williams (Apr 27, 2008)

A valuable summary in the *New Scientist* magazine (19 April issue) correcting some common misconceptions about evolution. This article, plus more, is included on their website here: Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist and all SF writers should study it in order to avoid errors (possibly I was a bit ambitious with the marsupial saurians in *'Scales'*…)

A very brief summary of some examples of misconceptions: 

*Everything is an adaptation:* it isn't true that everything has a purpose, some features of life are just accidental hold-overs from earlier developments, such as the appendix and the male nipple. 

*Evolution can't be disproved: *in theory it could be, but all of the evidence collected so far supports it, and no evidence has been found to disprove it.

*Evolution is limitlessly creative:* there are limits (at least on Earth) to what has been, and probably can be, developed. Every intermediate stage needs to have had some survival benefit (e.g. primitive forms of eye are still better than nothing in detecting objects).

*Natural selection leads to ever greater complexity:* it can actually lead to greater simplicity since unnecessary features frequently disappear (e.g. eyeless cave fish).

*Evolution produces perfection:* "you don't have to be perfectly adapted to survive, you just have to be as well adapted as your competitors". Examples of inefficiencies in human beings are the eyes (birds have much superior vision), the lungs (much of their capacity is wasted because of the two-way air-flow; birds have a much more efficient one-way flow) and so on.

*Natural selection is the only means of evolution:* random genetic drift has a great influence, with chance often deciding which mutations survive and which don't.

*It doesn't matter if people don't grasp evolution:* our civilisation is facing many challenges which need some understanding of how science works to appreciate, and make sensible judgements about. "Any modern society which bases major decisions on superstition rather than reality is heading for disaster". Which makes it rather worrying that in a recent survey, when asked "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals: true or false?", only 40% of US citizens polled "true", 39% "false" and 21% "not sure". In contrast the "true" response from most western European countries and Japan was around 75%. 

Comment: among those not believing in evolution (according to their public statements) were several of the initial candidates for the nomination for the Presidency of the USA; a staggering admission of scientific illiteracy, in the same league as admitting that they couldn't read or write. Let's hope that the most powerful and influential nation on Earth ends up with a leader who has a much better grasp of scientific arguments than the present incumbent.

(an extract from my SFF blog)


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 27, 2008)

Anthony G Williams said:


> *It doesn't matter if people don't grasp evolution:* our civilisation is facing many challenges which need some understanding of how science works to appreciate, and make sensible judgements about. "Any modern society which bases major decisions on superstition rather than reality is heading for disaster". Which makes it rather worrying that in a recent survey, when asked "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals: true or false?", only 40% of US citizens polled "true", 39% "false" and 21% "not sure". In contrast the "true" response from most western European countries and Japan was around 75%.
> 
> Comment: among those not believing in evolution (according to their public statements) were several of the initial candidates for the nomination for the Presidency of the USA; a staggering admission of scientific illiteracy, in the same league as admitting that they couldn't read or write. Let's hope that the most powerful and influential nation on Earth ends up with a leader who has a much better grasp of scientific arguments than the present incumbent.
> 
> (an extract from my SFF blog)


 
I must admit that these are the items that have come to loom larger and larger with me over the past few years. Our scientific illiteracy in this country has reached an appalling state, while the resurgence of the most ignorant, inspissated, and hidebound forms of fundamentalism, neo-mysticism, and rank superstition have seen more of a heyday than they have experienced (among the educated) in over a century and a half.

As for the presidential candidates' ignorance on the subject... well, it used to be that politicians considered it necessary to keep abreast of such, knowing what a large role scientific knowledge and advancement played in our lives, not only individually but as a society, and in keeping us competitive with the rest of the world. This is something they've forgotten these days, confusing technology with science, it seems, and combining that with the same tendencies to superstitious ignorance shared by the most vocal (and most regressive) religious elements in our often benighted society....


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 27, 2008)

Sorry for the second post, and I don't mean to run away with your thread, but the connection to that last comment seems germane to me.

I came across this -- one of a growing number of such reports that have been coming out over the past couple of years:

EPA scientists complain about political pressure - Yahoo! News

This makes me think of an argument I had with someone recently on regulations concerning greenhouse emissions, etc.; who was of the opinion that such changes should be left up to "the market trends" and "consumer decisions"... never mind the fact that we're not dealing with philosophical abstracts, but are fast coming up against the inexorable laws of physics with such things. 

If we can't pull our collective heads out of our collective rears and realize that, and look for the truth, rather than riding some hobby-horse (either way), we bloody well may not have a future.

And then there's always our dear presidential nitwit's plan to give up to 15 _more_ years for such emissions to _*peak*_ before reducing them....


----------



## The Procrastinator (Apr 27, 2008)

As an aside it always strikes me as bizarre, to put it mildly, that people who will piously put their hand up for the moral cheerleading squads of Christianity also like to leave things to "market forces" - one of the most amoral forces in existence. Faith in market forces is a strange kind of religion but it seems to be a pretty strong one with many followers.

What's up with the attitude toward science in the US? Sometimes I think us Aussies are pretty bad but I'm sure we would never score that badly on such a basic question. How can a country that is so advanced in so many ways be so backward at the same time? Puzzled bear.


----------



## The Ace (Apr 27, 2008)

An interesting thumbnail of a complex subject.

I always find the 'Morals,' argument interesting, though.

My Father is an atheist so deeply entrenched, he's almost evangelical, but he is one of the most moral people I have ever met and it's thanks to him that everyone who knows me knows that I don't steal, lie or betray a trust, ever.


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 27, 2008)

It strikes me, Procrastinator, that belief in the power of The Market _is_ a religious belief, although rarely spoken of as such.

Even some people who oppose The Market fail to point out that it is simply a combination of various human traits and urges (both good and bad) held together by a more or less simple set of rules. They, and The Market's unthinking supporters, treat it as if it's in some way "natural", i.e. something handed down to us by either God or nature. But how can trading in a derivative be considered in any way natural? How can selling something you don't own be natural (and yet this happens all the time - sometimes leading to those attempts to drive down share and commodity prices)?

If a market produces bad results, the rules should be changed to remove or alleviate the problem; sadly, though, the response of most is to shrug and do nothing. (And yet even religious leaders have changed the actions and beliefs of their religions over the years, even at the risk of offending their God.)


----------



## TorrnT (Apr 27, 2008)

I am pleased to see this. 
No one wants to think they have lived their entire life as a lie.
I believe it will take many many generations before evolution will be readily accepted by the masses.
It is a shame that many people place more faith in horoscopes, that contradict many religious teachings, than they do in evolution.
Would I be correct in saying the fight is not between religion and evolution but against ignorance and hypocrisy? (eek, I feel the water getting a tad deep)

PS. Apart from people thinking evolution is contradicting the word of god, I should think evolution would be far more acceptable if when we died we evolved into angels, turning to dust, rings, "the reality bell" just a little too loud for some.
Of course all religious texts should be kept for moral guidance purposes unto someone updates them so the younger generation could relate better.


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 27, 2008)

Sorry, but the bulk of religious writings are anything but moral -- read them closely, and you'll find they're almost invariably filled with the most appalling behavior (as well good) one can find... and that, quite often, being enacted by whatever deity is at the head of the food chain....

I used to have much the same idea; that such writings actually gave support to morality; but reading without blinders on, I've been forced to revise that view to the point of reversing it; it's we who create morality and see it in the religious writings, not the other way around....


----------



## TorrnT (Apr 27, 2008)

Well, since you put it that way......


----------



## mosaix (Apr 27, 2008)

The Ace said:


> An interesting thumbnail of a complex subject.
> 
> I always find the 'Morals,' argument interesting, though.
> 
> My Father is an atheist so deeply entrenched, he's almost evangelical, but he is one of the most moral people I have ever met and it's thanks to him that everyone who knows me knows that I don't steal, lie or betray a trust, ever.



You've been left a great legacy there, Ace

I hope my children will, one day, be able to say the same thing.


----------



## The Procrastinator (Apr 28, 2008)

I agree with JD, I don't think its the actual religious texts as such that convey a consistent morality (can only speak with certainty of the Bible - have only read the Koran in bits, and can't remember too clearly) - but the social interpretation of it, in other words, the various churches and religious groups. Morality is conveyed by example, teaching etc - most people wouldn't read the actual Bible with any clarity of mind, they are more inclined to believe what they are told by figures of authority.

Ace, you were lucky to have a dad like that, mine was similar. But lots of people use atheism as an excuse to get away with stuff, and morals go out the door when religion does. Its hard to know how to deal with this, socially. Religion may have many points of weakness but it fills a social role in regulating behaviour that can be tricky to replace. Here in Oz we don't have a particularly strong religious tradition, and we've handled the separation of religious authority and government pretty well. Hopefully we can maintain the balance...

Yeah, Big Bear, the religion of Market Forces really gets my goat. They call it "rational" - who are they kidding?


----------



## purple_kathryn (Apr 28, 2008)

What I've found is that people (not just so called "fundies") have said that they don't believe in evolution because they just don't think it sounds plausible (paraphrased).

Although by plausible they mean they don't understand it.

If I went through life disbelieving in everything I couldn't understand my life would be pretty limited. Maths for example.....


----------



## TorrnT (Apr 28, 2008)

Anthony G Williams said:


> *Everything is an adaptation:* it isn't true that everything has a purpose, some features of life are just accidental hold-overs from earlier developments, such as the appendix and the male nipple.


I have to totally disagree with "just accidental hold-overs" held over by accident...This is where my small brain overloads...something just is not right about that statement made by "The New Scientist"

I have read how the appendix may have been used to house bacteria that may have helped in the digestion of rough plant matter, higher up in our evolutionary chain.
Many believe, in the future the appendix will disappear altogether.
But new evidence suggests it houses safe bacteria, when an illness causes diarrhoea.
Which was very common before proper sanitation. The appendix is lined with lymphoid cells, some consider these immune cells to be the guardian angels of the beneficial bacteria.
_This proposal is based on a new understanding of how the immune system supports the growth of beneficial intestinal bacteria_.

The male nipple on the the other hand, is bestowed to us thanks to the fact we are all females for the first 6 weeks of life, before the male chromosome takes effect.
(it seems to me there was/is a purpose) 

Which makes me wonder....  did we evolve from females  
Imagine if they ever proved that.  (that would be shattering to the, "rib of Adam tale" as well as many male egos)


----------



## Delvo (Apr 28, 2008)

We're not all females at first. We're all sexually undefined at first. (And even if that myth were true, Jurassic Park would still have gotten it wrong, because sex determination in birds is the opposite of the way it is in mammals anyway...)

The idea of "holdovers" is better illustrated not with whole organs existing or not existing, but with things that are arrangements in odd ways or have features that don't make sense. For example, a bunch of the muscles in our limbs twist and bend around the joints in funny ways that only make sense if you figure they got stretched that way from some other original position when our limbs were attached differently and moved differently... and the junction of our digestive and respiratory systems is just weird unless you consider the history of how it got that way, especially in humans, in whom that junction (the throat) seems to be specially modified to increase the odds of choking.


----------



## TorrnT (Apr 28, 2008)

Sorry , I should have said, follows a female template, (my mistake) _Information taken from Mark Leyner and Billy Goldberg, M.D._
Human nipples appear in the third or fourth week of development, well before the sex characteristics. (The sex hormones start to assert themselves at six/seven weeks.) As many as seven pairs of nipples are arranged along either side of a "milk line," a ridge of skin that runs from the upper chest to the navel.
Normally only one pair amounts to anything but cases have been known where extra nipples have been found but are removed with corrective surgery.

I have no problem with the word hold overs...It is the word "accidental" maybe  I am being pedantic, In my mind an accident is something that can be avoided...
Hmmmm..I seem to have worked my way into a paradox..  Looks like I have to accept "accidental" 

But, researching I found a possible "holdover"... Wisdom Teeth...
So..wisdom teeth are still accidentally with us....  ( wow,  I do not like that terminology, it seems scary or something) LOL.
One of the few times my sense of order and reason takes a pounding.


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 28, 2008)

Delvo said:


> The idea of "holdovers" is better illustrated not with whole organs existing or not existing, but with things that are arrangements in odd ways or have features that don't make sense. For example, a bunch of the muscles in our limbs twist and bend around the joints in funny ways that only make sense if you figure they got stretched that way from some other original position when our limbs were attached differently and moved differently... and the junction of our digestive and respiratory systems is just weird unless you consider the history of how it got that way, especially in humans, in whom that junction (the throat) seems to be specially modified to increase the odds of choking.


 
Not quite the same thing, but one that I've always found odd is the "design" of the urogenital tract, not only in humans but in many forms of life. Reminds me of a line from a comedian (can't remember for the life of me who) several years ago: something to the effect of God being the only builder to put a sewer through the middle of a recreational area....


----------



## HardScienceFan (Apr 28, 2008)

I think it was Gould ,in conjunction with Vrba,who pointed out that the term 'adaptation'
is a misnomer anyway.
I think evolution is among the _*least understood*_ phenomena in the population at large.
Fred Bookstein proved mathematically that most of the time,evolution isn't different from a random walk.
Yet chronoclines and morphoclines exist.
The fossil record is a poor tool to prove evolution.
I just read a thesis on evolution in the conodont genus _Palmatolepis_.
(Just using the Pa-element of a multielement taxon,but no matter).
if anything,evolution is mosaical,or leaves that impression in the fossil record)
Evolution takes place,but you have to divest it of ALL teleological connotations).


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 28, 2008)

Teleology (save for, to some degree, human-based action and motivation) is a questionable concept, period....


----------



## Delvo (Apr 29, 2008)

TorrnT said:


> Sorry , I should have said, follows a female template, (my mistake)


But that isn't the case, either. Prior to the penis and scrotum, there's no clitoris, labia, or vagina, nor anything that had ever started to become like them or would ever have become them or was any more like them than like a penis and scrotum. Prior to the testes, there are no ovaries, nor anything that had ever started to become like them or would ever have become them or was any more like them than like testes. There's just nothing at all to identify the fetus with either sex.



TorrnT said:


> _Information taken from Mark Leyner and Billy Goldberg, M.D._
> Human nipples appear in the third or fourth week of development, well before the sex characteristics.


Note the last 5 words there. Anything that happens before there are any sex characteristics can't be following one sex's template or the other's; if it were following either sex's template already, then it wouldn't be well before the sex characteristics because there'd already be sex characteristics there.



TorrnT said:


> maybe  I am being pedantic, In my mind an accident is something that can be avoided...
> Hmmmm..I seem to have worked my way into a paradox..  Looks like I have to accept "accidental"...
> 
> (wow,  I do not like that terminology, it seems scary or something) LOL.
> One of the few times my sense of order and reason takes a pounding.


I don't understand what this dilemma is.



HardScienceFan said:


> I think it was Gould ,in conjunction with Vrba,who pointed out that the term 'adaptation'
> is a misnomer anyway.


How so? (The word's always bugged me because things "adapt"; they don't "adaptate"... but that's a separate issue from misnomers, which are about what words mean...)



HardScienceFan said:


> The fossil record is a poor tool to prove evolution.


How so?



HardScienceFan said:


> I just read a thesis on evolution in the conodont genus _Palmatolepis_.
> (Just using the Pa-element of a multielement taxon,but no matter).


Why did you bring up _Palmatolepis_ and then not seem to say anything about it, and what is this about "elements"?



HardScienceFan said:


> if anything,evolution is mosaical,or leaves that impression in the fossil record)


Do you mean how it seems to create lots and lots of separate lineages instead of just a few? (Gould called this the "bush" diagram instead of the "line or ladder" diagram.)


----------



## Dave (Apr 29, 2008)

There certainly is much ignorance about the Theory of Evolution, and about scientific Theory in general. Concerning Evolution specifically, I think it has always been that way because it directly challenges the Creation as written in Genesis, and also because Darwin himself believed in Intelligent Design. However, many people make and have made claims about The Origin of Species that are just not in it. I read it at school, but many people who think they know what is in it have never read it. For instance, it concerns the 'origin of species', not the 'origin of [our] species'; a very common misconception. Those that HAVE read it, and use its shortcomings to denounce Evolution, are failing completely to take on board the body of 150 years of scientific evidence that has come since, including a mechanism in DNA. As with all scientific theories, it is there to be reviewed and altered, tweaked where required, discarded if necessary; but while modern research has lead to major changes in the theory, the concept itself has only been strengthened. Out of my own interest, I have read some of these fundamentalist religious website to read what they say on Evolution, and they generally pick on a few parts of Darwin that were wrong and use those as evidence that Evolution as a whole is wrong. I cannot think of any other examples where someone would do that, and I'm quite gob-smacked every time I read them that such utter bilge can be believed in the heartland of the largest industrial country in the world. I would have thought that in 80 years they might have moved on a little from the Scopes "monkey-trial" era.

But the real problem is the lack of scientific education as a whole, and the continued falling standards. We live in a scientific world, we need science education more than ever. You ate breakfast this morning and your food had a label with daily allowances, energy, fat and carbohydrate content. You maybe watched TV adverts that told you 8 out 10 people preferred this product, but gave no sample size; and several advertised their products as 30% cheaper than another.  The weather forecaster said there was 50% chance of rain, but the satellite picture had no clouds on it. You recycled some plastic bottles in your carbon-neutral car, then you threw away several electrical goods. You took a white medicine your Doctor prescribed, but didn't tell you why. Then you sprayed something on your Roses that came in a red bottle. Your house was flooded last year for the first time, but then it's only been there 20 years, and 100 years ago the river flooded right up to the railway, and just maybe that new building development has something to do with it. And your laptop isn't working and you think you broke it.

People seem happy to sleepwalk without asking why, or they understand so little that they can't ask why, so they just believe what they are told to believe by someone else who doesn't know or ask why either. We need to teach scientific theory, risk assessment, statistical analyisis, and basic Chemistry and Physics. In the UK, most schools now don't teach separate sciences but General Science. Some of the teachers only have limited science knowledge themselves. We have a whole raft of 16-18 year olds learning Media Studies and Travel & Tourism, while Universities close Science Departments.


----------



## The Procrastinator (Apr 29, 2008)

And so the great circle draws near to completion...your post, Dave, put me strongly in mind of our ancestors according to Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker's Guide) - hairdressers, telephone sanitisers, public relations officers and consultants of every description...ooo I'm getting a headspin now thinking about FATE.


----------



## Dave (Apr 29, 2008)

Well, Napoleon is supposed to have said, "L'Angleterre est une nation de boutiquiers."

Now, we are a nation of Call Centres, and even those are moving to India. No one manufactures anything; everyone (including me) works in the Service sector. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair may bang on about the UK needing "Education, Education, Education", and that people must be prepared to change careers several times during their working lives, but the first just isn't happening, and the second is an incredibly hard thing to do unless you are forced into it by redundancy.


----------



## clovis-man (Apr 30, 2008)

The Procrastinator said:


> As an aside it always strikes me as bizarre, to put it mildly, that people who will piously put their hand up for the moral cheerleading squads of Christianity also like to leave things to "market forces" - one of the most amoral forces in existence. Faith in market forces is a strange kind of religion but it seems to be a pretty strong one with many followers.


 
Ah, Yes. The finely tuned laws of the marketplace. Unfortunately, it's been a long time since Adam Smith and "The Wealth of Nations".

Does evolution always work well in terms of an "end result" or even as a "process"? Not by a longshot. Just look at the poor orangutan. Specialized to the point of being to his own detriment (notwithstanding environmental issues).

I once had the chance to listen to and speak with Louis Leakey. Even he used the phrase, "the theory of evolution" (and he pronounced it ee-vo-loo-shun with the accent on the ee). But he wasn't kidding anyone. We all knew what he really thought and we all thought the same.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Apr 30, 2008)

clovis-man said:


> I once had the chance to listen to and speak with Louis Leakey. Even he used the phrase, "the theory of evolution" (and he pronounced it ee-vo-loo-shun with the accent on the ee). But he wasn't kidding anyone. We all knew what he really thought and we all thought the same.


He was being technically correct. Science doesn't deal in "facts", in the sense of unchallengeable, fixed positions (unlike religion). Every conclusion reached by the scientific method, however undisputed, is a theory which only holds good until contradicted by observational evidence, or replaced by another theory which better explains the observations.

In contrast, "intelligent design" is not a theory, it is an hypothesis - and barely even that, as it is not backed up by any objective evidence.


----------



## TorrnT (Apr 30, 2008)

Delvo said:


> But that isn't the case, either. Prior to the penis and scrotum, there's no clitoris, labia, or vagina, nor anything that had ever started to become like them or would ever have become them or was any more like them than like a penis and scrotum. Prior to the testes, there are no ovaries, nor anything that had ever started to become like them or would ever have become them or was any more like them than like testes. There's just nothing at all to identify the fetus with either sex.


Follows a template. If I was following you to London it does not mean I will end up there.
I cannot argue on behalf of the Drs, but I can say why it makes sense to me, Nipples (more than 2) and milk line... If that is not feminine, then I have been sorely misguided in life.
If you still believe this to be incorrect...lets just agree to disagree


----------



## Delvo (Apr 30, 2008)

TorrnT said:


> Nipples (more than 2) and milk line... If that is not feminine, then I have been sorely misguided in life.


Well, men's bodies have them, so no, they're not feminine traits. They're universal ones


----------



## clovis-man (Apr 30, 2008)

Anthony G Williams said:


> He was being technically correct. Science doesn't deal in "facts", in the sense of unchallengeable, fixed positions (unlike religion). Every conclusion reached by the scientific method, however undisputed, is a theory which only holds good until contradicted by observational evidence, or replaced by another theory which better explains the observations.
> 
> In contrast, "intelligent design" is not a theory, it is an hypothesis - and barely even that, as it is not backed up by any objective evidence.


 
I think that was my point, but you have stated it in much clearer terms. As an example, re my long ago discussion with Leakey, I asked him about his disagreement with J. T. Robinson over the Homo Habilus findings. He was a little testy in his reply, but essentially said that there could be no meeting of the minds until he and Robinson had viewed the same evidence (Robinson had not seen the original material). So the proper course for him was in rigorous examination and not in speculation. In retrospect, the only correct answer.


----------



## TorrnT (Apr 30, 2008)

Delvo said:


> Well, men's bodies have them, so no, they're not feminine traits. They're universal ones



So.. Let me get this straight.
At 4 weeks the foetus has the potential to develop more than 2 nipples,(the main function of which are to provide milk, which only females can) the extra nipples  are suppressed by enzymes/hormones, (this is Universal, meaning it can not be considered a trait of either sex) 2 weeks later the sex is then decided.

I can understand what you mean Delvo.
_(honestly..I'm not obsessed about nipples)_


----------



## LJonesy (May 2, 2008)

Oh man, it was painful to read all those articles.

I get the feeling that the author of the link and the other links may have had a hard life at church when he was a little boy. Because all throughout the articles there are countless emotional stabs at creationism. More often than not accusations are made without even using common sense to diffuse an otherwise stupid accusation.

That said, the same arrogant angle was taken on presenting the facts. What became so frustrating was that the article was so one-sided the author forgot to look at the amount of holes his or her argument had poking through it...

If Evolutionists and Creationists want to get along _both_ sides need to humble themselves and listen to each other. I've met so many Evolutionists who are emotionally scarred and arrogant, and i've also met so many Creationists who are ignorant believers.

Both sides need to clean up their act and open their ears. No wonder people go to the Religions with the attitudes the Evolutionists take.


----------



## Dave (May 2, 2008)

I think I read different links to you. I didn't see any "emotional stabs". The _New Scientist_ is a UK published Science Magazine, so it is highly unlikely that it is going to make a case for Creationism, though I find it hard to translate that to being "arrogant". I have also yet to meet anyone who described themselves as an "Evolutionist". And that is the difference between Science and Religion, Religion requires Faith, Science requires Evidence.


----------



## The Procrastinator (May 2, 2008)

I'm finding it painful to read them all too, but only because I have a painfully slow dialup connection! I have given up, having only read a handful, but so far I didn't spot any emotional stabs either. Perhaps I haven't read the right articles, or perhaps its a subject I'm not so emotional about?

I've always had the idea that both "sides" need to listen to one another - thats common sense. So I'm listening - I would be interested to know which parts Jonesy finds arrogant etc.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (May 2, 2008)

I agree with Dave. There is no compromise or meeting point between the Creationists and the scientific approach. You either believe the overwhelming accumulation of evidence from many different sciences concerning the vast age and slow development of this universe and the life on our planet, or you believe one of the ancient creation myths (of which there are many). It's one or the other.


----------



## j d worthington (May 2, 2008)

As you say, Anthony, when it comes to fixed, unchangeable positions, science doesn't deal in facts. To clarify, however: when it comes to the things upon which the "theories" (a term which means something entirely different in science than it does in common usage) are based, it does deal in facts -- or, if you prefer, evidence. That is, the facts of observable reality, which can be tested, retested, challenged, etc.

The problem with creationism is that it simply does not take this as the basis for drawing conclusions, but looks only for "facts" that bolster an already existing position. This is no way to arrive at the truth; this is rationalization. That being the case, there is _no_ reason whatsoever for any scientific writer/magazine to pay any attention to creationist "theories" (common usage) until they alter their approach and begin with the existing facts (or evidence) and work from there, rather than the other way around....


----------



## clovis-man (May 2, 2008)

j. d. worthington said:


> The problem with creationism is that it simply does not take this as the basis for drawing conclusions, but looks only for "facts" that bolster an already existing position.


 
Exactly. Deductive logic as opposed to inductive logic. In flawed deductive logic (not all deductions are flawed), you could say that horses have four legs, therefore all animals with four legs are horses. Inductive logic might conclude: In an examination of 100,000 horses, all those seen had four legs. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that horses usually have four legs.

Not as dramatic, but certainly more grounded in fact.


----------



## The Procrastinator (May 4, 2008)

Good-o, we've identified the problems with creationism. Go us.

Now what are the problems with science? (Anyone who says _none_, has to write lines after class.) Science is right, and provably so, about so many things - yet not exactly winning the battle for hearts and minds in the good 'ol US of A. What's wrong with this picture?


----------



## Anthony G Williams (May 4, 2008)

The Procrastinator said:


> Good-o, we've identified the problems with creationism. Go us.
> 
> Now what are the problems with science? (Anyone who says _none_, has to write lines after class.) Science is right, and provably so, about so many things - yet not exactly winning the battle for hearts and minds in the good 'ol US of A. What's wrong with this picture?


There's nothing "wrong" with the scientific method as a way of discovering how the material world works. It has a remarkable record of success running for thousands of years, which it continues to build on. If it didn't work, we'd still be in the Stone Age.

What science does not do is address the possibility that there might be a non-material world. It doesn't offer any certainty about the meaning of life, any promises of divine guidance, forgiveness, or any kind of life after death (let alone a wonderful one, with X number of virgins, or raisins, or whatever). These are the Unique Selling Points of religion. Unfortunately, unlike the output of the scientific method, they are entirely untestable. And the fact that all religions differ from each other in the certainties they offer has to raise a rather large question mark about their validity.

It's just as well that religions aren't subject to the Advertising Standards Authority, or they'd have to drastically change their message. Like in James Morrow's novel *'City of Truth'*, in which the cathedral has a large illuminated sign saying "Assuming God Exists, Jesus May Have Been His Son".


----------



## j d worthington (May 4, 2008)

The Procrastinator said:


> Good-o, we've identified the problems with creationism. Go us.
> 
> Now what are the problems with science? (Anyone who says _none_, has to write lines after class.) Science is right, and provably so, about so many things - yet not exactly winning the battle for hearts and minds in the good 'ol US of A. What's wrong with this picture?


 
It isn't only the U.S. -- look at how religion and mysticism have made such a resurgence all around the world in recent decades; the more fundamentally superstitious and counter to scientifically observable reality, the better.

For my money, it is likely to be chalked up to the following: Science removes a feeling of "certainty" based on ignorance rather than knowledge; it offers no absolutes in its place, only that which follows the strongest probabilities; in order to understand science, it takes effort, study, a lot of thought, and even then some things are simply going to be too complex for the majority -- heck, as even some of those in the field have noted, "if you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory".

Religion, or mysticism, on the other hand, presents things that sound logical and reasonable (if you don't have a fairly good grasp on the evidence), are reassuring, have a "commonsense" structure ethically (unless examined closely, which most people simply don't do), and is often emotionally satisfying by dint of having evolved over a long period of time, adapting to the emotional needs and responses of people.

Science, on the other hand, deals with the evidence, regardless of how cold or even repulsive that reality may be to people. A good example of the difference -- and one particularly suited to this forum, given it is a sff forum -- is Tom Godwin's "The Cold Equations". No one _wants_ that outcome; it's brutal, it's cold, it's uncaring, it has no "humanity" in it... but that's the point. In reality, when facing the universe, humanity will periodically come up against the inexorable facts of physical reality; and, if we don't accommodate those facts, we don't stand a chance, as there is nothing out there to alter them for our sake. People don't like that. The fact that the universe is (according to all the evidence, and for all intents and purposes) simply a mechanism, without reference to us or our cares, concerns, or even existence, is simply something most people reject. It doesn't feed our egos. The more science advances, the more we find that not only are we not the center of the universe, some special object of a god's care and attention, but that we aren't even that important in the history of our planet (save for a very brief time, perhaps), but only one very brief moment in a very long history that both precedes and is likely to follow the existence of our entire _species_, let alone individuals. Any "meaning" to existence is something we must put into it ourselves; it doesn't exist inherently.

That's something that's just too alien to most people's perceptions for them to feel comfortable with. Instead of seeing the awe and wonder of it all, they are repelled by the fact that reality simply doesn't wear a _human_ face, doesn't have human feelings....


----------



## Parson (May 5, 2008)

JD, well reasoned as always. I find it especially interesting that even in the West with precipitous decline in Christianity there is a corresponding rise in "mysticism" and non-Christian religions. It seems as though human beings as a whole cannot tolerate the sense of there being nothing in the universe with more intelligence/compassion/justice/ than what we have. In some sense the SETI endeavors could be seen as another aspect of this search. 

I believe that the time will come that we will arrive at some kind of synthesis between science and religion. I think that both are true and point to truths but in different ways. In the same way that both a non-fiction story and a myth can be true. Religion and science are not the same but they do need each other. 

As to the main thrust of this discussion; I wonder if evolution is any more poorly understood than any other complex science. I would bet that trying to have the average Joe/Jane explain chemistry would result in something that would sound more like magic than science.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (May 5, 2008)

Parson said:


> I believe that the time will come that we will arrive at some kind of synthesis between science and religion. I think that both are true and point to truths but in different ways. In the same way that both a non-fiction story and a myth can be true. Religion and science are not the same but they do need each other.


I have to say that I doubt that. Religion got along without science just fine for a very long time, and science pays no heed to religion (except when aspects of religion claim to have a scientific basis, as with 'intelligent design'). They basically occupy different worlds, which isn't to say that scientists can't be religious - many are - but that just reflects different sides of their personalities.

About the only possible connections between science and religion that I can see coming may result from some research into how the mind works, which could point to reasons in the brain structure why people are so prone to belief in matters which are not subject to proof.



> As to the main thrust of this discussion; I wonder if evolution is any more poorly understood than any other complex science. I would bet that trying to have the average Joe/Jane explain chemistry would result in something that would sound more like magic than science.


The basic concept of evolution is quite straightforward (whereas "chemistry" is a huge and diverse subject). I don't think that the militant creationists fail to understand evolution, they just refuse to accept it because it conflicts with their fixed beliefs.


----------



## TorrnT (May 6, 2008)

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"True religion is not about possessing the truth. No religion does that.  	It is rather an invitation into a journey that leads one toward the mystery  	of God. Idolatry is religion pretending that it has all the answers." Bishop  	J.S.
ohhhh, so does that make Creationism a cult, now they sound more eerie LOL.
[/FONT]


----------



## Anthony G Williams (May 6, 2008)

TorrnT said:


> [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"True religion is not about possessing the truth. No religion does that.     It is rather an invitation into a journey that leads one toward the mystery     of God. Idolatry is religion pretending that it has all the answers." Bishop     J.S.[/FONT]


It would be nice if that were universally believed. Sadly, you're not likely to find the fundamentalists of any religion agreeing with it.


----------



## The Procrastinator (May 6, 2008)

Truth, now there's a thing.

Anthony, you have hit the nail on the head with this:
_What science does not do is address the possibility that there might be a non-material world._ 
It can't address this possibility. Non-material world aside, I don't think any of us would go so far as to think science can explain everything, because not everything is measurable, we have gaps in our knowledge, and our own limitations as a species mean that we will not be able to theorise about or measure everything there is in any case. I think where scientists can come across as "arrogant" is in claiming that science holds all the answers, or that science is the only truth. Science is a journey toward the truths of the material realm, a journey of discovery, a seeking for measurable answers; and a good scientist (as noted by many already) will discard a "truth" if it becomes superseded or disproven, and move on to the next theory, looking for ways to test it, seeking to deepen and widen our pool of knowledge and our understanding of the world in which we live. If scientists dismiss as valueless those things they cannot measure, I can understand why people who have a belief in or value the non-material world would get annoyed.

Religion is purportedly a seeking for the truths of the non-material world, including morals and values and the meaning of Liff, and what makes a person a person. What annoys me personally about religious people, though, is when they talk about truth while ignoring facts. Not all religious people do this thank goodness, but there's a large amount of ones who will and do. As noted by others above, there are many who are only interested in the facts that will bolster their own particular beliefs, and other facts can go hang. This is dishonest and self-deceiving, and no seeker of truth should be either of those things if they can help it.

Being human beings, there are those on both sides of this "spectrum" who tend to believe that in discovering _a_ truth, they have discovered _the _truth. (Don't ask me who said that, someone literary, but its true in both science and religion all too often.)

I don't think there needs to be or can ever be a synthesis of science and religion, but there certainly should be a dialogue between them. Perhaps the resurgence in "mysticism" is part of the pendulum movement that always accompanies change, but I think science and those who accept it should always do what they can to diminish the influence and prevalence of "magical thinking". That will always be with us, its part of human nature it seems, and all of us possess it to some degree - I think we will never banish it entirely, nor should we let it run rampant - but after all, what's life without a little magic?

And now I have blurbled myself into aimless oblivion, I should probably go and get a bit of hunny...


----------



## j d worthington (May 6, 2008)

The problem is that nearly all religions (I can't think of one that is an exception, off the top of my head) also emphasize how this "non-material" realm interacts with and effects changes in the material realm -- how it often supercedes the physical "laws" of the material realm. Once something purportedly enters that material realm, then it becomes the province of science to investigate and either confirm or invalidate it. So far, there hasn't been one iota of any of this stuff able to stand up to scientific scrutiny.

So I'm by no means inclined to accept this definition of religion. After all, every major religion also claims to have the story of the origins of everything -- yet they do not tend to agree, nor do they tend to match any aspect of scientifically verifiable evidence. Yet there is nothing more important to the genuine truth of a religion than some sort of proof that the deity of that religion exists and is able to affect the universe. Without that, what you are left with are a set of philosophical precepts and wonderings about realms the existence of which we have no worthwhile evidence whatsoever. (What "evidence" we do have on various levels can almost invariably be shown to have its origin in the psychological states of those presenting it as "proof".)

As long as religion claims to have some form of deity (and without such, it isn't a religion, it's a philosophy) which has an impact on the material realm, it cannot be separated from refutation by a study of said realm. When looked at honestly, without rationalizations or evasion, religion and reality simply do not (and cannot) mix that well....


----------



## Parson (May 6, 2008)

Perhaps I misunderstand the idea of synthesis. When I said synthesis I meant that science and religion would eventually get to a point where they could be in a dialog of mutual respect, each understanding that the other pointed to truth in different and meaningful ways without the adversarial relationship so often seen today. 

Speaking as a Christian, I might be the rare exception, I would certainly like to think I am not. But I believe the Bible is infallible in matters of faith and living, but as to history, science, etc. it paints with broad brush strokes that are seen more clearly as what can be tested by the scientific method is understood and applied. Where science is able to give us a clear picture, I accept that and look again at my Biblical interpretation to see how the two can be held together. The truth any Biblical commentator must admit if s/he is honest is that while the Bible might be infallible in matters of faith and life, our interpretation is far from infallible and we must like good scientists be willing to revise our understanding when new light comes to be seen.

Any honest scientist and any honest person of faith will say "We don't know it all..." Perhaps the willingness to say that separates the Bible of faith, from the fundamentalists of that same faith. 



> The basic concept of evolution is quite straightforward (whereas "chemistry" is a huge and diverse subject). I don't think that the militant creationists fail to understand evolution, they just refuse to accept it because it conflicts with their fixed beliefs.



AGW> I do not agree with much of this statement at all. First, I would say that evolution is also a huge and diverse subject, like Chemistry, and chemistry, like evolution, has a basic concept that is quite straight forward. Almost all of the creationists I know not only know little about evolution, they have no desire to understand it or study it. Some of this may come because they hear "theory" and hear "guess." They ask then: "Why guess when you can know?"


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (May 6, 2008)

The Procrastinator said:


> Science is a journey toward the truths of the material realm, a journey of discovery, a seeking for measurable answers; and a good scientist (as noted by many already) will discard a "truth" if it becomes superseded or disproven, and move on to the next theory, looking for ways to test it, seeking to deepen and widen our pool of knowledge and our understanding of the world in which we live.



But they aren't all "good scientists" are they?  The scientific establishment can hold on to a pet theory for a long, long time in the face of increasing evidence against, and come up with complicated rationalizations to fit the evidence to already existing theories.  They can fight against something for decades, not because it is incredible, but because those who have built their work around a contrary theory would have to sacrifice reputation and begin again.

Science has many virtues;  but these are not necessarily the virtues of the scientist, who can be as stubborn and egotistical and self-serving as anyone else.


----------



## K. Riehl (May 6, 2008)

I would still take a scientist trying to hold onto a pet theory over a person holding onto religious dogma. Mainly due to the fact that I haven't read about scientists burning people at the stake or stoning people who act in a way different than their view.

Although global warming is starting to take on some of the aspects of religion. Any opposing view or point made is being shouted down or discarded without evaluation. And soon we will be tithing to the religion of global warming as our government takes more control over our lives or diverts more taxes to the religion.

As in California where the government seeks to regulate power usage in the home using monitored power meters which can be turned off at the governments discretion.
Won't that be fun in 100 degree weather with your Grandparents or children at home.
(google: San Francisco chronicle government power meter)

When I hear a scientist state that he/she *knows* what the climate will be in 10-20 years then I know they are lying. No one knows and, if they claim they do, then they have taken on the mantle of proselytizing rather than science.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (May 6, 2008)

K. Riehl said:


> Mainly due to the fact that I haven't read about scientists burning people at the stake or stoning people who act in a way different than their view.



On the other hand, I haven't read about any religious figures inventing weapons of mass destruction.


----------



## Ursa major (May 6, 2008)

Some religious figures (the vast majority, I'd guess) would rather Mass was not even disrupted, let alone destroyed, Teresa.


Seriously, though....

Originally, the weapons were invented for one reason: the belief not only that these weapons could be built, but that the enemy (in this case Nazi Germany) was capable of doing it, would do it if they could and was, in fact, already doing it: hence the Manhattan Project. (As we've seen more recently, intelligence regarding WND production is not always perfect, but they could hardly take the risk that Hitler might develop the Bomb in the middle of the most destructive war this world has ever seen without arming themselves.)


----------



## clovis-man (May 6, 2008)

j. d. worthington said:


> So I'm by no means inclined to accept this definition of religion. After all, every major religion also claims to have the story of the origins of everything -- yet they do not tend to agree, nor do they tend to match any aspect of scientifically verifiable evidence. Yet there is nothing more important to the genuine truth of a religion than some sort of proof that the deity of that religion exists and is able to affect the universe. Without that, what you are left with are a set of philosophical precepts and wonderings about realms the existence of which we have no worthwhile evidence whatsoever.


 
Which is why it is often referred to as "religious faith". No proofs required or sought. I once knew a Methodist minister who I swore drove his car (an Edsel) on faith. We "of little faith" who had to ride with him weren't so convinced. The business we often get into about religion having an impact on the physical world slops over into "magic". Preliterate humankind would/will try to coerce the deity(s) to do something beneficial. Spell-casting, etc. Don't want to get the two concepts confused. Religious determinism comes much closer to magic and mysticism than it does to actual religion.

Quoth J.D. a few posts ago: "It isn't only the U.S. -- look at how religion and mysticism have made such a resurgence all around the world in recent decades; the more fundamentally superstitious and counter to scientifically observable reality, the better."

I would have to say that the U.S. goes it one better by having politics accommodate if not dictate religious expedients. Why else is it okay to reject the Kyoto accords and make big business and the oil empires untouchable?

While I agree that some sort of scientific-religious compromise/collaboration is neither likely nor desirable, I find myself harking back to the final scene in the film, *Inherit the Wind*, in which Spencer tracy as the Clarence Darrow character places *The Bible* and a copy of *The Origin of Species* together before walking out of the final scene. Perhaps no synthesis possible, but not altogether mutually exclusive either.


----------



## Dave (May 6, 2008)

The Procrastinator said:


> I think where scientists can come across as "arrogant" is in claiming that science holds all the answers, or that science is the only truth.





Teresa Edgerton said:


> Science has many virtues;  but these are not necessarily the virtues of the scientist, who can be as stubborn and egotistical and self-serving as anyone else.


I think this is spot on. Scientists can themselves be arrogant, of course, just as any human can be.


K. Riehl said:


> When I hear a scientist state that he/she *knows* what the climate will be in 10-20 years then I know they are lying. No one knows and, if they claim they do, then they have taken on the mantle of proselytizing rather than science.


I can give you better examples:

"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
   -- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895


"Radio has no future."
   -- Lord Kelvin


"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
   -- Lord Kelvin

All were proved differently within 10-20 years.


----------



## TorrnT (May 7, 2008)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> On the other hand, I haven't read about any religious figures inventing weapons of mass destruction.


Torquemada was mass destruction.

Good job power was wrestled away from religious leaders, as nothing with power involved escapes corruption (as history testifies), neither could a proper democracy exist. If power had of remained with religious leaders I strongly believe we would still be in the dark ages.
Religious leaders love censorship.

Are we talking about the Minds behind science and religion, I believe anyone that is taught natural science, and then left to choose a religion/belief is better equipped to do so, at least they will have choice, opposed to being brain washed as a kid.
I know people that have veered away from religion due to disillusionment among other reasons, I don't know of anyone that has done so with science, from what ever background.

Arrogance is a human trait found in scientists, policemen and your next door neighbour (if your unlucky), But peers and ombudsmen keep them in check, however your neighbour can be ignored...hopefully


----------



## Delvo (May 7, 2008)

Ursa major said:


> Originally, the weapons were invented for one reason: the belief not only that these weapons could be built, but that the enemy (in this case Nazi Germany) was capable of doing it, would do it if they could and was, in fact, already doing it


And then the weapons from that program were used to much more efficiently end the war, save lives, and secure peace.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (May 7, 2008)

The problem about discussing "religion" is that it means very different things to different people. Even ignoring the fact that there are numerous religions and cults (and have been many more in the past), all offering their own conflicting "certainties", there are currently various interpretations of Christianity. Not only in terms of formal organisations with different doctrines - Orthodox (x2), Catholic, Protestant (various) such as Methodist, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist etc etc - but also within them. So you can get two people nominally of the same variety of Christian faith, one of whom firmly believes that every word of the Bible is true, 6,000 year old Earth and all, while another believes that the Old Testament is largely metaphor and that the true message is in the moral teaching of Jesus.

It is noticable that the debate within Christianity tends to polarise opinion. So the fundamentalists may claim it's a choice between "Darwin or Jesus", but of course there is no doctrinal support for such a statement, and the great majority of Christians have no problems with accepting evolution (including the last Pope, although the present one seems a bit wobbly...).

Another point to ponder concerning the Bible: not only do interpretations of it differ radically, but it was written by many different people, over a long period of time, and its contents were inevitably shaped by the individual interpretations of the writers. Even the contents of the New Testament were decided by a committee which rejected the majority of the works which were potentially eligible for inclusion. So what we have now has been translated, filtered and edited pretty drastically by error-prone people (with various agendas). To believe in its literal truth is indeed an act of faith, in rather more ways than the churches would probably prefer us to think about!


----------



## clovis-man (May 7, 2008)

Anthony G Williams said:


> Even the contents of the New Testament were decided by a committee which rejected the majority of the works which were potentially eligible for inclusion.


 
I guess we just weren't deemed ready for the book of Judas.


----------



## j d worthington (May 7, 2008)

clovis-man said:


> Quoth J.D. a few posts ago: "It isn't only the U.S. -- look at how religion and mysticism have made such a resurgence all around the world in recent decades; the more fundamentally superstitious and counter to scientifically observable reality, the better."
> 
> I would have to say that the U.S. goes it one better by having politics accommodate if not dictate religious expedients. Why else is it okay to reject the Kyoto accords and make big business and the oil empires untouchable?


 
On that one, you have me. But then, even there, the U.S. isn't alone, by any means....



> While I agree that some sort of scientific-religious compromise/collaboration is neither likely nor desirable, I find myself harking back to the final scene in the film, *Inherit the Wind*, in which Spencer tracy as the Clarence Darrow character places *The Bible* and a copy of *The Origin of Species* together before walking out of the final scene. Perhaps no synthesis possible, but not altogether mutually exclusive either.


 
I think that's more a wish-fulfillment (and concession) on the part of the playwright rather than a statement, frankly. I'm much more inclined to another statement from the same play/film: "The Bible is a book. It's a _good_ book, but it is not the _only_ book."

And I have to question you, Teresa, on your statement about "weapons of mass destruction". Perhaps not in the sense of an atomic bomb, or a weapon that spreads a bacteriological agent, no. But what about the sort of religious propaganda used to mobilize thousands upon thousands (over the years, millions upon millions) to horrific deeds of inhuman butchery? What were the Crusades, if not such a weapon? What of the Thirty Years' War? Or any other of the bloody conflicts between Catholic and Protestant (both _Christian_)? Suicide bombings? Kamikaze attacks? The list is nigh endless. And all very easily justified by reference to portions of religious texts or doctrine. (Yes, even the kamikazes, where it amounted to a religion surrounding the head of state.) Not to mention the Inquisition, witch-hunts (and let's not forget the *Malleus Maleficarum*, or Jamie's *Demonology*), and the like.

If religious figures haven't "invented weapons of mass destruction" in the usual sense, from the evidence, I'd say that's more a matter of simply not having the training in the particular fields necessary to design such, not a matter of inclination....


----------



## clovis-man (May 7, 2008)

Not to trivialize the discussion, but if anyone caught the "Numbers" episode last Friday on U.S. network TV entitled "Atomic No. 33", there was actually some interesting discussion about the relationship of science & religion in between the chase scenes.

Now back to our previously scheduled program.


----------



## TorrnT (May 7, 2008)

The *Malleus Maleficarum... *utter sadism...written by monks no less. (must of got tired of flaying themselves)

I had to check up on the creationist side of things.... so I ventured to
www.creationism.org and checked up on dinosaurs.
At first I thought it was a joke....these people must be terrified of realising there is no divine ultimate purpose to life. Dragons.... I wish.
Talk about "clutching at straws".
PS. upon further investigation through the site and links, I see quotes from leading scientists and recently released papers by leading scientists....yet where are the names of these credible scientists.
If any one reading that web site buys that bunkum, they do not deserve the technical piece of wizardry they are viewing it with.
_ (I will retract this statement if anyone can find a leading scientist that supports dragons lived 2,000 years ago)_


----------



## K. Riehl (May 7, 2008)

Dave said:


> I think this is spot on. Scientists can themselves be arrogant, of course, just as any human can be.
> I can give you better examples:
> 
> "X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
> ...


----------



## j d worthington (May 7, 2008)

Having read the *Malleus Maleficarum*, I'd say there's more to it than that; but I did have to grit my teeth to get through large chunks of it, and the rationalizations (even given the period) were amazing examples of cloud-architecture. The most interesting section of the book, for me, is the second, where it deals with the folklore beliefs and legendry -- that is some very interesting stuff. The religiolegalistic rigamarole simply made my head ache.... Believe me, in comparison, I'll take Cotton Mather _any_ time!

Incidentally, for anyone interested, both of these little historical tomes are easily available these days; and they _do_ give a great deal of insight into the mindset of the times....


----------



## Dave (May 7, 2008)

K. Riehl said:


> It approaches a religion when you cannot consider conflicting evidence and when you make decisions about things without fundamental understanding of possible real world effects.


I don't really want to get into that old Global Warming argument again here, however for someone that does believe we are contributing heavily to this I would still agree with you on practically everything you say. For some people it does indeed approach something of a religious conviction, and also that anyone who says they can predict a future temperature rise, or what that means in terms of sea level rises or melting ice caps, cannot really have that evidence to hand. However, I don't think you will find any climatologists who actually say that. They have models but they are subject to unknown variables. The scientists produce research papers and are subject to peer review like any other research. It is the politicians and environmental lobbyists who overstate their case. There will be future economic costs that might be better if it is tackled sooner though.

The fact that there is disagreement among scientists is not a bad thing. It is how science works and progresses. I have noticed that those Creationist websites fail to understand this. They will pick up on the fact that some small elements of modern evolutionary theory are disputed and hold those up to say that since the scientists cannot agree, this is proof the Evolution itself is disputed.


----------



## Ursa major (May 8, 2008)

Dave said:


> For some people it does indeed approach something of a religious conviction....


 
I think humans are rather prone to convictions of this sort. It is thus rather important that there is a structure - like, say, the scientific method - by which convictions can be challenged and overturned.

As an aside, some religious people go in for "scholarship", by which I mean they rely on trawls through past sayings to justify and explain things, rather in the way a lawyer looks for past cases to support their attempts to win their current case. While scientists do look through the literature, they are also obliged by the scientific method to open their eyes to the real world and test the literature against reality, rather than the other way around. (I'm sure this is also true of many religious people, by the way. And I'm aware that humans, being flawed, don't always do what they're obliged to.)


----------



## TorrnT (May 9, 2008)

Creationists suffer from, "_Confirmation bias_"  they should probably all go to their therapists and recieve some sort of counselling.
_(Not being a Dr, obviously this can not be a professional conclusion, but based on what I have read on the matter so far)_
*
Confirmation bias in psychology*: [FONT=verdana, helvetica, arial][FONT=verdana,helvetia,arial]Professor [/FONT][/FONT]Scott Plous said, "We tend to be willing to gather facts that support certain conclusions but disregard other facts that support different conclusions".
([FONT=verdana, helvetica, arial][FONT=verdana,helvetia,arial]_Professor Plous is a Fellow of the Association for Psychological Science and the American Psychological Association, and has been the recipient of several APA division awards, including the William James Book Award_)

Where as science is non bias where facts are concerned

PS. as mankind becomes more educated (more schools, higher levels of education etc...) this cult will diminish but not disappear.
[/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## Anthony G Williams (May 17, 2008)

As a follow-up to my blog post (25 April) about the *New Scientist's* feature on evolution, another development covered in the magazine (10 May) is the sequencing of the genome of the Australian duck-billed platypus. This has revealed some intriguing information, as might be expected of an animal which combines a bird-like beak with fur, and lays eggs while producing milk for its young. As expected, its genome contains a mixture of mammalian and reptilian features. The sequence for determining sex is more like a bird's than a mammal's, yet the milk-producing genes are similar to humans and cows. The conclusion is that milk-producing evolved before the ability to have live offspring.

Perhaps my marsupial saurians in *'Scales'* weren't quite so implausible after all!

(An extract from my SFF blog)


----------



## Ursa major (May 17, 2008)

There was another thread about this, AGW, based on a report about what was about to appear in Nature. Some of us were confused about the "10 sex chromosomes" the report mentioned; we assumed this was journalistic licence.


----------



## clovis-man (May 28, 2008)

Anthony G Williams said:


> It is noticable that the debate within Christianity tends to polarise opinion. So the fundamentalists may claim it's a choice between "Darwin or Jesus", but of course there is no doctrinal support for such a statement, and the great majority of Christians have no problems with accepting evolution (including the last Pope, although the present one seems a bit wobbly...).


 
I've been away from this discussion for a few weeks, vacationing in London and Paris. While in London, I was pleased to find that Charles Darwin is entombed at Westminster Abbey. Apparently no agonizing choices had to be made at the time that occurred.


----------



## Ehkzu (May 31, 2008)

This being a discussion of evolution in a science fiction forum, I'd like to propose something germane to that intersection: 

While creationists don't understand evolution at all, the average sci fi reader and writer does...but doesn't understand how powerful convergence is in evolution.

Thus it's likely that intelligent aliens on other worlds look and act a lot like us. But sci fi writers/readers reject this proposition out of hand. We don't WANT this to be true. We want the Star Wars cantina. 

Now the problem is that this point will never be proven. Up through the 1950s sci fi was full of stories about the swamps of Venus and the deserts of Mars and even intelligent aliens on worlds like Jupiter. Now we know better, and that's all gone away. Ditto all the spaceships that weren't computerized, that lacked solid state displays and whatnot. 

But we'll never get out of this solar system (hope I'm wrong, but I'm not), and they'll never get here (again, hope I'm wrong, but I'm not). So John Q Sci Fi reader/writer may well continue to hold ideas about intelligent life elsewhere that go against what current biology tells us.

Let me add that it's not like I haven't seen some wild alternate life forms. I'm a scuba diver currently planning my 5th dive trip to Indonesia, and the stuff I've seen there makes my head spin just thinking about it.

But none of them are advanced technology using critters. 

And I put it to you that that requires a terrestrial bipedal hominid. We have an evolutionary model for that. We don't have one for any other path, and I've never read a sci fi novel or seen a sci fi movie that provided a compelling one. 

I'm also invoking what scientists call the Principle of Mediocrity--that, in general, whatever is, is average. 

No Star Wars cantina. Deal with it.


----------



## Delvo (May 31, 2008)

Most (I think all) of the "people" in that scene did fit the description you just gave.


----------



## Dave (May 31, 2008)

Not to mention most, if not quite all, _Star Trek_ aliens (with the odd nose-piece or forehead piece and a hairpiece.)

Ehkzu did say "average sci fi reader and writer" though, and not TV and film watchers. I thought that the reason all TV and most older film-aliens looked like 'a man in a suit' was simply a question of budgets, nothing to do with an idea of convergence.

While it is true that similar stable environments produce species that are alike - wolves, dingos and hyenas - your theory predisposes that intelligent life can only exist on an Earth-like planet and that your local terrestrial biped has stopped evolving. I don't think either of those are true, certainly not the second.


----------



## Ehkzu (Jun 1, 2008)

TV aliens looked like us (especially before CGI) due to budget limitations, to be sure. Plus we relate to critters that look like us. Hence anthropomorphism across much/most of world literature/folk traditions. You could argue that intellectually lazy people might favor anthropomorphic aliens. Perhaps. But I'm arguing that it's just as intellectually lazy to assume that they couldn't look like us. 

We're also getting into a sort of fundamental debate within the biological scientific community. One school of thought--exemplified by the late Stephen Jay Gould--would argue for wildly different intelligent aliens. Some call these people splitters. They focus on the historical accidents that led to our current array of critters here on Earth. 

The other school of thought, called lumpers, believe that ultimately convergent forces trump historical accident--especially when it comes to something as special as intelligent life. I'm in this school. 

I assume Earthlike planets because (1) those are the only kind we know for sure can support intelligent life; (2) the exobiological jury seems to be in and indicates that alternative environments probably wouldn't support much beyond something like bacteria. For example, it appears that silicon-based biochemistry would only have an advantage over carbon-based ones under cold conditions that didn't support liquid water--as I recall it would use liquid methane. But metabolism would be sloooow. Too slow for intelligence to operate I think. 

I did once read a poorly written but intellectually intriguing sci fi novel about intelligent beings the size of rice grains living on the solid surface of a neutron star. It was called The Dragon's Egg, I think, and the author was indeed an astronomer specializing in neutron stars. But he was no biologist and the book contained no kind of evolutionary model that would lead to such creatures evolving there. 

A solidly researched book supporting these conclusions is Rare Earth (Amazon has it). It's a sobering look at just how particular and rare (in the universe) are the conditions required for intelligent life. 

I should also point out that stable environments aren't the only ones containing powerful convergent forces. Unstable ones do as well, and may well be the ones producing intelligence. Stable conditions produce specialists. They know what to eat, how to live, yada yada. The dinosaurs dominated the last truly stable Earth environment. Unpredictable environments require opportunistic feeders--with the cleverness require to figure out new situations. Ravens are a great example, for example. Probably the smartest bird on Earth, and astonishingly opportunistic. An adult raven can observe a string tied to a branch with food at the end and deduce without experimentation that if he flies to the branch and pulls up the string he'll get the food. 

Stable environments, OTOH, produce critters like koalas. One food, one situation, the brains of a turnip. 

As for us having stopped evolving--actually there's reson to believe that we are evolving in some ways due to there being so darn many of us. But it's stuff like being able to digest milk as adults (mainly found in Euro/African populations), or blue eyes and blond hair (probably as sexual attractants, and now dying out since they're recessive traits and everyone's interbreeding). 

Nothing indicates our descendants will be anything other than terrestral hominids. Evolution is a response to changing environments and/or gene drift, where particular mutations confer a reproductive advantage. But since we started evolving our external evironment--clothing, technology, farming etc.--the pressure on us to evolve the old fashioned way has diminshed greatly. 

The only reproductive advantages today seems to be belonging to the lower classes or to particular religions that foster having large families. So perhaps our remote descendante will be dumber than us. Something to look forward to. But they'll be dumb terrestrial hominids. 

But really, apart from disease resistance to particular pathogens, where's the evolutionary force acting on us to change us? It's not like only the strongest and the smartest are breeding, is it now? We encourage even people with Down's syndrome to marry and have lots of kids. We've adopted anti-eugenics. 

And a note about science fiction: I think the way in which science proper closes off certain avenues of possibility, while opening others, benefits this genre of literature. If anything's possible nothing is interesting. As a scuba diver it helped me a lot to learn about the evolutionary forces acting on the fascinating creatures I see while diving. Reef fish are colorful because they can get away with displays that would help predators too much if they didn't have a nearby reef to dive into when danger appears. So they can display fantastic colors due to sexual competition. 

Things ae the way they are for reasons. I've enjoyed fantasy that's internally consistent at least, such as Lord of the Rings and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. These have well-developed internal universes. But I also enjoy sci fi where they keep down the black box count and provide solid extrapolations from what we know now. 

As I said before, nobody writes about the swamps of Venus now unless they can provide an explantion for how the planet was terraformed over eons--I could write such a story, starting with setting up a mylar parasol at Venus's Lagrangian point between it and the sun, so the sun's radiation was cut down enough to give it an Earthlike surface temp. But I digress. The point is we know what Venus is like and so we don't write stuff that ignores this. The problem with what I'm saying about evolution is that sci fi writers and readers do not know what we've learned about evolution lateley, and it's easy to find Gould-ites arguing for historical happenstance trumping convergence. 

So we keep seeing sci fi that ignores stuff that's really just as known today as the surface temperature of Venus.

I just wish every bachelor degree required liberal arts types to know a lot more about science, and budding engineers/scientists to know a lot more about the arts.


----------

